I came across with accusation by rafidi that book “al-Maaref” of ibn Qutaibah was distorted.
Ibn Shahr Ashab (died 588 A.H.) Manaqib al-Abu Talib, Vol. 3, p. 407 (Dar al-Adwa):
وفي معارف القتيبي: أن محسنا فسد من زخم قنفذ العدوي
“Ibn Qutaybah states in his book titled “al-Maarif” that Mohseen perished because of the squeezing [of his mother] by Qunfath of Bani Adiyy.”
al-Kanji, the Shafii scholar (died 685 A.H.) in his book Kifayat al-Talib, p. 413 cites the mentor, al-Mufid, saying:
وزاد على الجمهور، وقال: إن فاطمة عليها السلام أسقطت بعد النبي ذكرا، كان سماه رسول الله (ص) محسنا. وهذا شئ لم يوجد عند أحد من أهل النقل إلا عند ابن قتيبة
“He [Ibn Qutaybah] added to what most scholars have reported saying that Fatima, peace be upon her, miscarried after the demise of the Prophet (A.S.) a son whom the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) had named Mohseen. This is something which is not reported by anyone from among the transmitters except Ibn Qutaybah.” It seems he means that Ibn Qutaybah has transmitted the above in his book titled Al-Ma`arif as Ibn Shahr ashab testifies. But if you look at p. 92 of the edition of the same book printed in 1353 A.H., you will instead read the following sentence:
وأما محسن بن علي فهلك، وهو صغير
“As for Muhassan son of Ali (A.S.), he died young.” Such is the case with all other editions now in circulation. So, why should some people resort to such distorting and such betrayal of the historical truth?! We wonder.
First of all we would say:
Who is ibn Shahrashub? Or Kanji ash-Shafei?
People who spend a few minutes of their time by browsing our section “refuting shia lies”, already seen how many time shia scholars openly lied in their book by falsely attributing hadith to our books, or views to our scholars. We have many examples: Liar Ali al-Milani, Liar Jafar Subhani and many other examples.
So, let us go back to mentioned two persons.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in “Lisanul Mizan” (#1034):
محمد بن علي بن شهر اشوب أبو جعفر السروري المازندراني من دعاة الشيعة
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Sharhashub Abu Jafar as-Sururi al-Mazandarani from callers of shias.
As for Kanji, he also was a wolf in the skin of lamb.
The editor of his book: “ Al-Bayan fee Akhbar Sahib Al-Zaman”, who is also a Shiite, said: “ I have not come across a complete biography of Hafidh Al-Kanji Al-Shafi, for he has been ignored by many of his contemporary historians such as Ibn Khilikan in (Wafiyat Al-Ayan) , Abu Shama in (Al-Dhayl ala Al-Rawdatayn) , Al-Yunini in (Mira’at Al-Zaman) , Al-Dhahabi in (Tathkirat Al-Hufadh).”He also said: “ Historians mentioned that Hafidh Al-Kanji was killed in the year 658 , in the Ummayad Jami in Damascus , on the hands of the public who were antagonized by his reclining to Shia. Some others have added another reason for his murder, being that he used to deal with the Tatar and accepted a position that they gave to him as well as the money (molested) from those who were absent from his country.”
Ibn Katheer, in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, clearly identifies him as a Rafidi: “ In the middle of the Jami, the public killed a Rafidi Shiekh who was helping Tatar over the money of people called Al-Fakhr Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ibn Muhammad Al-Kanji. He had evil intentions , and was from the East , helping them over the money of Muslims. May Allah disparage him. And they killed a group of hypocrites of his likes, so an end was put to those who transgressed. Al-Hamdullilah”
So why should we Muslims believe to the words of two shia sheikh when they cited from book of our scholar?
I personally do believe that these two mentioned sheikh could falsely attribute that quote to ibn Qutaibah.
Alllah knows best.