Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi on weak ahadeth (rev-1)

Shia shaykh ar-Rawwad in his treatise “ar-Risala fi khabarul daif” (p42) quoted their master muhadith Abbas Qummi:

“and they don’t understand that IF chain (of report) is authentic that going to be a proof upon slaves, because report of truthful is a proof, and IF NOT AUTHENTIC, then IT IS NOT permitted to reject it due to possibility of coming from Ahlalbayt, and that would become a objection to them, as it comes in honourable report..”


1) Abbas Qummi apparently has no clue about terms of sound report in accordance to shiaizm. Or he used one from the “hundreds” available. Because if all reporters of hadith were thiqat (truthful) in accordance to shias is not enough for hadith to be sound (hujjah).

2) Here we have good example from known shia muhadith, that in reality THEY DON’T CARE about chain being sound or not, because even if it is not, they still shouldn’t reject it. It is good explanation of attitude which we can see from majority of modern shias. If hadith suits to their beliefs, they absolutely don’t care if chain of transmission is sound or not.

As a proof for our point of view, that shias has no right to reject any ahadeth, I’d like to cite a hadith from their book “Basair ad-Darajat”:



from Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam): Don’t reject ahadeth which someone brought to you, because you don’t know, may be they are truth,  (and by rejecting them) you would reject Allah beyond his Throne.




Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq on Zurara ibn Ayun

Yaqub ibn Sufyan in his “al-Marifat wat Tareeh” narrated:

دَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، قَالَ : ثنا سُفْيَانُ ، قَالَ : قَالَ : ابْنُ السَّمَّاكِ : أَرَدْتُ الْحَجَّ ، فَقَالَ لِي زُرَارَةُ بْنُ أَعْيَنَ أَخُو عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ أَعْيَنَ : إِذَا لَقِيتَ جَعْفَرَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ فَأَقْرِئْهُ مِنِّي السَّلَامَ ، وَقُلْ لَهُ : أَخْبِرْنِي فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَنَا أَمْ فِي النَّارِ ؟ قَالَ : فَلَقِيتُ جَعْفَرَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ ، فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أَتَعْرِفُ زُرَارَةَ بْنَ أَعْيَنَ ؟ قَالَ : نَعَمْ ، رَافِضِيٌّ خَبِيثٌ.

قَالَ : قُلْتُ : إِنَّهُ يُقْرِئُكَ السَّلَامَ ، وَيَقُولُ : أَخْبِرْنِي فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَنَا أَمْ فِي النَّارِ ؟ قَالَ : فَأَخْبِرْهُ أَنَّهُ فِي النَّارِ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : وَتَعْلَمُ مِنْ أَيْنَ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّهُ رَافِضِيٌّ إِنَّهُ يَزْعُمُ أَنِّي أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ ، وَمَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ أَحَدًا يَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ ، إِلَّا اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ ، وَالْكَافِرُ فِي النَّارِ.

….from ibn Simak: I intended to make pilgrimage, and Zurara ibn Ayun, brother of Abdulmalik ibn Ayun said to me: If you would see Jafar ibn Muhammad pass to him my Salam, and say to him to answer, if I am going to be in the Heaven or in the Fire?

Ibn Simak said: I reached Jafar ibn Muhammad, and said to him: O son of the prophet, do you know Zurara ibn Ayun, he said: Yes, RAFIDI AL-HABIS.

I said: He passed salam to you, and ask me to question you, if he is going to be in the heaven or in the fire?  Jafar said: He would be in the fire. And know how I understood that he is rafidi. He claimed that I know unseen. And whoever claims that someone knows unseen apart from Allah az-Wajal he is kaafir, and kaafir in the fire.

al-Imamah and the Waqifah Shia

Bismillah, perfect and very detailed research from respected brother Hani from Tripoli, may Allah forgive him and his parents. (gift2shias)

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

This will be a brief discussion or “rant” about the Shia Waqifiyyah sect, just like we previously discussed the Fatahiyyah sect and their problems with Musa bin Ja`far, so let’s see what happened to Musa bin Ja`far’s companions…

Firaq al-Shia by al-Nawbakhti, we read on page 86:

[Then a group of those who took Musa bin Ja`far as their Imam did not differ about him, so they held on to his Imamah until he went to jail for the second time, then they differed on him and doubted his Imamah when he went to jail the second time, until he died in the jail of al-Rasheed so they became five sects.]
Continue reading

al-Imamah and the Fatahiyyah Shia

Bismillah, perfect and very detailed research from respected brother Hani from Tripoli, may Allah forgive him and his parents. (gift2shias)


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

The title is a bit vague as you can see, “al-Imamah and the Fatahiyyah Shia” so who are these Fatahiyyah and what is their purpose and position from the Imamah? to answer this let me copy a small part of “Firaq al-Shia” regarding the main Shia sects that popped up after al-Sadiq’s death. Continue reading

al-Khui and his tawsiq upon Nawasib

We have already gave good examples of shia scholars narrating from nawasib, and here another one.

Talk is about Uthman ibn Eesa.

Al-Khui in “Mojam ar-Rijal” (12/132) said:

أقول: لا ينبغي الشك في أن عثمان بن عيسى كان منحرفا عن الحق ومعارضا للرضا عليه السلام، وغير معترف بامامته، وقد استحل أموال الامام عليه السلام، ولم يدفعها إليه ! وأما توبته ورده الاموال بعد ذلك فلم تثبت فإنها رواية نصر بن الصباح، وهو ليس بشئ، ولكنه مع ذلك كان ثقة بشهادة الشيخ وعلي بن إبراهيم وابن شهر آشوب

I (al-Khui) say: There shouldn’t be any doubt  that Uthman ibn Eesa slipped away from truth, and opposed to ar-Rida (alaihi salam), and didn’t recognize his Imamah, and made lawful property of Imam (alaihi salam), and didn’t send it to him. And his repentance and return of property after that isn’t established, it was narrated from Nasr ibn as-Sabah, and he was nothing. AND ALONG WITH THAT HE WAS THIQAH by testimony from ash-Shaykh, Ali ibn Ibrahim, ibn Shahrashub…

So person:

a) Didn’t believe in Imamah of ar-Rida.

b) Opposed to ar-Rida.

c) Took property of ar-Rida.

d) He was waqifi, as said Najashi in Rijal  (p 300) See – Waqifiya, Zaydiya in the light of shia narrations

And along with all these he was thiqah in shia view!

How to make from unknown narrator a sound one? Shia way.

Shaykh of shias Ali Namazi ash-Shahrudi in his book “Mustadrakat ilmu Rijalu Hadith” (2/421) said:

٣٦٣٥ – الحسن بن عبد الله الارجاني:
لم يذكروه. روى عن مولانا الصادق صلوات الله عليه، وروى عنه الهيثم ابن واقد قال: من صلى في منزله ثم أتى مسجدا من مساجدهم فصلى فيه خرج بحسناتهم، كما في يب ج ٣ باب فضل المساجد ح ٧٧٨ ص ٢٧٠، ومن هذا الحديث يظهر حسن عقيدته وأنه شيعي امامي.

al-Hasan ibn Abdullah al-Irjani. WASN’T MENTIONED. Narrated from Mawlana as-Sadiq salawatullah alaihi. And narrated from him al-Haytham ibn Waqad said: Who prayed in his house then went to their (sunnis) mosque and prayed there with them, he would leave it with their good deeds…(he gives source of hadith and then Shahrudi says)……AND FROM THIS HADITH APPARENT HIS GOOD BELIEF AND THAT HE WAS SHII IMAMI.

First he said that narrator wasn’t mentioned. And that mean no one from scholar mentioned him with praise or critic.

And then he managed to make from this unknown narrator good shii fellow.

So for them it is enough to narrate something what is contradicting to unity with sunnah to become shia with correct belief!!

Shia Narrators in Sunni Hadiths are Not Twelvers

Bismillah Alrahman Alraheem,

I am sure that you are already aware that much has been written by Twelver scholars about the reliance of Sunnis on Shia narrators. Of course, you are most likely also aware that the typical Sunni response is that there are no evidences that these Shias are Twelvers, but rather, are political Shias, that preferred Ali to Uthman, or were those that were critical of the people of Al-Shaam. However, neither of the two sides, in my opinion, have brought sufficient evidence to back up either claim, even though the burden of proof is upon the Twelvers of today.

In this post, I share a few examples that will be sufficient in proving that there is no reason to believe that when Sunni scholars used terms like “shi’ee” or “rafidhee” that they were not referring to Twelvers. Continue reading

Could shia hadith be rejected because it is weird?

When we say weird report it is mean such kind of report which contradicts to known and well accepted reality. For example if any report says that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said that doomsday would happen 100 years after his demise, we would reject it. Because it is established that this didn’t happen, and we do believe that this was wrongly attributed to prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). But shias? Could they do this?

Shaykh of shias Hashim al-Bahrani in his book “Al-Lawami an-Noraniyah” (p 549) narrated:



(Chain) from Sufyan ibn as-Samt: I said to Abdullah (alaihi salam) “May I be sacrifice to you, a man comes to us from your side and he is a known liar so he narrates to us and we find what he narrates ugly and strange.” The Imam said: “Does he say to you that I said that the day is night and the night is day?” He said: “No” The Imam said: “Even if he did say this then you must not reject it or say it is a lie because it is as if you say I am a Liar.”

And it was also narrated in “Saheefatul Abrar” (1/24) by Hujjatul Islam Mirza Muhammad Taqi:


Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed

For those that aren’t aware, many if not most of Al-Tusi’s chains to books and narrations include a narrator called Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed. This narrator, is unknown, but to how often he is quoted, Shia fiqh and books in general would be rendered useless without proper tawtheeq given for him.

Due to this, several late scholar attempted to make tawtheeq for him by giving reasons like that he was considered trustworthy by late scholars, or that Al-Tusi and Al-Mufeed relied on him heavily, which makes him reliable.

Ironically, shia shaykh Al-Mohseni says the following in response to their claims:

“I say: Those that have found our book will know that these reasons that are given do not equate trustworthiness. However, the heart does not allow us to reject his narrations. So, we must accept his narrations out of caution.”

(Buhooth fi Ilm Al-Rijal, p. 339)

How can this be a form of caution?! Shouldn’t one be cautious and REJECT this man instead due to the lack of tawtheeq?

al-Khoei considered him majhool though.

لاشتماله على أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد وهو ممن لم يوثق في الرجال 

إلاّ أنّ طرق الشيخ كلّها ضعيفة،فإنّ الطريق الاوّل فيه: أحمد بن محمد بن الحسن ولم يرد فيه توثيق

Shia stance on weak ahadeth

Quoted from shia blog, with edition:

Shaykh of shias, Shahid Thani said, as it is in “al Diraya” (p 27):

إن جماعة كثير أجازوا العمل بالخبر الضعيف إذا إعتضد بشهرة الفتوى بمضمونه في كتب الفقه ، بتعليل إن ذلك يوجب قوة الظن بصدق الرواية وان ضعف الطريق ،فإن الطريق الضعيف قد يثبت به الخبر مع اشتهار مضمونه

“Indeed a large group of scholars permitted acting by da’eef hadith when appealed by popularity of fatwas (religious rulings) by its content in the books of Islamic jurisprudence, because it strengthens belief on the hadith being true despite its weak chain of narration. Therefore if the chain of narration is weak, the hadith is still established due to its popular content.”

As it also quoted by Muhyidin al-Musawi in “Qawaid al-Hadith” (p 109)

To people who claim that they science of ahadeth is more correct



First of all I’d like to present to you chains for our major ahadeth books from Shah Waliullah Dihlawi:RehmatullahAlyhi:

I also remember that in some book, I seen chain from Muhammad al-Uthaymeen :RehmatullahAlyhi: till the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

1-st Question– Does shias have such chains for their books in our time? Or in close past?

Second question is about high chains. For examples in Musnad of Imam Ahmad :RehmatullahAlyhi: , there are a lot of ahadeth, where between Imam and prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) are only 3 persons. There is complete book “ath-Thulathiyat” which compilation of such ahadeth from Musnad.

What is the most high chain in shia ahadeth book, which is presently available for us? Chain should be till prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

Third question. I can list here about 50 names of books regarding weak and fabricated ahadeth from our scholars. Starting from mutekadimin, and ending with our time. Indeed our scholars did titanic work to distinguish between sound and fabricated ahadeth. They have filtered almost all books of ahadeth, and presented to us saheeh sunnah.

What about shias? I know one  work regarding this, by Sayed Hashim Maroof al-Husayni.
What is the eldest book of shias on fabricated and weak ahadeth?

Question 4.

Our scholars authored books in almost all possible sciences of ahadeth,

For example, book of Hatib – al-Muttafiq wal Muftariq, about narrators with similar names.

A lot of books on tadlis and mudalisin authored by our scholars, like Suyuti, ibn Hajar, Ajmi and etc.

Books about confused narrators – Mukhtalitin.

And etc.

Is there such books in shia world?

Majlisi on reports from Waqifi narrators

Sometimes when our scholars rejected report in praise of Ahlalbayt, because narrator of such was rafidi, we seen shias raising their voices that this is not fair.

However, even shia scholars use to accept reports from innovators in their mazhab, and reject them if reports was supportive for those innovators.

Waqifiyah was a mazhab amongst shias, which emerged long time ago, and they didn’t believe in all 12 Imams as modern shias do.

Shaykh of shias, Muhammad B.Majlisi in his “Biharul Anwar” (51/41) was discussing narration, and he said:

مع أن بعض رواة تلك الاخبار من الواقفية ولاتقبل رواياتهم فيما يوافق مذهبهم

Along (with fact that) some narrators of this reports were from Waqifiyah, and they reports are not accepted if they in line with their mazhab.

So as it obvious shia muhadith accepted reports of innovators, and refused to accept them if that reports were ammo for their mazhab.


al-Khui: Authentication of narrators by al-Hilli mean nothing.

In his “Mojam Rijal” (21/144), ayatolla al-Khui said:

وأما توثيق العلامة نفسه فلا يعتمد عليه بعدما تقدم غير مرة من أن توثيقات المتأخرين لا يمكن الاعتماد عليها

As for authentication by Allama himself, it couldn’t be relied upon, after (we) presented more than once that the tawtheeqaat from the late scholars cannot be relied upon.

Husayn Shahrudi on chains of reports

I’d like to present to you quote from ayatolla Husayn Shahrudi regarding chains of some reports.

At shia Arabic forum, this ayatollah has his Q/A section, and there he said:

لا حاجة إلى تمحيص السند في الأدعية والأذكار والزيارات


There is no need to examine chains of supplications, azkar (plural of zikr) and ziyarat.