nadeem khan

kya koi sunni aapne mazhab ka naam "ahle sunnt wl jamat" QURAN ki ayt me dikha sakta he ?

240 posts in this topic

786***** janab khalifa aap bate buhat ghumate he.. aap QURAN se aapna mazhab ka naam sabit nahi kar paye aur jo QURAN se sabit nahi us mazhab ka kya shi hoga. fir mene aapse bolaa ki koi shi sanad ki hadis pesh kare jisme nabi (sws) ne aapke mazhab ka naam"sunni ya ahle sunnat ya ahle sunnat wal jamat" ba tor mazhab irshad farmaya ho agar is naam ka koi firka hogo to us ka shi hadees me aap (sws) ne jrur naam farmaya hoga ab aap koi shi sanad se hadis pesh farmaye mujhe puri ummaid he ki zakhire hadees me se aap ko koi shi sanad hadis mil hi jayegi... aapka naam quran me naa shi par shi hadees me to hoga hi hoga...
aur jaha nabi (sws) ne hame gumrahi se bachaane ki liye "ahle sunnt wal jamat" naam ke mazahb ki pervi karne ko kaha ho...jab aap meri baat ka jawab de dege tab me is topic ko band kar duga.....aur haa taslibkhsh jawab de sunnt kya he is par takrir naa kare
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786***** janab khalifa aap bate buhat ghumate he.. aap QURAN se aapna mazhab ka naam sabit nahi kar paye aur jo QURAN se sabit nahi us mazhab ka kya shi hoga. fir mene aapse bolaa ki koi shi sanad ki hadis pesh kare jisme nabi (sws) ne aapke mazhab ka naam"sunni ya ahle sunnat ya ahle sunnat wal jamat" ba tor mazhab irshad farmaya ho agar is naam ka koi firka hogo to us ka shi hadees me aap (sws) ne jrur naam farmaya hoga ab aap koi shi sanad se hadis pesh farmaye mujhe puri ummaid he ki zakhire hadees me se aap ko koi shi sanad hadis mil hi jayegi... aapka naam quran me naa shi par shi hadees me to hoga hi hoga...
aur jaha nabi (sws) ne hame gumrahi se bachaane ki liye "ahle sunnt wal jamat" naam ke mazahb ki pervi karne ko kaha ho...jab aap meri baat ka jawab de dege tab me is topic ko band kar duga.....aur haa taslibkhsh jawab de sunnt kya he is par takrir naa kare
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift letaa jaa ..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift letaa jaa ..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift letaa jaa ..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift letaa jaa ..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift le..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
lrshad ibne saba tu meri taraf se ek bada gift le..........:P.........
The Nasibi (lrshad)
methodology of
producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba
card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate
The reference to Abdullah
Ibn Saba in Bihar al-Anwar
and Rijal al-Kashi
The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a
nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a
of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda
continues unabated whenever these filthy
Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning
Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way
that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would
when she added another conquest to her filthy
bed. What better example of this baseless
methodology can there be than the comments of
their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that
the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers
severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn
Saba in fact they while denying the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional
name but the reality is that the amount of
introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in
Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of
Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The
correct thing is to cite some introduction and
beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable
books of Shi’a so that the truth could be
elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in
‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a
Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his
lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page
287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and became believer of the
Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days
used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat
Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat
Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he
started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali
(ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet
(s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in
detail here.“He was the first person who
propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of
the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on
the enemies (that accursed was referring to
Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the
opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir.
From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a
say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of
Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading
‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a
madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
2. He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
3. He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Reply One
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he
quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present
the proper text:
ﻭﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺎﻟﺴﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺍﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻧﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺬﺍﺏ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ
ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺴﻘﻂ ﺻﺪﻗﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ، ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻬﺠﺔ
ﻭﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻴﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ، ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺃ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﻳﺐ ﺻﺪﻗﻪ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﻱ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺄ
Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from
Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah
(as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but
there is always a liar who attributes lies to us
and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s)
was the most truthful man but Musaylema used
to attribute lies to him. The commander of the
believers (as) is the most truthful man after
Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed
to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’.
Immediately after this tradition, we have the
following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi
author relied upon:
ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ‏(2 ‏) ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻓﺄﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﺷﻊ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺻﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻠﻮ
ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺳﻼﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ. ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ‏(3 ‏) ﻣﻦ
ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﺽ ﺇﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ
ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﺷﻒ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ‏(4 ‏) ، ﻓﻤﻦ
ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻌﺔ : ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ .
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated
that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then
became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his
Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun
(as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some
extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he
started saying similar things about Ali (as). He
was the first person who announced in public
that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of
Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s)
enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and
called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the
opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and
Rafidism originates from Judaism”
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi
has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume
25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and
one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid
al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by
Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page
301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book
Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524
while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14
page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is
‘unauthenticated’ .
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the
Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia
Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a
personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without
any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi
sought reliance was from “Some of the people of
knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib
like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us
which people are referred to as “Some of the
people of knowledge” ? What are their names?
Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of
falsehood or truth? What was their level of
educational attainment? What was their historical
importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident
enough to state that these are questions that the
Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero
Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his
grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the
science of Hadiths would know that such
traditions can never be deemed reliable and
authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his
esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has
established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in
which he declared traditions that originate with
the words “narrated from some normal ones” and
“narrated from a man amongst the companions”
as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have
unanimously stated that traditions transmitted
from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes
of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a
famed book on the principles of Hadith ‘Nazhatul
Nazar Sharah Nakhbatal Fikr’ page 48 (Delhi)
whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’
traditions stated:
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is
unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for
accepting traditions is that its narrator be just,
so how can this be deduced when the name of
the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’
be established?”
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?
cat=9&book=415
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a
tradition transmitted with the words “A man from
amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed
it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7
page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1
page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to
prove that each and every companion of our Holy
Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed
but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an
unnamed companion it is unacceptable because
we cannot determine his identity, this being the
case how can someone rely on those traditions
that are not transmitted from any companion of
the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an
unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth
Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition,
Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan
Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn
Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt),
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’
page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah
Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi
Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition,
Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and
have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be
deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such
unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as
evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine
of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Reply Two
Even a child can know that all parties, groups,
and sects mention the founders or pioneer /
personalities of their sects with immense zeal,
respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a
Rijal books then you will see that at no place has
Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised
rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars
have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what
can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi
author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The
Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah
Ibn Saba and his associates and according to
some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn
Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he
falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him
(Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm
in their destructive cause, and continued their
nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and
Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed
to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
The false assertion that Ali
(as) being the Wasi of the
Prophet (s) was the
brainchild of Ibn Saba
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents
partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of
taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its
rightful successors, their descendants have
concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties
committed by their ancestors in the religion of
Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of
propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to
succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept
was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn
Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a
campaign was launched by him against Uthman
that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are
adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our
opponents, namely:
An effective propaganda provided a veil over real
killers of Uthman who happened to be the
prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen
A means via which the Shia could be maligned,
hated and the entire sect treated as persona non
grata
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when
he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented
from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
1. Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi
of Prophet.
Reply One: The belief was advanced
by the Holy Prophet (s)
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should
know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first
person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it
was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. Under the
commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as)
being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and
commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet
(as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph
and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you.
Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5
page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4. History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by
Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume
42 page 392 records this Hadith:
۔۔۔ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﺎ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﻲ
ﻭﻭﺍﺭﺛﻲ
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an
executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is
my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by
Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺮﻣﻲ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﻣﺮﺯﻭﻕ ﺛﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ ﺛﻨﺎ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﻋﻦ
ﻋﺒﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻌﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺃﻣﺎ
ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ
ﺃﺑﺎﻙ ﻓﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﻧﺒﻴﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﻠﻚ ﻓﺄﻭﺣﻰ
ﺇﻟﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻜﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺗﺨﺬﺗﻪ ﻭﺻﻴﺎ
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from
Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar
from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay
from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s
apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that
Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and
chose your father and sent him as prophet, then
(Allah) looked once again and chose your
husband and inspired me to marry him to you
and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi
said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14,
p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125.
Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin
al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-
Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-
Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban
mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin
Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not
comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7,
p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5,
p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as
Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do
they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as)
at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this
event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi
as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the
day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah
(saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a
symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang
down at the back. Then he said: The angels
whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr
and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same
kind. He then added: surely the turban
differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and
Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal
(15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides
Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by
Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn
Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims
and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the
Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on
the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his
head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end
hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-
sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi
manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah
(6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the
Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with
the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his
Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had
no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of
the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions,
Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to
justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying
the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is
this a standard practice that one does to a
specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied
around the head of one that you deem your Wasi,
Waris and successor?
Reply Two: Prominent Sahaba such
as Imam Hassan (as), Abu Tufayl (ra)
etc attested to Ali (as) being Wasi of
Prophet (s)
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we
read:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻄﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ
ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ
ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻬﺪﺍﺀ
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah,
and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra),
the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the
Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the
truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the
tradition:
ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻃﺮﻕ
ﺍﻟﺒﺰﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized
form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the
chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir
are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and
space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan
bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for
Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30,
Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He
said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim
b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra
was the last of the Companions of Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) .
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents
of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover
we all know that as per the belief coined by our
opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will
attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia
adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam
Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not
some secret, the companions also raised this
before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s
most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned
that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his
successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he
appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was
resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and
he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed
while in that state, and I could not even perceive
that he had died, so when did he appoint him by
will?”
In light of this tradition allow us to present some
questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
1. It is clear that the Sahaba and Tabayeen were
raising this point directly to Ayesha. When your
Sect deem all the Sahaba to be just and truthful
why (according to Ayesha) were they lying by
suggesting that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the
Prophet (s)?
2. Were these just / truthful Sahaba perpetuating a
lie that Ali was appointed as Wasi by Rasool
(saw)?
3. How did the just / truthful Sahaba arrive at this
conclusion?
4. Whenever it comes to Ali being the Wali and Wasi
of Rasool (saw), Nawasib such as Azam Tariq
apportion blame to Abdullah Ibn Saba for it. You
believe that Ibn Saba was the first to propagate a
view that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)
yet he appears on the scene during the Caliphate
of Uthman, this being the case why were the
Sahaba of the Prophet (s) living in Madina, with
days of the death of the Prophet (s) expressing a
view that Ali (as) was appointed as the Wasi of
the Prophet (s)?
5. Were the just / truthful Sahaba the adherents of
some early prototype of Abdullah Ibn Saba who
were telling Ayesha that Ali was nominated as the
Wasi by the Prophet (s)?
Reply Three: The Imams of Ahle
Sunnah also believed Ali (as) to be
the Wasi of Holy Prophet (s)
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus
between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to
the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet
(as), had they cantered through their own books
they would have realized that prominent Sunni
scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to
be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah
Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work
Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst
commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in
praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺺ
ﻗﺪﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺩﺧﻮﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﻠﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ
ﺃﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻬﻤﺎﻫﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﺴﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﺮﺅ ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻥ
ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻮﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻭﺻﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻀﻌﺔ
ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻤﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ
ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﺪ ﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺎ
ﺳﻮﺍﻩ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻲ
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these
personalities, it does not affect their status as
their inclusion in the great status is not only
evident, rather foremost; they are what they are.
What can one say about them except that Ali is
Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi , and
Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved,
and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers
(of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of
Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this,
rather what is said other than this is
misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah,
Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi
al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺒﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻗﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
ﻭﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi
is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page
608:
ﻭﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺻﻲ
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also
believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet
(s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in
his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
ﻓَﺈِﻥ ﺍﻧْﺘﻬﻰ ﻧَﺼﺒﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺇِﻃْﻠَﺎﻕ ﻟِﺴَﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺻِﻲّ ﺭَﺿِﻲ
ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋَﻨﻪُ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﺖ ﺑِﻪِ ﺑﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟْﻔﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺼَّﺮِﻳﺢ
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may
Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation
led him to open Fisq”
The false assertion that the
practice of Tabbarrah upon
the enemies of Ali (as) was
introduced and propagated
by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the
enemies of Ali.
Reply One – The enemies of Ali (as)
are hypocrites as per the words of
the Prophet (s) making them
deserving of Tabbarrah
The second accusation of the author and his ilk
about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating
oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib
(as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If
performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin
Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are
our opponents suggesting that maintaining
intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares
hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a
hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did
the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about
Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile
to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from
the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare
hatred of him is evidenced in the books of
Hadeeth.
Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) would
curse his nemesis Muawiya as would
his sons
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and
commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali
Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all
Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors,
but not because they were friends with them or
deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they
used to take it because it was their own right
which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir
people. How could this happen on the basis of
friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj
via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who
were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen
fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the
leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin
Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then
at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in
Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with
Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and
do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to
them, people had the same attitude towards
Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder
of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the
companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to
take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t
friendly towards him, in fact they used to do
Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner
as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah
(swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan “
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87
(Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in
nature, it was so open that we have an admission
that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons
would partake in, meaning that it was a known
fact, not hidden away within the confines of their
homes. If the practice of openly cursing the
enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn
Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as),
Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the
influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to
curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have
previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just
and truthful and salvation can be acquired by
adhering to any of them, then what is the
objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same
way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and
Hussain (as) did?
The false assertion that the
enemies of Ali (as) are
Kufar was introduced and
propagated by Ibn Saba
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to
be Kaafir
Reply
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi
Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the
teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-
cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An
individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a
hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib
whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What
do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s)
mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates
me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since
they themselves fall into the above category of
the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought
to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic
beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Ultimately the question is how long will these
people be able to protect themselves via Saudi
Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along
with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they
will have to face one day.
IMAMATE; DIVINE GUIDE IN ISLAM
Introduction
Defining the concept of Imamate
The doctrine of Imamah from a Sunni
perspective
The Takwini and Tashri’ i authorities of
Prophets and Imams
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part I)
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part II )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part III )
The doctrine of Imamate from a Shi’ a
perspective ( Part IV )
The Doctrine of Imamate from a Shi ’ a
perspective ( Part V )
The doctrine of Imamate from the Qur’ an
Obeying the Ul ’ il Amr
Nasibi objection at the false claimants of
Imamate
The Nasibi methodology of producing the
Abdullah Ibn Saba card to negate the
doctrine of Imamate conclusion..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
aur agar tu pad nahi sakta he to aapne molana ka ye video dekh Abdullah Ibn -e- Saba ki jhooti kahani-Maulana
Ishaq - YouTube
23 Mar 2011
The fake story of
Abdullah Ibn-e-Saba
presented by nasbi ... a
person abdullah
ibn saba is blamed to
which he replied
that .... hai - Azaan
say pehlay darood -
kaun sa darood
parhna ...
www.youtube.com
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
aur agar tu pad nahi sakta he to aapne molana ka ye video dekh Abdullah Ibn -e- Saba ki jhooti kahani-Maulana
Ishaq - YouTube
23 Mar 2011
The fake story of
Abdullah Ibn-e-Saba
presented by nasbi ... a
person abdullah
ibn saba is blamed to
which he replied
that .... hai - Azaan
say pehlay darood -
kaun sa darood
parhna ...
www.youtube.com
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nadeem khan how illiterate are you....
is there any condition in quran to must call our selves as only dirty rafida or shia or ahlesunnat wal jamat...
How fool are you...
You yourself cant prove as shia of ibn saba / rafida or shia of ali with Taqiya button on... But you can find in quran who follow other than prophet as ultimate guide as kafirs as shia of ibn saba do
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416249545' post='148449']Ahle sunnat wal jamat means shia of prophet Muhammad and only shia/rafida means follower of their fore father ibn saba :)[/quote]
Irshad....?????? Means shia ne usman means nasbi means kharji means motjali and all mix "ahle sunnt wal jamat" you ar not real muslim and your real neme "ahle bidat wl jamat" today devbandi ahle hades kafir kafir kafir??????:P:P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your reply here
.
http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?/topic/21315-kya-koi-shia-aapne-mazhab-ka-naam"ali-ke-shia"-QURAN-ki-ayt-me-dikha-sakta-he-ayt-me-naam-mojud-ho....?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Irshad' timestamp='1416271502' post='148462']Nadeem khan how illiterate are you....
is there any condition in quran to must call our selves as only dirty rafida or shia or ahlesunnat wal jamat...
How fool are you...
You yourself cant prove as shia of ibn saba / rafida or shia of ali with Taqiya button on... But you can find in quran who follow other than prophet as ultimate guide as kafirs as shia of ibn saba do[/quote]
Your today gift... sunni mazhab alle rasool k khilaf tahreek ka
nam ... - YouTube
1 Jul 2012
Aale Nabi Ka Zikr Tha
Jin Wakiyaat Main Who
Wakiyaat Miltey Nahin
Hai
Deeniyat Main Jin
Par ...
m.youtube.com"ab tum kohe ge ye hamaare alim nahi he lekin ye bolne se HAQ nahi chupta kyoki ye alim to tumaari hi motbar kitabe pad raha he"ye mat dekho ki kon kehe raha he ye dekho ki kya kehe raha he" HAQ baat kehene par abul alaa modudi"seyd kutub"tarik jamil"molana ishaq aur naa jane kitne shi sunni alimo ko tum ne shia kahe diya jabki unho ne jo kuch bhee likha vo sab tumaare mazhab ki kitaabe thee..to aab aap logo ka usul ban gaya jo bhee hazart ali (as) aur unki all ke HAQ ki baat kare vo SHIA he par aapka esaa kehena hamaare liye baase fakar he...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now