Category: ‘isma – Infallibilty


Assalam o ‘alaykum,

Existence of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba is both accepted by Sunnis, Shias and the Westerner historians. Today some Shias try their best to even deny his existence, let alone the role he played in the foundation of Shiahism. He is to Shiahism, what Saint Paul is to Christianity.

1. It says in Anwar al-N’umaniyyah, a Shia book,

‘Abdullah Ibn-i-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the true God (Na’uzubillah).

(Anwar al-N’umaniyyah, 2:234 – Published Iran)
http://www.kr-hcy.com/references/shia/070.shtml

2. The name of ‘Abdullah bin Saba figures in the most reliable book of Shias on Isma ur-Rijal, entitled Rijal-i-Kashshi and it is related in it from Imam Jafar Sadiq (may Allah have mercy on him) that Ibn Saba believed in the divinity of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and, ultimately, he was burnt alive at his command. About ‘Abdullah bin Saba, Rijal-e-Kashshi says,

“Many knowledgeable people have stated that ‘Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerated the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, and the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim he began to exalt the personality of Sayyiduna ‘Ali much beyond the due limit, and he was the first person to declare that it was obligatory to believe in the Imamat of Sayyiduna ‘Ali, and completely dissociated himself form his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels”. (Rijal-i-Kashi, p.71)

3. The earliest historian Tabri has sketched out the details in these words,

“‘Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew and lived in Sana. His mother was called Sauda. He embraced Islam during the period of Sayyiduna Uthman. he roamed through the Muslim cities and tried to seduce the Muslims from the straight path. He launched his diabolical campaign from Hijaz and then visited Basra, Kufa and Syria. None of the Syrians cooperated with him. On the contrary, they drove him out of Syria. Thus he moved over to Egypt and settled down there permanently. He started drumming into the minds of the Egyptians that it was strange they believed in the return of Christ and denied the return of Sayyiduna Muhammad [peace be upon him]. God himself had declared. Therefore he has a better claim to return to the world in comparison with Christ. He fabricated the concept of the ‘return’ or resurrection and the Egyptians turned in into a hot debating issue.”

4. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hafiz Ibn Athir (may Allah have mercy on him) have commented on it on similar lines and ‘Allamaj Ibn Khaldun (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written about it,

“Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee – line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bay’t. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by ‘Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded ‘Ammar not to return to Madina. ‘Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) for first turning Sayyiduna Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) out of Syria into Madinah and then for pushing him out of Madinah towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of ‘Uthman was justified. Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him), out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) against Sayyiduna Muawiyyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) started condemning Muawiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Muawiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) coaxed him a little and told him: I’ll also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah.”

5. Hafiz ibn Hajr (may Allah have mercy on him) has related on the authority of Tarikh Abi Asakir,

“He belonged to Yemen. He was a Jew, but he had donned the guise of Islam and roamed through the Muslim cities to lead the Muslims astray and dissuade them from the obedience of their Imams and to sow dissension among them. He also visited Damascus with this end in view”. (Tarikh Damishq, 7:430)

6. ‘Allamah Asfaraini (may Allah have mercy on him) has also commented on it in a similar vein,

“Ibn Sauda was a Jew who had donned the gown of Islam to addle the faith of the Muslims”.

7. Abu Muhammad Hassan bin Musa has unraveled these secrets. He is the earliest Shiah historian who has given an account of the Shiah sects. He is one of the most famous Shiah of the third century A.H. He writes,

“Sabais are the companions of ‘Abdullah bin Saba. ‘Abdullah bin Saba made faces at Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disaffiliated himself from them and he imputed his acts to the command of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). When ‘Ali caught hold of him and asked him about it, he confessed to it. After his confession, he ordered him to be executed. On hearing the order, [quite a few people] made a humble submission to ‘Ali:O Amir al-Muminin! You have ordered the execution of a person who professes your friendship and the love of your Ahl al-Bay’t. ‘Ali complied with the submission and exiled him to Madain.”

8. The famous Shia biographer Istrabadi says,

“Abdullah bin Saba claimed that ‘Ali is Allah and he is his Prophet. When the news reached the Amir al-Muminin, he sent for him and asked him about it. He owned it and insisted that he is really the one [who is the referee of his claim]. The Amir al-Muminin said: The devil has seduced you. Therefore you should repent at once. But he refused to repent and he put him behind the bars for three days. When he did not repent even after three days, he burned him alive”.

9. Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Jaylani Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) says,

“The followers of ‘Abdullah bin Saba are called Sabains. Ibn Saba relied on exaggeration about the status of Sayyiduna ‘Ali and claimed that he was a prophet. Then, relying on further exaggeration he claimed that he was God and he invited a party of the Kufi rebels to adopt these beliefs. When the news reached ‘Ali, he had some of these people thrown into two pits of fire, as has been hinted at by a poet .”

10. All the Shiah scholars have given an account of Ibn Saba, his views and beliefs and his party ; Sayyid Qummi [who died in 301H.], Sheykh Ta’ifah Tusi, Tastri in Qamus al-Rijal, Abbas Qummi in Tuhfat al-Ahbab, Khu Ansari in Raudhat al-Jannat, Sabhani in Nasikh al-Tawarikh and the author of Rawdhat al-Safa, have all mentioned him and his party”.

11. ‘Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes under the heading of Sabaism,

“Sabais are the followers of ‘Abdullah bin Saba who had told Sayyiduna ‘Ali: you are you i.e., you are God, but he had extradited him to Madain The historians suggest that he was actually a Jew, but he had tacked on to himself the label of Islam. During the Jewish phase, he used to claim that Sayyiduna Y’osha bin Nun was the executor of Sayyiduna Moses.”

12. Ibn ‘Asakar has cited a tradition of Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) in his history,

“When the oath of allegiance was taken at the hand of ‘Ali and he delivered his address, ‘Abdullah bin Saba stood up and said: you are “Dabat al-Ardh.” (Tarikh Dimishq)

13. ‘Allamah Baghdadi has touched the issue in his book Al-Firq Bayn al-Firq. Similarly, Isfaraini in his book Kitab al-Tabsir and Ibn Hazm in Al-Fasl have also mentioned Ibn Saba.

14. Famous Shia scholar Nau Bakhti writes,

“It is known as the Sabai sect because ‘Abdullah bin Saba was its ring leader.” [Khandan-i-Nau-Bakhti, p.275]

15. Historian Professor P.K Hitti writes,

“The enigmatic ‘Abdullah ibn Saba who was converter ed into Islam…embraced ‘Ali with his excessive veneration…” (History of the Arabs, p.248 – London)

16. Famous historian Dwight M. Donaldon writes,

“‘Abdullah ibn Saba had traveled widely throughout the Empire, as Tabari says, “seeking to lead the Moslems into error…Another of his teachings that was more immediately, influential was that every Prophet has a wasi and that ‘Ali was the wasi of Muhammed…” (The Sheit Religion of Islam, Part 6 p.41)

17. Historian Dr. J. N. Hollister writes,

“[‘Abdullah ibn Saba] He was the native of San’a in Yemen…He opened a campaign of behalf of ‘Ali suggesting that Abu Bakar, ‘Umar, and ‘Usman were usurpers…” (Shias of Hind p.15)

18. Famous historian Dr. Walter C. Klein writes,

“‘Abdullah ibn Saba had hailed Ali with the words, “Thou art Thou.”…

(Al-Ibanah al-Usul al-Diyanah, p.7-8)

19 Historian Professor Nicholson writes,

“Now the Shi’ite theory of Divine Right certainly harmonized with Persian ideas, …’Abdullah ibn Saba…went from place to place, seeking to lead Moslems into error…” (The History of the Arabs, p.215)

20. Famous historian and former governor of U.P, India, William Moore writes,

“…Ibn Saba, a Jew from the South of Arabia…he became the setter forth of strange and startling doctrines…’Ali was his legate, ‘Usmsn was a usurper…” (Al-Khilafat, Us ka Uruj, Inhitat aur Zawaal, p.217)

21. The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says,

ABDALLAH IBN SABA
By : Hartwig Hirschfeld

Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” [The Most High].

Bibliography: Shahrastani Al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201); Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.

Indeed interesting. How reliable are the narrations though?
And as you probably know, orientalists don’t examine narrations in a way acceptable according to Islamic standards.

Do you have an reference for that which you quote Ibn Khaldun?

“Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee – line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman[r.a] for first turning Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] out of Syria into Madina and then for pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar[r.a] , out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah[r.a] . Hadhrat Muawiyah [r.a] coaxed him a little and told him : I’ll also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah.”

 

A. I have only quoted few orientalists, but also shown it from authentic ShiaH and Sunni books, the role of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. Usually the orientalists favor Shiahism and if ‘Abdullah ibn Saba was a fairy tale, so many of the orientalists would not have mentioned him. Even a blind person can’t deny the role Ibn Saba played in the origins of Shiahism.

B. The quote of ‘Allamah ibn Khuldoon was taken from Shia’hs and Shiahism, there Genesis and Evolution, by Allamah Ehsan Elahi Zahir Shahid. He was the author of many books on Shiahs and their history, and later on he was killed by the Shias and was burred in Madinah. Also its mentioned in ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, Tarikh kay Aiyne Main, by Hakim Faiz Alam Siddiqui. Shah Abdul ‘Aziz Dahlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written in details about Ibn Saba in his magnum opus called Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah.

And to add to the above list:

22. And it is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him),

“hAbdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish and he [supposedly] accepted Islam during the time of Sayyiduna ‘Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he urged the people of Egypt to kill ‘Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he would show much love for ‘Ali (may Allah have mercy on him). He was a khabis from inside and his only mission was to create fitnah among the Muslims.” (Musnad Imam-i-A’zam, p.158)

عبد اللّه بن سبا كان يهوديا فاسلم ايام عثمان وهوالذى حمل اهل مصر على قتل عثمان واظهر
الميل الى على وكان خبيث الباطن غرض الفساد بين المسلمين
23. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jaylani (may Allah have mercy on him) says in Ghunyat al-Talibin,

“Sabain sect are attributed towards ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and they said ‘Ali is alive and will come back before Qiyamat.”

واما لسبائية فمنسوبة الى عبداللّه بن سبا من دعوهم ان عليا لم يمت وانه يرجع قبل يوم القيامة
Scan:

 

Assalam o ‘alaykum,

24. Famous Shia scholar ‘Allamah Kashi narrates in his book from one of the Shiah Imam Abu ‘Abdullah (may Allah have mercy on him),

“May Allah curse ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, he said that ‘Ali is God. But ‘Ali was a servant of Allah.”

لعن اللّه عبداللّه بن سبا انه ادعو الربوية فى امير المؤمنين عبدا طالباً
(Rijal-i-Kashi, p.100)

(Qamus al-Rijal, 5:46)

 
25. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

“‘Abdullah ibn Saba…was the first person who said that Imamat of ‘Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) is proven from nas.” (Al-Milal wa al-Nahal, 1:174)

اصحاب عبداللّه بن سبا٠٠٠ وهو اول من اظهر القول بالنص بامامة على كرم اللّه وجهه
26. Saad Bin ‘Abdullah al-Ash’ari Al-Qummi said:

“Sabians are companions of ‘Abdullah Ibn saba, …… ‘Abdullah bin Saba, was the first who slandered Abu Bakr, ‘Omar, ‘Othman, and the Companions and disowned them.” (Al-Maqalat wal-Firaq, p.20)

27. Imam Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written in details about Ibn Saba in his book Izalat al-Khifa;.

“The reason for those great Ulema to report everything shows their honesty and trustworthiness and greatness. They reported even if it goes against their own belief as in the case of imam ibn Jarir Tabari.

His tafseer nagates things that he has reported in Tarikh.

Some Ulema either not paying special attention or relying on those before them blindly such as “some scholars have said that” etc as is the case with many reports you will find in our currentt discussion.

This abdullah bin Saba’s existence, actually, that is another flawed focus. If we are claiming that he did such and such then we should ‘prove’ such and such.

I have read extensively about abd allah bin Saba from original sources from their first appearance in third/fourth century in Tabari to those who did not mention any chain?

The image in Tabari of abdullah bin Saba is of a powerful man that single handedly he manages to destabilise and overthrows Hazrat Osman al-Ghani’s rule and mesmerises the great and old sahaba Hazrat abu Zar Ghaffari and the seventh muslim in islam Hazrat Ammar Yasir that they were greatly influnced by him.

The role of ibn Saba as depicted by reports in Tabari is such that all of sudden the guy comes in the times of Hazrat Usman al-Ghani and eventually becomes responsible for the end of the caliphate of Hazrat Usman bin Affan.

In terms of causality a black/white simple mechanism to explain away the downfall.

When ibn Saba has been given such a crucial role in downfall of the third Caliph then by historical necessity others before or contemporary of Tabari, atleaset, must have given an account of abdullah bin Saba’s pivotal role but we find that Imam Tabari (d. 310 AH) reporting from saif bin Omer,(unanimously, a liar and fabricator according to sunnis as well the three others from his chain) along with other factors highlights this cause via saif bin omer yet other contemporary historians such as Ibn Saad (d. 230 AH)in tabaqaat and Baladuri (d. 297 AH)in ansab al-ashraf do not mention this character whilst reporting on the downfall or end of Hazrat Usman’s caliphate! it is things of this nature and mouth of a fabricator that has led researchers deny the role atleast as presented by saif bin umer.

Dr. Taha Hussain the Egyptian sunni author, for example, in his al fitan al kubra has denied the existence of abdullah bin Saba on account of such reasons of both text and testimony.

Not to mention the ‘invention’ of some fictitious Sahaba by Saif bin Omer as we will elucidate from muhaddiseen that no such Sahabi exists other than from what Saif says?

If you remove Saif bin Omer from the equation of abdullah bin Saba then a different account of ibn Saba emerges.

Saif’s ibn Saba emerges in time of Hazrat Usman(RA) and without Saif’e reports ibn Saba emerges in times of Hazrat Imam Ali (RA)…that alone should be sufficient for a historian.

However, Saif’s ibn Saba is the originator of shia sect but other than Saif, ibn Saba is calls “ Imam Ali GOD”…now, do you know Ismailis, Zaidis, Isna Asharis that call Imam Ali GOD?

Moreover, ibn Saba from other than Saif, was killed by Imam Ali etc.

1. السري this first reporter was siri bin ismaelkufi or siri bin asim died in 258. both were ‘fabricators and liars’ see, (tehdheeb al-tehdheeb V3, Page46. tarikh al khateeb V9 P193, mizal al-itidal V1 P37, lisna al-mizan V3 P13.)

2. Shuaib bin ibrahim al-kufi: this reporter is majhool/unknown. see (mizal al-itidal V1 P447, lisna al-mizan V3 P145)

3. Saif bin Omer: this reporter reports fabrications and attributes them to trustworthy people. see (mizan al-itidal V1 P438, tehdheeb al-tehdheeb, V4 P295)

4. Yazeed faq’asi: unknown reporter and there absolutely no mention of him in any books of reporters.
A lot more could be said and analysed but it is sufficient to say that consistency is key pillar we must hold onto otherwise kama tudeeno tudaan. You may reap what you sow.

Shia are also guilty of making use of reports when it suits them like our brothers and this cycle will continue. Another thing is that there is no mention of ibn Saba in our hadith literature such Sihah Sitta whereas they fill in gaps for other historical happenings!

Actually, there are contradictions between Saif’s accounts of Islamic history and that which is reported in other sources, for instance, Sahih Bukhari.

Dr. Abdul Aziz Hulabi, chair of Islamic History at King Saud University, KSA.

Dr. Husayn Atwan, in an direct way, but explicit enough.
Those have completey rejected the entire existence of Ibn Sab’a.

Scholars like Al Arabi At-Tabbani have exposed that his role was “much smaller and insignificant than worth mentioning”.

Since all the Salaf of the historians, Hadith scholars, narrators, did not mention Ibn Sa’ba before the sudden appearance of Sayf bin Amr.

That tells you something.

Furthermore, the Islamic historians, while narrating Sayf’s narrations, have ALWAYS concluded otherwise.

In the book called ‘man hum as-shia’ by a salafi callled Ahmed Jawadu, published by Dar al-Ameer.

It is a refutation of Shia isna Asharis. ( page 46), he gives a list of sunni scholars of late that have denied the existence or details about abdullah bin Saba with regards to originator of Shia isna Asharis.

1. dr. taha hussain in al-fitn al-kubra
2. dr. ali sami an-nishar in al-fikr al-falsafi fil islam
3. dr. hamid hanafi daud in at-tashuo zahira tabiya fi itar ad-dawa al-islamia
4. dr. mohammed kamil hussain in adab misr al-fatimiya
5. abdul aziz al-halabi in his book abudullah bin saba
6. ustaz hasan bin farhan al-maliki has written many articles about his denial.
7. dr. jawad ali in his article of the name abdullah bin saba, issue 6 of almajma alilmi.
8. dr. abdullah samarai in his book al-ghulu wa alfiraq alghaliya fil hidarat alislamiya.

Then he goes on to give a list shia scholars.

Although admits that abdullah bin Saba has no mention in Sihah Sitta or the Matun Araba( four principle texts of shia) but gives a reference from Bukhari on page 37 that indirectly it proves that Hazrat Imam Ali burned the followers of abdullah bin Saba as we see in history!”

Sahih Bukhari- Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

 

Anything that I say in here that is worthy of critique I welcome it, it is possible I am misunderstanding many things.

You asked about Abdullah ibn Saba.

I do not know if anyone mentioned this yet, but you may find yourself wanting to read al-‘Awasim min al-Qawasim, by the great Maliki faqih and near-mujtahid Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi, translated into English as Defense Against Disaster by Madinah Press – a house I believe to be associated with the Murabitun, and who have out out some other rather useful books.

They have made this book available for free in pdf form, it is easily found, but those unable to find it are welcome to message me for a copy, I also advise simply buying the hardbound copy because frankly, e-books have a permanence kinda resembling the little tracks moths leave, when they graze along a snowbank.

It is a comprehensive history of the civil wars and political instability in the fitan al-kubra, that which engulfed the early Sahaba and two generations after them. It absolves the Sahabah from blame and shows how they were simply manipulated by well funded and organized clandestine figures from among the second generation, chief amongst these is the Abdullah Ibn Saba of which we discuss.

The book has more than the ring of truth to it, it has been accepted by many a Sunni scholars, and I consider it necessary reading for a modern Muslim student.

Because, and this is a critical point to understand, and I implore you to consider it well. The very mechanisms and machinations outlined in this book can be seen throughout the history of the Ummah up until the present day.

So, you wanna know how easy it is to organize political conspiracies so byzantine in their complexity as to befuddle the best generation of this Ummah?

Then read this book.

The same dajjalic (and I use this word deliberately) patterns can be found in multiple incidents throughout history beyond this book. Recognizing the general outlines of how an entire generation of the best of the Ummah, the most spiritually enlightened, and understanding, of people who saw the blessed Prophet in the flesh and learned directly from him.

This book show how this group were confused by the most murky of dark organizations is important. Frankly similar things have happened throughout history amongst the nations of the kufar as well as in Prophetic communities but none so clearly historically documented, before the present day, as this one. It frankly reads much like the 19th century “Proofs of a Conspiracy” dealing with the clandestine forces behind the french revolution – except Qadi Ibn Arabi documents things in a far more rigorous way.

One yearns for a similar treatment of the fitnahs of this Ummah in the late 19th and early 20th century, for no one has treated this topic with the rigor it deserves.

Read it, and weep. It moved my heart. Maybe it will move yours too.

Look, those shia brothers you speak of bark up a dangerous tree. A rather large percentage of their historiography is demonstrably weak, their scholars often quote from narrators of the most dubious reputation, knowingly. So, they should look into their own affairs first.

History works differently from Hadith. In matters of Tarikh – general matters of history and historiography – our scholars deal with narrations having a lower probability of veracity than sacred scripture. And yet, realize that demonstrative rules still apply, and have been applied by the scholars pursuing sciences of history.

These rules concern the weighing of witness accounts, chains of their narration and transmission of specific narrations and texts, gauging the probability of fraud and memory failure, the likelihood of the occurrence of an incident as judged on the broader context as already known, and so on, and so forth.

The fact that a narration is quoted does not mean we believe it uncritically, it is a probability. Some people have a problem with probabilities and like things to be black and white, well it doesn’t work that way. A good deal of history is redacted, corrupted in a dajjalic fashion, consists of truths partially quoted by sincere honest error or malice of intent as to give a misleading impression, and more.

We weigh probabilities.

It is highly probable that Abdullah Ibn Saba existed. The shia debating this are really making themselves look silly.

This is sad, they should just acknowledge the probable fact that he lived, and that he played a pivotal and organizing role in this fitnah, and later attached himself as a subversive element to the wings of the partisans of Amir al-Mumineen and Bab ul-Ilm Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

In so doing Abdullah ibn Saba corrupted the hearts of many, and formed the seed of corruption that would reemerge through the history of the Shiatul Ali in the form of Ghulat extremism.

The fitnah is not understandable without looking at his role, he fits like a perfect key into the events. There are things about the matter that can only make sense if Abdullah ibn Saba is looked at as an element.

History writers obeyed specific rules. Many writers in the genre of history were not sloppy, they knew well what they were doing, to a far greater degree than their critics today. And Qadi Abu Bakr was a faqih, a Qadi, one who knew these usuls and furu’ and rules of transmission of knowledge and how to weigh such knowledge inside and out, the man’s greatness as a scholar is without question and he was all but a mutahid.

The mere fact that historical writings included weak narrations is not a criticism. Many critics frankly ignore the fact that weak narrations have an important role to play, they may be cited for the sake of clarity, to reinforce stronger arguments, to show the mere possibility of something having occurred, and so on.

Weak, or da’if, does not mean inauthentic or false. A false narration is forged and thus mawdu’ – a weak narration has some probability of truthfulness especially in conjunction with stronger supporting narrations.

The over all allowable margins of error in historical writings and research are broader than those in matters pertaining to aqida and fiqh because these later two affect the future disposition of our souls in a post-mortem state and also affect the substantive integrity of our faith and practice.

My understanding is this;

-There is a considerable body of interrelated narrations that collectively point to the existence of the individual known as Abdullah ibn Saba.

- These narrations outline a most pernicious conspiracy surrounding him and certain confederates, who collectively instigated events leading to the attempted assassination of Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr, thereby eventually leading to the blockade of the House of Amir al-Mumineen Uthman ibn Affan(ra), and from there leading to the most horrific and vile of acts, his assassination at the hands of confused discontents, of whom Ibn Abu Bakr (ra) was initially one before his honor and blood was saved by a timely admonition by Uthman(ra) prior to his tragic murder.

- Thus many misunderstandings emerged between mutually sincere parties regarding how best to prosecute perpetrators of this horrific crime, which led to the splintering of parties which led to the Battle of the Camel, and the communal bloodshed that dominated the rest of that blessed generation.

-Abdullah ibn Saba had a clear hand in all of these events as a subversive and covert influence, often working through hired agents, fomenting discontent in others and thus gaining their allegiance as sincere agents.

-These narrations are treated in a comprehensive way in Qadi Abu Bakar Ibn al-Arabi’s work, Defense Against Disaster, and his synthesis of events is highly likely.
Even if some specific details can be questioned, the overall design he outlines is dire.

-Abdullah Ibn Saba, to my mind, was most probably a historical figure, there will always be some element of uncertainty regarding him. But it is a mistake to discount his existence or role completely.

Questions about the adab expected on this forum due to past rebukes from administrators over slips of my tongue that I though insignificant keeps me from stating some matters in stronger terms.

I will say this – the shia who complain about Sunni historiography on this issue are mostly being partisan, doctrinaire, and following the leads of others instead of looking at the evidence for their own eyes and justly weighing the facts, and with all due respect to them as my sisters and brothers in Islam, mostly just being silly.

As you read the book, Defense Against Disaster, you will find yourself wondering how some of these issues could have been hidden from our view for so long. How so many well meaning teachers in this Ummah could have suppressed such knowledge or been unaware of it. You may find yourself amazed and astonished and wanting to find out more. This is a good state.

Also we need to be precise, if you condemn and curse the shia in general then you condemn and curse the rightous among the early shiatul Ali who simply followed the Ahl ul-Bayt as a political affiliation and held the aqida of the Ahl ul-Sunnah.

Up until Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (ra) there was a clear substantive wing of thee Shia movement who were guided correctly – it is only after his death that the ghulat tendencies among them increased.

Brother running around irresponsibly condemning the Shia as a group miss this fact and thus fall into the possibility of condemning men far better than they are.

We should think well about our words.

Bismillah al rahman al raheem, Allahuma Salli Ala Muhammad Wa Alihi wa Sahbih.

The Shia infallible future knowing Imam has publicly stated that the Quran is corrupt in order save his own skin!

The First truth:

Naskh or the abrogation of text is that some of the verses were being read as part of the Quran then Allah abrogated them so the Muslims abandoned reading them, this is illustrated by the Sahih narration in bukhari:

Ameer al mumineen Umar bin al Khattab RA said: “God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him and from what had been revealed was the verse on stoning(Rajm), we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession…”

So from what was abrogated was this verse on stoning however the ruling(hukm) had remained the same and was not abrogated.

The Shia scholars however were desperate in their attempts to prove that “Tahreef” or Corruption in the Quran is also found in the books of the other Muslims and not just their own books. So some of them denied the abrogation(Naskh) of verses and claimed that he who believes in abrogation is like he who believes in Tahreef or corruption of the book of Allah.

Grand Ayatullah abu al Qassim al Khoe’i the past leader of the Hawza of Najaf says in his book “Al bayan fi tafseer al Quran” page 201:

- يقول آيتهم العظمى أبو القاسم الخوئي في كتابه ( البيان في تفسير القرآن ) ص 201:
[ أقول : سيظهر لك – بعيد هذا – أن القول بنسخ التلاوة هو بعينه القول بالتحريف ، وعليه فاشتهار القول بوقوع النسخ في التلاوة – عند علماء أهل السنة – يستلزم اشتهار القول بالتحريف …

{and it will be proven to you that the saying of abrogation(Naskh) is in itself the saying of Tahreef and corruption, based upon this the popularity of abrogation amongst the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah is necessarily equal to the popularity of the saying of Tahreef.}

وقال ص 205: وغير خفي أن القول بنسخ التلاوة بعينه القول بالتحريف والإسقاط …

in page 205 he says: { and it is clear that the saying of abrogation is exactly the saying of corruption and deletion }.

وقال ص 202: أقول : وآية الرجم التي ادعى عمر أنها من القرآن ، ولم تقبل منه رويت بوجوه : منها : ; إذا زنى
الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، نكالا من الله ، والله عزيز حكيم ومنها ; الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، بما قضيا من اللذة ومنها ، إن الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة وكيف كان فليس في القرآن الموجود ما يستفاد منه حكم الرجم . فلو صحت الرواية فقد سقطت آية من القرآن لا محالة.

in page 202 he says: {and the verse of Stoning(Rajm) which Umar had claimed it to be a part of the Quran and it wasn’t accepted from him was narrated in various faces: such as: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah, Nikalan min Allah, wa Allah Aziz” and ” Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah farjumouhuma al battah, bima Qadaya min Al-Lathah” and ” Inna al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Itha Zanaya Farjumouhuma al Battah” and regardless of how it is recited we do not find it in the Quran that there is no ruling for Rajm thus if the narration is Sahih then a Verse was no doubt dropped from the Quran”.

يقول علامتهم محمد حسين الطباطبائي في تفسيره ( الميزان في تفسير القرآن ) ( 12 / 125 ):
[ وأما حملهم الرواية وسائر ما ورد في التحريف وقد ذكر الآلوسي في تفسيره أنها فوق حد الإحصاء على منسوخ التلاوة فقد عرفت فساده وتحققت أن إثبات منسوخ التلاوة أشنع من إثبات أصل التحريف ].

The big Shia scholar muhammad Hussein al tabtaba’e in his tafseer “Al Meezan fi tafseer al Quran” 12/125:
{As for them -Sunni Scholars- considering this narration of Tahreef and all others related to it in which the Scholar al Alusi said in His tafseer that they are countless, they consider them Abrogated recitations but this saying is corrupt and I verified that the saying of abrogation is even worse than the sayings of Tahreef.}

يقول علامتهم ومحققهم جعفر السبحاني في كتابه ( مفاهيم القرآن ) ( 10 / 364 ):
[ وقد قسموا النسخ إلى ثلاثة أقسام :
1 – نسخ التلاوة والحكم .
2 – نسخ التلاوة دون الحكم .
3 – نسخ الحكم دون التلاوة .
والأول : بين الفساد لا يقول به إلا القائل بالتحريف في الكتاب العزيز ، والمسلمون براء منه إلا الحشوية من العامة وبعض الأخباريين من الخاصة . ومثل للثاني : بآية الرجم ، وأنه كان في القرآن الكريم ثم نسخ ، والقول به أيضا يلازم القول بالتحريف المصون عنه كتاب الله العزيز ].

The famous Shia scholar and muhaqqiq called Ja’afar al Subhani in his book “Mafaheem al Quran” 10/364 says:

{And they (Sunnies) have divided abrogation to three types:
1- Abrogating the recitation and the ruling(Hukm).
2- Abrogating the recitation without the ruling.
3- Abrogating the ruling without the recitation.
and the first: it is clear that the first saying is corrupt and the only one who says it is he who believes in the corruption of the holy book and the Muslims are innocent of this except for the mainstream muslims (sunnies) and the Akhbari Shia. as for the second: it is the example of the verses of stoning and that it was in the Quran and then abrogated, this saying is also identical to the saying of Tahreef and corruption…}

يقول حجتهم محمد باقر الحكيم في كتابه ( علوم القرآن ) ص 204-205:
[ فقد قسموا النسخ إلى ثلاثة اقسام نوجزها بما يلي : الأول : نسخ التلاوة دون الحكم : ويقصد بهذا النسخ أن تكون هناك آية قرآنية نزلت على الرسول ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) ، ثم نسخت تلاوتها ونصها اللفظي مع الاحتفاظ بما تضمنه من أحكام . وقد مثلوا لهذا القسم بآية الرجم التي روي عن عمر بن الخطاب نصها : إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم حيث قيل إنها كانت آية في القرآن الكريم نسخت تلاوتها مع الاحتفاظ بحكمها . وهذا القسم وإن كاد يعترف به أكثر الباحثين من علماء الجمهور في علوم القرآن ، إلا أنه لا يكاد يعترينا الشك ببطلانه وعدم ثبوته في القرآن الكريم عندما ندرسه بشكل موضوعي ، وذلك لأنه : أولا : نجد أن الاعتراف بهذا اللون من النصوص والروايات التي أوردتها بعض الكتب الصحيحة ( السنية ) يؤدي بنا إلى الالتزام بالتحريف … ].

The renowned Shia scholar Muhammad baqir al hakim says in his book “Uloom al Quran” pages 204-205:
{ They (sunnies) have divided Naskh to three kinds, we mention them briefly: First: Abrogating the recitation without the ruling: what is meant is that there would be a verse which descended on the prophet PBUH then the oral recitation of it would be abrogated but the ruling remains intact, They have given an example regarding this type of abrogation in the verse of Stoning which was narrated from Umar bin al Khattab: “itha Zana al Sheih wal Sheikhah…” It is said that this verse was in the Quran but it was abrogated and the ruling remained… We have no doubt that this saying is corrupt when we study study it from an objective point of view because: first of all: we find that admitting to this kind of saying and its narrations which are found in some of the Sahih Sunni books leads us to confirm the corruption of the Quran…}

The Second truth:

They narrated two narrations from the Imam al Sadiq RA in which he confirms the verse of stoning:

روى الكليني في الكافي ( 7 / 177 ):
[ وبإسناده ، عن يونس ، عن عبد الله سنان قال : قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام :الرجم في القرآن قول الله عزوجل :إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ].

Their sheikh Al Kulayni narrated in “al Kafi” 7/177:
With its Isnad from Younes from Abdullah Sinan that he said: Abu Abdullah PBUH said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.

روى صدوقهم ابن بابويه القمي في كتابه ( من لا يحضره الفقيه )( 4 / 26 ):
[ وروى هشام بن سالم ، عن سليمان بن خالد قال :قلت لابي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) : في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم ، قلت : كيف ؟ قال :الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة.

Their Sheikh al Saduq Ibn babaweih al Qummi in his book “Man La Yahduruhu al faqeeh” 4/26:
Hashim bin Salem narrated from Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.

The Third truth:

Some of their scholars who said these Narrations are authentic and Sahih:

يعلق علامتهم المجلسي على رواية الكافي أعلاه في كتابه ( مرآة العقول ) ( 23 / 267 ) بقوله:
[ صحيح. وعدت هذه الآية مما نسخت تلاوتها دون حكمها ، ورويت بعبارات أخر أيضا ، وعلى أي حال فهي مختصة بالمحصن منهما على طريقة الأصحاب ، ويحتمل التعميم كما هو الظاهر ].

Their famous scholar al Majlisi comments on the narration of “al Kafi” above in his book “Mira’at al Uqool” 23/267:

{This is SAHIH and it is counted amongst the verses whose recitation was abrogated without its ruling, it was narrated in different forms also and either way it is exclusive for those who are married according to the method of our close companions and generalization is possible from what is apparent.}

علَّق شيخهم علي أكبر غفاري محقق كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه على الرواية الثانية مشيراً إلى صحتها وكذلك صحة رواية الكافي الأولى ، فقال:
[ السند صحيح ، وروى نحوه الكليني والشيخ أيضا في الصحيح عن عبد الله بن سنان عنه ( عليه السلام ) وقيل : انها منسوخة التلاوة ثابتة الحكم ].

The big Sheikh and Muhaqqiq of the main shia book “Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih” Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari commented on the second narration pointing to its authenticity and that of the first one in al Kafi:

{ The Sanad is SAHIH, Sheikh al Kulayni also narrated one like it in a SAHIH from Abdullah bin Sinan from the Imam PBUH and it is said that: ” Its recitation is abrogated and its ruling is intact”.}

يعترف آيتهم العظمى الخوئي بصحة إسناد الروايتين في كتابه ( مباني تكملة المنهاج )( 1 / 195 ) حيث قال عن رواية الكافي:
[ وأما ما ورد في صحيحة عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، قال : ( الرجم في القرآن قول الله عز وجل إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة )]

Their grand ayatullah al kheo’i also admits to the authenticity of both narrations in his book “Mabani takmilat al Minhaj” 1/195:

He said about the narration in al Kafi: {As for what is mentioned in the SAHIH of Abdullah bin Sinan from abu abdullah PBUH he said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.}

وقال عن رواية الصدوق في الفقيه:
[ ونحوها صحيحة سليمان بن خالد قال : ( قلت لأبي عبد الله ( ع ) في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم ، قلت كيف ؟ قال : الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة ، فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ) ].

Also regarding the other narration in “al Faqih” he said:
{And one like it in the SAHIH of Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah”.}

The Fourth truth:

This shows that the Shia have attributed the saying of Tahreef to the Imam Ja’afar al Sadiq RA especially since they admitted that the narrations are authentic:

بل وصرح بذلك آيتهم العظمى محمد رضا الگلپايگاني في كتابه ( در المنضود )( 1 / 283):
[ وفي رواية عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال : الرجم في القرآن قول الله عز وجل : إذا زنى الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ( 4 ) . وفي رواية سليمان بن خالد قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام : في القرآن رجم ؟ قال : نعم . قلت : كيف ؟ قال : الشيخ والشيخة فارجموهما البتة فإنهما قضيا الشهوة ( 5 ) . فمقتضى الأخيرتين هو وجوب الرجم فقط بخلاف الروايات المتقدمة عليهما فإنها صريحة في الجمع بين الجلد والرجم . ولا يخفى أن روايتي عبد الله بن سنان وسليمان بن خالد ظاهرتان في وقوع التحريف في القرآن الكريم ].

Their Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Reda al kalbaykani says in his book “Durr al Mandoud” 1/283:
{and in the narration of Abdullah bin Sinan from Abu abdullah PBUH that he said: Al Rajim(Stoning) in the Quran is the saying of Allah swt: “Itha Zana al Sheikh wal sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah” (4) and in the narration of Suleiman bin Khaled that he said: I said to Abu Abdullah PBUH: is there stoning in the Quran? the Imam said: Yes, I said: How? He said: “Al Sheikh wal Sheikhah Farjumouhuma al battah Fa’innahuma Qadaya al Shahwah” (5) What we can conclude from these last two is that stoning is only required as opposed to the previous ones which join between stoning and flogging. It is no secret that the narrations of Abdullah bin Sinan and Suleiman bin Khaled are openly stating that the Quran is corrupt.}

The Fifth truth:

it is also no secret that the Shia Aqeedah is self-conflicting and often contradicts itself so the only excuse or the only Idol that the shia scholars run off to in order to save this rotten sect is… TAQIYYAH!

حيث قال بعد إيراده للروايتين في كتابه ( مباني تكملة المنهاج )( 1 / 196 ):
[ ولا شك في أنهما وردتا مورد التقية ، فإن الأصل في هذا الكلام هو عمر بن الخطاب ، فإنه ادعى أن الرجم مذكور في القرآن ].

The Past leader of the Hawzah of Najaf and the Grand Ayatullah al Khoe’i mentions the two narrations in his book “Mabani Takmilat al minhaj” 1/196 and then he comments by saying:
{And there is no doubt that both of these narrations are done as Taqqiyah by the Imam, because the origin of this saying is Umar bin al Khattab who claimed that stoning was part of the Quran.}

What al Khoe’i was trying to say here is that Imam al Sadiq RA did taqqiyah and claimed twice that the Quran is corrupted only so he can avoid being in harm’s way and save his own skin.

The Sixth truth:

Making Taqqiyah and saying that the Quran is corrupt in order to avoid harm is supposedly against the purpose of Having al infallible Imam in the first place:

يروي محدثهم محمد بن الحسن الصفار في كتابه ( بصائر الدرجات ) ص 351:
[ حدثنا محمد بن عبد الجبار عن عبد الله بن الحجال عن ثعلبة عن إسحاق بن عمار قال، قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الأرض لا تخلو من أن يكون فيها من يعلم الزيادة والنقصان، فإذا جاء المسلمون بزيادة طرحها وإذا جاؤوا بالنقصان أكمله لهم ولولا ذلك لاختلط على المسلمين أمرهم ].

Their Muhaddith Muhammad bin al Hassan al Saffar writes in his book “Basa’er al darajat” 351:
{Muhamad bin abdul Jabbar told us from Abdullah bin al Hajjal from tha’alabah bin Ishaq bin Ammar that he said: Abu Abdullah PBUH said:The earth will never be without an Imam who knows the additions and deletions, So if the Muslims bring forth an Addition he will erase it and if they make a deletion then he will remind them of what they missed, if it weren’t for this the Muslims would lose their path.}

يروي رئيس محدثيهم ابن بابويه القمي في كتابه ( الإمامة والتبصرة ) ص 29-30:
[ سعد ، عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد ، عن محمد بن سنان وصفوان بن يحيى وعبد الله بن المغيرة وعلي بن النعمان ، كلهم : عن عبد الله بن مسكان ، عن أبي بصير : عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، قال : إن الله لم يدع الأرض إلا وفيها عالم يعلم الزيادة والنقصان، فإذا زاد المؤمنون ردهم ، وإن نقصوا أكمله لهم ، فقال : خذوه كاملا ، ولولا ذلك لالتبس على المؤمنين أمرهم ، ولم يفرق بين الحق والباطل ].

The leader of their Muhadetheen Ibn babaweih al Qummi in his book “Al Imamah wal tabsirah” 29-30:
{Sa’ad from Muhammad bin isa bin ubeid frommuhammad bin sinan and safwan bin yahya and abdulah bin al mugheerah and ali bin al nu’uman all of them from abdullah bin maskan from abu baseer from Abu Abdullah PBUH that he said: Allah will not leave the earth without an Imam who knows the additions and deletions, if the believers add then he will correct them and if they missed out on something then he will remind them, he said: … And if it weren’t for that then there’d be confusion amongst the Muslims and they wouldn’t be able to distinguish right from wrong.}

روى ثقتهم الكليني في كتابه ( الكافي )( 1 / 178 ):
[ علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن منصور بن يونس وسعدان ابن مسلم ، عن إسحاق بن عمار ، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال : سمعته يقول : إن الأرض لا تخلو إلا وفيها إمام ، كيما إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم ، وإن نقصوا شيئا أتمه لهم ].

Their Thiqah al Kulayni writes in his book “Al Kafi” 1/178:
{Ali bin ibrahim from his father from Muhammad bin Abu Umayr from Mansour bin younes and sa’adan ibn muslim from ishaq bin ammar from Abu abdullah PBUH he said: I heard him say: The earth shall not perish unless there is an Imam on it who corrects the Muslims if they add something and if they miss something he completes it for them.}

اعترف شيخهم هادي النجفي في صحة سند رواية الكافي هذه في كتابه ( موسوعة أحاديث أهل البيت )( 3 / 58 ) حيث قال:
[ الرواية صحيحة الإسناد].

The Shia sheikh Hadi al Najafi even admits that the narration in al Kafi above is SAHIH in his book “Mawsou’at Ahadith Ahlulbayt” 3/58:
{The Narration has a SAHIH Isnad.}

اعترف محققهم الميرزا القمي بتواتر تلك الأخبار حيث قال في كتابه ( قوانين الأصول ) ص 350:
[ وهي أنه اعتمد في ذلك على ما رواه أصحابنا من الأخبار المتواترة من أن الزمان لا يخلو من حجة كي إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم وإن نقصوا أتمه لهم ولولا ذلك لاختلط على الناس أمورهم ].

Not only that but their scholar and Muhaqqiq al Mirza al Qummi even says that these narrations are Mutawatir(absolutely Authentic) in his book “Qawanin al Usool” page 350:
{and that we have relied upon what our close companions have narrated from the MUTAWATIR(authentic) news that the times will never be without an Imam Hujjah so he can correct the believers if they added something and remind them if they mistakenly deleted something and if it weren’t for this the people would be confused in their affairs.}

اعترف شيخهم محمد الريشهري بتلك الغاية من الإمام المعصوم في كتابه ( القيادة في الإسلام ) ص 47 حيث قال:
[ قال الإمام الصادق ( عليه السلام ) مبينا الحكمة من وجود الإمام : إن الأرض لا تخلو إلا وفيها إمام ، كي ما إن زاد المؤمنون شيئا ردهم ، وإن نقصوا شيئا أتمه لهم . وهذه الرواية أيضا – كذيل الرواية الواردة في علل الشرائع – ترى أن فلسفة الإمامة حراسة الإسلام القويم وصيانته من التحريف ].قوانين الأصول – الميرزا القمي – ص 3506-

Their sheikh Muhamad al Raishehri confirmed this purpose in his book “Al Qiyadah fil islam” 47:
{Al Imam al Sadiq PBUH said while proving the wisdom behind having an Imam: The earth shall never be left without an Imam that if the believers add something he will correct them and if they missed something he will correct them. and this narration also proves that the purpose of an Imam is to protect the religion and safeguard it from Tahreef and corruption. [Qawanin al Usool – al mirza al Qummi – page 3506.}

وأيضا أثبت شيخهم المنتظري تلك الغاية من وجود الإمام المعصوم في كتابه ( دراسات في ولاية الفقيه وفقه الدولة الإسلامية )( 1 / 200 ) فقال:
[ أقول : الأخبار المتواترة الصادرة عن الأئمة المعصومين والاحتجاجات المروية عن أصحابهم ( عليهم السلام ) كهشام وغيره الدالة على لزوم الإمام والهادي والحجة والعالم الحافظ للدين عن التحريف والتغيير ].

Also their sheikh al Muntaziri proved this purpose of having an infallible Imam in his book “Dirasat Fi Wilayat al faqih wa Fiqah al Dawlah al islamiyah” 1/200:
{I say: The MUTAWATIR news which comes from the infallible Imams and the proofs which were narrated from their companions like Hisham and others all point to the necessity of having an Imam and guide and Hujjah and the scholar who protects this religion from Tahreef and corruption.}

صرح بتلك الغاية من المعصوم علامتهم محسن الأمين في كتابه ( أعيان الشيعة )( 2 / 49 ) حيث قال:
[ وكما يجب إرسال الرسل من قبل الله تعالى يجب نصب أوصياء لهم يقومون مقامهم في حفظ الشريعة وتأديتها إلى الناس ونفي التحريف والتبديل عنها ].

Shia scholar Muhsin al Ameen says in “A’ayan al Shia” 2/49:
{and like it was necessary to send messengers from Allah swt it is also obligatory to place Awsiyah for those messengers so they can replace them in protecting Shariah and to reject Tahreef and corruption.}

So we see here that they decided that the purpose of the Imam is to safeguard the Shariah from corruption and additions and deletions Then they automitically shift their position when their Imam clearly and publicly states that the Quran is corrupted and changed. aren’t the infallible future knowing imams supposed to protect the Quran and the religion even if their lives had to become sacrifice for it? instead we find the exact opposite where the Imam himself corrupts the Quran in order save his skin and avoid hardships.
Did the Imam ja’afar al Sadiq RA corrupt the most important thing in the world because he was too attached to life?

The Seventh truth:

يقول علامتهم ومحققهم جعفر السبحاني في كتابه ( أضواء على عقائد الإمامية ) ص 423 تحت عنوان ( التقية المحرمة ):
[ إن التقية تنقسم حسب الأحكام الخمسة ، فكما أنها تجب لحفظ النفوس والأعراض والأموال ، فإنها تحرم إذا ترتب عليها مفسدة أعظم ، كهدم الدين وخفاء الحقيقة على الأجيال الآتية ، وتسلط الأعداء على شؤون المسلمين وحرماتهم ومقدساتهم ، ولأجل ذلك ترى أن كثيرا من أكابر الشيعة رفضوا التقية في بعض الأحيان وقدموا أنفسهم وأرواحهم أضاحي من أجل الدين ].

Their Scholar Ja’afar al Subhani says in his book “Adwa’a ala Aqaed al Imamiyah” p423 under title “Al Taqqiyah al Muharramah” or “The Forbidden Taqqiyah”:
{Taqqiyah is divided according to the Ahkam to five parts, just like it is permitted in case you need to protect the self and family and the wealth, it is also forbidden if it causes a great corruption like destroying the religion and concealing the truth from the coming generations and giving dominance to the enemies of the Muslims over them, because of this you will see a lot of the Akabir of the Shia refusing to make Taqqiyah in some curcumstances and they sacrificed themselves and souls for the sake of the religion.}

يقول آيتهم العظمى محمد صادق الروحاني في كتابه ( فقه الصادق )( 11/ 407-408 ):
[ إذا كانت التقية بحيث تجلب إلى المؤمن ذلة وحقارة وحطة عن شرافته ومقامه إذا كتم الحق ولم يظهره ، فإنه تحرم عليه التقية حينئذ ، ويجب عليه أن يعرج على قول الحق حتى لو استلزم أن يعرض نفسه وأمواله للنهب والهلاك ، ويستبدل الحياة الفانية الحقيرة في ولاية الظالمين بالحياة الباقية عند الله تعالى ]

Grand Ayatulah Muhammad Sadiq al Roohani says in his book “Fiqh al Sadiq” 11/407-408:
{If Taqqiyah brings upon the believer disgrace and degradation and lowers his honour and rank if he concealed the truth then in that situation Taqqiyah is HARAM for him and he has to speak the truth even if he has to face hardships which place his self and his wealth in peril, he exchanges the ephemeral pathetic life in the Wilayah of the oppressors with eternal everlasting life with Allah swt.}

يقول شيخهم فارس الحسون في تقديمه لكتاب ( إرشاد الأذهان ) لعلامتهم الحلي ( 1 / 9-10 ):
[ الفقه يؤكد على تحمل غصص القتل مع العزة دفاعاً عن العرض والدين أهون من البقاء مع الذلة ، وذلك بذكره أحكام الجهاد مع المعتدين ، وتأكيده أن المقتول في سبيل الله حي والباقي مع الذلة هو الميت ].

Their Sheikh Faris al hassoun says while introducing the book “Irshad al Azhan” for their famous scholar al Helli 1/9-10:
{The Fiqh confirms that one must go through hardships and even death with honour while defending the family and religion, that is less easier than remaining alive with disgrace and this is by mentioning the Ahkam of Jihad against the enemies, it confirms that he who dies for Allah is alive with dignity and the one that accepts disgrace so he can live is dead.}

The Eighth truth:

Even though they claim that their Imam openly said that the Quran is corrupt in order to realize his purpose which was remaining alive YET we see that this purpose was NEVER realised according to the Shia anyway because they say that all of their Imams died either by the sword or by poison.

يذكر شيخهم الصدوق في كتابه ( عيون أخبار الرضا ) ( 2 / 193 ):
[ وجميع الأئمة الأحد عشر بعد النبي ( ص ) قتلوا منهم بالسيف وهو أمير المؤمنين والحسين عليهما السلام والباقون قتلوا بالسم قتل كل واحد منهم طاغية زمانه وجرى ذلك عليهم على الحقيقة والصحة ].

Their Sheikh al Saduq mentions in the book “Uyoun Akhbar al Reda” 2/193:
{And all of the eleven Imams after the prophet PBUH have been murdered with a sword such as Ameer Ali and Hussein PBUT while the others died with poison each by a tyrant of his time and this was actual true death.}

- end -

So in conclusion the Shia claim that Ja’afar bin Muhammad never protected the book of Allah and couldn’t protect his own life as he died in poison THUS he never fulfilled the purpose of an infallible future knowing Imam.

He started telling the people even his own shia that the Quran is corrupted thinking that by doing so he will escape with his life but he thought wrong and he was murdered by the tyrant of his time anyway.

Al Salamu Aleykum,

by: Tripolysunni (may Allah reward him)

Work done by brother ‘tripolysunni’

In the books of the “Lovers” of ahlulbayt The twelver Shiites we see one of the Ugliest Images of Ahlulbayt ever presented in history, We see them competing for Imamah or Wilayah and fighting amongst each other because of it, We will state a few hadiths just to give an example of these horrible twelver fabrications.
يروي القوم عن الربيع بن عبدالله أنه قال: وقع بيني وبين عبدالله بن الحسن كلام في الإمامة، فقال عبدالله بن الحسن: إن الإمامة في ولد الحسن والحسين، فقلت: بل في ولد الحسين إلى يوم القيامة دون ولد الحسن، فقال لي: وكيف صارت في ولد الحسين وهما سيدا شباب أهل الجنة، وهما في الفضل سواء، إلا أن للحسن على الحسين فضلاً بالكبر، وكان الواجب أن تكون الإمامة إذن في ولد الأفضل
علل الشرايع: (80)، البحار: (25/259)

.

The Twelvers narrate from Al Rabe’e bin Abdullah that he Said: a conflict about Imamah occurred between me and Abdullah bin al Hassan, So Abdullah bin al Hassan Said: The Imamah is in the children of Hassan and Hussein, I said: No, but in the children of Hussein alone until judgment day without those of al Hassan, He said: And How is it only in the Children of Hussein when both He and al Hassan are the Sayyeds of the youth of paradise? and they are both Equal in virtue? In Fact Hassan surpasses Hussein in that he is Older so the Imamah should have been in the children of he who is better.
Ilal al Sharae’e 80, Al bihar 25/259.

A Son of Al Hassan again has a dispute with al Sadiq as he tells him:
ونراه مرة أخرى يجادل الصادق في ذات المسألة، ويقول له: جعلت فداك، إن السن لي عليك، فإن في قومك من هو أسن منك… فقال له أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: يا ابن عم إني اعيذك بالله من التعرض لهذا الامر الذي أمسيت فيه، وإني لخائف عليك أن يكسبك شرا، فجرى الكلام بينهما… وكان من قوله: بأي شئ كان الحسين أحق بها من الحسن ؟ فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: رحم الله الحسن ورحم الحسين وكيف ذكرت هذا ؟ قال: لان الحسين كان ينبغي له إذا عدل أن يجعلها في الاسن من ولد الحسن…
الكافي1/359)، البحار47/280) وفي الرواية فوائد كثيرة أعرضنا عن ذكرها راجعها إن شئت.
He says to al Sadiq RAA: My age is bigger than yours, So there is one from your family who is older than you…..Abu Abdullah (Ja’afar) then said: O Cousin I seek refugee from Allah that you would talk of such matters I fear it will lead you to an evil fate, so a dispute took place between both of them…..And He said to Sadiq: in what way was Hussein more rightful to receive it than Al Hassan? ….. He then added: Because if Al Hussein was to be fair he would have given it to the eldest of al Hassan’s sons.

Al Kafi 1/359, Al bihar 47/280, (There is much more interesting things in the narration but it is too big to translate).

It seems the Children of Hassan didn’t know that the prophet PBUH named the Imams and that it wasn’t a matter of choice but who can blame them really? it’s not mentioned in the Quran after all.

Then The Son of Ali Bin abi talib RAA, known as Muhammad “Ibn al hanafiyah ” has a dispute over Imamah with the Sons of Hussein RAA.
إنه لما قتل الحسين بن علي أرسل محمد بن الحنفية إلى علي بن الحسين فخلا به، وقال له: قد قتل أبوك ولم يوص، وأنا عمك وصنو أبيك، وولادتي من علي في سني وقدمتي، وأنا أحق بها منك في حداثتك، لا تنازعني في الوصية والإمامة ولا تجانبني، فقال له علي بن الحسين: يا عم، اتق الله ولا تدّع ما ليس لك بحق، إني أعظك أن تكون من الجاهلين، إن أبي -يا عم- قد أوصى إليَّ في ذلك قبل أن يتوجه إلى العراق، وعهد إليَّ في ذلك قبل أن يستشهد بساعة، وهذا سلاح رسول الله عندي، فلا تتعرض لهذا فإني أخاف عليك نقص العمر وتشتت الحال، إن الله تبارك وتعالى لما صنع الحسن مع معاوية ما صنع أبى أن يجعل الوصية والإمامة إلا في عقب الحسين، فإن رأيت أن تعلم ذلك فانطلق بنا إلى الحجر الأسود حتى نتحاكم إليه ونسأله عن ذلك، قال أبو جعفر: وكان الكلام بينهما بمكة، فانطلقا حتى أتيا الحجر، فقال علي بن الحسين لمحمد بن الحنفية: ائته يا عم وابتهل إلى الله تعالى أن ينطق لك الحجر، ثم سله عما ادعيت، فابتهل في الدعاء وسأل الله ثم دعا الحجر، فلم يجبه، فقال علي بن الحسين: أما إنك يا عم لو كنت وصياً وإماماً لأجابك، فقال له محمد: فادع أنت يا ابن أخي فاسأله، فدعا الله علي بن الحسين بما أراده، ثم قال: أسألك بالذي جعل فيك ميثاق الأنبياء والأوصياء وميثاق الناس أجمعين لما أخبرتنا مَن الإمام والوصي بعد الحسين؟ فتحرك الحجر حتى كاد أن يزول عن موضعه، ثم أنطقه الله بلسان عربي مبين، فقال: اللهم إن الوصية والإمامة بعد الحسين بن علي إلى علي بن الحسين بن علي ابن فاطمة بنت رسول الله.
وفي رواية: عن أبي بجير -عالم الأهواز- وكان يقول بإمامة ابن الحنفية، قال: حججت فلقيت إمامي، وكنت يوماً عنده، فمرَّ به غلام شاب فسلم عليه، فقام فتلقاه وقبَّل ما بين عينيه وخاطبه بالسيادة، ومضى الغلام وعاد محمد إلى مكانه، فقلت له: عند الله أحتسب عنائي، فقال: وكيف ذاك؟ قلت: لأنا نعتقد أنك الإمام المفترض الطاعة تقوم تتلقى هذا الغلام وتقول له: يا سيدي؟ فقال: نعم، هو والله إمامي، فقلت: ومن هذا؟ قال: علي ابن أخي الحسين، اعلم أني نازعته الإمامة ونازعني، فقال لي: أترضى بالحجر الأسود حكماً بيني وبينك؟ فقلت: وكيف نحتكم إلى حجر جماد؟ فقال: إن إماماً لا يكلمه الجماد فليس بإمام، فاستحييت من ذلك، وقلت: بيني وبينك الحجر الأسود، فقصدنا الحجر… فذكر القصة
The Narration states that when Al Hussein RAA was killed, the Son of Ali, Muhammad Bin al hanafiyah sent after Ali bin al hussein RAA so that they may talk in private. Muhammad said to his nephew Ali: Your father had died and not assigned anyone as his successor and I am your oldest uncle and I am more entitled to it than you are in your young age, so do not Dispute about Imamah with me nor try to compete about it with me. Ali Bin Hussein said: O uncle Fear Allah and do not take what isn’t rightfully yours, I advise you do not be amongst the ignorants, My father O uncle made me his successor before he departed to Iraq and promised it to me an hour before his death, and this is the sword of Rassul Allah with me so do not speak of this matter for I fear that your age will be short and you will witness a horrible fate, When Al Hassan did what he did by making a deal with Muawiyah and handing him the Caliphate Allah refused to make the Imamah in his progeny but made it in that of Hussein. I say let the black stone of Ka’abah be the judge between us. Abu ja’afar then said: and the dispute between the two was later continued in Mecca, they departed until they reached the stone of Ka’abah , Then Bin al hussein told Muhammad Bin Ali to do Mubahala and ask Allah to make the stone talk and judge between them So he did that but the stone did not reply, Then Ali bin al Hussein told him: O uncle if you were a true Imam the stone would have replied to your request, Then Muhammad said: Now you ask it my nephew . The Ali asked: By Allah who created you and took an oath from you for his Prophets and their successors and all of his creations would you tell us who is the Imam and Wasi after Hussein? So the Stone shook and was about to move from its place then Allah made it speak with a Clear Arabic tongue: By Allah the Wasiyah after hussein bin ali goes to Ali bin Hussein bin bin Ali Bin fatima bint Rassul Allah.

In Another narration by Abu Bajeer – Scholar of ahwaz- and he used to believe in the Imamah of Ibn al hanafiyah Bin Ali bin Abi Talib RAA He said: I made my Hajj once and I met my imam (Muhammad bin hanafiyah) and one day a young Boy passed by him so he received him and made Salam on him and kissed him between his eyes and addressed him as “Sayyed” So I asked him: We thought you were our Imam and that we were ordered to follow you so why do you address the boy as Sayyid ? Ibn al hanafiya replied: Yes By Allah he is my Imam! I asked: who is he? He said: Ali son of my brother Hussein, I once had a conflict with him about the Imamah and he told me to let the black stone decide between us Then I asked him How can a dead stone be the judge between us? he then said: An Imam who does not speak to Inanimate objects is not a true Imam So we went for that stone … (And he narrates a similar story to that above).

Source of similar narrations: مختصر البصائر14)، البحار42/77، 82) (45/347) (46/22، 29، 111) (95/160، 166)، الخرائج والجرائح: (194)، معجم الخوئي: (16/48) وقال: الرواية صحيحة السند، غيبة الطوسي: (16، 119)، إثبات الهداة: (2/5) (3/6، 11، 15، 21، 28، 32)، الكافي: (1/348)، البصائر: (502)، غيبة الطوسي: (16، 119)، الإمامة والتبصرة194)، إعلام الورى: (253)، المناقب: (3/288)(4/147)، ذوب النضار لابن نما: (292).

Mukhtasar al Basa’er 14, Bihar al anwar (42/77,82) (45/347) (46/22,29,111) (95/160,166) Al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 194, Mu’ujam al Imam al khoei 16/48 (And he said the Narration is of a Sahih isnad) ghaybat al tusi 16,119, ithbat al hudat (2/5) (3/6,11,15,21,28,32) Al Kafi (1/348), Al Basa’er 502, Al imamah wal mutabassir 194, I’ilam al Wara 253, Al manaqib (3/288) (4/147), thoub al Nadar For Ibn Nama 292.

I have no Idea why Ali bin Abi talib RAA didn’t take Abu bakr RAA and ask the stone to be their judge in front of All Muslims…
And Some Shiite scholars used a funny explanation and said:

إن ابن الحنفية إنما فعل ذلك إزاحةً لشكوك الناس في ذلك
“Ibn al hanafiyah only did this to remove the doubts from people’s hearts regarding the Imamah of Ali”

Source: الخرائج والجرائح: (194)، البحار: (46/30).
Al bihar 30/46, Al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 194.

So muhammad Bin Ali bin Abi talib RAA was just dumbing himself down and putting up an act so that the people would see the super powers of Ali bin Hussein RAA…what a silly explanation.
Then you have the Saying of Ja’afar al Sadiq regarding this dispute between the son of Ali bin Abi talib and the son of Hussein bin Ali:

ما مات محمد بن الحنفية حتى أقرَّ لعلي بن الحسين
“Muhammad bin al hanafiyah never died until he acknowledged/accepted the Imamah of Ali bin Hussein”.
Source: كمال الدين: (45).
Kamal Al Deen 45.

Mashallah how they fabricate hadiths in order to ruin the image of ahlulbayt, and we know Full Well Why they fabricated them when they did.

Imam al Nawbakhti explains this division within the ranks of the Shiites after the death of hussein:

“And they had divided into three groups after Hussein’s RAA death,
A Team Said: Muhammad Bin Ali (Ibn al Hanafiyah) was the Imam and that after the death of Hussein RAA there were none more closer to Ali bin Abi talib RAA than his Son Muhammad, and just like Hussein was given precedence over the sons of Hassan then Muhammad is more rightful than the sons of both Hassan and Hussein.
A Team Said: muhammad Bin Ali is Al Qa’em and he is The Awaited Mahdi and none from his family can disobey him or unsheathe his sword without an order from him, and that Hassan went to fight Muawiyah with his permission and hussein went to fight Yazeed with his permission and if they had not obeyed him they would have lost their way.

Source: فرق الشيعة: (26)، وانظر أيضاً في اعتقاد الشيعة في إمامته: كمال الدين: (42، 43، 45)، البحار: (42/81).
Firaq al Shia 26, Kamal al Deen 42,43,45, Al bihar 42/81.

Some even said that he cannot die while others went as far as to say that he was ALLAH, look for details about this from:
Firaq al Shia page 26 (and after it), Al Fusool al mukhtarah page 240 (and after it).

That’s enough about Ibn al hanafiyah RAA and his conflicts.

but take this narration before we leave this:
فعندما سأله أبو حنيفة رحمه الله: أنت الإمام؟ قال: لا، قال: فإن قوماً بالكوفة يزعمون أنك إمام، قال: فما أصنع بهم؟ قال: تكتب إليهم تخبرهم، قال: لا يطيعوني
Abu Hanifah asked Ali bin Hussein Zainul abedeen: Are you the Imam? He said: NO, He said: but there are some folks in kufah claiming that you are an Imam, Ali said: What can I do about that? Abu Hanifah said: Write for them and tell them, Ali said: They do not obey me.

Source: المناقب: (3/331)، البحار: (46/356).
Al Manaqib 3/331, bihar al Anwar 46/356.

Of course the Shiite scholars will plead TaQQiyah!!

As we all know the Shiites believe That Musa al Kathim came after Ja’afar al Sadiq, however after the conflict regarding Ismail bin Ja’afar and after the Ismali shiites were created because they believed Ismail was more rightful to get the Imamh, well ismail dies and His Brother Abdullah claims that he is now the one to inherit the Imamah because his age was much older than Musa al Kathim (Who was 20 at the time) and a group of his father’s companions believed and followed him.

Source: البحار: (47/251) (48/67)، الخرائج والجرائح: (200).
Bihar al Anwar (47/251) (48/67) Al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 200.

Then this narration about Al baqir’s conflict with his uncles:
روى القوم عن الصادق أنه قال: لما حضر علي بن الحسين الموت، قبل ذلك أَخْرَج السفط أو الصندوق عنده، فقال: يا محمد، احمل هذا الصندوق، قال: فحمل بين أربعة رجال، فلما توفي جاء إخوته يدعون في الصندوق؟ فقالوا: أعطنا نصيبنا من الصندوق، فقال: والله ما لكم فيه شيء، ولو كان لكم فيه شيء ما دفعه إليَّ، وكان في الصندوق سلاح رسول الله وكتبه
Al Sadiq said: When death was about to take Ali bin al Hussein he gave a box to muhammad al Baqir and when he died his brothers came asking for the box and asked for their share from it so Muhammad replied: By Allah there is nothing for you in it and if there was he wouldn’t have given it to me (And inside was the weapon of the Prophet PBUH).

Source: البصائر: (4/48)، الكافي: (1/305)، إعلام الورى: (260)، البحار: (46/229)، إثبات الهداة: (3/33)، المناقب: (4/211).
Al Basa’er 4/48, Al Kafi 1/305, I’ilam al wara 260, Bihar al Anwar 46/229, itbat al hudat 3/33, Al manaqib 4/211.

then al baqir had a conflict with his brother abdullah on Imamah:
وعن الباقر قال: كان فيما أوصى أبي إلي: إذا أنا مت فلا يلي غسلي أحد غيرك، فإن الإمام لا يغسله إلا إمام، واعلم أن عبدالله أخاك سيدعو إلى نفسه فدعه، فإن عمره قصير
Al Baqir narrated: My father in his wasiyah( His Will) told me: If I die then only you can wash me for an Imam can only be washed by another imam and know that your brother abdullah will call for himself (To imamah) so ignore him his life is short.

Source: كشف الغمة: (2/347)، البحار: (46/269)، إثبات الهداة: (3/16).
Kashf al ghummah 2/347, bihar al Anwar 46/269, ithbat al hudat 3/16.

and now a similar conflict takes place here:
عن الصادق أنه قال: كان زيد بن الحسن يخاصم أبي في ميراث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويقول: أنا من ولد الحسن وأولى بذلك منك، لأني من ولد الأكبر، فقاسمني ميراث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وادفعه إلي، فأبى أبي، فخاصمه إلى القاضي، فكان زيد معه إلى القاضي، فبينما هم كذلك ذات يوم في خصومتهم، إذ قال زيد بن الحسن لزيد بن علي: اسكت يا ابن السندية، فقال زيد بن علي: أف لخصومة تذكر فيها الأمهات، والله لا كلمتك بالفصيح من رأسي أبداً حتى أموت، وانصرف إلى أبي، فقال: يا أخي، إني حلفت بيمين ثقة بك وعلمت أنك لا تكرهني ولا تخيبني، حلفت أن لا أكلم زيد بن الحسن ولا أخاصمه، وذكر ما كان بينهما، فأعفاه أبي واغتنمها زيد بن الحسن، فقال: يلي خصومتي محمد بن علي فأعتبه وأؤذيه فيعتدي علي، فعدا على أبي، فقال: بيني وبينك القاضي، فقال: انطلق بنا، فلما أخرجه قال أبي: يا زيد، إن معك سكينة قد أخفيتها، أرأيتك إن نطقت هذه السكينة التي تسترها مني فشهدت أني أولى بالحق منك، أفتكف عني؟ قال: نعم، وحلف له بذلك، فقال أبي: أيتها السكينة، انطقي بإذن الله، فوثبت السكينة من يد زيد بن الحسن على الأرض، ثم قالت: يا زيد، أنت ظالم، ومحمد أحق منك وأولى، ولئن لم تكف لألين قتلك، فخر زيد مغشياً عليه، فأخذ أبي بيده فأقامه، ثم قال: يا زيد، إن نطقت الصخرة التي نحن عليها أتقبل؟ قال: نعم، فرجفت الصخرة التي مما يلي زيداً، حتى كادت تفلق، ولم ترجف مما يلي أبي، ثم قالت: يا زيد، أنت ظالم، ومحمد أولى بالأمر منك، فكف عنه وإلا وليت قتلك، فخر زيد مغشياً عليه، فأخذ أبي بيده وأقامه، ثم قال: يا زيد، أرأيت إن نطقت هذه الشجرة وتسير إليَّ أتكف؟ قال: نعم، فدعا أبي الشجرة فأقبلت تخد الأرض حتى أظلتهم، ثم قالت: يا زيد، أنت ظالم، ومحمد أحق بالأمر منك، فكف عنه وإلا قتلتك، فغشي على زيد، فأخذ أبي بيده، وانصرفت الشجرة إلى موضعها، فحلف زيد أن لا يعرض لأبي ولا يخاصمه، فانصرف وخرج زيد من يومه إلى عبد الملك بن مروان، فدخل عليه، وقال: أتيتك من عند ساحر كذاب لا يحل لك تركه، وقص عليه ما رأى، وكتب عبد الملك إلى عامل المدينة، أن ابعث إليَّ محمد بن علي مقيداً، وقال لزيد: أرأيتك إن وليتك قتله قتلته؟ قال: نعم
Al Sadiq said: Zaid bin al Hassan had cut his ties with my father because of a conflict about the inheritance of the prophet PBUH and he used to say:” I am from the sons of al Hassan and I have more right to receive it than you because I am the son of the oldest So split the inheritance of the prophet PBUh with me”, but my father always refused so they went to the judge and Zaid was with him and on one day, Zaid Bin al Hassan told Zaid bin Ali: “Shut Up you Son of a Sindhi Woman!” Then Zaid Bin Ali said:” May Allah’s curse be on an enmity where mothers are mentioned! I swear I will not talk to you until I die and follow my father”, Zaid bin Ali then told Muhammad al baqir: O brother I swore an oath to never consider Zaid bin Al Hassan my enemy nor to ever talk to him again” and he mentioned the story so Al Baqir forgave him but Ibn al Hassan took this opportunity and declared that Al baqir had made him an enemy so he attacked him, Al Baqir said: Between me and you is the judge! So they went and on the way Al Baqir told Zaid: “You are hiding a Knife with you, If I made this knife of yours talk and admit that I am right and you are wrong would you leave me be?” Zaid bin al Hassan said YES and swore on it. then al Baqir said: O knife Speak with the permission of Allah, so it jumped from his hand to the floor and said: ” Zaid you are an oppressor and Muhammad has more right to it than you and if you don’t cease then I will kill you” then Zaid fainted and fell on the floor so my father took him by the hand and raised him and said “If I make this boulder in front of us talk would you accept?” Zaid agreed so It started shaking and almost split in half then said: “Zaid you are an oppressor and muhammad is right, cease or I will kill you” he fainted again and Al baqir asked him again” Do you agree if i make this tree walk towards me and talk?” Zaid said yes then Muhammad ordered it and it started moving towards him and said: “Zaid you are an oppressor and Muhammad has more right to it so cease or else I will kill you” then it went back to its original place. Zaid later promised to never be an enemy of my father (Al baqir) and left to Caliph abdul Malik bin Marwan … and he entered on him and said: I Come to You After Meeting a Lying Magician, you cannot leave him be! then the Caliph sent after Al Baqir bin Ali and brought him chained and tied and told Zaid “If I allow you the pleasure of killing him would you accept?” Zaid said “YES”.

Source: الخرائج والجرائح: (230)، البحار: (46/329)، إثبات الهداة: (3/56).
Bihar al anwar 46/329, ithbat al hudat 3/56, al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 230.

Mashallah what great power, Why didn’t the knives and trees and stones speak during the caliphate of Abu bakr RAA to warn him that Ali was more rightful to it?

More fights and rivalries between ahlulbayt of Hassan and Hussein from the Twelver books:
فعن علي بن سعيد قال: كنت جالساً عند أبي عبدالله، فقال رجل: جعلت فداك، إن عبدالله بن الحسن يقول: مالنا في هذا الأمر ما ليس لغيرنا، فقال أبو عبدالله -بعد كلام-: أما تعجبون من عبدالله، يزعم أن أباه علياً لم يكن إماماً، ويقول: إنه ليس عندنا علم، وصدق والله ما عنده علم، ولكن والله -وأهوى بيده إلى صدره- إن عندنا سلاح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسيفه ودرعه، وعندنا والله مصحف فاطمة ما فيه آية من كتاب الله، وإنه من إملاء رسول الله وخطه علي بيده، والجفر وما يدرون ما هو، مسك من شاة، أو مسك من بعير
Ali bin Sa’eed narrated: I was sitting with abu Abdullah RAA and a Man said: Abdullah Bin al Hassan was saying: We are the same as everyone else when it comes to Imamah, we (Ahlulbayt) are not higher in rank than anybody else. So the Imam Abu Abdullah RAA commented by saying: Do you not find Abdullah strange? he claims his father Ali wasn’t an Imam and says “I have no clue about this matter(of divine Imamah)” and by Allah he is right as he certainly has absolutely no Clue! By Allah We -and he pointed to his chest- Have the sword and shield of the Prophet PBUH! and we have The Mushaf of Fatimah and in it you won’t find any verse of the Quran! (he means common Quran which we own today) It was collected by Ali directly from the prophet PBUH and we have al Jafr and they have no idea what it Is!…

Source: البصائر: (3/41)، البحار: (26/40) (47/271).
Bihar al Anwar (26/40) (47/271), Al basa’er 3/41.

It seems Imam Abu abdullah never liked what his Nasibi Cousin is spreading.
وقع بين الصادق وعبدالله بن الحسن كلام في صدر يوم، فأغلظ له في القول عبدالله بن الحسن، ثم افترقا وراحا إلى المسجد، فالتقيا على باب المسجد، فقال الصادق لعبدالله بن الحسن: كيف أمسيت يا أبا محمد؟ فقال: بخير، كما يقول المغضب، فقال: يا أبا محمد، أما علمت أن صلة الرحم تخفف الحساب، فقال: لا تزال تجيء بالشيء لا نعرفه، قال: فإني أتلو عليك قرآناً، قال: وذلك أيضاً؟ قال: نعم، قال: فهاته، قال: قول الله عز وجل: ((وَالَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ مَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ بِهِ أَنْ يُوصَلَ وَيَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ وَيَخَافُونَ سُوءَ الْحِسَابِ)) [الرعد:21] قال: فلا تراني بعدها قاطعاً رحمنا
An argument took place between al Sadiq and abdullah bin al hassan, and Ibn al Hassan was addressing al Sadiq in a very rude way So they both split up and left and went to the mosque. They met later in front of the mosque’s entrance and al Sadiq told him: How did you fare last night Abu muhammad? He replied angrily: FINE!, al Sadiq said: O Abu muhammad don’t you know that good family ties will ease the punishment on the day of judgment? Ibn al Hassan replied: You still come to us with stuff we never heard of!? Al Sadiq said: But this is from the Quran, Ibn al Hassan said: ALSO!? Al Sadiq said Yes, Ibn al Hassan said: Then Show me, and al Sadiq recited:

And those who join that which Allah has ordered to be joined and fear their Lord and are afraid of the evil of [their] account, [13-21]

So ibn al hassan said: I’ll never cut my ties with you again.

Source: كشف الغمة: (2/381)، البحار: (47/274)، وانظر أيضاً الكافي: (2/155).
Kashf el ghummah 2/381, bihar al Anwar 47/274, ALSO OTHER NARRATION IN AL KAFI 2/155.

Mashalah! Masallah! what greatness and wisdom… So you Twelvers can’t compliment someone without humiliating someone else.
وعن علي بن جعفر قال: بعث عبدالله بن الحسن إلى أبي: يقول لك أبو محمد: أنا أشجع منك، وأنا أسخى منك، وأنا أعلم منك، فقال لرسوله: أما الشجاعة فوالله ما كان لك موقف يعرف به جبنك من شجاعتك، وأما السخيّ فهو الذي يأخذ الشيء فيضعه في حقه، وأما العلم فقد أعتق أبوك علي بن أبي طالب ألف مملوك، فسم لنا خمسة منهم، وأنت عالم، فعاد إليه فأعلمه، ثم عاد إليه، فقال: يقول: إنك رجل صحفي، فقال له أبو عبدالله: قل: إي والله، صحف إبراهيم وموسى وعيسى ورثتها عن آبائي
narrated from Ali bin Ja’afar that he said: Abdullah bin al Hassan asked for my father: Abu muhammad (Ibn al hassan)tells you: I am braver than you and kinder than you and more knowledgeable than you, So Ja’afar told the messenger to reply and say: As for bravery you have never shown anything of the kind in your entire life, as for Kindness You have taken what is not yours(Imamah) and claimed it for yourself, as for knowledge Your father ali bin abi Talib released a thousand Mamluks(Slaves) so name for us five of those, So the messenger delivered the message and came back to abu Ja’afar and said: He says you only talk big, He Replied: Go tell him I took my knowledge of the scriptures of Jesus and Moses from my fathers.

Source: الكافي: (2/155)، البحار: (47/298).
Al Kafi 2/155, bihar al anwar 47/298.

As for Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al hassan bin al hassan bin Ali bin Abi talib his position was the same as his father when he told al Sadiq: By Allah I am Braver and Kinder and more knowledgeable than You!

Source: المناقب: (4/228)، إعلام الورى: (272)، البحار: (47/131، 275).
Al Manaqib 4/228, I’ilam al wara 272, Bihar al Anwar 47/131,275.

As for the sons of Al Hassan they used to tell people about themselves and their knowledge and claim Imamah for themselves :
وكان بنو الحسن يرشدون ويدلون الناس إليهم، فعن عبدالرحمن بن كثير أن رجلاً دخل يسأل عن الإمام بالمدينة، فاستقبله رجل من ولد الحسين، فقال له: يا هذا، إني أراك تسأل عن الإمام، قال: نعم، قال: فأصبته؟ قال: لا، قال: فإن أحببت أن تلقى جعفر بن محمد فافعل، فاستدله فأرشده إليه، فلما دخل عليه قال له: إنك دخلت مدينتنا هذه تسأل عن الإمام، فاستقبلك فتىً من ولد الحسن فأرشدك إلى محمد بن عبدالله، فسألته وخرجت، فإن شئت أخبرتك بما سألته عنه وما رده عليك، ثم استقبلك فتى من ولد الحسين، وقال لك: إن أحببت أن تلقى جعفر بن محمد فافعل، قال: صدقت، كان كل ما ذكرت ووصفت
Abdul rahman bin Katheer narrated: a Man entered Madinah asking for the Imam so he met one of the children of Hussein who said: hey You, I see you are asking for the Imam, He said: Yes, He said: Did you find what you were looking for? He said: No, He said: If you want to meet Ja’afar bin Muhammad then please do so, So he asked for his whereabouts and was guided to him and when he entered on him he ( Al Sadiq) said: You have entered our city looking for the Imam and you were received at the beginning by one of the sons of Al Hassan Who guided you to muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hassan, so you asked that man and weren’t satisfied by his answers and if you want I can tell you what you asked and what he replied, then you met a boy from the children of Hussein and he told you to meet me, The Man Said: It’s All True! everything you described happened!.

Source: الخرائج والجرائح: (244)، البحار: (47/120)، المناقب: (4/221)، وانظر تفصيل القصة في: الكافي: (1/348)، والبحار: (47/228).
bihar al Anwar 47/120, Al manaqib 4/221, Al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 244, MORE DETAILS ABOUT THIS STORY in Al Kafi 1/348, Bihar al anwar 47/228.

Tabarak allah al rahman! Tabarak Allah al rahman! See how Allah exposes falsehood and brings out the truth ? By Future knowing omniscient imams…
ولما بويع -أي: محمد بن عبدالله بن الحسن- على أنه مهدي هذه الأمة، جاء أبوه عبدالله إلى الصادق وقد كان ينهاه، وزعم أنه يحسده، فضرب الصادق يده على كتف عبدالله، وقال: إيهاً والله، ما هي إليك ولا إلى ابنك، وإنما هي لهذا -يعني: السفاح- ثم لهذا -يعني: المنصور- يقتله على أحجار الزيت
When muhammad bin abdullah bin al hassan was given baya’ah as the Mahdi of this ummah, his Father Abdulah came to al Sadiq who always used to prohibit him from claiming this, And Abdullah claimed that Al Sadiq was jealous so al Sadiq hit his hand on the shoulder of Abdullah and said: Eh! By Allah it is not your right nor is it your son’s right…(then he warned him that his child will be murdered)

Source: المناقب: (4/228)، مقاتل الطالبيين255)، البحار47/131،160)، إثبات الهداة3/110).
Al manaqib 4/228, Maqatil al talibeen 255, Bihar al anwar 47/131,160, Ithbat al hudat 3/110.
كان يبارك خروج ابنه ويؤيده، فلما بلغ أبا مسلم موت إبراهيم الإمام وجه بكتبه إلى الحجاز، إلى جعفر بن محمد، وعبدالله بن الحسن، ومحمد بن علي بن الحسين يدعو كلَّ واحد منهم إلى الخلافة، فبدأ بجعفر، فلما قرأ الكتاب أحرقه، وقال: هذا الجواب، فأتى عبدالله بن الحسن، فلما قرأ الكتاب قال: أنا شيخ ولكن ابني محمد مهدي هذه الأمة، فركب وأتى جعفراً فخرج إليه ووضع يده على عنق حماره، وقال: يا أبا محمد، ما جاء بك في هذه الساعة؟ فأخبره، فقال: لا تفعلوا فإن الأمر لم يأتِ بعد، فغضب عبدالله بن الحسن، وقال: لقد علمت خلاف ما تقول، ولكنه يحملك على ذلك الحسد لابني

When it reached Abu Muslim that ibrahim the imam had died he sent letters to Al Hijaz for Ja’afar bin muhammad , and Abdulah bin al Hassan and Muhammad bin Ali bin al Hussein calling all of them to the caliphate, he started with Ja’afar and when he(Ja’afar) read the letter he burned it and said: this is my answer, then He came to abdullah bin al Hassan and when he read the letter he said: I’am too old but my Son is the Mahdi of this Ummah so he rode a mule and went to Ja’afar who came out and placed his hand on the neck of the mule while saying: O Abu muhammad what brings you at this hour? So he told him, then he said: Do Not Accept! for this matter(Of mahdi) has not come yet! so abdullah became angry and shouted: I heard otherwise but your jealousy from my son carries you to say this.

Source: المناقب: (4/229)، البحار: (47/132).
Al manaqib 4/229, Al bihar 47/132.

and the people used to actually believe that he was the imam and not al Sadiq:
وكان الناس يرون إمامته دون الصادق، فعن عبد الكريم بن عتبة الهاشمي، قال: كنت عند أبي عبدالله بمكة، إذ دخل عليه أناس من المعتزلة فيهم: عمرو بن عبيد، وواصل بن عطاء، وحفص بن سالم، وأناس من رؤسائهم، وذلك حين قتل الوليد واختلف أهل الشام بينهم، فتكلموا وأكثروا وخطبوا فأطالوا، فقال لهم أبو عبدالله جعفر بن محمد: إنكم قد أكثرتم عليَّ وأطلتم، فأسندوا أمركم إلى رجل منكم فليتكلم بحجتكم وليوجز، فأسندوا أمرهم إلى عمرو بن عبيد فأبلغ وأطال، فكان فيما قال أن قال: قتل أهل الشام خليفتهم، وضرب الله بعضهم ببعض، وتشتت أمرهم، فنظرنا فوجدنا رجلاً له دين وعقل ومروءة ومعدن للخلافة وهو محمد بن عبدالله بن الحسن، فأردنا أن نجتمع معه فنبايعه، ثم نظهر أمرنا معه وندعو الناس إليه

AbdulKareem bin Utbah al Hashimi said: I was with abu abdullah RAA in Mecca when a couple of Mu’atazillah entered on him, amongst them was Amro bin Ubayda and Wasil bin Ata and Hafs bin Salem and other leaders, and this is when al Waleed was killed and the people of Sham had internal conflicts so they talked a lot with him and Abu Abdullah Ja’afar replied: You have talked a lot so pick one from amongst you to sum all up and speak for all of you, They picked Amro who spoke for a very long time and said: The People of Al Sham have conflicts and they are weak after the death of Al Waleed so we searched and found the perfect man to be in his place, a man of knowledge and Faith and bravery, he is Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al Hassan and we wanted to gather around him and give him baya’ah and call the people to his cause.

Source: الاحتجاج: (197)، البحار: (47/213) (100/18)، الكافي: (5/23).
Al ihtijaj 197, Al Bihar (47/213)(100/18) Al kafi 5/23.

Even his brother Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin al Hassan went to take the Caliphate as if they all never heard of this 12 Imams nonsense:
خرج أخوه إبراهيم أيضاً، فعن عبيد بن زرارة قال: لقيت أبا عبدالله في السنة التي خرج فيها إبراهيم بن عبدالله بن الحسن، فقلت له: جعلت فداك، إن هذا قد ألف الكلام وسارع الناس إليه، فما الذي تأمر به؟ قال: فقال: اتقوا الله واسكنوا ما سكنت السموات والأرض

ubaydah bin Zurarah narrates: I met Abu Abdulah RAA in the same year which Ibrahm Bin abdullah revolted in so i said: This Man(Ibrahim) has fabricated some stories and rallied the people around him as quickly as he could(To take the Caliphate) what are your orders? Ja’afar said: remain as you are.

Source: عيون أخبار الرضا: (1/310)، البحار: (47/274)(52/189)، وانظر أيضاً: البحار: (52/188) وفيه خروج محمد بن عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه.
Iyou Akhbar Al redah 1/310, Al bihar (47/274) (52/189), Also other narrations in Bihar 52/188.

It seems al Sadiq was also annoyed with this:
ويبدو أن الصادق قد ضاق ذرعاً بهذا الأمر، فما زال يفتش ويبحث في كتبه عمن يملك من بني الحسن، ولا زال يقول بـحسدهم، فلما سُئِلَ عنهم وعما إذا كانوا يعرفون لمن الحق؟ قال: بلى ولكن يمنعهم الحسد
So when he was asked About who was more rightful to receive the Caliphate He said: They (Children of Hassan) Know this but their jealousy blinds them.

Soure: الاحتجاج: (374)، البحار: (46/180) (47/273).
Al ihtijaj 374, Bihar al Anwar (46/180) (47/273).

and another:
فقال له بعضنا: يعرف هذا ولد الحسن؟ قال: نعم، كما يعرفون أن هذا ليل، ولكن يحملهم الحسد، ولو طلبوا الحق بالحق لكان خيراً لهم، ولكنهم يطلبون الدنيا

We asked Abu Abdullah ja’afar: And the children of Hassan don’t know about this(Imamah)? He said: YES just like they know this is night, but they are blinded by jealousy and if they wanted truth it would have been better for them but they seek after the life not the after life.

Source: إعلام الورى: (261)، الكافي: (1/305)، البحار: (26/37) (46/230).
I’ilam al Wara 261, Al Kafi 1/305, bihar al Anwar (26/37) (46/230).

Let’s See Al Hassan bin al Hassan bin Ali…
وعن أبي يعفور قال: لقيت أنا ومعلى بن خنيس الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب، فقال: يا يهودي، فَأَخْبَرَنَا بما قال جعفر بن محمد، فقال: هو والله أولى باليهودية منكما، إن اليهودي من شرب الخمر

Narrated Abu Ya’afoor: Me and Mua’llah bin Khanees met al Hassan Bi al hassan bi Ali bin abi talib So he said: You Jew! So we told him about what Ja’afar bin muhammad Said then he replied: By Allah he is more of a Jew than the both of you, The Jew is one who drinks Wine.

Source: الاحتجاج: (374)، البحار: (47/273).
Bihar al anwar 47/273, al ihtijaj 374.

Mashallah! Mashallah! What Mercy! What Love between these cousins…

Also he narrates:

وعنه أيضاً قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله يقول: لو توفي الحسن بن الحسن بالزنا وشرب الخمر كان خيراً مما توفي عليه
He said: I heard abu abdullah say: If al hassan bin al Hassan had died while committing Zinah(Adultery) and drinking wine it would have been better than dying the way he did.

Source: الاحتجاج: (204)، البحار: (47/273).
Al Ihtijaj 204, Bihar al Anwar 47/273.
فعن سلمان بن خالد قال: لقيت الحسن بن الحسن، فقال: أما لنا حق؟ أما لنا حرمة؟ إذا اخترتم منا رجلاً واحداً كفاكم، فلم يكن له عندي جواب، فلقيت أبا عبدالله فأخبرني بما كان من قولـه، فقال لي: القه، فقل له: أتيناكم فقلنا: هل عندكم ما ليس عند غيركم؟ فقلتم: لا، فصدقناكم وكنتم أهل ذلك، وأتينا بني عمكم فقلنا: هل عندكم ما ليس عند الناس؟ فقالوا: نعم، فصدقناهم وكانوا أهل ذلك، قال: فلقيته فقلت له ما قال لي، فقال لي الحسن: فإن عندنا ما ليس عند الناس، فلم يكن عندي شيء، فأتيت أبا عبدالله فأخبرته، فقال لي:القه، وقل: إن الله عز وجل يقول في كتابه: ((اِئْتُونِي بِكِتَابٍ مِنْ قَبْلِ هَذَا أَوْ أَثَارَةٍ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ)) [الأحقاف:4] فاقعدوا لنا حتى نسألكم، قال: فلقيته فحاججته بذلك، فقال: أفما عندكم شيء إلا تعيبونا إن كان فلان تفرغ وشغلنا فذاك الذي يذهب بحقنا

Salman bin Khalid said: I met al hassan bin al Hassan so he said: Do we(Children of Hassan) not have a Right? do we not have sanctity? If you just pick one Man from amongst us that would be sufficient ! So I couldn’t answer him then I met Abu Abdullah Ja’afar who told me to tell Ibn al hassan: ” We came to you(Progeny of Hassan) and said: Do you have something which others do not posses?(Imamah) and you replied: No(They denied Imamah) and we came to your Cousins(Progeny of Hussein) and asked: Do you have something which others don’t? and They said Yes so they were more rightful to it(Imamah).” Then I went to ibn al Hassan and used it as an Argument but he replied “Yes we do have something which others don’t have” so I didn’t have anything to reply with then i went to Ja’afar again and told him this so he told me to tell ibn al Hassan ” Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful “[Al Ahqaf-4] So I met ibn al Hassan and told him so then he angrily said: Do you people have nothing better to do than criticize us!?…

Source: رجال الكشي: (230)، البحار: (47/276).
Rijal Al Kesshi 230, Bihar al anwar 47/276.

Mashallah what a great Debate! I’ve learned a lot from Them! and BTW this is the complete verse of the quran:
Say, [O Muhammad], “Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah ? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful.” [46-4]

Then Banu Hashim RAA (includes Hassan & Hussein’s progeny)had conflicts with al Sadiq Ja’afar RAA:

عن الصادق: قال لي أبي: اعلم أن عبدالله أخاك سيدعو الناس إلى نفسه، فدعه فإن عمره قصير، فكان كما قال أبي، وما لبث عبدالله إلا يسيراً حتى مات
Al Sadiq narrated: My Father told me: Know that your brother abdullah will claim Imamah but his life will be short so ignore him, and it happened exactly as my father said as Abdullah died shortly after it.

Source: المناقب: (4/224)، البحار: (46/269) (47/255)، إثبات الهداة: (3/134، 214).
Al manaqib 4/224, Bihar al Anwar (46/269)(47/255) Ithbat al hudat 3/134,214.

and Now Ja’afar’s uncle Abdullah bin Ali:
عن الوليد بن صبيح قال: كنا عند الصادق في ليلة، إذ يطرق الباب طارق، فقال للجارية: انظري من هذا؟ فخرجت ثم دخلت، فقالت: هذا عمك عبدالله بن علي، فقال: أدخليه، وقال لنا: ادخلوا البيت، فدخلنا بيتاً، فسمعنا منه حساً ظننا أن الداخل بعض نسائه، فلصق بعضنا ببعض، فلما دخل أقبل على أبي عبدالله، فلم يدع شيئاً من القبيح إلا قاله في أبي عبدالله، ثم خرج وخرجنا، فأقبل يحدثنا من الموضع الذي قطع كلامه، فقال بعضنا: لقد استقبلك هذا بشيء ما ظننا أن أحداً يستقبل به أحداً، حتى لقد همَّ بعضنا أن يخرج إليه فيوقع به، فقال: مه، لا تدخلوا فيما بيننا
Al Waleed bin Subayh said: We were at al Sadiq’s place at one night, suddenly we heard the door knock, So He told his maid to see who it was, She went outside then came back saying: It is your uncle Abdullah bin Ali bin Hussein, He said: Let him in…(after some nonsense)…When He entered on Ja’afar he left nothing ugly that he didn’t say about Abu abdullah Ja’afar…..Then Ja’afar’s companions said: We never expected anyone to address you the way he did, Some of us wanted to even follow him and punish him, Ja’afar replied: Meh! Don’t interfere between us.

Source: الخرائج والجرائح: (232)، البحار: (46/184) (47/96).
Al Khara’ej wal jara’eh 232, bihar al Anwar (46/184)(47/96).

Even the Son of Abdullah bin Ali bin Hussein who is called Muhammad ‘Al Arqat’ had a conflict with Ja’afar and this is the reason they call him “Al Arqat”.

فقد جرى بينه وبين الصادق أمر، فبصق في وجه الصادق، فدعا عليه الصادق فصار أرقط الوجه، به نمش

“An argument took place between Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Ali and Ja’afar al Sadiq so he Spat in the face of Al Sadiq So Ja’afar made a Dua on him so his face became “Arqat” and he became Ugly.”

Arqat means that some splotches(areas) on his face get a different color than the normal skin color so he becomes ugly.

Source: البحار: (46/156) (الحاشية)، وانظر أيضاً: سر السلسلة العلوية: (50).
Bihar al Anwar 46/156 and other hadiths in Sirr al Silsilah al Alawiyah 50.

and now his Beloved cousin whom they call “Al Aftas”
يقول القوم: إن سالمة مولاة الصادق قالت: كنت عند أبي عبدالله حين حضرته الوفاة، وأغمي عليه، فلما أفاق قال: أعطوا الحسن بن علي ابن علي بن الحسين -وهو الأفطس- سبعين ديناراً، وأعط فلاناً كذا وفلاناً كذا، فقلت: أتعطي رجلاً حمل عليك بالشفرة يريد أن يقتلك؟ قال: تريدين أن لا أكون من الذين قال الله عز وجل فيـهم: ((وَالَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ مَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ بِهِ أَنْ يُوصَلَ وَيَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ وَيَخَافُونَ سُوءَ الْحِسَابِ)) [الرعد:21]

Salimah the maid of al Sadiq said: I was with abu Abdullah when death came for him and he fainted but when he woke up he said: Give Al Hassan bin Ali bin Ali bin al Hussein (Al Aftas) 70 Dinars, and give Fulan this and Fulan That.. I (salimah) Said: Do you give money to someone who raised a razor in your face trying to kill you? He said: Do you want that I be not from those whom said about: And those who join that which Allah has ordered to be joined and fear their Lord and are afraid of the evil of [their] account,[Al Ra’ad; 21].

Source: غيبة الطوسي: (119)، البحار: (46/182) (47/2، 276) (74/96).
Ghaybat al TUSI 119, bihar al Anwar (46/182)(47/2,276)(74/96).

 
وعن عمر بن علي قال: إن جماعة من بني هاشم اجتمعوا بالأبواء، وفيهم: إبراهيم بن محمد بن علي بن عبدالله بن عباس، وأبو جعفر المنصور، وصالح بن علي، وعبدالله بن الحسن، وابناه: محمد وإبراهيم، ومحمد بن عبدالله بن عمرو بن عثمان، فقال صالح بن علي: قد علمتم أنكم الذين تمد الناس إليهم أعينهم، وقد جمعكم الله في هذا الموضع، فاعقدوا بيعةً لرجلٍ منكم تعطونه إياها من أنفسكم، وتواثقوا على ذلك حتى يفتح الله وهو خير الفاتحين، فحمد الله عبدالله بن الحسن وأثنى عليه، ثم قال: قد علمتم أن ابني هذا هو المهدي فهلم لنبايعه، وقال أبو جعفر: لأي شيء تخدعون أنفسكم، والله لقد علمتم ما الناس إلى أحدٍ أصور أعناقاً ولا أسرع إجابة منهم إلى هذا الفتى -يريد به محمد بن عبدالله- قالوا: قد والله صدقت، إن هذا الذي نعلم، فبايعوا محمداً جميعاً، ومسحوا على يده، قال عيسى: وجاء رسول عبدالله بن الحسن إلى أبي: أن ائتنا فإنا مجتمعون لأمر، وأرسل بذلك إلى جعفر بن محمد، وقال غير عيسى: إن عبدالله بن الحسن قال لمن حضر: لا تريدوا جعفراً؛ فإنا نخاف أن يفسد عليكم أمركم، قال عيسى بن عبدالله بن محمد: فأرسلني أبي أنظر ما اجتمعوا له؟ فجئتهم ومحمد بن عبدالله يصلي على طنفسة رحل مثنية، فقلت لهم: أرسلني أبي إليكم أسألكم لأي شيء اجتمعتم؟ فقال عبدالله: اجتمعنا لنبايع المهدي محمد بن عبدالله، قال: وجاء جعفر بن محمد، فأوسع له عبدالله بن الحسن إلى جنبه، فتكلم بمثل كلامه، فقال جعفر: لا تفعلوا فإن هذا الأمر لم يأتِ بعد، إن كنت ترى -يعني: عبدالله- أن ابنك هذا هو المهدي فليس به، ولا هذا أوانه، وإن كنت إنما تريد أن تخرجه غضباً لله وليأمر بالمعروف وينهي عن المنكر، فإنا والله لا ندعك وأنت شيخنا ونبايع ابنك في هذا الأمر، فغضب عبدالله بن الحسن، وقال: لقد علمت خلاف ما تقول، والله ما أطلعك على غيبه ولكن يحملك على هذا الحسد لابني
UMAR Bin Ali said: a group from banu Hashim gathered in Abwa’a and amongst them was: Ibrahim Bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas and Abu Ja’afar al Mansoor, and Salih bin Ali, and Abdullah bin al Hassan, with his two sons: Muhammad & Ibrahim, and Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amro bin Uthman. So Salih bin Ali Said: As you all know most people have their eye on us and they support us so I gathered you hear that we may pick a Caliph from amongst us and give him Baya’ah so thaat Allah may Bless us. Then Abdullah bin al hassan said: Alhamdulillah and he thanked Allah, then he continued : You all Know that my Son muhammad bin abdullah bin al Hassan is the Mahdi of the ummah so let’s us all give him an oath of allegiance today and offer him baya’ah. Abu Ja’afar followed that by saying: Let us not fool ourselves we all know that there is none better and more suited for it than this boy – Muhammad bin Abdullah- all of the people obey and respect him. They all said: By Allah you speak the truth, then they gave baya’ah to Muhammad bin abdullah bin al Hassan by extending their hands to his hand.
Isa said: Then the messenger of Abdullah bin al Hassan came to my father(Ja’afar) and asked for his presence. Others narrated that Abdullah bin al Hassan said to all those present: Don’t ask for Ja’afar for he will ruin your affairs for you, Isa bin Abdullah bin Muhammad said: My father sent me to see for what purpose are they gathered, So I came to them and Muhammad bin Abdullah was praying Then i asked: My father sent me here to know for what reason are you all gathered? Abdullah said: we are here to give Baya’ah to al Mahdi muhammad. Then Ja’afar bin muhammad came and Abdullah bin al Hassan offered him a seat next to him, then Abu Abdullah Ja’afar said: Don’t Do It! for the time has not come yet. if you (Abdullah) see that your son is al Mahdi then I tell you he isn’t but if you want to declare it So that he may Fix the situation of the Ummah and fight against tyranny then by Allah you are our sheikh and the oldest amongst us and we will give allegiance to your son, Abdullah bin al Hassan said: By Allah you say this out of Jealousy from my Son!

Source: إعلام الورى: (272)، الإرشاد: (294)، مقاتل الطالبيين: (205)، البحار: (46/187) (47/278).
I’ilam al Wara 272, Al IRSHAD 294, Maqatil al Talibeen 205, bihar al Anwar (46/187)(47/278).

Now a little bit about Imam Zaid bin Ali Zainul Abedeen RAA because this man rebelled and went to take the Caliphate which angered the shiites at the time because it ruined their Madhab so they made these hadiths up:
الباقر قد فطن إلى ذلك، فقد روى القوم عنه أنه قال: سيخرج زيد أخي بعد موتي، ويدعو الناس إلى نفسه، ويخلع جعفراً ابني،ولا يلبث إلا ثلاثاً حتى يقتل ويصلب، ثم يحرق بالنار، ويذرى في الريح، ويمثل به مثلة ما مثل بها أحد قبله

Translation: Al Baqir PBUH Said to his Son Ja’afar al Sadiq PBUH: My Brother Zaid will Rebel after my death and he will call the people to give him Baya’ah(Allegiance) and will replace my son Ja’afar but he will last only Three and then he will Die and be crucified and Then Burned and his ashes will scatter with the winds and will be humiliated unlike any other human before him.
Source: Biharul Anwar 46/252

In another narration:

إن زيداً سيدعو بعدي إلى نفسه، فدعه ولا تنازعه فإن عمره قصير

Translation: Zaid will call for himself after me So Ignore him and do not concern yourself with him for his life is short.

Source:Ithbat al hudat 3/66

عن مؤمن الطاق عند القوم، أن زيداً قال له: ما تقول إن طرقك طارق منا أتخرج معه؟ قال: قلت له: إن كان أباك وأخاك خرجت معه، قال: فقال
لي: فأنا أريد أن أخرج أجاهد هؤلاء القوم فاخرج معي، قال: قلت: لا أفعل جعلت فداك، قال: فقال لي: أترغب بنفسك عني؟ قال: فقلت له: إنما هي نفس واحدة، فإن كان لله عز وجلفي الأرض معك حجة فالمتخلف عنك ناج، والخارج معك هالك،وإن لم يكن لله معك حجة فالمتخلف عنك والخارج معك سواء، قال: فقال لي: يا أبا جعفر، كنت أجلس مع أبي على الخِوان، فيلقمني اللقمة السمينة، ويبرد لي اللقمة الحارة حتى تبرد من شفقته عليَّ، ولم يشفق عليَّ من حر النار إذ أخبرك بالدين ولم يخبرني به؟ قال: فقلت له: من شفقته عليك من حر النار لم يخبرك، خاف عليك ألا تقبله فتدخل النار… إلى أن قال: فحججت، فحدثت أبا عبدالله بمقالة زيد وما قلت له: فقال لي: أخذته من بين يديه ومن خلفه، وعن يمينه وعن يساره، ومن فوق رأسه ومن تحت قدميه، ولم تترك له مسلكاً يسلكه

In the Twelver “Sahih” Narration above we read That Zaid asks Mumin al Taq to give him allegiance so that he can fight with him against the Umayyads, Al Taq refuses because Zaid is not the Correct Imam, This comes as a Shock to Zaid which tells him that why didn’t his father Ali tell him that he isn’t an Imam while Only his Father and brother were and how come Al Taq knows about this and he doesn’t, Of course Al Taq replies that his Father didn’t tell him that out of his love for him because if he did tell him that and then Zaid refused him Then Zaid would end up in HellFire…

You find this “Sahih” Narration In these Shiite books: Al Kafi 1/174, Al Ihtijaj 376, Al bihar 46/181, Mu’ujam al khoei 7/354. And a Similar Narration in Al Kesshi tarjamah 280, Mu’ujam al khoei 7/39, Al Manaqib 1/259.
قولـه: ليس الإمام منا من أرخى عليه ستره، إنما الإمام من شهر سيفه

Zaid bin Ali said: He from amongst us who does not draw his sword (do Jihad) and Sits at home(Like Ja’afar or his Father or His father) is not an Imam.

Source: Rijal Al Kesshi 261, Bihar 46/ 197, Al Manaqib 1/260, Al Kafi 1/356…

Now this one:
ولم يكن يأبه بتحذير الصادق له: يا عم، أعيذك بالله أن تكون المصلوب بالكناسة، وكانت أم زيد ترد: والله ما يحملك على هذا القول غير الحسد لابني، ويرد: يا ليته حسداً، يا ليته حسداً، ثلاثاً.

Ja’afar al Sadiq used to tell Zaid: O uncle I pray to Allah that you do not get crucified in Kanasah, Then Zaid’s mother Said: You only say this out of jealousy from my Son, Then Ja’afar said: I wish it was (three times)

Source: Amali al Saduq 43, IyounAkhbar al Ridah 1/227, bihar 46/168.
إلى أن جاءت الأخبار بخروجه وادعائه الإمامة، فعن داود الرقي قال: دخلت على جعفر بن محمد، فقال: ما الذي أبطأ بك عنا يا داود؟ فقلت: حاجة عرضت لي بالكوفة هي التي أبطأت بي عنك، جعلت فداك، فقال لي: ماذا رأيت بها؟ قلت: رأيت عمك زيداً على فرس ذنوب،قد تقلد مصحفاً، وقد حف به فقهاء الكوفة، وهو يقول: يا أهل الكوفة، إني العلم بينكم وبين الله تعالى، قد عرفت ما في كتاب الله من ناسخه ومنسوخه، فقال أبو عبد الله: يا سماعة بن مهران، ائتني بتلك الصحيفة، فأتاه بصحيفة بيضاء، فدفعها إليَّ، وقال لي: اقرأ هذه بما أخرج إلينا أهل البيت، يرثه كابر عن كابر من لدن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقرأتها فإذا فيها سطران:
السطر الأول: لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله.
والسطر الثاني: أسماء الأئمة مكتوبة من قبل أن يخلق آدم بألفي عام،فقال أبو عبدالله: فأين يتاه بزيد ويذهب به؟ إن أشد الناس لنا عداوة وحسداً الأقرب إلينا فالأقرب

In the Narration above, The News of Zaid’s Rebellion reached The ears of the companion of Al Sadiq so he came to him and told him that The Scholars of Kufah are all happy with Zaid and that Zaid is Saying that he is the knowledgeable Scholar that knows everything about the Quran and the Sunnah, Then Al Sadiq told his companion to bring him this white paper and told him to read it, In the first line was “No God But Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger” and the second line “Names of the Imams written down 2000 years before the birth of Adam” then Ja’afar Said: Where is Zaid mentioned? Truly the people who hate us and bare enmity and jealousy towards us are those closest to us.

Source: Mintakhab al Athar 34, Ghaybat al nu’umani 42, biharul Anwar 46/173 & 47/141.
قيل لمؤمن الطاق: ما الذي جرى بينك وبين زيد بن علي في محضر أبي عبدالله؟ قال: قال زيد بن علي: يا محمد بن علي، بلغني أنك تزعم أن في آل محمد إماماً مفترض الطاعة؟ قال: قلت: نعم،وكان أبوك علي بن الحسين أحدهم،فقال: وكيف وقد كان يؤتي بلقمة وهي حارة فيبردها بيده ثم يلقمنيها، أفترى أنه كان يشفق عليَّ من حرِّ اللقمة ولا يشفق علي من حر النار.
وفي رواية: قال زيد: ويحك! فما كان يمنعه من أن يقول لي،فوالله لقد كان يؤتى بالطعام الحار فيقعدني على فخذه ويتناول البضعة فيبردها ثم يلقمنيها،أفتراه كان يشفق عليِّ من حرِّ الطعام ولا يشفق عليِّ من حرِّ النار

They said to Mumin al Taq what happened between you and Zaid in the presence of Abi Abdullah? Al Taq said that Zaid said to his brother al Baqir: O Muhammad Bin Ali I hear that you are claiming that there is an Imam from AleMuhammad which we must Obey and Follow, Al Taq told him: Yes there is and your father was one of them, Zaid Then Said: My Father used to cool down the hot food for me so was he afraid that I burn my tongue and was he not afraid that I burn in Hell for not knowing My imam and religion?

Source: Rijal al Kesshi 164 & 165, Mu’ujam al khoei 7/349 & 17/35, Biharul Anwar 46/189 & 193 & 47/405.
So there you go According to the twelvers there are 12 Holy saintly Infallible Imams But one of AhlulBayt who is a Scholar and a Knowledgeable Man “Zaid Bin Ali” never knew about it even though his father, brother and Nephew were Holy infallible imams with their names written down 2000 years before Adam.
الصادق إلى القول رداً على من قال له: ما يزال يخرج رجل منكم أهل البيت فيقتل ويقتل معه بشر كثير، فأطرق طويلاً، ثم قال: إن فيهم الكذابين

Al Sadiq Said: Still Men from AhlulBayt go and fight and Die and many die with them…Then he said: There are The Liars amongst those Men.

وكان ينهى أن يخرج أحد مع من يخرج من أهل البيت قبل المهدي
He said: it is forbidden to go (Do Rebellion) with anyone from AhlulBayt until the Mahdi.

فيقول: مثل من خرج منا أهل البيت قبل قيام القائم مثل فرخ طار ووقع في كوة فتلاعبت به الصبيان
Al Baqir Said: The Example of he who is from ahlulBayt which goes Out (In Rebellion) before the Mahdi appears is like that of a Baby bird that falls from its nest and then children play with it.

Sources: Al Ihtijaj 204, Bihar 46/179 & 52/304 & 52/139, Al Rawdah 310, Ghaybat al Nu’umani 199, Noor al thaqalayn 4/46, Al Manaqib 4/188.

Mashallah what love and respect…I wonder why they all went and did Revolution with Khomeini then, Isn’t he from ahlulbayt? his mother is Indian and his father is Probably Persian but Still you know he’s a Pure Arab Quraishy Man from ahlulBayt LOL!

Musa al Kathim RAA had his own share of Fights with Ahlulbayt.
عن محمد بن الحسن العلوي قال: كان السبب في أخذ موسى بن جعفر أن الرشيد جعل ابنه في حجر جعفر بن محمد بن الأشعث، فحسده يحيى بن خالد البرمكي، وقال: إن أفضت الخلافة إليه زالت دولتي ودولة ولدي، فاحتال على جعفر بن محمد -وكان يقول بالإمامة- حتى داخله وآنس إليه وكثر غشيانه في منزلـه، فيقف على أمره فيرفعه إلى الرشيد ويزيد عليه بما يقدح في قلبه، ثم قال يوماً لبعض ثقاته: أتعرفون لي رجلاً من آل أبي طالب ليس بواسع الحال يعرّفني ما أحتاج إليه؟ فدل على علي بن إسماعيل بن جعفر بن محمد، فحمل إليه يحيى بن خالد مالاً، وكان موسى يأنس إليه ويصله، وربما أفضى إليه بأسراره كلها، فكتب ليشخص به، فأحس موسى بذلك، فدعاه فقال: إلى أين يا ابن أخي؟ قال: إلى بغداد، قال: وما تصنع؟ قال: عليّ دين وأنا مملق، قال: فأنا أقضي دينك، وأفعل بك وأصنع، فلم يلتفت إلى ذلك، فقال له: انظر يا ابن أخي لا تؤتم أولادي، وأمر له بثلاثمائة دينار وأربعة آلاف درهم، فلما قام من بين يديه قال أبو الحسن موسى لمن حضره: والله ليسعين في دمي ويؤتمن أولادي

Muhammad bin al Hassan al Alawi said: (In brief) that Yahya bin Khalid al Barmaki was jealous of Ja’afar bin muhammad So he used to compliment him and send his news(As a spy) to Caliph Al Rasheed while distorting the facts and tarnishing the image of Ja’afar bin muhammad, One Day Yahya bin Khalid asked his trustworthy companions: Do you know of anyone from Alu Abi Talib (Family of Abi talib) who was poor and in need (So that he may bribe him) They said: Ali bin Ismail bin Ja’afar bin muhammad al Baqir… and Musa al Kathim RAA used to like him and told him his secrets So Ali bin Ismail was bribed and told to go to the Caliph and fabricate stories about Musa al Kathim(Ja’afar bin muhammad’s son) so that they may get rid of him, however Musa noticed this and asked Ali bin Ismail: Where are you Going O Son of my brother? He said: To Baghdad, Musa Asked: Why? He replied: I have some debts so I have to make some money there. Musa said: I’ll pay those debts, but Ali never paid any attention to his uncle. Then Musa confronted him by saying: Look, Please don’t turn my children to orphans, then he ordered that 300 Dinars and 4000 Dirhams be brought to Ali and when Ali bin Ismail finally left, Musa said: By Allah he will try to spill my blood and turn my children to orphans.

Source: غيبة الطوسي: (21)، البحار: (48/231).
Ghaybat al Tusi 21, Biharal Anwar 48/231.

and now his brother Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ja’afar…
وكذا شأن أخيه محمد، فعن علي بن جعفر بن محمد قال: جاءني محمد بن إسماعيل ابن جعفر يسألني أن أسأل أبا الحسن موسى أن يأذن له في الخروج إلى العراق وأن يرضى عنه ويوصيه.. إلى أن قال: فقال محمد بن إسماعيل: يا عم، أحب أن توصيني؟ فقال: أوصيك أن تتقي الله في دمي، فقال: لعن الله من يسعى في دمك، ثم قال: يا عم، أوصني؟ فقال: أوصيك أن تتقي الله في دمي، ثم ذكر خروج محمد بن إسماعيل إلى العراق وملاقاته لهارون الرشيد، وقولـه له: يا أمير المؤمنين، خليفتان في الأرض موسى بن جعفر بالمدينة يجبى له بالخراج، وأنت في العراق يجبى لك الخراج، فقال: والله؟ فقال: والله
Ali bin Ja’afar bin Muhammad said: Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ja’afar came to me asking me to tell Musa al Kathim to allow him to go to Iraq and to give him his blessing…until Muhammad bin Ismail said: O uncle do you have any Wasiyah for me? Musa said: My Wasiya is for you to fear Allah with regards to me and do not Spill my Blood. Muhammad Bin Ismail Said: May Allah’s curse be on all those who seek after your blood, Then he repeated: O uncle give me a Wasiyah before I go, Musa Said again: My Wasiya is for you to fear Allah with regards to me and do not Spill my Blood, Then he mentioned what his brother Muhammad had done when he conspired with Haroon al rasheed against al Kathim, Muhammad replied: By Allah he did that?

Source: الكشي: (170)، الكافي: (8/124)، البحار: (48/239)، إثبات الهداة: (3/176)، عيون الأخبار: (1/72).
Al Kasshi 170, al kafi 8/124, Al bihar 48/239, Ithbat al Hudat 3/176, iyoun al Akhbar 1/72.

Now Hussein bin Ali ( not the Hussein of Karbala) Who died in FAKH (location near Mecca) goes and asks Musa al kathim to give him Baya’ah although Musa is supposed to be the Imam:
دعا موسى بن جعفر إلى البيعة، فأتاه فقال له: يا ابن عم، لا تكلفني ما كلف ابن عمك عمك أبا عبدالله فيخرج مني ما لا أريد كما خرج من أبي عبدالله ما لم يكن يريد، فقال له الحسين: إنما عرضت عليك أمراً، فإن أردته دخلت فيه، وإن كرهته لم أحملك عليه، والله المستعان، ثم ودعه

He (Hussein bin Ali) asks Musa Bin Ja’afar to give him baya’ah as caliph so he(Musa) told him: O cousin don’t make me commit what your cousin made your uncle Abu abdullah RAA commit, so I utter words which We both won’t like just like Abu Abdullah did, Hussein said: I made my offer (for you to give me Allegiance) so if you want you take it or you leave it if you hate it and I won’t force you, then they parted ways.

Source: الكافي: (1/366)، البحار: (48/160)، وقال: والحسين هو ابن علي بن الحسن بن الحسن بن الحسن بن علي، وأمه زينب بنت عبدالله بن الحسن، وخرج في أيام موسى الهادي بن محمد المهدي بن أبي جعفر المنصور، وخرج معه جماعة كثيرة من العلويين، إثبات الهداة: (3/174).

Al Kafi 1/366, Al bihar 48/160.

And now the Brother of Musa known as abdullah “Al Aftah”:
أخوه عبدالله المعروف بالأفطح، وقد ذكرنا نبذة عنه عند كلامنا عن موقف الشيعة بعد الإمام الصادق، ونزيد هنا رواية المفضل بن عمر، قال: لما مضى الصادق كانت وصيته في الإمامة لموسى، فادعى أخوه عبدالله الإمامة، وكان أكبر ولد جعفر في ذلك الوقت، فأمر موسى بجمع حطب كثير في وسط داره، فأرسل إلى عبدالله يسأله المصير إليه، فلما صار عنده مع جماعة من وجوه الإمامية، فلما جلس إليه أخوه عبدالله أمر موسى أن تضرم النار في ذلك الحطب فأضرمت، ولا يعلم الناس ما سبب ذلك حتى صار كله جمراً، ثم قام موسى وجلس بثيابه في وسط النار وأقبل يحدث الناس ساعة، ثم قام فنفض ثيابه ورجع إلى المجلس، فقال لأخيه عبدالله: إن كنت تزعم أنك الإمام بعد أبيك فاجلس في ذلك المجلس؟ قالوا: فرأينا عبدالله تغير لونه، ثم قام يجر رداءه حتى خرج من دار موسى
Narrated by al mufaddal bin Amr: When al Sadiq passed away his Wasiyah was to Musa but his brother Abdullah claimed Imamah for himself and he was the oldest of Ja’afar’s children after Ismail’s death , Thus Musa ordered lots of fire wood and that a huge fire be made then called after Abdullah. When Abdullah reached the fire he saw Musa Al kathim walk into the big fire and sit inside it with his clothes unharmed and he sat there talking with the people for one hour then he stood and cleaned his clothes and said to Abdullah: If you claim that you are the Imam after your father then try and sit in this Majlis. The people said: And we saw Abdullah bin Ja’afar’s color change and he ran away from Musa’s house.

Source: إثبات الهداة: (3/196، 212)، الخرائج والجرائح: (200)، البحار: (47/251)(48/65، 67)، وانظر روايات أخرى في خروجه: البحار: (47/127، 242، 243، 256، 257، 261) (48/299)، الإمامة والتبصرة: (209)، غيبة الطوسي: (57)، كمال الدين: (105)، الكافي: (1/355).

Ithbat al Hudat 3/196,212, Al Khara’ej wal Jara’eh 200, bihar al Anwar (47/2510(48/65,67) and other narrations in bihar al Anwar (47/127,242,243,256,257,261) (48/299), Al imamah wal istibsar 209, Ghaybat al tusi 57, Kamal al Deen 105, Al Kafi 1/355.
فعن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه قال: لما مات أبو الحسن حججنا، فدخلنا على أبي جعفر وقد حضر خلق من الشيعة من كل بلد لينظروا إلى أبي جعفر، فدخل عمه عبدالله بن موسى وكان شيخاً كبيراً نبيلاً، عليه ثياب خشنة وبين عينيه سجادة، فجلس، وخرج أبو جعفر من الحجرة وعليه قميص قصب، ورداء قصب، ونعل جدد بيضاء، فانتدب رجل من القوم، فقال لعمه: أصلحك الله، ما تقول في رجل أتى بهيمة؟ فقال: تقطع يمينه ويضرب الحد، فغضب أبو جعفر، ثم نظر إليه، فقال: يا عم، اتق الله.. اتق الله، إنه لعظيم أن تقف يوم القيامة بين يدي الله عز وجل، فيقول لك: لم أفتيت الناس بما لا تعلم؟ فقال له عمه: أليس قال هذا أبوك؟ فقال أبو جعفر: إنما سئل أبي عن رجل نبش قبر امرأة فنكحها، فقال أبي: تقطع يمينه للنبش ويضرب حد الزنا، فإن حرمة الميتة كحرمة الحية، فقال: صدقت يا سيدي وأنا أستغفر الله، فتعجب الناس، فقالوا: يا سيدنا، أتأذن لنا أن نسألك؟ فقال: نعم، فسألوه في مجلس عن ثلاثين ألف مسألة فأجابهم فيها وله تسع سنين
Ali bin Ibrahim from his father: When Imam Abu al Hassan RAA died we made Hajj(To him) and we entered on Abu Ja’afar RAA and many Shiites from many countries came to look at him, So his uncle Abdullah bin Musa entered and he was an old noble sheikh with the sign of prayer on his forehead, so he sat and Abu Ja’afar left the room, a Man asked Abu Ja’afar’s uncle Abdullah bin Musa a question and He replied to it Then abu Ja’afar became extremely angry at the answer his uncle gave and said: O uncle fear Allah!…Fear Allah! You don’t want to stand like this on the day of judgment! and Allah asks you why you gave a Fatwa(Religious opinion) in something you didn’t know. His uncle says: isn’t this the same answer your late father gave? then the Imam corrected him and the uncle repented to allah…. (Narration states That Imam Abu Ja’afar who humiliated his Ignorant Noble uncle in front of everyone was only 9 years old according to this narration…. and that the visitors of his dead father asked him 30,000 matters in that same Majlis and he replied to every single one).

Source: الاختصاص: (102)، البحار: (50/85) (79/79).

Al ikhtisas 102, al bihar (50/85)(79/79).

Not only that But his noble Wise Uncle Made a Fatwa about something he is ignorant about and the guy who asked the question picked the wrong person, he should have asked the infallible Imam instead …
فعن الجعفري قال: قال العباس بن موسى لابن عمران القاضي الطلحي: إن أسفل هذا الكتاب -أي: وصية الكاظم- كنز لنا وجوهر يريد -أي: الرضا- أن يحتجزه دوننا، ولم يدع أبونا شيئاً إلا جعله لـه وتركنا عالة، فوثب عليه إبراهيم بن محمد الجعفري فأسمعه، ووثب إليه إسحاق بن جعفر ففعل به مثل ذلك، فقال العباس للقاضي: أصلحك الله، فض الخاتم واقرأ ما تحته، فقال: لا أفضه لا يلعنني أبوك، فقال العباس: أنا أفضه، قال: ذلك إليك، ففض العباس الخاتم -رغم قول أبيه الكاظم: وليس لأحدٍ أن يكشف وصيتي ولا ينشرها وهو على ما ذكرت وسميت، فمن أساء فعليه، ومن أحسن فلنفسه، وما ربك بظلام للعبيد، وليس ذلك لأحد من سلطان ولا غيره أن يفض كتابي الذي ختمت عليه أسفل، فمن فعل ذلك فعليه لعنة الله وغضبه والملائكة بعد ذلك ظهير وجماعة المسلمين والمؤمنين- ففض العباس الخاتم، فإذا فيه إخراجهم من الوصية، وإقرار علي وحده وإدخاله إياهم في ولاية علي إن أحبوا أو كرهوا أو صاروا كالأيتام في حِجره وأخرجهم من حد الصدقة وذكرها، ثم التفت علي بن موسى إلى العباس، فقال: يا أخي، أعلم أنه إنما حملكم على هذا الغرام والديون التي عليكم، فانطلق يا سعد فتعين لي ما عليهم واقضه عنهم، واقبض ذكر حقوقهم، وخذ لهم البراءة، فلا والله لا أدع مواساتكم وبركم ما أصبحت أمشي على ظهر الأرض، فقولوا ما شئتم، فقال العباس: ما تعطينا إلا من فضول أموالنا ومالنا عندك أكثر، فقال: قولوا ما شئتم، فالعرض عرضك، اللهم أصلحهم وأصلح بهم، وأخسئ عنا وعنهم الشيطان، وأعنهم على طاعتك، والله على ما نقول وكيل، فقال العباس: ما أعرفني بلسانك وليس لمسحاتك عندي طين، ثم إن القوم افترقوا
Now Imam Al Redah’s fight with his Brother al Abbas. Al Ja’afari Said: Al Abbas bin musa al Kathim said to ibn Umran al Qadi(The Judge) al talahi: At the bottom end of this book -The Wasiyah of al Kathim- is a treasure for us(his sons) which -Al Redah- wants to hog(Keep) only for himself, and his father had given everything to him and he left us with nothing! So Ibrahim bin Muhammad al Ja’afari and Isaac bin Ja’afar both Got angry at him (for saying that) So Al Abbas told the judge: May Allah bless you please break the seal(The Will of al Imam Kathim) and read what’s written under. The Judge said: I will not lest I be cursed by your father. Al Abbas said: I will expose what is written under. So he did it although his father Imam Kathim had said: No One is to reveal and spread my will amongst the people and he who breaks the seal of that book Will be cursed by Allah and will invoke allah’s anger and the curse of the angels and the believers and muslims. Al Abbas broke the seal and he read that they were all excluded from the Wasiyah and that it belongs only to Ali… Then Ali bin Musa turned towards al Abbas and said: O brother, I know that the miserable state you are in and the debts have caused you to do what you did, then he ordered Saad(his servant probably) to pay his brother’s debts provide his needs, Al Abbas then Said: You only Give us the leftovers of what was rightfully ours! and you owe us so much more! Then Ali made a Dua for his brothers so that Allah may forgive them So Al Abbas Said: I know you very well and this sweet talk will not work.

Source: عيون أخبار الرضا: (1/33)، البحار: (48/280).

Iyoun Akhbar al redah 1/33, bihar al Anwar 48/280.

and because of these narrations all the twelver scholars of Hadith have never mentioned anything good about him as they hated him.

Source: bihar al Anwar 48/278,313.

you all heard of Ja’afar Al Sadiq RAA, the word Sadiq means truthful. however another Member of AhlulBayt Is Called Ja’afar al KaZZab, and the word KaZZab in Arabic Means “The Liar”. Now who is this respectable member of AhlulBayt you ask?

Well According to the twelvers in this Fatwa which I’ll be translating Ja’afar The Liar Is the Son of Imam Ali bin Muhammad al Hadi RAA. He is called the Liar, GUESS WHY? YES exactly! because he claimed he was the Imam. according to the twelvers the Imams foretold this and here in this Fatwa for their scholar Saleh al Karbasi he states a Hadith:

Abu Hamza al thamali narrated from Abu Khaled al Kabuli that he said: i entered on my Sayyed Ali bin al Hussen RAA and asked him, O Son of Rassul Allah please tell me who are those whom the prophet PBUH ordered us to Obey after him?
.
(in a Long Narration Ali tells him who they are, one by one until they reach Ja’afar al Sadiq)
.
He asks then: O Sayyed but you(Imams) are all truthful so why only Name Ja’afar Al Sadiq “The truhful”?
The Imam replied: The Prophet PBUH said: If My Son Ja’afar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussein bin Ali is born then Name him “Al Sadiq” because the fifth from his child(progeny) Who is called Ja’afar Will Lie Against Allah and claim the Imamah for himself, he is an evil hypocrite who is jealous from his brother.
Then Ali bin al Hussein Cried a lot…
.
.(until the end of the Narration)..

The Source of this Fatwa is from one of The twelver’s most important sites:
http://www.islam4u.com/almojib_show.php?rid=1260
Screen Image:http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/q…titled-1-6.jpg

Now here, a Muslim who uses his brain(Not a twelver) Asks many questions, Why did they have to call the first one Ja’afar? or why didn’t the father of the second Ja’afar call him something else to avoid confusion? or why do these imams and Prophet PBUT know the future?…. This is the twelver Religion which is full of nonsense so who cares.

The Original Arabic Text of the Fatwa:


التسلسل : 1260 القراءات : 4826 تاريخ النشر : 2007-07-02
من هو جعفر الكذَّاب ، و لماذا سمي بهذا الاسم ؟
الاجابة للشيخ صالح الكرباسي

جعفر الكذَّاب هو ابن الامام علي بن محمد الهادي ( عليه السلام ) [1] ، و إنما سُمي بالكذاب لإدعائه الامامة كذباً و إفتراءً ، و قد كان الأئمة ( عليهم السلام ) أخبروا بذلك قبل ولادته .
فعَنْ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ الثُّمَالِيِّ ، عَنْ أَبِي خَالِدٍ الْكَابُلِيِّ قَالَ : دَخَلْتُ عَلَى سَيِّدِي عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ زَيْنِ الْعَابِدِينَ ( عليه السلام ) فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه و آله ) أَخْبِرْنِي بِالَّذِينَ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ طَاعَتَهُمْ وَ مَوَدَّتَهُمْ وَ أَوْجَبَ عَلَى عِبَادِهِ الِاقْتِدَاءَ بِهِمْ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه و آله ) ؟
فَقَالَ لِي : ” يَا كَنْكَرُ إِنَّ أُوْلِي الْأَمْرِ الَّذِينَ جَعَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَئِمَّةً لِلنَّاسِ وَ أَوْجَبَ عَلَيْهِمْ طَاعَتَهُمْ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، ثُمَّ الْحَسَنُ ، ثُمَّ الْحُسَيْنُ ابْنَا عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ، ثُمَّ انْتَهَى الْأَمْرُ إِلَيْنَا ” ، ثُمَّ سَكَتَ .
فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : يَا سَيِّدِي رُوِيَ لَنَا عَنْ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ( عليه السلام ) أَنَّهُ قَالَ : ” لَا تَخْلُو الْأَرْضُ مِنْ حُجَّةٍ لِلَّهِ عَلَى عِبَادِهِ ” ، فَمَنِ الْحُجَّةُ وَ الْإِمَامُ بَعْدَكَ ؟
فَقَالَ : ” ابْنِي مُحَمَّدٌ ، وَ اسْمُهُ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ بَاقِرٌ يَبْقُرُ الْعِلْمَ بَقْراً ، هُوَ الْحُجَّةُ وَ الْإِمَامُ بَعْدِي ، وَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مُحَمَّدٍ ابْنُهُ جَعْفَرٌ وَ اسْمُهُ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ السَّمَاءِ الصَّادِقُ ” .
فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : يَا سَيِّدِي كَيْفَ صَارَ اسْمُهُ الصَّادِقَ وَ كُلُّكُمْ صَادِقُونَ ؟
قَالَ : ” حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَامُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه و آله ) قَالَ : إِذَا وُلِدَ ابْنِي جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ فَسَمُّوهُ الصَّادِقَ ، فَإِنَّ الْخَامِسَ الَّذِي مِنْ وُلْدِهِ الَّذِي اسْمُهُ جَعْفَرٌ يَدَّعِي الْإِمَامَةَ اجْتِرَاءً عَلَى اللَّهِ وَ كَذِباً عَلَيْهِ فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ جَعْفَرٌ الْكَذَّابُ الْمُفْتَرِي عَلَى اللَّهِ ، الْمُدَّعِي لِمَا لَيْسَ لَهُ بِأَهْلٍ ، الْمُخَالِفُ عَلَى أَبِيهِ وَ الْحَاسِدُ لِأَخِيهِ ، ذَلِكَ الَّذِي يَكْشِفُ سِرَّ اللَّهِ عِنْدَ غَيْبَةِ وَلِيِّ اللَّهِ ” .
ثُمَّ بَكَى عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ بُكَاءً شَدِيداً .
ثُمَّ قَالَ : ” كَأَنِّي بِجَعْفَرٍ الْكَذَّابِ وَ قَدْ حَمَلَ طَاغِيَةَ زَمَانِهِ عَلَى تَفْتِيشِ أَمْرِ وَلِيِّ اللَّهِ وَ الْمُغَيَّبِ فِي حِفْظِ اللَّهِ ، وَ التَّوْكِيلِ بِحَرَمِ أَبِيهِ جَهْلًا مِنْهُ بِوِلَادَتِهِ وَ حِرْصاً عَلَى قَتْلِهِ إِنْ ظَفِرَ بِهِ وَ طَمَعاً فِي مِيرَاثِ أَبِيهِ حَتَّى يَأْخُذَهُ بِغَيْرِ حَقِّهِ ” .
قَالَ أَبُو خَالِدٍ : فَقُلْتُ لَهُ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَكَائِنٌ ؟!
قَالَ : إِي وَ رَبِّي ، إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَمَكْتُوبٌ عِنْدَنَا فِي الصَّحِيفَةِ الَّتِي فِيهَا ذِكْرُ الْمِحَنِ الَّتِي تَجْرِي عَلَيْنَا بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ” .
قَالَ أَبُو خَالِدٍ : فَقُلْتُ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه و آله ) ثُمَّ يَكُونُ مَا ذَا ؟
قَالَ : ” ثُمَّ تَمْتَدُّ الْغَيْبَةُ بِوَلِيِّ اللَّهِ الثَّانِي عَشَرَ مِنْ أَوْصِيَاءِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَ الْأَئِمَّةِ بَعْدَهُ .
يَا بَا خَالِدٍ : إِنَّ أَهْلَ زَمَانِ غَيْبَتِهِ وَ الْقَائِلِينَ بِإِمَامَتِهِ وَ الْمُنْتَظِرِينَ لِظُهُورِهِ ( عليه السلام ) أَفْضَلُ مِنْ أَهْلِ كُلِّ زَمَانٍ ، لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ أَعْطَاهُمْ مِنَ الْعُقُولِ وَ الْأَفْهَامِ وَ الْمَعْرِفَةِ مَا صَارَتْ بِهِ الْغَيْبَةُ عَنْهُمْ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْمُشَاهَدَةِ ، وَ جَعَلَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه و آله ) بِالسَّيْفِ ، أُولَئِكَ الْمُخْلَصُونَ حَقّاً وَ شِيعَتُنَا صِدْقاً ، وَ الدُّعَاةُ إِلَى دِينِ اللَّهِ سِرّاً وَ جَهْراً ” [2] .

[1] الإمام علي الهادي هو : علي بن محمد بن علي بن موسى بن جعفر بن محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب ( عليهم السَّلام ) ، و هو عاشر أئمة أهل البيت ( عليهم السلام ، ولد بالمدينة المنورة سنة : 212 هجرية ، و استشهد بمدينة سامراء / العراق سنة : 254 .
[2] بحار الأنوار ( الجامعة لدرر أخبار الأئمة الأطهار ( عليهم السلام ) ) : 36 / 386 ، للعلامة الشيخ محمد باقر المجلسي ، المولود بإصفهان سنة : 1037 ، و المتوفى بها سنة : 1110 هجرية ، طبعة مؤسسة الوفاء ، بيروت / لبنان ، سنة : 1414 هجرية .

Oh and the source of this narration is Bihar al Anwar 36/386.

The Shi’a aqeedah on Imamah

It is the foundation upon which all their narrations centre upon, this is clear in all of their disciplines. This is of great concern to the shi’a, and from amongst their foundations is that it is not permissible for the people to choose their imaam, without specific text. Ibnul Mudhahar ‘nahjul mustarshideen’ p.363, Al mudhaffar, ‘Aqaa’idul imamiah’ p.103 and others

And they claim that the prophet SAW specified Ali and his offspring for the imamah. We also learned that this foundation was established from Abdullah Ibn Saba, and all these narrations were single narrations, and all these were one narration, from Ali RA and anyone who claimed to have heard a narration from other than Ali is kaafir. Al Kafi 1/377

And also we know that other than Ali RA, from the 6 or 7 companions then others are kuffar, and their narrations are not acceptable. So this became a problem, because this is only their sources, and the rest of the Ummah are not in agreement with this, so they resorted to Al-‘Isma (infallibility) and how can this be affriemed if it comes from one tongue? So they went into another route, and it is affirming themiracle to the imam. So the imamah became focused on three, the text, the infallibility and their miracles. Mufeed mentioned in his book ‘Al’ayoon’ 1/27 that the imamah entails to its possessor, textual assignment, infallibility and miracles (mu’jizaat). But we know miracles are only brought to the Prophets. And they placed their imams are above the Prophets, and they being a hujjah (proof) against mankind.

If we go along with the idea that there is a text for Ali RA, that he is the imamah, then there is no doubt that textual assignement for an individual to run the affairs of the Muslims till the day of judgement is impossible except for shi’a. So they went and said a great innovation, to give a long life for one human, for centuries, namely the mahdi which they are awaiting for. I fact Ali Ar-Ridha refuted this and refuted it strongly, and it is mentioned in their books. As in Rijaal Al-Kaashi p.458 ‘If Allah would extend the life of someone from the children of Adam, Allah would have done it for the Prophet SAW.’ But they opposed this and they are on the creed that, the existence of this person is critical because the universe needs him. He has no physical presence and if the people were in need of someone, Allah would have elongated the life of the prophet SAW and they say this is in our sunnah and the Qur’an, and the first proof they give is the ayah in Surah Al Ma’idah ‘Verily…’ ayah 55. Tabrisi said this ayah is the clearest proof for the validity of the Imam Ali RA, without any dispute, and their shayookh are all in almost agreement that this is the strongest proof they have. They claim that the people of tafsir and hadith, that this verse was revealed for Ali, when he gave his ring in charity to a beggar, while the companions were watching, and they claim this is in sihaah sittah, meaning our books of hadith, and they call it the six authentic, but we call them hadith books, not authentic books, only Bukhari and Muslim are fully authentic, so this is their evidence. They say ‘inama’ is for particularization in agreement with the linguistics, and that the wali means the one who takes precedence in running the affairs of the Ummah. This is in ‘Shabab haqul yaqeen’ and in zanjaani ‘Aqaa’idul imamiah ithna ash’ariah’ 1/81-82

The shi’a now take the cause of revelation for this verse specifies Ali RA. So they take the cause of revelation, because there is no text itself. But is this correct?

Refutation: Their claim that ahlusunnah are in agreement that this verse was revealed for Ali, is a lie. Rather the people of ‘ilm are in agreement that this was not revealed for Ali in name, and he did not give his charity in salaah. And the people in knowledge and hadeeth, concerning this verse, is from al-kadhib al mawdoo’ fabricated lies and their claim that this is in sihah as-sittah, because there is no existence of this report in these books. Shabab and Zanjaani mentioned this, but there is no hadeeth such as this in our books. Imam ibn Kathir gave the reports concerning their lie, and he commented on it saying that ‘nothing of this is authentic entirely because of the weakness of their chains’ – tafsir ibn kathir 2/76-77

So this is refuted from the narration perspective, so this invalid from there. So if this is nullified then their argument crumbles, and this narration they say is authentic and use, it contradicts their belief, as it limits the wilayah on Ali only. Because they say said particularization, by ‘inama’ so the imamah does not hold for the rest of the imams, and if they respond by saying inama means sometimes, meaning at his imamah in his time, then they agree with ahlul sunnah because we believe in his leadership in his time.

Now giving charity while in salaah is not recommended by agreement of the scholars, because the prophet SAW would have done it, and he was the one who said, ‘inama fi salaati lashughla’ ‘verily in salaah there is something which makes one busy,’ and to give sadaqah in salaah distracts your salaah. Their claim is in direct contradiction to reality, and this verse is in context with its surroundings, and this verse came to tell the mu’minoon to keep allegiance with the believers and not the non-muslims. It does not refer to wilayah being authority.

Nothing in the Qur’an is obviously understood and apparent, in proving Ali’s wilayah or the 12 Imams, and whatever they take is from their fabricated narrations.

The proofs from the Sunnah

They clinged to the ‘proofs’ and clinged to some reports from Ahlulsunnah which speaks about the merits of Ali RA. They attempted to use it as a back-up for the numerous fabrications they have.

The merits of Ali can in no-way be used as proof for Ali’s leadership, from the linguistic side, intellect, and textual side. But these are just merits, but they took it as claims, so they took it as belief. Ibn Hazm collected the narrations regarding the merits of Ali, and from themerits which the rejectionists cling to is the following from Bukhari, in this hadith the Prophet SAW went out for tabuk and appointed Ali RA as his deputy for Madinah, and Ali RA said ‘Are you going to leave me with the women and children?’ the prophet SAW said ‘Are you please that you will be to me like Harun to Musa, except that there will be no Prophet after me?’

There is no textual evidence showing a merit over others, and appointment of Ali after the Prophet SAW. Because Harun AS did not take position of authority after Musa AS, it was Yusha Bin Nun, he was a companion, the boy who went with Musa AS to meet Khidr similarly as the matter was given to his companion in the cave, Abu Bakr RA. Who travelled with him to madina, so if Ali was not a Prophet just as Harun AS was, and both did not lead, as Harun died before Musa AS, then the only link they have is in kinship only. Also, if Ali RA was not as Harun was to Musa AS,  is not a prophet and Harun was not a ruler on the children of Israel after Musa AS, so therefore when the prophet SAW said to Ali RA what he did, then this is only relative to kinship relation. Also the prophet SAW said this to him after assigning him to madinah during the battle of Tabuk, and the hypocrites began to talk, and speaking ill of Ali, saying he was a burden or something. And so Ali RA went after the Prophet SAW, to talk to him about this, and then the Prophet SAW said what he said. Also the Prophet SAW appointed other people, other men to take care of Madinah in other expeditions.

Resembling Ali RA to Harun is not greater than resembling Abu Bakr RA to Ibrahim AS and Isa AS, and Umar to Nuh AS and Musa AS, as it was in Haakim’s ‘Mustadrak’ and Ahmad’s ‘Musnad’ and ‘Tirimidhi’ reported part of it in the ‘book of jihad’. No doubt these four are greater than Harun AS, and these two men are being compared to two Prophets instead of one. And assigning Ali, is not specific to him, so such an assignment is not particular to Ali, nor the resemblance to a Prophet is a particularization. So they have no basis in this incident.

 

There is a second one which they cling to. The other hadith is as follows, muttafaqun alaih, Ali RA happned to stay behind with the Prophet SAW and did not join the battle of khaibar as he was having eye trouble. And he said ‘How could I remain behind ya rasul allah?’ So he set behind the Prophet SAW , and followed him, when it is was the eve of the day which Allah blessed the muslims with victory, the prophet SAW said ‘I will give the flag to someone whom Allah and His messenger love and he loves them also, and Allah will give victory to them under this flag.’ Then came Ali which we did not expect, the people said ‘this is Ali’ and Allah’s messenger gave him the flag, and they were given victory.

This attribute is entailed for every muslim, every righteous muslim. So this is not a description particular to Ali, and others love Allah and His messenger and Allah and His messenger love them. But this is just a testification by name, as the ten who were promised paradise. So this cannot be taken as a text for his infallibility and imamah, and they also cannot take this as proof for the apostasy of the companions. Because the Khawaarij say that Ali was amongst those who apostate, in fact Al Ash’ari mentioned that the khawaarij are in agreement that Ali became kaafir, and Ahlul Sunnah refuted them fully.

 

A third one is a hadith reported in tirmidhi, and he said it is hasan wa sahih. Allah’s messenger SAW said that ‘none who loves Ali, is a believer, and none that hates but is a munafiq.’

However, was this particular to Ali?

Al ansar, the helpers of madinah, as in Sahih Muslim, ‘No one who is a believer in Allah and the last day hates the ansaar.’ So love of ansaar and Ali is from faith, and hating Ali and al ansaar is from hypocrisy. In fact there are other narrations which agree with the same wording which was reported about Ali in Bukhari and Muslim. ‘No-one loves them but is a believer, and none hates him except is a munafiq.’

As the narration ‘Whoever I am the master/leader/helper/protector of, Ali is leader of.’ Is not authentic to begin with, as for the hadith of mubahila in Sahih muslim when the verse of Ali imran(3):61, was revealed, this is not known as mubahila, the Prophet SAW invited Ali, Faatimah, Hasan and hussain, and said ‘O Allah, (ahli) these are my family!’. This has no proof for imamah, as this is about having those who are relatives, this is the purpose of Mubahila. Similiarly the hadith which is in the two sahihs, about Ali RA ‘I am from you and you are from me’, the Prophet SAW said this to ja’afar, ‘you resemble my creation (in nature) and character’ and sid to Zaid, ‘you are our brother and our maulana (close).’

So there is no proof for the leadership of Ali RA. So why did they take from the books of Sunnah? This is mockery, deception and lies. In order to cover up and to say ‘see they agree with us.’ Furthermore, there are narrations which they reference to the books of ahlul sunnah, are all lies and there is no such thing. This is for deceiving the masses.

Hadeeth of ghadeer

The importance of this narration is so important for them, that they sometimes wrote books about this narration reaching 16 volumes and he called it, ‘Ghadeer fi’l kitaabi wa sunan wa adab.’ And they narrate that when the Prophet SAW reached a valley between Makkah and madinah, called a juhfah, called ghadeer. After he finished hajjatul wada’, he revealed to the Muslims that his wasiyah is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, because Allah commanded His messenger SAW, Al Ma’idah (5):67 ‘Oh messenger! Proclaim what has been sent down to you from your lord, if you do not convey this then you have not conveyed the message.’ They said what he conveyed was the conveyance that Ali Ra shall be the trustee and khalifah after him. Al Majlisi reported in his book ‘Bihaar’ 37/108-253 that he gathered the Muslims and told them, ‘Am I not more entitled to you more than your own selves?’ They replied ‘Yes’ He said ‘Then Whoever I am to him as a protector and helper then Ali is the same to him. Oh Allah give wilayah to those who give him wilayah and have enmity to those who oppose him and give aid to those who give aid to him.’ They called this the strongest evidence, many, many, shi’a books as proof against ahlul sunnah. Most of the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah, refuted this report and their conclusion. Thos fabricators added to it, and to a group from ahlul hadeeth, there is nothing authentic in this report except, the saying ‘whoever I am the mawla to, Ali is the mawla to.’ As to the rest of the report, ‘am I not more entitled…’ and so on, then the chain is dha’eef due to Ali bin Zaid bin jad’an, one of the men in the chain of narration in sunan Ibn majaah. However other people of ahlul hadeeth, classified the whole narration to be false, and ibn hazm RH, he said ‘in principle the entire hadith is false,’ and he mentioned many great scholars including Bukhari, Ibrahim Al hardi, who called the whole thing to be false.  However it is from the reports of the ahlul hadeeth, of those who disputed its authenticity.

From the wording also it is fabricated. ‘Oh Allah! Give victory, to those who give Ali victory!’ This is against the affirmed historical facts. There were people who fought with Ali in the battle of siffin, and did not win, and others did not fight and did not lose, like Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas, he was the opener of Iraq, he did not fight with Ali, similarly, the people who were the companions of Mu’awiyah and Bani Ummayah, who fought Ali, opened many of the lands of the kuffar, and Allah gave them victory. This is from the protection of the deen.

There is another point from this report. There is a report which we heard, ‘Oh Allah give wilayah to those who give him wilayah and have enmity to those who oppose him and give aid to those who give aid to him.’ This report is against the foundations of Islam, because the Qur’an made it clear, that the believers are brothers, despite their fighting and transgression amongst themselves. So this statement is in direct opposition. After mentioning the reports regarding the authenticity, that some said it is authentic and others said it is not so, then the statement ‘whoever I am his mawla then Ali is his mawla.’ If the Prophet did not say it, then there is no disputing what it means, and there is no problem. Now suppose he said it, did he mean that decisively the khilafah belongs to Ali? It is simple, because in the wording there is nothing to suggest this. Because if it is such importance, then why didn’t the prophet SAW proclaim it in a clear way, in a way that is not vague. Another point to mention here, the help, protection, and so on in the matter of muwalaa, is in opposition to mu’adhaa (enmity), and if it is the matter of leadership that he meant, why didn’t he proclaim it so clearly? Like in everything else that he taught. And who is best in advising the believers? Do you think he would have kept this most needed advice? Why did the Prophet SAW particularize the name of Ali here? This is the story of hatred for Ali. When the prophet was about leave for makkah in hajjatul wada, and sent Ali RA to Yemen, and when they were sent, a group started harbouring hate for Ali, and the Prophet SAW showed his love for Ali, and dispelled the hatred they had.

And the verse was revealed long time before the pilgrimage, and ghadeer happened at 18th of Dhul hijjah after the hajj finished. Imam muslim reported concerning this ghadeer, was ‘I am only human, the message of my Lord is about to come and I will surrender and I will leave with two things, the first is the book of Allah, in it is guidance and light, and I implore you to hold fast to it, and my ahlulbayt, I remind you by Allah concerning my household.’ It was commented on my shaykhul islam RH, ‘It was reported by Imam Muslim not Bukhari and it only contains followership to the Qur’an and to nothing else. And he reminded us concerning the household, and their rights should be given to them.’ So it known that there was no revelation regarding Ali’s wilayah as this is talking about the rights of Ahlul bayt, the family of Ali, Ja’far, Aqeel, Abbas, so therefore this is the greatest daleel.

 

Text of specification (An-Nass –apparent text)

The origin of this claim in the books of the shi’a, sometimes they refer to divine proofs coming from the heavens talking about the wilayah of Ali. But these books aren’t present since 260 AH and are with the hidden Imam and another reason they bring is that these texts are not available due to the actions of the companions. Third claim is that these texts were explicit from the Prophet SAW, but the Ummah were in agreement to conceal it, and the first to speak about it was Abdullah Ibn Saba. Or they go and give the ayat in the Qur’an esoteric interpretations, only known to the imams, then they support these claims by strange things, for example karaamat, inherited infallibility, revelation from the heavens or signs in the imams. The one who began this claim of nass, in the beginning was Ibn Saba, then this was spread t o others who said, however (meaning the imamah) was spread to others, but the sects of the shi’a differ in terms of number of Imams, then after that they settled to 12 imams, after the year 260 AH on the hands of those shayookh who invented the idea of absent imam.

Narrations regarding the texts about nass, took precedence in their reliable books such as hadith books, and tafasir, and the books of their scholars, and since now there is a type of agreement between our books and their books regarding Ibn Saba starting this new claim. Would any muslim be able to accept books that apparently were hidden from the Ummah by the Prophet SAW?

Even the some of the shi’a themselves don’t trust their most reliable books, as Kashiful ghata in his book ‘Kashful ghata’ he questioned the trust in these shayookh, the reliable references of the shi’a, in p.368 he questioned the reliability of 3 of those four reliable authors of their books. But there is one book which the shi’a considers every word of it they see as infallible. A book they claim is authored by Ali ibn Abi Talib RA, called Nahjul balagha, and it does not have a chain for it, and it was collected in the fourth century. IF we take Nahjul balagha to be a reference, there are clear statements attributed to Ali RA, which nullify their aqeedah we will find no chain for it. It is attributed to him that he said when people gathered around him to make him a leader, ‘leave me…’ p.136

And their mufeed, this reliable source to them, in Al-Irshad ‘and form the thing which their ulaama preserved from Ameer ul mu’minoon is that he said, ‘you came to me and said ‘bayee’na, (we give you allegiance) and I said ‘no!’ and you said ‘certainly! You must!’ and I said ‘no’ and I pulled my hand, and you stretched it, and then you quarreled, then you came all of you like camels come to their place of feed, until I thought that you are about to kill me, and amongst you were those who quarreled, and fought, so I stretched my hand out and you gave me allegiance.’ Kitaab ul irshaad p.131

Now the question is, would anyone who says these words, would he be someone who is looking for khilafah? Ibnul Mudhahar states that ‘anyone who seeks to relieve himself from imamah, is not an imam. Had he been truly an imam, he would not seek to relieve himself from imamah, but he would take it.’ ‘Minhaaj ul karaama’ p.195

The fact that Ali RA did not call to his khilafah, and for people to give him bay’ah, it led to a sect being formed called the kaamiliyyah, a subsect of the shia, who impute kufr on Ali, because he abandoned seeking the imamah. The reports within Nahjul balagha are in agreement with Ahlul Sunnah.It is reported that imam Ali RA said in Nahjul balagha p.322 ‘By Allah I had no eagerness for imamah or wilayah, but you called me for it and forced me to take it.’ He also mentioned that his khilafah was given to him or agreed upon by the agreement of the muhajirun and ansar, as they are the people of shura. In the same book, it is reported thathe said ‘the people who gave allegiance to Abu Bakr Umar and Uthmaan gave me allegiance like they gave tem allegiance. For the one who is present has no choice and the absent cannot refuse.’ This shows it was done by bay’ah and shura, not by nass. ‘…and the consultation regarding these issues is for the muhajirun and ansar, if they agree on one man and they assign him and make him and imam…’ This is showing that the shura and the consensus, is the way to appoint a leader, and no nass. This was all taken from Nahjul balagha.

Imam Ahmad (rh) narrates in his musnad, from Wakee’ ‘anil A’mash from Saalim ibn Abi al-ja’d from Abdullah bin saba, ‘I heard Ali saying ‘I will be killed’ We said ‘assign for us!’ He said ‘NO, I will leave you as to what the Prophet left you with before.’ “what will you say to your lord when you stand before Him?’ “I will say, Oh Allah you left me amongst them as you wished and you took me to you, and you are the one in charge of them and if you wish you will correct their affairs, otherwise you will make their affairs correct.’ 2/42 Shaykh Ahmed Shaakir classified its sanad saheeh. This narration is also in majma’ zawaaid and al haythami said, ‘its men are saheeh and al bazzar narrated it with a good chain.’

It is also narrated in Ahmed like this, from aswad bin aamir bin al-a’mash from salama bin kaheer and Abdullah bin saba, and shaykh ahmed shaakir said it is saheeh.

Sahih Bukhari it is narrated, that they mentioned in front of A’isha RA that ‘Ali was a wasiyyah (trustee).’ And she asked them ‘when was it assigned for him? And I was leaning him to my chest/lap then he called for a pot, and I felt that he died, so when did he bequeath to him?’ Bukhari/muslim.

Also authentically reported from Ibn Abbas RA, that he SAW did not have a textual trusteeship, and it is narrated form Ibn Abbas that he did not have a text to hold for a trustee. This is reported in Ibn abi Shaybah, from the way of Arqam ibn sharhabeel from Ibn Abbas, and Ibn hajr authenticated it in fath ul bari 5/361

So therefore, in ahlulsunnah there are firm authentic reports that the Prophet did not leave a wasiyyah.

Intellectual refutations:

Let us leave all the narrations which there are disagreement about, and let us take the Book of Allah as a judge, through the understanding of Arabic language, and both are in agreement in of the Arabic and its limitations, so it is able to be a judge between us in this regard.

So do we find any mention of the imams in the Qur’an as an arkaan in islam as is mentioned in the Book of Allah. Anyone with sound intellect would say this is enough as a proof, as we must leave all esoteric interpretations, as anyone can do that type of interpretation.

Ibn ul Taymiyyah in his debate against Ibnul mudhahar, said ‘assume that we are not going to take hadith as a reference, what about the saying of Allah in Surah Anfal 2-4?’ Then he told him ‘Allah SWT attested for their belief without mentioning Imamah, so there is no need for imaamah.’ He also said to him ‘in suratul hujurat ayah 15, so they were truthful in faith without imamah…’ Minhaaj as-sunnah 1/33

This and others make it clear that the imamah, has no basis in the Book of Allah. Secondly a matter of this magnitude, wouldn’t we find those who care for the Ummah transmitting it to the people? The texts would have reached the Ummah. If the companions hid the nass of his wilayah, why wouldn’t they hide the merits of Ali? Why would they be firm in stating his merits?

And where in the world is there ever an agreement of over 1000 people who fear God and live humble lives, agree upon an evil, did not one of their prayers get accepted? Did their night prayers not get accepted?

Isn’t the matter of imamah, related to the benefits and affairs of the people? So if one says that the Prophet SAW assigned a position for one person and the companions changed it, then wouldn’t it be easy for a person to say the prayers were originally 10 but the companions changed it and made it 5? Wouldn’t this open the dorr for anyone to claim anything against the companions. Because they are the ones who relayed the deen to us. And also wouldn’t it be possible, to say that the Prophet SAW had a son, and the Prophet assigned him, and the companions got jealous, and killed him. And the like of this?

We came to know that Abu Bakr when he textually assigned Umar, there was no dispute regarding it and no one argued against the 6 who were doing shura. And we know the Prophet SAW is better and the people must comply with the Prophet more than the order of Abu Bakr And Umar? Even Mu’awiyah when he textually assigned yazeed, there was even a nass for this assignment.

So how did the only one decided by Allah, is the one hidden.

Ali was not propagating the message which the Prophet SAW, lived and died for, he stayed silent regarding it? Wasn’t it the ayah ‘if you do not convey this, it is as though you have not conveyed the message’  about the wilayah of Ali? Then that incident was wasted, and the Prophet’s efforts (wal iyaadu billah) came to waste, simply because after he died, the message died with him, the person he appointed did not continue spreading that message and the most important part of it being wilayah.

Their Aqeedah in Imaan

Their saying, and what is their sayings regarding this article?  They made the belief in the imams part of imaan and what it entails, in fact, they made it the essence of imaan, it came in Usul al kafi ‘Islam is the apparent upon which people are, and that is the shahaadah, then he mentioned the rest of the pillars, and said ‘Imaan constitutes of knowing this matter, with Ali, if he attests to that, but does not know this then he is misguided…’ 2/24, ‘…their reward in the hereafter is depenedant not on Islam , but imaan’ ibid.

And they interpret Allah’s statement in Surah al baqarah (2):136-137 ‘Say, oh muslims ‘we believe in Allah… so if they believe in that of which you believe, then they are rightly-guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice for you against them. And He is the All Hearer, the All-Knower.’ They say, what is meant here, ‘what you believe’ is Ali, Hasan, hussain, Fatimah and the rest of the Imams.

Tafsir Al ‘Ayashi 1/62

Tafsir As-Safi 1/92

Tafsir Al-Burhan 1/157

That is why Ibnul Mudh’har said in his book ‘minhaaj al karaama ma’arifatual imamah’ p.1 ‘the issue of imamah, is one of the pillars of imaan, such that the one will enter into jannah forever, and be saved from the wrath of Allah.’

Muhammed Jawad Al Amily in his book ‘faith with us, is established by acknowledging the imamah of the 12 imams.’

Muhammed al qazwini, ‘Anyone who denies the wilayah of Ali and his imamah, then he has no faith in his account and his deeds will be futile.’

So belief in Imamah is a pillar of faith, and a code to be saved from the wrath and anger of Allah, and be placed in Jannah.

Secondly, we know that the kalimah has two parts, but theirs has three.

So what is the third testimony? Necessitated by their belief in Imams, they invented the third testimony. It is in their adhaan, and after their salaah, and they recite it at the death of their people, before the person dies. Al hurr al Amily, said ‘Chapter: the praiseworthiness of saying the true shahaadah and testification of belief in the imams after every salaah.’ Wasaa’ilu shi’a 4/1038

And there’s some narrations, relating to Abi Ja’far, ‘recite to your dead, at the time of their death, the shahadaah, and al-wilayah’ Furu Al Kafi 1/34, tahdheeb al ahkam 1/82, wasaa’ilu shi’a 2/665

And they also mention this shahadaah at placing the deceased in their graves; Furu al kafi 1/53 tahdheeb al ahkaam 1/91 wasaa’ilu shi’a 2/843

Also when people leave the grave after placing the person in the grave ‘Chapter: praiseworthiness of reciting to the dead and the belief in the imams, and attestation to the wilayah after the people leave the gravesite.’

Ibnu Mudh’ir considered this to be the most honourable of issues to the muslims ‘minhaaj al karaama p.1

To consider this the most important matter of imaan, is Kufr, as it is known as part of the deen by necessity, that believing in Allah and His messenger SAW is the most important matter.

The third matter, took by the creed of the murji’a.

We learned earlier that acknowledging the imams is sufficient for imaan and accepted in paradise. So there is a relation to the murji’a, as they consider that the mere acknowledgement of Allah is acceptable, and some of them say, and there rae different sects, ‘no-one is admitted to hell of those who direct themselves to the qiblah, irrespective of sins.’ They say that no good can be of benefit in presence of kufr, and no sin can affect the imaan.

And Al Kafi contains a chapter entitled by this title, containing six narrations attributed to Abu Abdillah, 2/463

The terminology of imaan to them, is ’love of the a’immah and acknowledgeing the imaam.’ Most of the shi’a believe that the love of Ali, is a good deed where no sin could affect their imaan. Some of their contemporary shayookh responded to this statement of shaykhul islaam, ‘what he attributed to most of the shi’a is false rather they are all in agreement. Not some which Shaykhul Islam mentioned. If this is true then there is no need for infallible imam. Because all of them are going to jannah anyways regardless.

So the murji’a say that imaan is acknowledging Allah, the shi’a say it is acknowledging the imam or love of him. This merely constitutes faith. So there is a strong relationship between these two groups.

Their narrations regarding this are many for example ‘Is deen anything other than love?’ tafsir A’yaashi 1/167, ‘Bihaar’ 27/95

Al Majlisi put a narration under the title ‘Chapter: The reward of their love, and their wilayah and that they are saved from the hellfire’ Bihaar chapter 27, from 73-144. And another placed he put ‘believing in the wilayah of Ali, is a fortress protecting from the fire’ and they said ‘and if people are on agreement on loving him, Allah would have not created the fire’ Bihaar 39/32

‘Ilal Ash-Sharaa’i page 162 ‘No-one will be admitted to paradise except those who love him from the first and last ones, and no-one will be admitted into hellfire from those who hate him from the first to the last.’

Same with Christianity, loving Jesus is enough to be admitted to paradise. And what this entails is that Qur’an was not sent to guide people, but to misguide them as Allah did not mention this criteria for jannah and jahannam?  All these narrations replete and abundant, but you will see some narrations which are like a white hair on a black bull. There are few reports which are also attributed to Ali RA, and show that you should worship Allah alone and call out to Him alone. What about the leaders of kufr from the nations before us, they will be saved from hellfire due to not knowing Ali RA.

First topic in this part: Al-Wa’ad (the Promise of Allah to admit to paradise) and the promise to admit into hell. Their understanding of this promise is the fabrication of attributing to Imams, whereas the assignment of the people of jannah and jahannam is Allah’s only authority and belongs to Him.

They say that the cursing of the companions, which Allah made haraam, they not only allowed, but said this is of the means of drawing nearer to Allah. Bihaar 27/218

And striking the faces and chests, and injuring the self, as commonly seen, and striking self with knives and swords, in remembering Hussain RA, is one of the greatest ways of drawing closer to Allah.

Aqaa’idul imamiah li zanjaani 1/289

Al ayaatul bayinaat li Muhammed Hussein Al-Kashif Al Ghata (one of the contemporaries) p.4 and after

Dharai’tul ma’arif ash-shi’iyyah 21/706

So insulting the companions is from the drawing nearness to Allah. Hassan Nasrullah insults Abu Sufyaan RA, and says that Abu sufyaan plotted to enter Islam in order to destroy Islam from inside. Whilst Allah used them as criteria for people who want to follow the deen. Insulting them is like insulting the Prophet SAW and the deen at large.

In Addition to many innovated worship which lack proof, they put a lot of reward on those acts such as ‘Nayruz’, the day of ghadeer, its night and special invocations, and in their reports it states that the Imams possess guarantees that entitle the shi’a to enter paradise with security, and they give testimony to some of the names that were promised reward and jannah. For example Rijaal Al-kaashi from Ziyaad Adh-dhanadee or al ghandi and Ali bin yaqdeen who said that Abal Hassan secured for him his place in paradise, p.430-431

It is as if they possess the limitless mercy of Allah so they guarantee and give places of jannah to them and deprivation of entering paradise. So do they have special running with Allah or are they messengers? Or did they have special covenant with Allah or did they see the unseen.

Their special position on threat, there is a great deal of focus on imputing kufr upon everyone who fought Ali RA, and that anyone who fought him is a kaafir, and anyone who fought Ali is in hellfire forever. As in ‘Awaa’irul muqalaat’ p.10. This is the ruling on those who oppose them and that is why Ibn Babaweyh said ‘and our belief concerning those who oppose us in one single matter in the deen it is as if it is the same as those who oppose us in all matters of the deen. Al’I’tiqadaat, p.116

So they impute punishment to those that oppose them, but they don’t  affirm the threat to those who say their saying, so they consider that anyone who opposes them falls under the threat of hellfire.

What about the pillars of imaan?

As we know the pillars are, Allah, messengers, Books, angels, Qadr, qiyamaah. We spoke earlier on their deviation in Allah’s names and attributes.

Angels

The correct belief is that they are created from light, but according to the shi’a they are from the light of the imamas, and that they serve the imams, and there are different groups of angels which have different jobs, and there is a group which cling to the grave of hussain, and they say Allah created 70,000 from the light of Ali’s face, and make du’a to anyone, and for him, until the day of resurrection. Kins jami’al fawaa’idh p.334 and bihaar 23/320

And sometimes they say as in ma’ainul zulfah, p.249 that Allah created the angels from the light of Ali. And that from the tasks of some of the angels, is that they have no task, but to sit and cry at the sight of Hussain’s grave and to come and visit him, and that they are 4000 angels. This is in wasaa’ilu shi’a 10/318, furu al kafi 1/325, thawaabul a’mal p.49 and in kaamilu ziyaraat p.189.

And that the visit to Hussain, this is the wish of the people of the heavens and there is no group in the heavens but they ask Allah if for permission to visit the grave of Al-hussain, so a group descends and a group ascends. In At-Tusi’s ‘Tahdheeb’ 2/16, in thawaabul a’mal p.54, wasaa’ilu shi’a 10/322

And they said the angels are servants to the imams and to those who love the Imams, and in one narration it says, that Jibreel AS invoked Allah to be a slave, so they said Jibreel is our servant. ‘Bihaar’ 26/344-345, ‘shaad’ul qulub’ p.214 and ‘kins jami’ul fawaa’idh’ p.483

The angels also are entrusted with the matter of wilayah, and those who oppose them, may be subject to punishment, and that one of the angels were punished by having their wing broken, for not giving allegiance to Ali RA. And that he was not healed until he came and brawled himself by the sight of Hussain. Bihaar 26/341, Basaa’iru dharajaat p.20

And nothing honours the angels more than the acceptance of the wilayah of Ali RA. And they say that they don’t eat or drink, but to make istighfaar on the sinners amongst the shi’a. Bihaar 26/349

Books

They say that the books that were sent down have no authority, they claim that Allah sent down down books upon the Imaams, just as books were sent to the messengers. And they claim that imams possess books sent down upon them and also that the books that were sent down to all the Prophets. And sometimes they bring some texts, saying that these were taken from these books, which to build their creed with, and it may be that the roots of this goes back to the time of Ali RA.

In Bukhari it is narrated that Abu Juhayfah said to Ali RA, ‘have you got a book? He said ‘no except the book of Allah, or what is understood by the muslims.’ I asked ‘what is in this book?’ Ali RA said ‘it only contains some rulings, ransom of the kaafir, and no muslims hold be killed for a kaafir and so on.’

Ibn Hajr commented on this narration, and said that ‘Abu juhayfah RA asked Ali this question because he heard from the some of shi’a, that the household of the Prophet SAW, had some things which the prophet SAW gave to them and told them to keep.’ So that was why Ali was asked and he denied it. So the origins seem to be from the time of Ali RA. It seems that it was from the group of Abdullah bin Saba.

And one of the things they propagated, that Ali had 9/10ths of the Qur’an and that there is a preserved special revelation for Ali, and it took different forms and all focusing on the ahlul bayt having special things not with the people. From the books which they claim, is mushaful faatimah, and they claim was revealed after the death of the prophet SAW. And they report in their books such as Bihaar, basaa’iru dharaajaat, and al kafi. And they said the reason for this revelation is ‘to console her on the death of her father’ and ‘knowledge of what occurs.’ And there seems to be no link between these two.

But the shi’a claim that there is news of the killing of her offspring. So how could Faatimah have been given knowledge which did not occur? Is she better than the messenger SAW?

And they claim it was Ali RA was the one who wrote down this revelation. But in other narrations it states that Ali was busy with writing down the Qur’an. And they claim that in this mushafs, it contains threefold of what is in the Qur’an. Al Kafi 1/239

It even differs in substance Al kafi 3/197

And in other reports, ‘the dictation was by the prophet SAW and the writing was by Ali RA.’ This dictates that this revelation of Mushaf Faatimah, was in the prophet’s time not after his death. Bihaar 26/42 basa’iru dharajaat p.42

And all the imams say that they use mushaaf Fatimah to know what will occur. Al kafi 1/240, bihaar 26/48, Al kafi 1/305-306

So mushaaf Faatimah is a means to check what occurs in the universe, it also contains the laws which are needed to live. Al kafi 1/240

They also claim they have another book called al-jaami’ and ti contains halaal and haraam, compensations and so on. Bihaar 26/23, basaa’iru dharaajaat p.390

Also they have another record called sahifutul wudud, which talks about the prescribed punishments. And they claim there is another book called al-jafr, and that there is no bird that flies in the sky but it is written in therein.  Bihaar 26/19, Ayoon akhbaar ar-ridha p.200

And also something else called dhalaa’ilul Imamah, and this is from their trusted references. As attested to by Majlisi in his book bihaar 1/39-40

And that this book contains what will occur and what has occurred and the news of the heavens, number of angels in the heavens, number of creatures and their names and the names of the prophets and the names of those who belied and those accepted and the names of all creation etc. All of this is on two pages. See Muhammed bin jarir bin Rustum At-Tabari, dhalaa’ilu nubuwwa p.27-28

So why did the imam hide? What has he got to fear? As they claim he hid in the cave to hide from being killed.  But the shi’a claim, there are other books, rather many.

They said ‘the imams don’t speak except by wahy.’ Bihaar 17/155, 54/237

They went to the extent that the prophets are followers of Ali, and that some of the Prophets were punished because they refused to give allegiance to Ali (before his existence). And they attribute narrations falsely to Ali RA, that ‘Allah presented the allegiance to the inhabitants to the heavens and the earth, and whoever attested to that attested to it, and whoever denied it denied it. And prophet Yunus AS denied and rejected the wilayah, so he was made to swallow in the fish’s stomach until he gave allegiance. Bihaar 26/282, basaa’iru p.22 and many other narrations in majlisi’s bihaar under the chapter ‘Them excelling the prophet’s’ 26/267-319 and from here they came to the conclusion, that the Imams are better than the prophets, and that the Imams came to establish the proof against all creation.

We know the messengers are the best of people, and that they are the most entitled to the messengership and Allah prepared them to their perfect ubudiyyah, and striving and da’wah and jihad. Allah knows best where to place His messengers. As Allah said in Surah An’am:124, ‘Allah knows best with whom to place His message.’ So they were distinguished by Allah choosing them and making them the messengers to His creation. Surah Nisaa (4):64 ‘And we have sent no messenger but to be obeyed by Allah’s leave, and no one from creation excels them.’

This creed developed to be adopted by and become a principle of the 12 imamites, the author of ‘sahibu wasaa’il’ admitted to this. And put a chapter page 151, entitled that the ‘Prophet and Imams are better than the rest of creation.’ And the narrations in this are numerous. In bihaar he called a chapter ‘the excellence of the Imams over the Prophets… and the covenant that was taken from the Prophets and angels and rest of creation.’ And that the messengers who became firm in their deen became firm due to their love of the Imam. See Bihaar 26/267

And they gave narrations which mounted according to some narrations, 88 narrations. Attributed to the 12 imams, and that they are the ‘Word of Allah,’ and that they have greater knowledge than the Prophets. A chapter was given to this in 26/297-298 in bihaar al anwaar. And Ibn Babaweyh in his book which is known as the deen of the shi’a affirmed this creed. And said that ‘Allah did nto create anyone better than the Prophet SAW and the Imams.’ Al-i’tiqadaat, p.106-107

And the author of Bihaar narrated this saying of Ibn Babaweyh, and added tht the sayings of the imams are better than the prophets. Some fo their schoalars even aiuthored some books in this effect for example ‘Kitaabu tafdeel A’imma ‘alal Ambiyyah’ meaning ‘Book of the excellence of the imams over the Prophets’ and also ‘tafdeel Ali (alayhi salaam) ala ulil azam ar-rusul’ ‘excellence of Ali over the firmly established messengers’ Hashim Al Bahraani (d.1107) and Muhammed kaadhim Ahzaar and Muhammed Baqir al majlisi (d.1111) and others. And this is the same creed which was followed by Imam Al Khomeini and others of this ilk. This is established in his book Al-hukummah Islamiyyah.

Al Ikhtisaas p.250 and Bihaar 26/294 ‘Allah did not entail the creation of Adaam AS with His two hands except due to allegiance to Ali RA, and Allah did not speak directly to Musa except by the wilayah of Ali and Isa AS was not made a sign except due to his submission to Ali RA.’

They bring life to the dead and talk to animals, and they see the actions of the slaves by a column of light that existed with them since birth. ‘Ayoonil Mu’jizaat’, ‘Yanabee’il ma’aziz wa usulil dhalaa’il’ li Hashim al Bahraani and others. And they speak directly to Allah, and they ascend and Allah enabled them to sit on the throne and that Iblis spoke to Ali, and they gave him attributes before he was even born.

A great deal of this is used upon their graves, and this may cause an easy road to shirk. As there is a chapter in Bihar 42/311, chapter 29 ‘what appeared by the holy tomb from miracles and extraordinary matters, and miracles appearing by the graves of their imams’ 45/390

They wrote books, statistical of all the things that occur by the graves. Al majlisi reported many of these, from that is the curing of incurable diseases just by standing near the graves. Bihaar 42/317

The animals go to these gravesites seeking cure and healing, and it rolls over the grave for its need of cure. Bihar 42/312

The imams can be given deposits to preserve like in Bihaar 42/318

And if you check around this story that it is fabricated by thieves so that they may earn income. So what kind of impact will this stuff have on the worshipper and the laymen amongst the shi’a? And again if you further search into their books, you will again find their Imams denying what lies are made against them. As for example ‘Wallahi, if I attest to and agree to what is said by the kufans about me, then the earth will swallow me, I am but a possessed slave of Allah, unable to do anything.’ Tamqeehul maqaal 3/332

SHIA AQEEDAH IN TAWHEED

Their creed concerning ‘ijma, the meaning of consensus for them is ‘inclusion of the saying of the infallible imam, otherwise if the whole ummah agrees on something and it does not contain their saying then it is rejected.’

Ibnul mut’tahar, tahdeeb ul usool a’immaul usool, page 70 (Tehran 1308)

Al mufeed, al awaa’il ul muqalaat, page 99-100

Qawaami’al fudhool, page 305

This is the position regarding the consensus.

Their creed on tawheed al uloohiyah. Uloohiyah is to single out worship to Him alone and not to direct any kind of worship to other than Him. This is the same tawheed which all the messengers called  their nations to. All the nations attested to the tawheed ur-Ruboobiyah, the problem was directing their worship to Him alone. Allah told us about it in Surah A’raf in many places. This was the da’wah of all the messengers. Surah Nahl(16):36 every nation was sent a message similar to this, in fact same. This was the way of deliverance and the acceptance of worship in Surah Nisaa (4):48 ‘Verily Allah forgives not that partners should not be set up with Him in worship…’ did the shia preserve this?

7 angles we will deal with:

1. Their creed that the texts regarding tawheedul uloohiyah is that  it refers to proving and attesting the wilayah of Ali and the A’immah, and the shirk is ‘associating anyone with them in Imamite.’

2. Their creed that the foundation for acceptance of deeds, is ‘belief in the imaamah and the 12 imaams and their authority.’

3. Their creed that the imams are the intermediates between Allah and creation.

4. Their creed that the imams have the right to legislate tahleel and tahrim,

5. Their creed that the soil/dust of Al hussain is pure from all illnesses and safety form all kinds of fear.

6. Their invocations by asoteric symbols in order to lift up calamities and their seeking the help from the unknown for guidance.

7. Some of their practices which oppose tawheed and which resemble the actions of jaahiliyaah.

Let us start with the first. The texts which command the worship of Allah alone, is changed to mean the belief in the imams and the texts which forbid shirk they diverted the meaning to mean the association of others with their imams.

Example, ‘And indeed it has been revealed to you O muhammed like it has been revealed to those before you, if you worship others beside Allah then surely all your deeds will be in vain…’

They made it mean ‘if you ascribe partners to Ali in his reign…’ this is in Al kafi.

In al qummi ‘if you command or authorise an imam beside Ali then your deeds will be in vain.’

In Al kafi, vol.1 page 427, no.76

Tafsir Al Qummi, vol.2 page 251 and in others Burhaan and tafsir as-Safi.

Surah Ghafir (40):12, ‘It will be said when Allah alone was invoked alone, you disbelieved…’

They said ‘Because to Ali is the wilayaah, ‘but when partners were joined to him’ others who have no wilayah you believe, so the judgement is only with Allah Most High.’

Al burqi, kinsul jaami’a fawaa’id, page 277

Bihaar al anwar vol.23, page 364

Tafsir al Qummi, vol.2, page 256.

Usul al kafi vol.1 page 421

These are kind of asoteric interpretations which have no proof. These narrations constitute a fertile ground for magnification of Ali, beyond limits and which is still appearing in this sect, otherwise these verses have no connection to Ali (RA).

Surah Al Anbiyah: 25 ‘and we did not send any messenger before you…’

‘No messenger was sent except with our wilayaah, and disassociation with our enemies.’

Al burhaan vol.2 page 367

As-Safi, and ‘Ayaashi, vol.3 page 134

‘Our wilayah is the wilayah of Allah and there has been no prophet that has not been sent with it…’ usul Al kafi vol.1 page 437.

Anyone who doesn’t adhere to that, that the verses in the qur’an referring ‘tawheed is obeying the Imams, and association in this is shirk’, is a kaafir and a mushrik, such as in mir’atul anwar page 100, and page 58, and page 202.

In this topic the narrations are attributed to Ja’far and his father with these estoric interpretations, you will find few reports to show, that Ja’far declares himself innocent of these interpretations…

Al burhaan vol.4 page 78 ‘anyone who declares this belief is mushrik and I am innocent of him…’

Al majlisi Bihaar al anwar vol.23 page 39 ‘know that generalising the term of shirk and kufr applies to those who don’t believe in the imamah and the wilayah of Ali and his offspring…’

Al majlisi in his book bihaar ul Anwaar, vol.23, page 39 ‘know that generalising the terms of shirk and kufr, applies to those who don’t believe in the imams and their a’immah and the offspring of Ali, and putting others above them are kaafir and will reside in jahannam forever…’

In this topic the narrations are attributed to Ja’far and his father with these estoric interpretations, you will find few reports to show, that Ja’far declares himself innocent of these interpretations…

Al burhaan vol.4 page 78 ‘anyone who declares this belief is mushrik and I am innocent of him…’

Al majlisi Bihaar al anwar vol.23 page 39 ‘know that generalising the term of shirk and kufr applies to those who don’t believe in the imamah and the wilayah of Ali and his offspring…’

 

 

The 2nd matter is the wilayaah is the criteria for the acceptance of the deen. The tawheed is the basis for muslims, and shirk is the nullifying of all the deeds. However the Shia believe in the wilaayah.

‘Jannah is for those who believe in Imamah, if a person comes with all the sins on earth but he comes to Allah believing in the 12 imams he will be forgiven.’

Usul Al kafi ‘Allah assigned Ali to be the distinctive mark for the mushrik, jaahil, mu’min.’ Vol.1, page 437. So why do we need the Qur’an?

Al amaly as-sudooq, page 154-155 ‘anyone who attests to our wilayah, his deeds will be accepted and whoever does not attest then Allah will not accept anything.’

They attribute to Abi abdillah ‘whoever opposes you even though he is a worshipper he fits in the following ayah, ’88:2-4’.  Tafsir al Qummi vol.2 page 419.

They claim that Jibreel AS descended upon Muhammed SAW, and said ‘As-Salaam sends His salaam, and says ‘I have created the 7 heavens and what is within them, and 7 earths and what is upon it, and I have no created any place greater than what is between the rukn and maqaam (ka’aba) and if a slave invokes me there, from the time I created the heavens and the earth, while not believing in the wilayah of Ali, then I will throw him in hellfire…’ ‘Al amaly as-Saduq’, page 290, ‘bihaar al anwar’, vol.27 page 167.

‘If he prostrates until his head is disconnected with his body, Allah will not accept this from him until he believes in the Imamah…’ An-nukhisaan vol.1, page 41, al muhaasim, vol.1 page 224, bihaar al anwar, vol.27 page 167-168, at-tusi vol.1 page 340 ‘the messenger SAW said, ‘If anyone of you comes on the day of resurrection with deeds as mountains, and doesn’t come with allegiance with Ali, then Allah will cast him in hellfire.’

An-Nu’mani’s al ghayba page 83, and bihar al anwar, vol.27 page 201. Al majlisi said ‘They the imams are the door’, chapter: they are ahlul a’araf and no one will enter paradise unless the imams know them and they know them. He put 71 reports, under ‘the deeds are not accepted without wilayah’, vol.27, pages 166-202.

Surah Al ma’idah ayah 72: ‘Verily whosesoever sets up partners with Allah, paradise has been forbidden for him and hellfire will be his abode…’

Allah mentioned salaah 80 times without mentioning imams or anything linked to this.

Surah Tawbah (9):115 ‘And Allah will never lead a people astray after He has a guided them, until He makes clear to them what they should avoid…’

A report was attributed to Ali (ra): ‘I heard the messenger of Allah saying when the verse was revealed in Surah Shura (42):23 ‘No reward do I ask for…’ Jibreel said ‘Ya Muhammed for each religion there is a support, and branches, and that the foundation of the deen is laa ilaha il Allah, and the branches are love for your household, and allegiance to them in what is in agreement with the truth. Then he invoked Allah for Ali (ra).’ Tafsir Furaat, page 148-149, and bihaar al anwar, vol.23 page 247. This opposes 100’s of reports by them which show that wilayah is the foundation of the deen and NOT a branch. Showing further contradictions.

That the Imams are intermediates between Allah and His creation: Bihaar al anwar vol.23 page 97, ‘they are the screen of the Lord and the intermediates between Allah and His creation…’ in another chapter ‘mankind are not guided except by them…’ attributed falsely to Abu Abdillah ‘we are the intermediaries between you and Allah…’ in page 101 of the same volume. In the book ‘Aqaaid ul imamiah’ the 12 imams are ‘abwaabullahi as-sububu ilayh’ ‘the gates of Allah and the means to Him’ and the safinahtul Nuh (ship of Nuh) and whoever rides it is saved and whoever falls behind is destroyed.’ (Book by Dhul Mudhaffar) Page 98-99.

Surah Al Baqarah (2):186 clearly show that Allah is close to the servant and responds with no intercessor. Surah Ghafir (40):60 also in this Allah say INVOKE ME.

There is no guidance except through the Imams

Abu Ja’far said: ‘By us is worship and by us Allah is known and by us Allah is known to be worshiped.’ Bihaar al anwar vol.23 page 103.

Surah Kahf (18):17 ‘He whom Allah guides is rightly guided and He whom Allah allows to be led astray…’

Surah Yusuf (12):108 ‘This is my way and I invite to Allah…’

There saying that Allah does not accept dua’a except by mention of their names.

‘Whoever invokes Allah by us will succeed and whoever calls through other than us will be destroyed and others will be destroyed.’ Bihaar Al Anwar, vol. 23 page 113, wasaa’il ul Shia vol.4 page 1142.

‘The invocation of the Prophets was answered by using them as intercessors…’ Bihaar al anwar vol.26 page 390. Majlisi reported 11 narrations to the same effect, especially regarding Adam, Musa and Ibrahim.

Surah Ankabut (29):65 this verse shows that the thing in common between shias and mushrikeen is the sincerity to Allah (swt) when in need. And they commit shirk in terms of hardship and trial.

‘When Nuh AS was about to drown, he invoked Allah by our right, so Allah saved him drowning.’  Bihaar al anwar vol.26 page 325 and wasaa’ilu shi’a vol.4 page 1143.

‘That when Ibrahim was thrown in the fire he invoked Allah by our right and Allah made the fire cool.’ ibid.

When Allah put Adam in paradise, the Prophet SAW and Ali and Hussain and Hasan were presented to him and he looked at them with envy and the wilayah, he rejected it and so he was expelled from paradise and when he repented from his envy and attested to the wilayah and submitted to the ahlul bayt, this is the saying of Allah in Al Baqarah (2):37. Tafsir Ayashi vol.1 page 41 and Bihaar al anwar, vol.26 page 326.

When Yunus AS was kept in the belly of the fish, he was kept there for denying the wilayah of Ali RA, until he accepted it. Tafsir furaat page 13, bihaar vol.26 page 323-324.

Chapter 7:180 ‘to Allah belong the best names so invoke Him by them.’

Surah A’raf (7):29 ‘and those whom you invoke beside Allah are slaves like you…’

Surah nisaa (4):172 ‘the masih will never be proud to reject to be a slave of Allah nor will the angels…’

Surah Maryam (19):93 ‘there is none in the heavens and the earth except who comes as a slave of Allah.’

Surah Al anbiyah (21):87 ‘and remember Yunus when he went off in anger…’

And they say about this, Yunus AS was trapped and could not get out until he attested to the wilayah of Ali.

The words which Adam AS mentioned, Surah A’raf (7):23 ‘They said; ‘Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be amongst the losers.’

Seeking help and protection to remove harm and hardship;

The shi’a call for istighatha from their imams which only Allah can deliver.

They gave tasks for each Imams:

Ali ibn Abi Talib RA & Ali ibn Hussain RH is for deliverance from authority and the blowing of shayaateen.

Muhammed bin Ali & Ja’far bin Muhammed is for the hereafter and what it requires from the worship of Allah.

Musa bin Ja’far for seeking welfare through him from Allah.

Ali Bin Musa seek safety for when you are in wilderness and the seas.

Muhammed bin Ali seek from him sustenance from Allah

Ali bin Muhammed for righteousness to others and optional matters

Al hasan bin Ali through him for the hereafter

Sahibu zamaan if the sword will be applied to you then seek help from him, he will help you.

Bihaar al anwar vol.94 page 33. And in the same place he said, ‘the great curing and great healing is for the one who seeks cure through them and that there is no deliverance except through them…’ page 37.

They collected these narrations in books of du’a, such as ‘mifaatihul jeenan’ & ‘cUmdatul zaa’ir’ and others.

We mentioned the small pieces of sheet, to write something on, and to be placed on the graves of the Imams. That is one reason for ziyaarah, because the graves of the imams and the tombs, is the places of hope and deliverance of needs. ‘If you have a need you seek from Allah, then write it on the sheet and leave it on the grave of the Imams, otherwise wrap it and seal it and cover it with mud, and throw it in a flowing river, or a deep well, and it will reach to as-sayyid, and he will take care of your needs by himself directly.’

He can also take the route which takes him to a river or spring, and there he shouts for one of the gates that lead to the awaited Imam and they are four: Uthmaan bin Sa’id, and his son Muhammed, Al-hasan bin ruh or Ali as-samari. Bihaar vol.94 page 30.

‘And then call one of the gates, ‘oh such and such! This is my sheet and my need, take it to my imam, you are the trustworthy one!’ bihar vol.49 page 3.

‘Then throw the casket in the river, and imagine that you are giving it in hand to him.’

This awaited Imam was not born, as Hasan Al Askari did not bear a child.

Al Majlisi says again about Sahibu Zamaan ‘take him as a refuge he is the best of helper, and awliyah of the mu’minoon…’ Bihar vol.49 page 33.

Their saying that their hajj to the graveyards of the Imams (mashaahid) is better than hajj to the house of Allah ta’aala.

Al kafi and others: ‘The visit of the gravesite of Hussain is equal to 20 hajj and Umrah.’

Furu al Kafi vol.1 page 324

Ibn babweyh’s ‘thawabul A’mal’ page 52

At-Tusi’s tahdheeb ul ahkaam vol.2 page 16.

Ibn Qoloweyh’s Kamilu ziyaraat page 161.

Hurr al Amily –Wasaa’ilu Shi’a vol.10 page 348.

‘Whoever visits the Grave of Abi abdillah, it will be recorded for him 80 hajj accepted.’

Thawabul A’mal page 52

Kamilu Ziyaraat page 162

Wasaa’ilu Shi’a vol.10 page 350

‘Whoever comes to the grave of Al Hussein knowing his right then it is as if he has made 100 pilgrimages with the Prophet SAW.’

Thawabul A’mal page 52

Wasaa’ilu shi’a vol.10 page 350

There is even competition in these narrations in terms of the excessiveness of the rewards.

It is reported in Wasaa’ilu Shi’a and others narrated by Muhammed bin muslim and Abi Ja’far, ‘if people would know what is in the merits of visiting Hussein, they would die in eagerness’. When someone asked, ‘What is in it?’ He replied ‘Whoever yearns to go there, it will be written for him 1000 accepted hajj and 1000 umrah, and 1000 martyrs of Badr, and the reward of 1000 fasting muslims and 1000 accepted charity, and anyone who dies in this year when he visits, the angels of Ar-Rahman will attend his shrouding and make istighfar for him and he will be accompanied by istighfar and the grave will opened for him wide, and he will pass by the questioning of Munkar and nakeer, and his book will be given to him in his right hand… and his light will separate in the east and the west… and it will be said this is for the one who yearned to be by the grave of Al-hussein, and there will be no one in that place but will wish for the same reward.’

Kamilu Ziyaraat page 143

Wasaailu shi’a vol.1 page 353

Bihaar vol.101 page 18

‘Anyone who visits Al hussein’s grave in ashura…’ Too ludicrous.

Why don’t the shi’a shayookh abandon hajj and do ziyaarat in dhul hijjah?

Several reasons:

  • They have to propagate their evil beliefs in the Muslim world.
  • If a muslim comes to know these things then they will lose the ground for da’wah, but the normal muslims see hajj as an obligatory deed. Because their scholars see ziyaraah not only as better than hajj, but the best of deeds. As in Kamil ul Ziyaarat pg.146, Bihaar vol.101 pg.49, and in majlisi’s book he put a title ‘Chapter: the visit of him is the best of deeds’ Vol.101 page 49.

Their saying that karbala is better than the Ka’aba:

‘Kufa is the haram of Allah, and the Prophet, and Ameerul mu’mineen, and that the salaah in it equates 1000 salaah, and a dirham equates 1000 dirham…’

Al-Waafi, ‘fadhlul Kufaa wa masaajidiha’ ‘the merits of Kufaa and its masaajid’ 8, page 215.

 

 

PART 18

Surah A’raf (7):54 ‘Indeed you Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in 6 days…’

The mushirkoon believed in Allah, as in Surah Zukhruf.

1.       The Lord is the imam

2.       The life in this world and hereafter belongs to the imam

3.       Every command for the heavens and the earth is from the imam

4.       Part of the Divine is incarnated in the imams.

5.       They have influence in bringing benefit and harm

6.       They have shirk in lordship by saying the slave creates his actions.

1:

They attribute to Ali RA ‘I am the Lord of the earth who dwells the earth.’

Mira’atul anwar page 59

Also the interpretation of Surah Kahf: 110 in al ayashi said this means submitting to Ali and not ascribe partners to Ali with those not fitting.

Tafsir Ayashi vol.2 page 353

Al burhaan vol.2 page 497

Tafsir As-Safi vol.3 pg.370

Al Qummi vol.2 pg.47

 

2:

Author of Al Kafi made a chapter ‘The whole earth belongs to the imam.’ Al Kafi vol.1 page 407-410

Attributed to Abi abdillah ‘Didn’t you know that this life and the next belong to the imam? He gives it to whom he wills and takes it from whom he wills, and he has been given permission frmo Allah to do so.’ Al Kafi vol.1 page 409.

Surah al Baqarah(2):107 ‘Don’t you that it is Allah who belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth?’ Many verses in the Qur’an about this.

 

3: The imams take rides on the clouds and traverse the heavens and earth.

Al-Iqtisaas, page 199

Al Bihaar, vol.27, page 32.

 

Ali is the one who commands the clouds, this is in direct counter to 7:57: ‘And when they have carried a heavy laden of cloud, then We…’

Ash-shahrastani, ‘Al millal wa nihal’ vol.1 page 174: ‘the thunder is his voice, and the lightening is his smile.’

Al Majlisi tells us a lengthy narration which gives Ali RA absolute powers, in Bihar vol.27 page 33 to 40. ‘He takes his companions throught eh heavens and the earth and presents to them miracles greater than the miracles of the Prophets, and he goes to nations and destroys the nations by one shout, and magnifies himself to say ‘I possess the heavens and earth and know what they don’t know.’

4.‘The divine light was reincarnated in Ali RA’

Al Kafi, vol. 1 page 440

Bihaar, vol.1 page 441-442

Bihaar vol.42 pages 17-50 contains 17 narrations about his miracles.

He gives life to the dead.

Al kafi, vol.1 page 457

Al bihar vol.41 page 192

Wasaa’ilu Dharajaat page 76

Ali gave life to the dead in an entire cemetery

Bihar vol.41 page 194

If he would have sworn upon Allah to give life to the first ones to the last ones He would have done it.

Bihar vol.41 page 201

Al Kharaa’ij wa’l dharaa’ih page 82

The Prophet SAW said surah (7):188 what about this saying?

5.The days and nights cause benefit and harm

But we know that benefit and harm come from Allah alone.

They say some of the days are bad and bring bad, and nothing is to be sought on these days.

Abi abdillah: ‘Don’t go out for journeying on a Friday for something, but if it is Saturday and after the sun rises, then go out for your affair.’

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih vol.1 page 95

Wasaa’il ash-shi’a vol.8 page 253

And they said: ‘Which day is more of a bad omen than Monday?’ Or don’t go out on a Monday but go out on a Tuesday’

Man la yahdhuruhul faqih, vol.1 page 95

Ar-rawdah page 314

Al mahaasim page 347

Wasaa’ilu shi’a vol.8 page 254

And others

Abu Abdillah: ‘Don’t travel on a Monday and don’t seek your affair on a Monday.’

Al mahaasim page 346

Wasaa’ilu shi’a vol.8 page 255

‘The last Wednesday in a month is the worst (in terms of being a bad omen)’

Al Khisaal vol.2 page 27

Wasaa’ilu Shi’a 8:257

Ameerul Mu’minoon: ‘Saturday is the day of treachery and plotting, and Sunday is planting and building, and Monday is day of travelling and seeking needs, Tuesday is day of war, wed. Is bad omen, thurs. Is day of entrance upon leaders and seeking to fulfill needs, day of Friday is day of sermon and marriage.’

Ilal Ash-shara’i page 199

Khisaal vol.2:28

Ayoon al Akhbar p.137

Wasaa’ilu shi’a 8:258 (Due to taqiyyah is the excuse for the contradiction)

 

Part 19: In terms of asma was-sifat

There are four aspects in this.

1.       Excessive affirmation – tajseem or tamtheel

2.       Denying or negating the names and attributes of Allah

3.       Describing their Imams by names of Alah and His attributes

4.       Distortion of the verses in line with the negation of the names and attributes of Allah

 

Likening Allah to the creation

This is famous with the jews, and there is evidence in the Qur’an, Surah tawbah (9):30, ‘And the Jews said Uzair is the son of Allah.’

In the torah nowadays, there are further proofs of this, like what is mentioned in ‘they (Adam and eve) heard the voice of the Lord ‘maashiyin’. This is in sifira takween, book of genesis, chapter 3 part 8.

In the book of exodus chapter 24, part 9, 10, 11.

Book of genesis chapter 32, verse 22

Sifira tethniyyah, Ditrimony, Ch. 34 verse 10

Book of Judges, ch.6 verse 11

Book of exodus, ch.24 verse 4 and so forth.

First innovation was done by the raafidha, Ar-Razi said: ‘Most of them make tashbeeh.’

The first of the innovation was Hisham bin Al hakam, Hisham bin Saalim Al jawaliqi, yunus bin Abdir-Rahman Al-Qummi, Abi ja’far al-Ahwal.

Al-I’tiqadaat, firq al muslimeen wa’l mushrikeen page 97.

All these men were from the shi’a. All these men are further considered to be shayookh to the shi’a.

This is from Muhsin Al amin’s ‘A’yaani shi’a’ 1/106

Al Ash’ari said in ‘Maqalaatul islaami’yeen’ he said ‘the early shi’a were mujassima.’

Then he mentioned that a group of them later changed to denying his attributes.

Abdul (t)qahir al baghdaadi mentioned in ‘Al farqu baynal Firaq’ p.65 he states ‘hisham bin al hakam was a shi’a and he claimed that Allah is a deity with limitation and with ends and He is tall wide, deep and His length is as similar to his width.’

And also the other Hisham, bin saalim Al juwaliqi, is very excessive in tashbeeh and tajseem, because he claimed that his diety is like a man, and he possesses 5 senses. Yunus was also excessive and he related some of his sayings.

Ibn Hazm said ‘al-fasl’ vol.5 page 40 that: ‘Hisham ibn al-hakam said that His Lord is 7 ishbaar (handspans), and the measure is relevant to his measurement.’

The reports are replete from Hisham ibn Al-Hakam, and his followers of the excessive tajseem.

This is all related in Shahrastani in ‘Millal wa nihal’ 1/184

‘Lisan al Mizaan’ – Ibn hajr, Chapter 6, 194

So the beginning of likening Allah with creation started from the jews, and the shi’a brought this into Islam. Amongst the beginners was Hisham ibn Al-Hakam.

The shayookh of shi’a defend these people and their beliefs.

Al Majlisi in ‘Bihaar’ 3/290,292

So amongst their scholars of theology, went so far in likening Allah that they made Him human.

There are reports in the books of the shi’a. Abi Abdillah RH denied these claims and false things, in those very same books which defend their fabrications.

Negation

In the latter part of the third century, the shi’a became affected by Mu’tazilite claims. In the fifth century it became abundant amongst them. As became evident in Al-mufeed’s books, Abi ja’far At-tusi and Musawi (shareef al-murtadha), they followed the Mu’tazilite sect.

This sect is known for negating and denying what Allah affirmed in His Book, based on their own intellect. If a person goes though the shi’a books, they find similar in fact identical things in their (Mu’tazilah) books.

They took the same position with the Mu’tazilah in pre-decree.

The latter of the shi’a scholars took the mu’tazilah’s beliefs in regards the Qur’an being created and negating the seeing of Allah on the day of resurrection and negating the attributes, and the misconceptions raised by the Mu’tazilah, are the same that are raised by the latter shayookh of the shi’a.

The difference someone would find between these books is the attribution of these erroneous claims to the imams. And that they established their beliefs on mere reasoning of intellect, so there is a mix of reasons as to how they came to these beliefs. The first one is, by way of their imams, and the others took the rational approach of the mu’tazilah. But the matters of Allah’s attributes are from the unseen. So it is based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. And they lie against Ali RA and Muhammed al Baqir and ja’far As-sadiq, so there is no fixed methodology regarding this matter.

Ibnul Mudhhar said that their madhab regarding the names and attributes of Allah is like the Mu’tazilah, in his book, nahjul mustarshideen p.32, and some of them said ‘our sect is the same as falasifah (philosophers)’ as Tabataba’i in ‘majalisu muwahideen fi usuli deen’ p.21.

So this is in summary of their general creed with respect to the names and attributes of Allah.

The Qur’an is created

The 12 imami shi’a took the position of the jahmiyyah. Al majlisi, in his book ‘al bihaar’ chapter 92 (p.17-21), says ‘the Qur’an is created, he put 11 narrations, all of these narrations are in line with the Mu’tazilah and jahmiyyah. Ayatu shi’a Muhsin al amin mentioned this, ‘the shi’a and the mu’tazilah said the Qur’an is created,’ ‘a’yaanu shi’a’ 1/161.

This is based upon denial of the attributes of Allah, and rejected speech for Allah, because He placed speech in some of His created things, ‘…when the bush spoke to Musa AS, and Jibreel AS bringing down the revelation.’ A’yaanu shi’a, 1/453

Shaykhul islam used to see the person who affirms Allah’s speech but even denies the reality and meaning of it, has committed major kufr.

But when the imams are asked about this, they say ‘the Qur’an is the uncreated word of Allah.’

Tafsir Al-A’yashi 1/8

Rijaal al kashi p.490

But again it is the same problem, with contradictions.

Abdul Jabbar the mu’tazili in his explanation of the five priniciples ‘our madhab in this, is that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah and it is created.’

The one who originated this false belief, was Al-ja’d ibnu dirham, Ibn hajr said he was a innovator and mubtadi’ and he used to say Allah did not take Ibrahim AS a khaleel. And he was killed in Iraq on ‘eid. This was taken later by Jahm bin Safwan (the jahmiyyah), and Ibn kathir and Shaykhul islam, and others said that this Jahm took this creed from Abban bin sam’an, and he took it form talut the nephew of the Labeed bin a’saam, the jew who put magic on the Prophet, and used to say the Torah was created. This talut the nephew was a heretic, he was the first who put into writing, and Dirham took it from him.

Ibn al-atheer ‘al kaamil’ 5/294

Al Hamwiyah 5/20-21

As-Safirini ‘luma’il anwar’ 1/23

Khateeb al baghdaadi mentioned that the father of Bishir al Marifi, he was one of the major ones who said the Qur’an is created, his father was a Jew.

Al-Ja’d bin dirham was one of the people of Harran, and there were remnants from the sabians and philosophers, who denied Ibrahim RA, and this is why he denied Ibrahim being a khaleel of Allah, and the Qur’an being created. Based on saying that ‘no speech is affirmed for Allah, and feeling of love.’ So the Muslims killed him, his maqaala (his claim) spread.

So therefore narrations which state that the Qur’an was revealed uncreated, may therefore reperesent the old shi’a belief, because the saying that the Qur’an is created is an innovation of the latter shi’a.

Many of the people of knowledge said ‘the affirmation by mentioning the infinitve negates metaphor.’ As in Majmoo’ al fatawaa 12/550

And has the matter been as they said, what would be the merit of Musa AS?

Negation of believers seeing Allah on the day of Judgement

First we need to know that the seeing is true. But without going into kayfiyah, asking how. As Allah stated in Surah Qiyamah, ayah 22-23, ‘Some faces on that day shall be shining and radiant, looking at their Lord.’ And there enough narrations which are authentic in the sunan, for the firmness of this belief are strong within Ahlul Sunnah.

The Mu’tazilah denies seeing Allah. The shi’as followed them and many narrations came in their books, as mentioned by Ibn Babaweyh in his book ‘at-tawheed’ and collected by ‘al-bihaar’ forging lies against Abi Abdillah As-sadiq, denying the seeing of Allah in ‘Bihaar’ 4/31.

This is a false attribute to the imams, and we may see few reports affirming the seeing of Allah on the day of judgement.

Their excuse is that this is by way of taqiyyah.

Also they deny that Allah descends on the last third of the night. And they position on this matter is also is very unsteady. Some reports attributed to Imams deny the descent. Such as; Usul al kafi 1/125-127, ‘Bihar’ 3/311-314.

However there are other narrations which agree with ahlul Sunnah.

They describe their Imams by names of Allah, and His attributes

This is something the shi’a were caught unique in this matter. They don’t give Allah His rights, but give it to others than Him. They invented a saying that, the Imams are the names of Allah. Hence denying His asmaa wa sifaat and negating it. And they say it came from the ma’soomeen.

Take for example the saying of Kulayni in aslul kafi, concerning the statement of Allah in 7:180, ‘…and to Allah belongs the best names so invoke Him by them.’ They said ‘Abi Abdillah said: ’We are by Allah asmaa alhusna…’ Usul Al Kafi 1/143

This was also taken by the ‘most reliable’ sources;

Tafsir Al ‘Ayashi 2/42

Al mufeed ‘al ikhtisaas’ p.252

‘Bihaar’ 94/220-222

An-Nuri at-tabrasi ‘Mustadrak al-wasaa’il’ 1/371

Tafsir Burhaan 1/52

As-Safi 2/254

Al majlisi tabulated 36 narrations claiming that the Imams are the face of Allah and the Hand of Allah in bihaar 24/191-194

And they attribute to the imams saying ‘I am the first, I am the last, I am the Most High and I am the Most Near.’

Rijaal Al kashi p.221 no.174

Bihaar 94/180

Basaa’iru Dharajaat p.151

Many reports attributed to them saying ‘We are the face of Allah.’ In Ibn Babaweyh ‘At-tawhid’ p.150

And in tafsir A’yaashi, there is a long narration which makes the believers shiver because of what they attribute to the events of the day of Judgement, and at the end of the narration reported on the tongue of their Imams, ‘…and then we will be brought and sit on the ‘arsh of our Lord.’

‘Ayaashi 2/312

Al bahraani ‘burhaan’ 2/439

Bihaar 3/302 printed by kambaani

Many are the texts which interpret the attributes of Allah as the Imams and so on. Even knowing the unseen. Al kafi there is a chapter ‘the imams know what took place and what is taking place, and nothing escapes their knowledge.’ Usul al kafi 1/260-262 and he reported many narrations. He also had another chapter titled ‘if the imams wished to know they will know.’ Al kafi 1/258. And they attributed to Abu Abdillah, ‘verily I know what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and what is paradise and what is in hell and what will occur.’

Also a story with someone called Saifu tamam ‘I was with Abu Abdullah, with other groups of shi’a in the hijr (next to the ka’ba) and he said ‘is there an eye watching us?’ We looked left and right and said ‘there is no-one’ and he said ’bi rabbil ka’aba (3 times), had I been between Musa and khidr, I would have told them I know better than them and I would have told them that which they didn’t know, that because Musa and Khidr were given knowledge of what has occurred but they have not been given knowledge of things that occur and what will occur and we inherited this knowledge from the messenger SAW.’ Al Kafi 1/260-261

If they claim these statements were made by their Imams, are they different from Fir’aun who said the same? Allah says Surah Naml (27):65, Surah Al an’am(6):59 that He owns the unseen and none besides Him, and Surah A’raf(7):188 ‘Say: I possess no power for myself, and had I knowledge of the unseen, I would have stopped any harm from touching me and caused much good to come to me.’

Earlier we learned the reports attributed to Abu Abdullah, now we see thus ‘How amazing, the matter with some people, claim that we know the unseen, only Allah the Most mighty and Most Magnificent knows the unseen.’ The number of these reports which agree with the truth are like a white hair on a black bull, and if they are closed down, they resort to taqiyyah, and they say this report may sound contradictory but it was said in fear.

Salaamun alaykum w rahma

This article is about the love that the companions had for each other. I am no scholar neither a student of knowledge, so may Allah help me in this work.

When Ahlul-sunnah say ‘as-sahabah’ what we mean is both the household and the companions, as they were the generation of the FIRST Muslims, who accepted Islam within the Prophet’s life.

The linguistic definition of ‘sahabah’ is from the root word ‘sahiba’ which means ‘to accompany’.

A’immah An-nawawi, Bukhari and Ibnu-salih, (RH- may Allah have mercy on them) had and held the definition was: ‘Whoever saw the Prophet (SAW) while believing in him, and died upon that state.’

Ibn Hajr (RH) came after them and challenged this understanding, by saying that there were companions who were blind so what is the case with them? Such as Ibn Umm Makhtum RA. So he formed another and more precise definition.And this is the most correct one according to majority of the scholars, if not all of them.

‘Whoever met the Prophet while believing in him, accompanied him even for a short while, and died upon belief in him.’

One scholar had the opinion that it is accompanying him for a year or two. But this was an unpopular view and even his name is not known.

Scholars then talked about the age someone could be classified a companion. Some scholars said that s/he must be past the age of puberty, but this again is refuted, as scholars considered his (SAW) own son to be a companion, Ibrahim (RA) but not his other son Qaasim (RA), as well as Muhammed Ibn Abi Bakr (RA) and Mahmood bin Rabi’ (RA) who narrated a narration at the age of five, he remmebered an incident with the Prophet (SAW) where the Prophet put water he was making wudhu with into his mouth and blew it out on the boy as a joke, so he is also classified a companion.

So the part ‘whoever met the Prophet (SAW)’ is as follows, it includes any form of companionship, regardless of duration, includes blind people, includes children except infants. However excludes creation of the unseen world (namely; angels and jinn), and excludes mukhadramoon, those who witnessed jahilliyyah and Islam without physically meeting the Prophet (SAW). This last catagory includes Uwais Al Qarni (RA) who couldn’t go to meet the Prophet due to his taking care of his wife.

‘While believing in him…’

Those who met the Prophet (SAW) before his Prophethood such as Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayr (RA). And this excludes any kafir who met him and then accepted Islam afterwards and did not see him again. Such as Al-Ash’ath ibn Qays.

“…and died as a muslim.”

Even if there was a period of riddah (apostasy) in between, and this excludes those who apostated and did not return, or died on their apostasy.

The issue of ranking the companions began due to the shi’a. Otherwise this issue would not have been mentioned, as the shi’a were excessive in insulting and reviling the companions, there are many sources for this. Both Shi’a and Sunni, I will only quote a few of the shi’a sources then only a few of the ahlul-sunnah ones.

1. Taken from commentary of shia scholar Ayashi, narration #148:

From Khannan ibn Sadeer from his father from Abu Jafar (alaihi salam): “People became apostates after (death of) prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)”. And I said: Who are these three?”. He said: “al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farese”…

2. In “Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays” written:

Ali (alayhi salam) said: “All people apostated after prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) except 4 of them”.

Also this narration which is reported to have more than 80(!) ways of narration:

Shareek Ibn Abdullah (who was a tabi’i, and this further proves the point that this ranking business was started by the shi’a) was asked ‘Who is better Abu Bakr or Ali?’ He answered ‘Abu Bakr,’

The questioner then asked ‘You say this even though you are shi’i?’ He replied, ‘Whoever does’nt say this is not shi’a, by Allah! Ali rose upon this pulpit and addressed the people of Kufah and said, ‘The best after its messenger amongst the ummah is Abu Bakr thumma Umar.’

For the ahlul-sunnah this is narrated by way of Bukhari and many others. And amongst the shi’a this is narrated in ‘Talkheesu shafie’ – Vol.2, page 428.

In the first generation, those who were known as shi’i most exclusively were those who preferred Ali (RA), over Uthmaan (RA) and were in fact known as ‘Shi’i’ &’Uthmaani’, but even these shi’a were from Ahlul sunnah. Due to this being not within the fundamentals. We know about shareek bin Abdullah (RA). It is suprising to know that the major imams of ahlul-sunnah, are sometimes referred to as shi’a, this is carrying the original and clear undistorted meaning of tashayu’.

But anyways, the ranking began by the shi’a. So Ahlul-sunnah agreed on a single principle, and whoever was against this principle, was against the ‘ijma of the ahlulsunnah (being the main body of muslims, are sometimes referred to as the orthodox muslims). This ‘ijma was that the best of this Ummah after it’s Prophet SAW, was Abu Bakr and Umar RA on them both.

Then after this, the majority of the muslims consider Uthmaan over Ali RA,as Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf RA said, ‘I have consulted the people in Madinah and I could not find anyone that favors ‘Ali over Uthmaan’ in Sahih Bukhari

And Ayyub As-Sukhtiyaani (RH) said, ‘whoever favours Ali over Uthmaan has not given the opinions of the muhajirun and the ansar their due respect.’Al bidaaya wan-nihaayah li’Ibn Katheer RH.

Shi’as have this in their books also to quote one, which really shows the message, in Nahjul Balagha.

“Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.”

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm#letter6

This was stated in Nahjul balagha letter 6.

The authenticity of this book is deemed as mostly or all fabricated and weak, and the author wished to compile sayings and things Ali RA used to say long after his death, and did not add or barely added any chains for this book. So his main aim was showing the eloquence of arabic, so it is a wonder as to how the shi’a scholars took it to be highly authentic. The point of me referring to this book, is to show what our shi’a brothers take and use as a point of reference, for a stronger argument in this topic.

So ijma’ of the companions is established, and as Ali RA said it what is upon the pleasure of Allah.

To quickly finish the topic of ranking, Ahlul sunnah had four opinions, regarding the khulafaau rashideen. We mentioned 2 so far, one being Abu Bakr and Umar were the best, then silence., this was third greatest. Second opinion being, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, then Ali. And this latter one is the greatest amongst ahlulsunnah. And these two do not contradict.

Another opinion which was lesser in popularity was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then silence. And lastly, Abu Bakr, Umar, ALI then Uthmaan, this was held by a few from the tabi’un and ahlul-kufa. However It was reported that Abu Hanifa RH had this view and the narration is questioned.And even if this is the case, this view was reported by the scholars to be only in virtue, not in being worthy of the khilafah. Also there are refutations against this view, that I maybe will go into later.

So in rank of strength, it was as follows: first was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then Ali. Second was Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan then silence. Third was Abu Bakr then Umar and silence. Lastly was the view that it was Abu Bakr, Umar, then Ali, then Uthmaan. May parents be sacrificed for them and may Allah be pleased with them all.

I felt it necassary to begin in introducing how the companions are seen by ahlul sunnah. Although I have not finished in the next post I will delve further into the proofs of the status of the companions and what we say about them, and inshaallah go into what the other sects say about the companions and what the ruling is according to the scholars using proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

May Allah make it easy for me. And May Allah reward the brothers who I took from in terms of references, and sources.

any evil I have said is from myself and shaytan, any good I have done is from the blessing of Allah.

Wslm

- end of part 1 -

 

Narration.Whoever died and in his soul was hate towards Ali, died like Jew or Christian.

Shaukani in “Favaid al majmua” (p 373, #72) said:
. رواه العقيلي عن بهز بن حكيم عن أبيه عن جده مرفوعا وقال في إسناده علي بن قرين كان يضع الحديث والجارود بن يزيد وكان يضع أيضا
“Narrated by Ukayli via Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from grandfather “marfuan”. In the chain is Ali ibn Qarin, he fabricated, and Jarud ibn Yazeed, he also use to fabricate (narrations)”.

Ali ibn Qarin. Zahabi in “Mizan” #5913 wrote:
قال يحيى: لا يكتب عنه، كذاب خبيث. وقال أبو حاتم: متروك الحديث. وقال موسى بن هارون، وغيره: كان يكذب. وقال العقيلى،: كان يضع الحديث. وقال الدارقطني: ضعيف
Yahya said: “Don’t record his narrations, he is wicked liar”. Abu Hatim said: “Matrook ahaeedth”. Musa ibn Harin and others said: “He use to lie”. Ukayli said: “He fabricated narrations”. Daraqutni said: “Weak”.

As for Jarud ibn Yazeed. Zahabi in “Mizan” #1428:
كذبه أبو أسامة. وضعفه على. وقال يحيى: ليس بشئ. وقال أبو داود: غير ثقة. وقال النسائي والدارقطني: متروك. وقال أبو حاتم: كذاب.
Abu Usama said he’s liar. Ali (ibn Madini) said he’ weak. Yahaya said he’s nothing. Abu Daud said: “Not truthful”. Daraqutni and Nasai said: “Matrook”. Abu Hatim said: “Liar”.

Whenever we ask shias why do their books contain so few ahadeth from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), they answer: Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (alaihi salam) says: “My hadith is the hadith of my father, the hadith of my father is that of my grandfather, the hadith of my grandfather is that of al-Husayn [bin ‘Ali], the hadith of al-Husayn is that of al-Hasan [bin ‘Ali], the hadith of al-Hasan is that of Amiru ‘l-mu’mimin [‘Ali bin Abi Talib] (a.s.), the hadith of Amiru’l-mu’minin is that of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w), and the hadith of the Messenger is a statement of Allah, the Almighty, the Great.”

And now just see, how dajal Kamal Haydari use this weak hadith to proof his false mazhab!

 

This hadith was narrated by Kulayni “Kafi” (1/53):

But, it’s not saheeh even per their norms.

Majlisi in “Mirat” (1/128) said it’s weak ala mash`hur. Bahbude also said it’s weak.

In the chain of this hadith Sahl ibn Ziyad, he’s weak in accordance to agreed opinion between shia scholars. (Najashi “Rijal” p 185; Ibn Dawud al-Hilli “Rijal” p 249; Sheikh Hasan ibn Zaynutdin “Tahrir at-tawusi” p 199; Tifrashi “Rijal” 2/89 and others).

In it also Umar ibn Abdulazeez (not the righteous Caliph, but someone with the same name).

The only one I found with that name in their books is: Abu hafs ibn Abi Bashar, Umar ibn Abdulazeez, known as Zuhal.

عمر بن عبد العزيز، أبو حفص بن ابي بشار، المعروف بزحل – بالزاي والحاء المهملة. قال الكشي: قال محمد بن مسعود: حدثني عبد الله بن حمدويه البيهقي، قال: سمعت الفضل بن شاذان يقول: زحل أبو حفص يروي المناكير وليس بغال. وقال النجاشي: انه مختلط (2)

So as Al-Hili said in his book: “Umar ibn Abdulaziz, Abu hafs ibn Abi Bshar, who is known as Zuhal. Al-Kishi said: …. He narrates Manakeer (Rejected traditions) … and Al-Naghashi said: He is Mukhtalat”

And he is the one that Abu Ja’far ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Eisa narrates from (as Al-Tusi said in Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijaal), which is the case in this tradition.

So unless they can show that is someone else (and I could be wrong here) then it is another weakness that can be added to “My hadith is hadith of my father” tradition … well, if we apply their rules on them that is …

Kulayni also narrated (1/51):

وعنه، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن القاسم بن محمد، عن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن أبي بصير قال: قلت لابي عبدالله (عليه السلام): الحديث أسمعه منك أرويه عن أبيك أو أسمعه من أبيك أرويه عنك؟ قال: سواء إلا أنك ترويه عن أبي أحب إلي: وقال أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام) لجميل: ما سمعت مني فاروه عن أبي.

It is narrated from him from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn abu Hamza from abu Basir who has said the following. “Abu ‘Abdallah (alaihi salam) said to Jamil, ‘What you hear from me narrate it from my father.’”

Both Majlisi and Bahbude shared view that this hadith is weak. In the chain Ali ibn Abi Hamza, pillar of waqife mazhab, and that followers of that mazhab are kuffar in the view of shias. Imam said to this man: “You and your friends look like donkey”. (Ibn Dawud “Rijal” p 259). Also in the chain al-Qaseem ibn Muhammad, and he was also waqife.

Majlisi narrated similar hadith in “Bihar” (volume 2, bab 19, #21)

جا، ]المجالس للمفيد[ ابن قولويه عن ابن عيسى عن هارون بن مسلم عن ابن أسباط عن ابن عميرة عن عمرو بن شمر عن جابر قال قلت لأبي جعفر ع إذا حدثتني بحديث فأسنده لي فقال حدثني أبي عن جده عن رسول الله ص عن جبرئيل ع عن الله عز و جل و كل ما أحدثك بهذا الإسناد و قال يا جابر لحديث واحد تأخذه عن صادق خير لك من الدنيا و ما فيها

Via chain: Amr ibn Shimr – Jabir – Abu Jafar (alaihi salam).

Amr ibn Shimr extremely weak. (Tifrashi “Rijal” 3/336; Ibn Dawud al-Hilli “Rijal” p 235, 264; Najashi “Rijal” p 128, 287; Allama Amili “Khulasat” p 94, 95, 378).

Shias free to show us single authentic hadith with such meaning from their books. Hadith PLUS chain PLUS direct reference in the shia book PLUS translation.

I’m guide for every people, an prophet is warner.

Allah said: “[Shakir 13:7] And those who disbelieve say: Why has not a sign been sent down upon him from his Lord? You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people.

Tabarani in “Mojam al ausat”:
8004 – حدثنا محمد بن جعفر بن سام ، نا عثمان بن أبي شيبة ، نا المطلب بن زياد ، عن السدي ، عن عبد خير ، عن علي ، في قوله : ( إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد (1) ) قال : « رسول الله المنذر ، والهاد : رجل من بني هاشم »
From Ali (r.a) :“You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people”. “Prophet is a warner, and a man from banu hashim is guide”.

Narrators:
Muttalib ibn Ziyad. Ibn Muin said: “Thiggat”. Ibn Hibban said: “He’s not to be rely on”. Ibn Sad said: “Weak”. (see Mizan #8591)
Ibn Hajar said in “Tahtheeb at tahtheeb” vol 10, #333:
عن أبي داود رأيت عيسى ابن شاذان يضعفه وقال عنده مناكير
“From Abu Daud: “I seen Isa ibn Shazzan said he (Muttalib) is weak. And said : “There is (some) rejected data from him”.

Tabarani himself said:
لم يرو هذا الحديث عن السدي إلا المطلب
“This narration was narrated from Suddi, only by Muttalib..”.
And there is another question, a big one. Suddi.
He is Ismayil ibn Abdurrahman ibn Abu Karimat Suddi Kufi.

Zahabi in “Mizan” #907 wrote:
عن معتمر، عن ليث، قال: كان بالكوفة كذابان، فمات أحدهما: السدى والكلبي.
“From Muatamar, from Layth: “There were two liars in Kufa. One of them is Suddi (other is) Kalbi”.
وقال الفلاس، عن ابن مهدى: ضعيف.
“Falathi reported from in Mahdi: “Weak”.
وقال ابن معين: في حديثه ضعف. وقال أبو حاتم: لا يحتج به.
“Ibn Muin said: “There is a weakness in his narrations”. Abu Hatim said: “He’s not to be rely on”.
Abu Zura said he is soft. (“Tahtheeb al kamal” vol 3, #462).
I should notice that Ahmad said: “Thiqqat”. Ibn Adi: “Saduk”.

This narration also present in “Tareekh al Dimashk” (42/358-359) by ibn Asakir:

أخبرنا أبو علي بن السبط أنا أبو محمد الجوهري ح وأخبرنا أبو القاسم بن الحصين أنا أبو علي بن المذهب قالا أنا أبو بكر القطيعي نا عبد الله بن أحمد حدثني عثمان بن أبي شيبة نا مطلب بن زياد عن السدي عن عبد خير عن علي في قوله ” إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد ” قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) المنذر والهادي رجل من بني هاشم

Both of narrators from below are present here.
And in “Tareekh al Dimashk” (42/359) something similar.

Also you can find it in “Musnad” by imam Ahmad:

1053ز- حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى عثمان بن أبى شيبة حدثنا مطلب بن زياد عن السدى عن عبد خير عن على فى قوله (إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد) قال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- « المنذر والهاد رجل من بنى هاشم ».

Shaykh Shuayb al Arnaut said:
إسناده ضعيف وفي متنه نكارة
“Chain is weak, and there is rejection in the content”.

It was also narrated by Hakim in “Mustadrak”:

[ 4646 ] أخبرنا أبو عمرو عثمان بن أحمد بن السماك ثنا عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن منصور الحارثي ثنا حسين بن حسن الأشقر ثنا منصور بن أبي الأسود عن الأعمش عن المنهال بن عمرو عن عباد بن عبد الله الأسدي عن علي إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد قال علي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المنذر وأنا الهادي

From Ali (r.a): “Prophet warner, and Ali is guide”.

Narrators:
The problem is chain is Husayn ibn Hasan al Ashgar.
Zahabi in “Mizan” #1986 wrote:
ال البخاري: فيه نظر. وقال أبو زرعة: منكر الحديث. وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بقوى.
“Bukhari said: “He is under question”. Abu Zura said: “Munkaar ahadeeth”. Abu Hatim said: “He’s not strong”.
وقال أبو معمر الهذلى: كذاب. وقال النسائي والدارقطني: ليس بالقوى
“Abu Muamar Khuzali said: “Liar”. Nasai and Daraqutni said: “Not strong”.

Second problem in this chain is Abbad ibn Abdullah Suddi.
Imam adh-Dhahabi referred to this Abaad ibn Abdullah al-Kufi as “weak according to Ali ibn al-Madini.” (Mugni fi Duafa, #3041; also refer to Tatheeb at-Tahtheeb by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar, Vol. 5, #165)
Imam al-Bukhari declared that “there is a doubt concerning his reliability.” (Tahtheeb al-Kamal, Vol.14, #3087)

Ibn Jareer at Tabari narrated something similar in his commentary (16/357):

20161- حدثنا أحمد بن يحيى الصوفي قال: حدثنا الحسن بن الحسين الأنصاري قال: حدثنا معاذ بن مسلم،بياع الهروي، عن عطاء بن السائب، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس قال: لما نزلت(إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد) ، وضع صلى الله عليه وسلم يده على صدره فقال: أنا المنذر=(ولكل قوم هاد)، وأومأ بيده إلى منكب علي، فقال: أنت الهادي يا علي، بك يهتدي المهتدون بعدي

Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam) said: “I’m warner” after he showed towards Ali , and said: “You are guide, o Ali”.

The narrator Ata ibn Saab. Ahmad and Nasai said that his narrations are strong if they are old one. Yahya said: “He’s weak in narrations, if not narrated from Sufyan and Shuba”. See Mizan #5641.
Muaz ibn Muslim. This narrator is unknown. Mizan #8613
Ibn Kasir in his commentary (4/434) said:
وهذا الحديث فيه نكارة شديدة
“And there is a sharp rejection in this narration”.

This hadeeth was also narrated by Abu Nuaym in “Marifatus sahaba”:

327 – حدثنا الطبراني ، قال : ثنا الحسين بن إسحاق التستري ، ثنا أحمد بن يحيى الصوفي ، ثنا حسن بن حسين العرني ، ثنا معاذ بن مسلم ، بياع الهروي ، عن عطاء بن السائب ، عن سعيد بن جبير ، عن ابن عباس ، قال : لما نزلت إنما أنت منذر ولكل قوم هاد ، أومأ بيده إلى منكب علي ، فقال : « أنت الهادي يا علي ، بك يهتدي المهتدي من بعدي »

It also running via Ata ibn Saab, and Muaz ibn Muslim. And they are accompanied by Hasan ibn Husayn Arruni. And he’s weak.

Wa Allahu Alam.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.