Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Kulayni narrated:
أحمد بن محمد عن ابن فضال عن ابن بكير عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: دخل رجل على علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام) فقال: إنامرأتك الشيبانية خارجية تشتم عليا (عليه السلام) فإن سرك أن أسمعك منها ذاك أسمعتك؟ قال: نعم قال: فإذا كان غدا حين تريد أن تخرج كما كنت تخرج فعد فاكمن في جانب الدار، قال: فلما كان من الغد كمن في جانب الدار فجاء الرجل فكلمها فتبين منها ذلك فخلى سبيلها وكانت تعجبه
Ahmad bin Muhammad »» Ibn Fazzal »» Ibn Bukayr »» Zurarah »» Imam Baqir [as] said: a person came to Ali bin Hussain (Zain ul Aabideen) [as] and said: Your [as]’s wife who belongs to the Shaybani tribe is a Khariji, (she) abuses Ali [as], if you wish should I make hear from her? Imam [as] said: Yes. He said: in the morning when you [as] decide to come-out from her (house) you should hide yourself in the corner of house. He [as] said: so the next morning he [as] went hidden in the corner of house, then that man came and talked to her (Imam’s wife), so he [as] got the verification about that, so he [as] divorced her, whereas he [as] use to like her a lot.
Source: Al Kafi: vol 5 pg 351, hadith #14
Grading: Majlisi said: Mawthaq – Mirat Al Uqul, vol 20 pg 54
This riwayah shows that the ilm ghaib theory is flawed one, marrying a nasibi is not allowed in Shiism, the Imam didn’t know that he married a nasiba, someone informed him about it that O imam, you have made a person with whom marriage is impermissible according to your religion. Imam didn’t know this !
Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu ala rasullah.
Indeed our scholars of the past and present were correct when they said that shias are liars.
Site revisitingsalaf wrote: Continue reading
The following article has been published by Nader Zaveri (Shiite who opposes some Shia heresies and innovations). We repost it here with no alterations and editions whatsoever. After having read the article below you’ll probably be very shocked and angry at those heretic ‘Ayatollahs’ who are hiding the truth from their gullible followers i.e. the bitter truth that the third testimony in the Athaan is an accursed Bid’ah no matter if you believe it is not ‘part of the Athaan’ as some apologetic Shias say. But don’t expect much from these heretics for they(Shia scholars who just care about innovating more and more) have brought their OWN Bid’ah to a next level by having added a fourth and fifth etc. testimony to the Athaan, see HERE>>>).
Hafidh ad-Dhahabe said in his book “Mizanul itidal” (1/5):
“And extreme person from the sheeah in the time of the early Muslims and according to them was one who spoke ill of and reviled Uthman ibn Affan, Zubayr ibnul Awaam, Talha, Muawiyah ibn Abee Sufyan and a group who fought Alee. Whereas an extreme sheeah in our time and according to us is one who declares them disbelievers and renounces himself from Abu Bakr and also Umar. This one is misguided liar”.
Quoted from “Min aqwal al-munsefeen fi sahabe al-khaliphat Muawiya ibn Abee Sufyan” by Abdulmuhsin Abbad.
Here the hideous Bid’ah of the hideous Rafidah (that some of the classical Rafidah even rejected, read HERE>>>),
As you can see the likes of Yasser Al-Habib have even included FATIMAH AND ABA AL-FADHL (half-brother of Al-Hussein) to the Adhan. And if anyone’s going to complain and looking for a excuse by saying that the Al-Habib dude is some sort of extremist, then know that ALL their scholars are extremists by definition, merely for adding ‘Aliyun Waliyullah’ to the Adhan, there are a scholars amongst them, other than Yasser Al-Habib who also not just add Ali but also FATIMAH and ALL the 12 Imams into the Adhan:
Ayatullah Modarresi’s hukm says regarding the inclusion of Fatimah (!!!) in the third testimony of Adhan & Iqaamah
هل يجوز في الأذان قول “أشهد أنّ علياً أمير المؤمنين والصديقة الطاهرة فاطمة الزهراء وأبنائهما المعصومين أولياء الله”؟
لا بأس بذلك بقصد الرجاء.
Q: Is it permissible to say in the Adhan: ‘I bear witness that Ali is the chief of the believers and that the truthful and pure Fatimah Az-Zahra’ and their
infallible sons are the Awliya (close friends) of Allah?’
A: There is nothing wrong with it, with the intention of Rajaa’ (doing something with the hope of the acceptance or pleasure of Allah)
Not good enough? What about a major Marja’ like Sistani:
Is it permissible to add the name of our mistress Fatimah Al-Zahra’ (SWA) into the THREE testimonies of the Adhan (making it FOUR) and Iqamah (like: I bear witness that Ali, Fatimah and her infallible sons are the proofs of Allah).
Answer/Fatwa by Ayatullah Al-‘Udhma Sayyid Ali Al-Hussayni Al-Sistani:
It is permissible to add the phrase into the Adhan and Iqamah!
Now check what Al-Sadooq (Ibn Babawayh Al-Qummi), one of the biggest classical Shia scholars said about those who ‘merely’ included Ali into the Adhan:
Book: Man Laa YaHduruh Al-Faqeeh, vol. 1, pg. 290 – 291
Author: In Babawayh al-Qummi (‘Al-Sadooq’)
COMMENT: After all those centuries of lying the Rafidah are still not ashamed to throw around with terms like BID’AH! I mean, what the heck? They are DROWN into Bid’ah how can they even use the word Bid’ah? They should avoid it just as they’ve nearly avoided the term TAWHID and SUNNAH (hence you see everything aroung them is Ail/Wilayah/Ali/Wilayah/Hussein/Mahdi/Fatimah/Wilayah/Wilayah etc.). They accuse the Sahabah of Bid’ah (like Omar adding to the Fajr Adhan, which is nothing but a LIE: REFUTATION 1>>>and 2>>>), yet they have not a SINGLE Sahih narration where the Prophet صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم ordered or agreed with their Bid’ah of “Aliyun Waliullah” in the Adhan. They (like Yasser Al-Habib above) even added the name FATIMAH (RA) into the Adhan!
This sect is constantly changing, at first they never said it, then there appeared some Ghulat as Sadooq says who started saying it and he accused them of being cursed heretics, a couple of years later the practice becomes wide spread among them so their scholars start allowing it, a couple of years later many opinions arise all of them claiming that it is “Mustahabb” or recommended to say it during Adhan, and finally in our days we’re starting to see new opinions saying that this is WAJIB and that Fatimah should be included etc…. And the journey of the deviants continue. In fact this Bid’ah (just like the black and white turban clergy caste system amongt the Shias) is an Safavid innovation. The modern Rafidah scholars aren’t the first major scholars to allow it, before them Al-Majlisi the first and al-Majlisi the second (ie. Mohammad Taqi AlMajlisi and Mohammad Baqir Majlisi ) allowed it, when it was basically becoming the ‘norm’ under the Safavids. So it was the palace scholar of the Safavids, the heretic Al-Majlisi (who introduced so many Majoosi elements into the already full of superstition and heresies rotten Shia sect) who backed up his father and said that doing this 3rd testimony in the Adhan / Iqaamah is a great act. The Shias who in their propaganda always claim that the Sunni schools are actually results of the Umayyad dynasties have actually introduced a heretical innovation into the Adhan that was started by the blood thirsty Safavids with the HELP of Shia scholars! It was Shah Isma`il, leader of Safawid dynasty who said to first add the 3rd testimony in Adhaan. And as stated before, the first major scholar to add it was al-Majlisi I (Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi) in his RawDah al-Muttaqeen, vol. 2, pg. 245-246 also in his Persian commentary of Man Laa Yahduruh al-Faqeeh called Lawaam` Saahibaqaraani, vol. 3, pg. 565-567. According to his statements in these books, the wilayah in the Adhaan was already prominent (because of Shah Isma`il’s decree). al-Majlisi’s I teacher stopped reciting the 3rd testimony in adhan, because of that he was being accused of being Sunni, so al-Majlisi I convinced him to do so. Then, his son al-Majlisi II (Muhammad Baaqir al-Majlisi) followed his dad’s footsteps and tried to provide “proofs” for it in his magnum opus called Bihaar al-Anwaar.
The first one to say it is mustahab was al-Majlisi II, in his Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 81, pg. 111:
و أقول لا يبعد كون الشهادة بالولاية من الأجزاء المستحبة للأذان لشهادة الشيخ و العلامة و الشهيد و غيرهم
And I say: ‘it is not improbable that the shahaadah of wilaayah is from the mustahab parts of the adhaan based off the testimony of al-Shaykh (al-Toosi), al-`Allaamah (al-Hilli), al-Shaheed (al-Thaani), and others’
But in fact there are 0 (zero) SaHeeH hadeeth from Shee’ah books that says that it is permissible to add the 3rd testimony in Adhaan or Iqaamah. Or ANY hadeeth that says that it is mustahab (recommended), or anything that says “do it with the intention of it NOT being part of the adhaan/iqaamah”. None. Zero. Nada.
Related posts from Gift2Shias:
It was reported by Imam Ahmad and others that Aisha (r.a) once said to prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam):
وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ عَرَفْتُ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا أَحَبُّ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ أَبِي وَمِنِّي مَرَّتَيْنِ
“By Allah! I surely know that Ali is dearer to you than me and my father”
One of our brothers asked me to shed some light on this report and refute shias doubts.
First of all we would say, it was narrated by Imam Bukhari in his Saheeh, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 14, from Amr bin Al-As: The Prophet deputed me to read the Army of Dhat-as-Salasil. I came to him and said, “Who is the most beloved person to you?” He said, ” ‘Aisha.” I asked, “Among the men?” He said, “Her father.” I said, “Who then?” He said, “Then ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab.” He then named other men.
This report in itself is enough to refute shia doubt. Because report of Aisha (r.a), (if it is saheeh) is only her opinion, but hadith of Amr ibn al-As represent words and opinion of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Second point is we have mutawateer report from Ali, where he himself said that shaykhan are better than him in the matter of fadail.
Wa Allahu Alam.
Allah said in the Quran:
[Shakir 5:87] O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Shaykh of shias allama al-Majlisi in “Uyunul Hayat” (1/348) narrated:
Narrated Ali ibn Ibrahim WITH AUTHENTIC CHAIN, in his Tafseer commentary of verse ” O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you” from Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam): It was revealed about commander of faithful (alaihi salam), Bilal and Uthman ibn Maudhun.
And commander of faithful (alaihi salam) promised that he would never sleep at night, as for Bilal, he promised that he never would eat during the day, as for Uthman ibn Maudhun he promised that he never would marry (meaning he would never have intercourse with wife).
And wife of the Uthman ibn Maudhun entered upon Aisha, and she was beautiful woman. Aisha asked: Why I see you upset?…. His wife said: By Allah, my husband didn’t approached me from such and such time….. (when prophet sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam entered to Aisha, she said that to him)
He went out, and called to congregational prayer. People gathered, and minbar was set, he praised Allah, then said: What happen with group which prohibited upon themselves pure things? HEAR, I AM SLEEPING AT NIGHTS, MARRY (WOMAN) AND EAT DURING THE DAYS. AND WHOEVER WOULD GO ASTRAY FROM MY SUNNAH IS NOT FROM ME.
Allah said in the Quran:
[Pickthal 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
Shias claim that under ” those of you who are in authority” here we should understand their 12 Imams. Shias do believe that these Imams have absolutely authority over all people. And they do believe that Imams better than all prophets, expect last one (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
Question: Why in this case, Allah ordered us in the issue which we are differ in, refer only to Him and his prophet? And he didn’t order to refer it to ” those of you who are in authority”?
Salam alaikum, I do believe this going to be some kind of surprise for majority of shias. Continue reading
You all know what the Imami Shia scholars agreed on, that the one who doesn’t believe in all twelve Imams is NOT a believer nor is the one who adds an additional Imam, and they keep talking about how the narrations are Mutawatir about the Imams and that we Muslims hid these narrations ect…
Well check out this additional nonsense from their leader and renowned scholar al-Imam alSayyid Muhsin al-Ameen, in his book “A`iyaan al-Shiah” 10/5:
السيد أبو جعفر محمد بن الإمام علي أبي الحسن الهادي . توفي في حدود سنة 252 .
جليل القدر عظيم الشأن كانت الشيعة تظن انه الامام بعد أبيه ع فلما توفي نص أبوه على أخيه أبي محمد الحسن الزكي ع وكان أبوه خلفه بالمدينة طفلا لما اتي به إلى العراق ثم قدم عليه في سامراء ثم أراد الرجوع إلى الحجاز فلما بلغ القرية التي يقال لها بلد على تسعة فراسخ من سامراء مرض وتوفي ودفن قريبا منها ومشهده هناك معروف مزور . ولما توفي شق اخوه أبو محمد ثوبه وقال في جواب من لامه على ذلك قد شق موسى على أخيه هارون . وسعى المحدث العلامة الشيخ ميرزا حسين النوري في تشييد مشهده وتعميره وكان له فيه اعتقاد عظيم
[9920 – al-Sayyid abu Ja`far Muhammad son of Imam `Ali abi al-Hasan al-Hadi:
died around 252 AH.
Of great value, the Shia believed that he was the Imam after his father (as), so when he died, his father then pointed to his brother abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Zakee (as) …]
Where are the Mutawatir texts!? how can the dummies believe that the Imam after `Ali al-Hadi was Muhammad, during the life of `Ali al-Hadi and that they only learn the truth AFTER his death!?