some1

Virtue of Sayyedina Abu Bakr Siddique (R.A) in Shi'ites Tafsir & Hadith

88 posts in this topic

Lolz You are making me hell of confused.So please tell me what is that you mean when you say that sanad is weak? When your attacks on sanad of Nahjul Balagha doesnt make any difference to the matn.Then why will it do on the other cases you cite? I mean like narrations of tafisr majma ul biyan,tafsir qummi in this and also in the thread Can any shia explain this? Thats why I said saying weak is a scapegoat

Some 1 the problem with u is that u don't have knowledge of Elme Rijal and still u are attacking me without any reason.

Every report's veracity is checked by the people narrating it.

If Sanad is Dhaeef so Matn is not consider comparing to matn of a tradition that have reliable chain.

I am abiding what I said that its Sanad is Dhaeef because all of the narrators are ghair Imami and some of them are liars too like Tibari.

You don't know the basics of Rijal so just shut your mouth in these matters.

You manipulated in this whole thread the sayings of Allama Tabirisi by half quoting and you were badly exposed and Inshallah more will come in few days.

Weakening anything is not due to my own intentions but due to strick rules that are made by the scholars to judge the authenticity.

Perhaps you must ask the same question to Efendi too that actually provide Jirah on the Hadith narrators of the Hadith that praises AhleBayt(as).

If the reason is only to mention was giving luxries to Banu Ummayyia then What is the reason to say this? "You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. .

You are making me laugh once again.

Ali(as) is actually saying that he doesn't want to convey the premable of the formal talks because the ongoing chaos at the time of Uthman was very transparent.

Let me quote an example that when a student cheats while giving his exams and then teacher called him so the teacher would not tell the reason for calling and reason for discussion but rather context is so pertinent that student and teacher both will understand their reason for meeting.

You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did

If u have some knowledge of Munazara then u would come to know that what opponents believe to be Hujjat can be use as a proof against him even though u don't agree with that thing.

For eg You Sunnis consider Aimmas(as) as Ghair Masoom.

We consider them as Masoom(as).

Suppose If u cite a tradition from our book that Imam(as) made a mistake(Just supposition) then u 'd say that since Imam(as) according to Shia belief is Masoom so how can he(as) make mistake.

So with the same token Uthman used to feel proud of the Sahabiyat of Rasool(saww) so thats why Ali(as) cited his favourite egs to refrain him from being divated. Even though Ali(as) didn't believe that Sahabiyat alone will lead a person to Jannat.

since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold".

This is a separate topic that whether Uthman married to Rasool(saww)'s biological daughter or not?

You may discuss it in anyother thread since this is not the pertinent thread to do it as evident from its topic name.

Regarding the example you cited,well if the Person B did some good stuff only then I will quote the example.Which ultimately means Shiekheen(R.A) did act righteoustly that is why He gave thier example.

Huh!

I explained it thoroughly in my previous post that perhaps u have ignored that Ali(as) was talking to Uthman by assuming that Uthman has Sheikhayn as role model not Ali(as) considered them as role model.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick question could weak hadith be used as a hujjah?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick question could weak hadith be used as a hujjah?

There is nothing black and white.

Weak Hadith if supported by other Sahih, hasan or Muthaq traditions then it adds to the veracity of the content of the hadiths.

But if it is not supported by any other narration then its simply can't be used as Hujjah.

Note: This is a very general statement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Surah zumar:

33. "And he who brings the Truth and he who confirms (and supports) it - such are the men who do right."

In shia tafisr majma ul biyan its mentioned:

قيل الذي جاء بالصدق رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) و صدق به أبو بكر

It has been said that the one who brought truthfulness is the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr believed in it.

Again a fake and specious argument.

Lets do a MUbahila Some1.

We would say Ameen.

Lanatullah Alal kadhibeen!

I say Ameen.

Coming to your Fuzool Argument. here is a complete quote:

وقيل: الذي جاء بالصدق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصدَّق به أبو بكر عن أبي العالية والكلبي.وقيل: الذي جاء بالصدق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصدَّق به أبو بكر عن أبي العالية والكلبي.

http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=3&tSoraNo=39&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

If u read the Tafseer then u will see that Tabrisi cited Ibne Abbas's Qaul and said this is the strongest of all:

عن ابن عباس. وقال: ولو كان المصدّق به غيره لقال والذي صدَّق به وهذا أقوى الأقوال

Now this is actually Sunni Tafseer that Allama Tibiris referred and Abi Alia and Kalbi are Sunnis not Shias.

Let me quote from your own Tafseer(by Ibne Ateya) the same thing that Allama Tibrisi quoted

وقال علي بن أبي طالب وأبو العالية والكلبي وجماعة " الذي جاء " هو محمد عليه السلام، والذي صدق هو أبو بكر

http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=14&tSoraNo=39&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

Now the refutation of the Tafseer Mansoob to Ali(as) is below but this is your own Tafseer and this is actually Ahle Sunnah tafseer.

However I found a complete chain in Tibari that goes as:

حدثني أحمد بن منصور، قال: ثنا أحمد بن مصعد المروزي، قال: ثنا عمر بن إبراهيم بن خالد، عن عبد الملك بن عمير، عن أسيد بن صفوان، عن عليّ رضي الله عنه، في قوله: { وَالَّذِي جاءَ بالصِّدْقِ } قال: محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، وصدّق به، قال: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه.

http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=39&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1

However this is a fabricated tradition.

1.Abdul Malik ibne Umair used to do Tadlees and his memory was also not good as Ibne Hajr said:

4200- عبدالملك ابن عمير ابن سويد اللخمي حليف بني عدي الكوفي ويقال له الفرسي بفتح الفاء والراء ثم مهملة نسبة إلى فرس له سابق كان يقال له القبطي بكسر القاف وسكون الموحدة وربما قيل ذلك أيضا لعبدالملك ثقة فصيح عالم تغير حفظه وربما دلس من الرابعة ‏[‏الثالثة‏]‏ مات سنة ست وثلاثين وله مائة وثلاث سنين ع

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=402&CID=23

Since this tradition is narrated as "عن" so this tradition can't be relied upon.

2. As for Aseed ibne Safwan I got this from Meezan:

986 - أسيد بن صفوان. عن على في تعظيم أبى بكر. ما روى عنه سوى عبدالملك بن عمير.

Source: Mizan, Vol no 1, pg no 257.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m021/26/no2638.html

Aseed is Majhool as said by Dhabbi.(Reference comming below).

3. As for Abdul Malik ibne Ibrahim ibne Umair:

قال الدار قطني: كذاب

Darul Qutni said him liar.

وقال الخطيب (1): غير ثقة

Khateeb-e-Baghdadi said him untrusthy.

In Mizan it has also come that he used to fabricate Hadith in favour of Abu bakr.

Here is one interesting thing that I found:

وفي مسند الهيثم الشاشى: حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن أبي العوام، حدثنا أبي، حدثنا عمر بن إبراهيم الهاشمي، عن عبدالملك بن عمير، عن أسيد بن صفوان صاحب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: لما توفى أبو بكر ارتجت المدينة بالبكاء، وجاء على باكيا مسترجعا، ثم أثنى عليه، فساق أربعين سطرا يشهد القلب بوضع ذلك. وأسيد مجهول

So chain is bit similar to above one and it is said that He would have fabricated it and Aseed is also majhool.

Source: Mizan, Vol no 3, pg no 180.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m021/26/no2640.html

4. Ahmad ibne Masad seems to be misprinted because it is Ahmad ibne Masab.

Here is his Tarjuma is Lisan:

(940 - احمد) بن مصعب المروزى عن عمر بن هارون البلخى بحديث باطل لا يحتمله عمر مع ضعفه انتهى وقال ابن القطان لا يعرف وذكره ابن حبان في الثقات فقال احمد بن مصعب المروزى أبو عبد الرحمن يروى عن الفضل بن موسى اهل بلده وعن العراقيين ابن يعلى بن عبيد وغيره ثنا عنه محمد بن محمود بن عدى وابراهيم بن نصر العنبري فتبين انه معروف وان الحمل في الخبر الذى استنكره المصنف على عمر بن هارون لا على احمد بن مصعب وسياتى له في ترجمة الراوى عنه سليمان بن محمد بن الفضل خبر آخر منكر

Source: Lisan ul Meezan , Vol no 1, pg no 311.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m021/26/no2685.html

This narrator seems to have a lot of Jirah too.

So 4 narrators are here unrelaible and one of them even liar So If u have any Sahih chain from your own book that says the same thing then u are most welcome to present it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol True Bro 1 path.

Well here is another shia tafsir i.e Tafsir Hassan Askari with relation to Cave of Saur.

وروحه لروحك وقاءا ، وآمرك ( 6 ) أن تستصحب أبا بكر فانه إن ( 1 ) آنسك وساعدك ووازرك وثبت على مايعاهدك ويعاقدك ، كان في الجنة منرفقائك .

It says:

[Jibreel A.S said] Allah(swt) orders you to make Abu Bakr(R.A) as your companion in migration.If Abu Bakr sideeq (R.A) helped and coperated with all his passion and love then He will be your companion in heaven.(Translation May not be 100% correct)

So company of Sideeq-e-Akbar in this blessed journey is due to the order of Allah(swt).It clear that in such difficult time Allah(swt) chooses Sayyedina Abu Bakr (R.A) as Prophet(SAW)'s companion.

This is not just mentioned in Tafsir Hassan Askari.The same quote is mentioned by Mullah baqi Majilisi in Hiyat ul Quloob,Vol 2,pg506.

In Majlis ul Moumineen,pg 203:

The migration and Prophet(saw)'s accompying Abu Bakr(R.A) was not without the order of Allah(swt).

Wait a min a shia might try argue this would have been only true if He(R.a) has fulfilled these conditions.Since that didnot happend therefore this Basharat doesnot fit Sayyedina Abu Bakr(R.A)

Then this could be due to two reasons,either thier ignorance or thier denial of haq.

In the same tafsir after few pages it is mentioned:

"Then Prophet(saw) asked Abu Bakr sideek(R.A),are you happy that Kuffar look for you as they are looking for me to kill me? And it becomes knowed that you helped and remianed my companion in my Proclaimation of Tauheed and Nabuwat and due to this many kinds of trials and worrys you have to suffer?

"Sayyedina Abu Bakr Sideeq(R.A) replied,O Messenger of Allah(saw) I am that person,even if all the troubles and trails of world surround me till day of judgement,nor does death comes to free me from this suffereings but I remian in your love with you is better for me then I live a joyfull life like mighty kings but I am agaisnt you.May my family and children and everything be sacrified on you!!."

Subhanallah!! the love and compassion of Sideq-e-Akbar(R.A) is clear like blazing sun from this statment in Tafsir Hassan Askari.

ثم قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لابى بكر : أرضيت أن تكون معي يا أبابكر تطلب كما

اطلب ، وتعرف بأنك أنت الذي تحملني على ماأدعيه ، فتحمل عني أنواع العذاب ؟

قال أبوبكر : يا رسول الله أما أنا لو عشت عمر الدنيا أعذب في جميعها أشد

عذاب لا ينزل علي موت مريح ، ولا فرج متيح ( 3 ) وكان في ذلك محبتك لكان ذلك أحب

إلي من أن أتنعم فيها وأنا مالك لجميع ممالك ( 4 ) ملوكها في مخالفتك ، وهل أنا ( 5 )

ومالي وولدي إلا فداؤك

Courtesy,bro wasil ibn ata and effendi for thier contributions.

Can Efendi and Wasil prove the authenticity then I 'd really thanks them.

As for the copy paste by Nays from Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book then I am doing research over it and Ehsan was a liar rather that used to do half quote and cite weak Hadiths.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can Efendi and Wasil prove the authenticity then I 'd really thanks them.

As for the copy paste by Nays from Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book then I am doing research over it and Ehsan was a liar rather that used to do half quote and cite weak Hadiths.

this is the tareeq (the way) to tafseer al-imam al-askari :

from mahdi ibn abi harb al-husseini al-mar'ashi from jaafar ibn muhammed al-duristi from his father muhammed ibn ahmed from sheikh sadook from muhammed ibn al-qassim al-isttirabadi from yussef ibn muhammed ibn ziad from ali ibn muhammed ibn muhammed ibn sayyar from imam al-hasan al-askari

now there's disagreement amongst the scholars about the authenticity of tafseer al-imam al-askari but some shia scholars like nuri tobrussi who accepted the tafseer as sahih

also allama tahrani authenticated it

but many people dont consider the sanad to be strong because some narrators are unknown like muhammed ibn al-qassim al-istrabadi and he's weakened by ibn al-ghadha'iri and alsoalso ibn ziad and ibn sayyar are majhool as far as i know

so i can't say if the hadith is weak or not even though i tend to believe it

jazakom allah khairan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider Rijal that is associated to Ibne Ghadairi(rh) as Authentic since Allama Khoie(rh) said many times that his book is actually Mansoob towards him which is wrong.

As for Muhammad ibne Qasim, Here What Allama Khoie(rh) said:

والصحيح أن الرجل مجهول

الحال ، لم تثبت وثاقته

Source: Mujam, Vol no 18, pg no 163

http://u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Rijal/moajam/18/a163.htm

And the right thing is that this person is Majhool and his tautheeq is not established.

One more thing Allama Khoie(Alaihirahmah) writes about Tafseer-e-Askari(as) as:

، وعلى كل

حال فالتفسير المنسوب إلى الامام العسكري عليه السلام بروايته لم يثبت ، فإنه

رواه عن رجلين مجهول حالهما ،

Source: Same source as cited above.

Thus it is Established fact that Tafseer-e-Askari(as) is not authentic and I will take Qaul of Allama Khoie(rh) because he is right that it contains Majhool narrators so it can't be relied upon and its Matan seems to be Gareeb too like the one u quoted.

Yusuf ibne MUhammad ibne Ziyad is Majhool as said by Allama Khoie:

أقول : إنه رجل مجهول الحال

Source: Mujam, Vol no 21, pg no 186.

http://u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Rijal/moajam/21/a186.htm

Ali ibne Muhammad ibne Seeyaar is also majhool as said by Allama Khoie(rh) and he further writes:

إنما هو برواية

هذا الرجل وزميله يوسف بن محمد بن زياد ، وكلاهما مجهول الحال ، ولا يعتد

برواية أنفسهما عن الامام عليه السلام ، اهتمامه عليه السلام بشأنهما ، وطلبه من

أبويهما إبقائهما عنده ، لافادتهما العلم الذي يشرفهما الله به .

هذا مع أن الناظر في هذا التفسير لا يشك في أنه موضوع ، وجل مقام عالم

محقق أن يكتب مثل هذا التفسير ، فكيف بالامام عليه السلام .

Source: Mujam, Vol no 13, pg no 157.

http://u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Rijal/moajam/13/a157.htm

The bottom line is that this tradition is Mozou and by the way please give me authentic tradition.

Was Salaam.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some 1 Inshallah more refutations coming soon and plz make it sticky so that every one can watch the deception that u have done.

If u have failed to cite some traditions in praise of Abu Bakar from Shitte source then I would do your work and provide its refutation too.

This whole crap is mostly taken from Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book who seems to be a big liar.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still looking for a Sahih Hadith Enda Shia that praises Abu Bakr.

Note: No cut and paste from Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book(a book of lies).

Plz provide Scan or online reference from a well known Shia book.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still looking for a Sahih Hadith Enda Shia that praises Abu Bakr.

Note: No cut and paste from Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book(a book of lies).

Plz provide Scan or online reference from a well known Shia book.

Mashaallah!

I am thoroughly impressed by yoiur knowledge and your well manners Bro VSD. May Allah give you more knowledge. you are a very nice example of how a learned person should behave. I really beleive that these people are nothing more than "Sahaba Worshippers" (which obviously does not include Hz Ali (as) ). May Allah give them Hidaya. I have personally heard Ehsan Elahi Zaheer in my young age, he was one of the great enemy of Hz Ali and Ahlaybait and a great liar.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayyed sirf Aulad Rasool-e-Maqbool (SWA) hain ya Aulad Fatema (SA). Yeh Abu Bakr kahan se Sayyed hogaya....Maloon dakar gaya (Kha gaya, harap kargaya) Fatema Zehra (beloved daughter of Rasool-e-Maqbool) ka haq, Khialafat chheen lee khud charh kar baith gaya kursiye khilafat par...phir bhi Sayyed. Han Sayyedul Ghasebeen hai yeh. Yeh siddique bhi kaise hogaya. Do siddque sunniyon ne gharh rakhe hain. Ek baap ko siddique kahte hain aur uski beti ko. Rasool-e-Maqbool (PBUH) ki sahabzadi ko yeh fazeelat hasil nahi. Chunke Zaban se yeh Mohammad Mustafa (PBUH) ko Rasool Kahte hain magar haqeeqat me ABu Bakar Umar inke rasool the. Fatema ko wo fazeelat hasil nahi jo Ayesha ko theen. Kyunke Ayesha Abu Bakar ki beti thee. Bhale hi Rasool ki wafat k baad Nange hokar transparent chadar dal kar ek Namahram sahabi ko ghusul ka demostranstration diya ho, chahe quran ka hukum ek taraf dal kar Ali se jang karne aagayee ho. Abu bakar ne Umar k saath Rasool ki sahabzadi ko deewar o dar k beech me pees kar mardala. Magar yeh qatil siddique aur siddiqua hain. Woh siddiqua nahi jo mubahele me rasool k saath gayeen aur christians ne har tasleem kar lee...us waqt sacchon ki zarurat thee k aayen aur jhoton par laanat karn...tab yeh so called siddique aur siddiqua kahan the. Laanat tum sub jhooton par aur dushmanane Rasool aur Ale rasool par

Edited by manzar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and every shia in Iran is a syed? or for that matter in whole world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sayyed sirf Aulad Rasool-e-Maqbool (SWA) hain ya Aulad Fatema (SA). Yeh Abu Bakr kahan se Sayyed hogaya....Maloon dakar gaya (Kha gaya, harap kargaya) Fatema Zehra (beloved daughter of Rasool-e-Maqbool) ka haq, Khialafat chheen lee khud charh kar baith gaya kursiye khilafat par...phir bhi Sayyed. Han Sayyedul Ghasebeen hai yeh. Yeh siddique bhi kaise hogaya. Do siddque sunniyon ne gharh rakhe hain. Ek baap ko siddique kahte hain aur uski beti ko. Rasool-e-Maqbool (PBUH) ki sahabzadi ko yeh fazeelat hasil nahi. Chunke Zaban se yeh Mohammad Mustafa (PBUH) ko Rasool Kahte hain magar haqeeqat me ABu Bakar Umar inke rasool the. Fatema ko wo fazeelat hasil nahi jo Ayesha ko theen. Kyunke Ayesha Abu Bakar ki beti thee. Bhale hi Rasool ki wafat k baad Nange hokar transparent chadar dal kar ek Namahram sahabi ko ghusul ka demostranstration diya ho, chahe quran ka hukum ek taraf dal kar Ali se jang karne aagayee ho. Abu bakar ne Umar k saath Rasool ki sahabzadi ko deewar o dar k beech me pees kar mardala. Magar yeh qatil siddique aur siddiqua hain. Woh siddiqua nahi jo mubahele me rasool k saath gayeen aur christians ne har tasleem kar lee...us waqt sacchon ki zarurat thee k aayen aur jhoton par laanat karn...tab yeh so called siddique aur siddiqua kahan the. Laanat tum sub jhooton par aur dushmanane Rasool aur Ale rasool par

lol according to shia QUEEN ELIZABETH IS ALSO SAYYID.

http://shia-show.kr-hcy.com/2005/02/british-queen-is-from-ahlul-bayt.html

(replace (kr-hcy) with (kr-hcy) in the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7DkuP2ENs&feature=player_embedded

Edited by swords_of_sunnah
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol according to shia QUEEN ELIZABETH IS ALSO SAYYID.

http://shia-show.kr-hcy.com/2005/02/british-queen-is-from-ahlul-bayt.html

(replace (kr-hcy) with (kr-hcy) in the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7DkuP2ENs&feature=player_embedded

From the v beginning Shias opposed Kings n Queens. Its Shias' courage and their love for Islam that they threw away 2500 years monarchy from Iran and they are sunnies who are tools and spoons of kings and rulers till this date. There is documentary proof that Sunnies of Punjab gave title of "Ameerulmomeneen" to a Sikh ruler of Punjab in British ruled India who was known as Maharaja Ranjeet Singh. Shame on u. Ameerulmomeen was a title given specifically to Maula Ali by Sarkar-e-do-Alam Mohummad Mustafa (PBUH) and no other person is entitled to this title except Ali...Neither Omar Ibne Khattab (Malloon) nor any other king or caliph.

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