Q A 4 - Edited

4
1432

.
] [

...

4 ............................. ................................ ................................
5 ........................................... ................................ :
6 .......................... ................................
10 ................... ................................ Nimatullah Al Jazaeri & Tahreef Al Quran
18 ............................................ :
19 ................................. Does Al Kulayni believe in all what he narrated in Al Kafi?

19 ............................. Does Al Sadooq believe in all what he narrated in Al Faqeeh?
19 ............................................. Did the Two Hishams believe God has a Body?
19 ................ ................................ Did Zurara not Know the Imam of his Time?
37 ....................... What is the Value of the Hadiths used by Ahmad Al Hassans Cult?
42 ......................... Disagreement Regarding Al Sadooqs Authentication of Al Faqeh
45 ......................... What is the Definition of the Companian According to the Shias?
45 ... Can we rely on Sayed Jaffar Murtadha Al Amelis Books when Debating with Sunnis?
45 ........... What are the Books that you suggest us to read to be able to Debate Sunnis?
47 ... Can we rely on AlMilani, AlAmeli, and AlAskaris Books when Debating with Sunnis?
47 ....... What do you think of what Shikh AlGhezi said regarding the Shia Sience of Rijal?
51 ..................................... ................................ :
52 ...................................... ................................
55 .................................... ................................ Isma in the Shia Traditions

57 ............................... Did Imam Ali use Hadith Al Ghadeer as a proof for Imama?
71 ................................. A Discussion with a Christian Regarding Jesus in the Bible
82 ........................................ ................................ :
83 ............................................. Tabeedh Vs Following the Most Knowledgable
2
: 87 .................................... ................................
88 ........................................
96 ................................ ................................
?103 ................... ................................ Is it True that Aysha commited Adultry
: 107 ................................. ................................
108 ......................
?110 ..... How can we Balance between Relegious Dawa & Political Activities in the West
: 114 .................................
115 ....................... ................................ Sayed Al Sistani & Walayat Al Faqeh

?118 ..... What is the Opinion of Sayed Al Haidari & Sayed Al Sistani on Walayat Al Faqeh
122 ...................... ?What is the Opinoin of Sayed Al Khoei on the Pre-emptive Jihad
: 127 ...............................
128 ..........................
128 ............... ................................
128 ......................... ................................
147 ........................... ................................ ................................

... .

2011/11/14
1432/12/18
4
:
( )
(

).
- - 73 - 70
- 8

71 ( ) 1 :
:

( 2
) :
( ) 3 :

: .

:

. :
:
:

: :
( ) 4

6

( ) 5 . 72
:
: ( ) 1
( ) 2

( ) 3

: ( ) 4 .
: :
( ) 5 :
( ) 6

( ) 7 .

73 .

( : ) ( . ) 1
7
:
- - - 1 4 - 3
- 1 : :
: :
(
) :
:

4
:
( ) .
!!

2011/11/1
9
Nimatullah Al Jazaeri & Tahreef Al Quran
Salaam Shaykh,
my Salafi friend is harassing me on this issue, I was wondering if you had

a response.
?Subject: Salam *****, can you explain this to me
Salam *****,
I was hoping you could explain the things that I highlighted below in
yellow. .
Thanks
Taken from http://gadir.free.fr/Ar/Ehlibeyt/kutub2/Nurul_Barahin/noor%20-%2001.htm...
- -
524

)1 :
: .
: :
:.
:
.
: .
:

( ) ( )1.

10

:

.
( :
) () 1 :
( . )2 .
( ) () .3
:
( )
( )4 : ( . )5

.
( )1
( )2
( )3 ( )4
.
:
.

11

( . )5
.
. ( )

.

: :

( . )1
.
:
:

( . )2
.
:
: :
: : :
.

12

.

.
:
.

:

() .1

.

.

.
13

.
:

( )1

.
:
:
.
:

.
: :
:
.

.
(
) ( )2( )1
.
:

.
14
Taken from http://gadir.free.fr/Ar/Ehlibeyt/kutub2/Nurul_Barahin/noor%20-%2002.htm...
- -
458

: :
:

15
Alaikum Al Salam Shaykh,
There are several quotations of Nimatullah Al Jazaeri regarding

Tahreef Al Quran in his following books:
1- Al Anwar Al Nomania: He finished from it in 1089H (1), when he was 39

years old.
2- Noor Al Baraheen: He finished from it in 1099H (2).
3- Manba' Al Hayat: He finished from it in 1100H (3).
If you look closely to what he was saying, you will see that in most
cases his words can be interpret to changes in Taweel & NOT Tanzeel. The
same Theory that Scholars like Shikh Al Mofeed and Al Mirza Al Noori
spoke about in their books. Old Scholars used to call this theory Tahreef
Al Quran, but it is not the Tahreef that we know today. For these reasons,
I cannot claim that Al Jazaeri did believe in Tahreef. And if and ONLY if, he
did believe in Tahreef while writing the previous books, then we must
believe that he did CHANGE this belief before he died. Particularly, when
he wrote the following book:
4- Oqood Al Marjan: He finished from it in 1102H (4).
In this book he clearly refuted Tahreef Al Quran, by saying the

following:
:625-624/2 - -
[ : )) ... "[ ((
(()) ...
.
Al Dharee'a 2/446 1
Al Dharee'a 24/363 2
16
: : (()) (())
:
:
". :
So, my conclusion is that Nimatullah Al Jazaeri did not believe in

Tahreef Al Quran, but Tahreef Al Taweel Al Munzal, which is not the
miraculous Quran. And even if he did, he changed his opinion in year
1102H before dying in 1112H.
However, he did also speak about three other things that need
clarifications, which are:
1- Tawator Hadiths of Tahreef: If he really meant Tahreef then he is

wrong, because we do not have Mutawater Hadiths or even Authentic
Hadiths that prove Tahreef. All what came with Authentic or Mutawater
hadith speak about Al Taweel Al Nazil Theory.
2- Refuting the Tawator of Qira'at: Many Scholars from both school of

thought did have a problem with Qira'at, not only Al Jazaeiri, and they are
right in many of what they have said.
3- Criticizing the way Quran spell some words: Quran as it is today was
written during the days of Ahlulbayt and by their support and the support
of the Shia. If Ahlulbayt and their Shia were not happy with that sensitive
issue, then we would have heard it from them somehow and it will be
wildly spread just like the issue of the Adhaan. So, Al Jazaeri is wrong in
his criticism, even though it has nothing to do with Tahreef.
Hopefully you find this answer benefiting,

Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
17
:
18
Does Al Kulayni believe in all what he narrated in Al Kafi?
Does Al Sadooq believe in all what he narrated in Al Faqeeh?
Did the Two Hishams believe God has a Body?
Did Zurara not Know the Imam of his Time?
Asalaamu 'Alaykum Shaykh,
'Eid Mubarak, Kul Am wa Antum Bi khair insha Allah ta' ala
Jazak Allah khair for this most amazing response, It has clarified the
doubts I once had about these two means of tawtheeq.
Out of curiosity shaykhna, there are a couple of issues which have

caused me to do much tadabbur recently. I was hoping I could pick your
mind of them if you have time insha Allah,
namely:
1) Did Thiqatul Islam al Kulayni (RA) considers everything he put in Kaafi

to be reliable? I have heard he did, if we argue no, what would be our
daleel.
2) Same question in regards to Shaykh Ibn Babuwayh al Saduq (RA) and

his amazing work- Man La Yahduruhu Faqih
3) Have you got any work on the following issues which to me are of less
importance than the first two questions:
a) Hisham ibn al Hakam (RA), Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi (RA), Mo'min
al-Taq and Yunus bin Abdur Rahman (RA) on the issue of Tajseem i.e
refuting the accusations.
b) Shaykh al Jaleel Zurarah ibn Ayun (RA) and the issue of whether or not
19
he believed in Imam al-Kadhim's (AS) Imamah
I'm sorry to disturb you so much shaykh, its just I've found you are able
to provide me with daleel, and other rijaliyyun being amateurs
sometimes will actually accuse these great companions of these things
because they have no ability to reconcile issues and piece together the
different jigsaw clues from our works.
20
Alaikum Al Salam Shaykha,
Thank you very much for being nice, and for your nice words that I
certainly do not deserve.
1) Did Thiqatul Islam al Kulayni (RA) considers everything he put in Kaafi

to be reliable? I have heard he did, if we argue no, what would be our
daleel.
This claim is based on a misunderstanding of Shikh Al Kulayni 's

introduction. He said in Al Kafi 1/8-9:
" "
( )5 :
[ ]

:
" [ ".
He is saying "You (as a reader) want to have an adequate book with

Authentic Narrations to the Imams". However, he admitted in the next
paragraph that such thing does not exist:
" "
" :
" " : "
" " ( )6 "
" :
" " .
5 : : ( . )
" 6 " : ( . )
21
He is saying "No one can distinguish between the contradictory
Hadiths except by doing what Ahlulbayt told us to do by Taking what
agrees with Quran, Leaving what agrees with Non-Shias, Taking what
agrees with Ejma, and we only know few of such Hadiths. And the best
thing to do is to return this knowledge to its people, and accept what we
can contain". So, Al Kulayni is not claiming that the 16000 Hadiths he
narrated are all authentic. He is just saying that the only way to know the
authentic Hadiths is by using the Ejtihad tools that Ahlulbayt taught us.
From his words you can also tell that he believes there are only few
Hadiths that we can be certain they are authentic. So, I don't think he was
talking about all of the 16000 Hadiths he narrated.
And even if we say that Al Kulayni's goal was to write an Authentic

book, I'm still surprise to see people speaking with certainty that All of Al
Kafi is Authentic, when Al Kulayni himself was not certain. Especially,
when he said the following:
) 7( - - "

) 8(
- -
" . ) 9( "
He is saying "And I HOPE it is how I thought it to be, and as much

shortening it includes, our intentions was to give our Advice". And even if
Al Kulayni was certain that his book was all authentic, we should not agree
with him. Because he broke all of his promises (if he promised) when he
described his work as:
" ... " []
) ( . 7
) ( . : 8
) ( . : ( ) 9
22
1. An Adequate book: However, this book was not enough for our
Generation or the old Generations, since Al Sadooq & Al Tosi wrote their
famous Books after him.
2. With Authentic Hadiths only: There is no doubt that he included Non-

Saheeh Hadiths in his book (Chain wise + Content wise).
Chain wise:
He narrated from Abu Al Bukhturi, who is one of the famous liars.

He narrated Mursal Hadiths, which cannot be called Authentic.
Content wise:
He narrated Hadiths that contradict with Quran (Imams making

mistakes, Sins, Criticizing each others).
He narrated Contradictory Hadiths (recognized Al Dhabeeh as
Esmaeel once, and as Es-haaq in another).
He narrated Shaadh " "Hadiths that agree with the Sunnis
Fundamentals and disagree with the Shia Fundamentals (This is
spread throughout the book by narrating contradictory Sharia
rulings)
3. With Ahlulbayt Hadiths only: Not all of the narrations in al Kafi came
from Ahlulbayt. In fact, Al Kulayni ended some of his chains with some of
Ahlulbayt's companions, and Al Khudr, and even with some Non-Shias like
Ibn Bukair.
By looking at all of these signs, and many others that I have not
mentioned, I see no reason to claim that the 16000 Narration that is in al
Kafi is all authentic. Instead, I feel comfortable to claim that Al Kafi include
many Hadiths that are weak Chain & Content wise.
23
2) Same question in regards to Shaykh Ibn Babuwayh al Saduq (RA) and
his amazing work- Man La Yahduruhu Faqih
It is clear that Shikh Al Sadooq did believe that all the Hadiths he
mentioned in his book Man La Yahdaraho Al Faqeeh is Hujja according to
his Ejtihad. He clearly made this statement in his book 1/2-3:
"
- -
"
However, this does not necessarily mean that his Ejtihad was
accepted by all of the Shias. In the end it is an Ejtihad of a single Human
Being. Just like the Ejtihad of the Sunni Scholars who thought that they
gathered only Authentic Hadiths in their books like Ibn Khuzaima in his
Saheh, Ibn Haban in his Saheh and Al Hakim in His Mustadrak.
I personally did not investigate if there is any weak Hadith in Al

Sadooq book. All what I know is that he narrated 5963 Hadiths in it and
that around 2050 of them are Mursal, which is one third of the book. So,
this means that there is still a big area for today's scholars to make Ejtihad
and refuse some of the hadiths he accepted.
24
3) Have you got any work on the following issues which to me are of
less importance than the first two questions:
a) Hisham ibn al Hakam (RA), Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi (RA),

Mo'min al-Taq and Yunus bin Abdur Rahman (RA) on the issue of
Tajseem i.e refuting the accusations.
All the narrations that I saw regarding the names you mentioned
were weak, except 2 narrations that speak about the Two Hishams only.
When I looked further into the two authentic narrations besides other
signs, I concluded that the whole issue was based over a
misunderstanding from the narrators.
However, what our enemies need to know is that if it was proven

that the Two Hishams did believe in Tajseem, this does not hurt us.
Because then they will be among the rest of the reliable narrators who we
only take their narrations, and leave their opinions. So, when we discuss
this matter, we don't discuss it as an important matter. In fact, we do have
scholars who believe Hisham Ibn Al Hakam is Mujassem (like Shikh Al
Mufeed), and we do have others who defended Hisham from that (like
Shareef Al Murtadha). Yes, for Sunnis who believe in Adalat Al Sahaba,
they would think that this topic will matter to us, but that's not true. And
this explains why the Imams did not defend the two Hishams in their
answers. Instead, they focused on explaining Tawheed to people.
Either way, the two authentic narrations that I found are as follows:
Hadith #1 - Kafi 1/106#8: It says that Muhammad Ibn Hakeem explained

to Imam Al Redha what Hisham Ibn Salim said regarding the Young Man
(Meaning Allah is in the Image of a Young Man). Imam Al Redha replied
that Allah is like nothing.
106 - 1 - - :
25
: - 8"
". :
Hadith #2 - Kafi 1/104#1: It says that Ali Ibn Abe Hamza told Imam Al Sadiq
"I've heard Hisham Ibn Al Hakam narrating from you that Allah is a Body".
Imam Al Sadiq said that Allah is like nothing.
104 - 1 - - :
) "(
: - 1
:
:
[
" . )10(
The Answer to Hadith #1: The Young Man Hadith
The Hadith does not say what exactly did Hisham Ibn Salim say, and
it does not show the content it was said in. So, this Hadith by itself cannot
be used to accuse Hisham that he believes Allah is on the image of a Young
Man. Besides that, there is a possibility that the narrator misunderstood
Hisham. Because we have a narration that explains the Young Man Hadith
and says that when the Prophet saw Allah, the Prophet was in the image
of a Young Man and not Allah. Here is the full Hadith:
102 - 100 - 1 - -
) ( . 10
26
" - 3
:
( )11 :
: ( )13 ( )14 : ( )12

: :
( )15

: :

".
Yes, this Hadith is considered to be weak, because Al Hussain Ibn Al

Hassan is Unknown. That's why we just use it as a possibility of an answer.
In the end, we cannot even rely on the accusation Hadith for the lack of
information that it has.
The Answer to Hadith #2: Ibn Al Hakam narrates that Allah is a Body
11 ( )
[ ( . )
12 .

13
( )

14

" :
" ( . )
15 [ : .
"

" : " ( )
27
This Hadith, as well, cannot be used to accuse Hisham of anything,
because it does not tell us what he exactly he has said, and it does not
shows us the content it was said in. So, there is a big place for the
possibility that Hisham was somehow misunderstood. And we have 3
signs that make this possibility very acceptable. They are as follows:
Sign#1 - Kafi 1/83-85#6: The only narration we have from Hisham

regarding the topic of Tajseem is the one that rejects it, and here it is:
85 - 83 - 1 - -
- 6"
: :

: : : :
:
: ) 16(

"...
This Hadith is narrated by Abbas Ibn Amr Al Fuqaimi, who is

Unknown to us today, even though Al Sadooq relied on him in Al Faqeeh,
which is considered to be an authentication by some scholars.
As you can see, Hisham narrates from Imam Al Sadiq that Allah is a
THING NOT like any THING, and that he is a REAL EXISTING THING, but he
is NOT a BODY. So, this makes the possibility that Hisham was
misunderstood even stronger. Because, maybe Hisham was emphasizing
that Allah is a REAL THING, but the narrators thought he was proving a
Material Body for Allah.
Sign#2: If Hisham Ibn Al Hakam really said that Allah is a body, then this is
surely a mistake, but it does not mean that he believes in Tajseem.
) ( . : 16
28
Because we have some Shia & Sunni narrations from him, where he said
that when he said Allah is a Body he means that he is a REAL EXISTING
THING. Here are some narrations that support this:
Shia Narration - Bihar Al Anwar 3/305#43:
- - - 3 305
" - 43 :
( )17 )18( :
: :
- -
:
:
: :

. : :
: .
:
" "
".
The narration says that Al Kisani told Imam Al Redha that Hisham
claim that Allah is a THING NOT like ANYTHING. And that Hisham also
claimed that to prove Allah is a THING, we should say that he is a BODY
17 : :
. : .

18 : ) (
: .
. . :

29
NOT like the BODIES, a THING NOT like ANYTHING, a REAL EXISTING
THING, NOT like ANYTHING.
Even though this narration is weak due to multiple Unknown

narrators. However, it shows other possibility of the way Hisham may be
misunderstood.
Sunni Narration - Maqalat Al Islameen 2/6#9:
:9 6/2 - -
)19(
: :"
".
Abu Al Hassan Al Ashari, the Imam of the Ashaera, quotes Hisham

Ibn Al Hakam saying "When I say a Body, I mean that he EXISTS, he is a
THING and that he is STANDING UP by himself".
So, by looking at this quotation, a new possibility comes to our mind

when reading the previous Vague Authentic Hadith. This possibility gives
us another reason not to accuse Hisham at least from Tajseem. Yes, we
can still blame him for the mistake of describing Allah with the word Body,
even though he meant something else.
Sign#3 - Al Milal Wa Al Nihal 1/185: There is a huge possibility that

Hisham Ibn Al Hakam was counterattacking or reversing a claim of his
debaters, and that those who heard him did not know that he does not
believe in what he said. Such confusion happens a lot in debates, and it
seems that this has happened to Hisham according to some Scholars, and
here is an example:
19
30
185 - 1 - -
"

"
Al Shihristani, which is a famous Sunni Scholar, said that Hisham

was a deep person in the fundamentals, and that we should not avoid his
counterattacks against the Mutazila. He added that Hisham hides behind
those reversals like when he counterattacked Al Allaf by saying if you
believe that Allah's knowledge is part of him but his knowledge is not like
the rest, then why don't you also say that he is a BODY NOT like the
BODIES?
This quotation adds another important possibility that proves

Hisham's innocence, by giving us another reason that may cause the
confusion towards Hisham's statements.
By looking at those 3 signs, no one can conclude that Hisham does

believe in Tajseem. Instead, we can conclude that he does not believe in
Tajseem, especially by looking at his strong relationship with Ahlulbayt
that can be seen clearly in his Tarjama.
31
b) Shaykh al Jaleel Zurarah ibn Ayun (RA) and the issue of whether or
not he believed in Imam al-Kadhim's (AS) Imamah
The first people who accused Zurara of not knowing the Imam of
his time are the Zaidis. They said this because they saw some Hadiths that
says when Imam Al Sadiq died Zurara sent his son to bring him THE NEWS
(the Hadith did not say what exactly he wanted). However, Zurara became
very sick before his son's return. So, he took the Quran, and told the
people around him that he BELIEVES in the Imam who's MENTIONED in
QURAN. When Imam Al Kadhem heard this he read the verse 4:100, which
means that Zurara was rewarded for his actions.
The only Authentic narrations that I found mentioning this story are
the following ( Ekhtiar Marifat Al Rijal 1/371-373):
Narration#252: Was weakened by some scholars because it includes Ali

Ibn Hadeed. But, I believe he is reliable because Ibn Abe Omair & Ahmed
Ibn Muhammad Ibn Essa narrated from him, Ibn Al Waleed excluded him
in Nawader Al Hikma and he was included in Kamil Al Ziarat.
Narration#254: Was weakened by some scholars because Ibn Al Waleed

criticized him. However, there is a possibility that Ibn Al Waleed criticized
him for reasons other than his reliability. Because he did not exclude him
in Nawader Al Hikma when he excluded the weak narrators.
Narration#255: No one should deny the authenticity of this narration.
373 - 371 - 1 - -
: : - 252"

:
.
: :

.
32
- 254 :
:
. :
:
: .
- 255 :
:
. :
: "
" ".
Honestly, these Hadiths do not hurt Zurara in anyway, even if we

say that he did not know the Imam of his time. It does not hurt him
because he was in the process of seeking the truth behind who the Imam
was, and died before reaching it. This according to our Authentic Hadith
make Zurara a believer, because he did what exactly our Imams asked us
to do in these situations. Here are some of these Authentic Hadiths:
Yaqoob Ibn Shoayb asked Imam Al Sadiq: "If something happens to

the Imam what should people do?" The Imam replied "They are excused
as long as they are seeking, and so do those who are waiting for their
results until they return to them" (Kafi 1/378#1).
: - - - 1 378
"( ) * ( )
- 1 :
: : " :
33
( " )20 :
".
The following Authentic Hadith gives the same Hukum as the

previous Hadith (Kafi 1/379-380#3).
: - - - 1 380 - 379
" - 3
: :
:
: :
- - " :
" : :
:
: : : ".
This Authentic Hadith gives the same Hukum as the previous

Hadith, and adds that an Imam can be known from Quran itself and read
the verse "And the owners of kinship are closer one to another in the
ordinance of Allah" (33:6). Then the Imam said that based on this verse,
the person from Ahlulbayt who Owns the Kinship of the previous Imam,
who Inherited the Weapon of the Prophet, and who received the
commandment from him is the Imam after him (This is what Zurara meant
)when he said that he believes in the Imam who's mentioned in Quran
(Kafi 1/378-379#2).
20 123 :
34
: - - - 1 379 - 378
" - 2 : :
: :
: : :

" :
" : : " :
( " )21 :
( )22
: : : :

( " : )23
( " )24
: :
:
: :
:
: "
( " )25
: :
: :
21 101 :
22 [
23 [
24 6 :
25 132 :
35
: :
: : ".
So, we should not worry about Zurara. However, we don't believe

that Zurara did not really know who the Imam was. In fact, our Authentic
Hadith says that he knew it, but he sent his son only to know whether he
is allowed to declare his Imama in public or not. Here is an Authentic
Hadith from Imam Al Redha that proves this (Kamal Al Deen p75):
: - - 75
" - - : :
- - : :
: :
:

:
".
I hope these answers add to what you already know,

Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
9/9/2011
36
What is the Value of the Hadiths used by Ahmad Al Hassans Cult?
Salaam 'Alaikum Shaykh,
Thank you for these excellent responses, the responses about Zurarah are the
ones that particularly interest me at the moment as this shows that the
accusation of his ignorance vis a vis the last Imam (AS) of his time is excusable.
I was wondering if we could suggest another possibility in the hadiths referring

to Zurarah searching for the Imam (AS) in the Qur'an:
Is it possible that the previous Imam (AS) might have been cryptic in regards
to the identity of his successor due to Zurarah being a profound debater
and hence perhaps felt it was dangerous to directly disclose the information to
him, but rather acted cryptically i.e "You'll find his name in the Qur'an".
Lets compare the frequency of Musa's name in the Qur'an in comparisson to

others:
Musa: 136
Muhammad (SAW): 4 'Eesa (AS): 29 Yahya (AS): 5 al-Yasa: 2 Ilyas: 2 Yunus:

4 Dhul' Kifl: 2 Ayyub: 4 Sulayman: 17
Dawud: 16 Harun: 20 Shuayb: 11 Yusuf: 27 Yaqoub: 16 Ishaq: 17 Isma'il: 12

Ibrahim: 69 Lut: 27 Salih: 9 Hud: 7 Nuh: 43
Idris: 2 Adam: 25
As you can see no other Prophet is mentioned even HALF as much as the name
of Musa, so if Zurarah knew that a major claimant to the Imamate was Musa
b. Jafar (AS) and was told to look in the Qur'an for his name, clearly he would
have found the answer.
Of course, this is just a suggestion, what do you think?
Lastly Shaykhna,
Have you prepared any dissection of the Ahadith used by the followers of
Ahmed al-Hassan, we are witnessing many converting to this cult and I feel
something must be done to destroy their dawah?
I ask for your du'as,

*****
37
Alaikum Al Salam Shaykh,
Of course, this is just a suggestion, what do you think?
The possibility you have mentioned is not wrong, and if it does not
fit the case of Zurarah, then it does fit cases of other companions. As you
know, there were cases were the governments wanted to kill the Imam,
and they were successful in the end. If it was easy to know who the Imam
was after him, then it will also be easy to get rid of him at once. So, our
Imams took some precautious steps to prevent or delay the
assassinations. One of the ways was giving their companions hints instead
of declaring names. Things like the Imam:
Does not have a problem in his body

Knows the opinion of every Religion and Sect
Knows the Unseen
Have you prepared any dissection of the Ahadith used by the

followers of Ahmed al-Hassan
Shikh Asad Al Hak made series of lectures refuting all of their claims
in detail. I can find them for you if you want. He also made few debates
with them, and they are in the following link:
http://www.noor14m.com/sound/sound_index.php
I did receive few Hadiths from one of their followers while he was
visiting Bahrain to spread their thoughts. After looking at them, I found
out that their ideology is based over lies. Here are the Haditihs he
provided with their quick refutations:
() (( : () ()
() ()

()
38
()

))
/241 2 150 147 53

640
The Hadith's Content: When Imam Al Mahdi dies he will be succeeded by

the first of the 12 Mahdis, who has 3 names Abdullah, Ahmad and Mahdi.
And he is the first of Believers.
The Hadith's Refutation:
The chain of the Hadith is weak.

The Hadith say that Ahmad will succeed Imam Al Mahdi after his
death, but the guy is claiming the succession before the appearance
of Imam Al Mahdi.
There is no proof that Ahmad in this Hadith is Ahmad Ibn Al Hassan.
() ( )
30
The Hadith's Content: The Prophet mentioned a young man and said "If
you see him, make Baya to him. Because he is the successor of Al Mahdi".
This Hadith does not exist in Hadith books.

In our Books the hadith say "The Prophet mentioned something I
forgot", NOT "The Prophet mentioned a young man".
In our Books the hadith say "He is Al Mahdi the successor of Allah",
NOT "He is the successor of Al Mahdi".
..(( () : ()
148 ))
39
The Hadith's Content: Imam Ali Said "The first among them is from Al
Basra, and the last is from Al Abdaal".

In our Books the hadith say "The last is from Al Yamama", NOT "The
last is from Al Abdaal".
(( :) () (
181 ))
The Hadith's Content: Imam Al Sadiq said "And Ahmad from Basra".
The Hadith was speaking about the 313 companion of Al Mahdi,

and everybody can claim he is among them.
In our Books the hadith say "And Abdulrahman ibn Al Atif ibn Saad,
Ahmad ibn Maleeh, and Hamad ibn Jabir from Basra".
Also, where are the other two guys (Abdulrahman ibn Al Atif ibn
Saad, and Hamad ibn Jabir). Because the Hadith say all of them are
from Basra.
Our Hadith say that Al Yamani will show up in the same year Al
Sufiani and Al Khurasani will show up (26). As long as the rest did not
show up then Ahmad ibn Al Hassan cannot be al Yamani.
( : ()
57 653 2 . )
The Hadith's Content: Imam Al Baqir Said "Al Qaem has two names,
Private & Public. The Private is Ahmad, the Public is Muhammad".
Ghaiba for Al Nomani p256#13 26
40

In our Books the hadith only say "Al Qaem has two names", NOT "Al
Qaem has two names, Private & Public ".
This Hadith was speaking about Imam Al Mahdi, and it says "On his
back there are two moles. One in the color of his skin, and one like
the Prophet's mole". And Ahmad Ibn Al Hasan does not have these
moles.
The claim is "The Private is Ahmad, the Public is Muhammad", but
in the case of Ahmad ibn Al Hassan it is the opposite, since the
Public name is Ahmad.
There are many issues where Ahmad Ibn Al Hassan's ideology

contradicts with Ahlulbayt. One example is that he claims there is no such
thing as Elm Al Rijjal, while Imam Ali said "There are 4 types of narrators"
(27). Also, Imam Al baqir said "Take the narration of the one you see more
just and reliable" (28). And it is known that dividing the narrator into 4
categories, and then take the narration that we see more just and reliable
is exactly what Rijalis are doing now a days.
If you have any Hadith that needs refutation, please let me know
about it.
Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
15/9/2011
Kitab Saleem Ibn Qees p182, NahjulBalagha #210 27

Mustadrak Al Wasael 17/303#2 28
41
Disagreement Regarding Al Sadooqs Authentication of Al Faqeh
Salaam 'Alaikum Shaykhna,
I just wanted to point out my disagreement with what you said about
Shaykh b. Babuwayh vis a vis his book al-Faqih
You said:
"It is clear that Shikh Al Sadooq did believe that all the Hadiths he
mentioned in his book Man La Yahdaraho Al Faqeeh is Hujja according
to his Ejtihad. He clearly made this statement in his book 1/2-3:
"
- -
"
I feel inclined to disagree, based upon my limited analysis due to the

following factors:
1) Sadooq states at the start that he never disagrees with his teacher
Shaykh Ibn al Waleed, yet also includes isnads of people and states that
Ibn al-Waleed considered them "ghayr thiqah":
2) Other cases where Saduq admittedly demonstrates that there are

problems with both Rawis and breaks in chains:
Faqeeh, vol. 2, pg. 384
42
Source:
Al-Sadooq, Man Laa YaHDuruh Al-Faqeeh, vol.1, pg. 251
I found other scholars concluding the same as myself, in fact two of these
examples were taken directly from the book Rasa'il al Usooliyyah, by
Allamah Waheed al-Bihbihani (I could not find an online copy) who has an
entire bab in his book called Tadhaeef of Shaykh Saduq in his book al-
Faqih.
I personally am of the opinion that we can therefore take TaraDee and

Tarahum of Shaykh al-Saduq to be a sign of tawtheeq for people, since he
is Ra'is al-Muhaditheen and that therefore as long as there is not
contradiction from the Usul of Rijaal (Najashi, Tusi, Kashshi in authentic
reports) then it is sufficient to cite Ibn Babuwayh's praise and mention of
them in his books.
This does not mean however, that I don't think we have to scrutinise the
content of these narrations, in order to see if they are taqiyyah etc.
43
Alaikum Al Salam my Shaykh,
I believe in all what you have said. The quotations you provided
indeed prove that Al Sadooq weaken the chains & the content of some of
the Hadiths he narrated in Man La Yahdharaho Al Faqeh.
Thank you very much for clarifying this important issue for me. May
Allah reward you for it.
Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
15/9/2011
44
What is the Definition of the Companian According to the Shias?
Can we rely on Sayed Jaffar Murtadha Al Amelis Books when

Debating with Sunnis?
What are the Books that you suggest us to read to be able to Debate
Sunnis?
sallamun alaykum mawlai
i have 2 urgent questions
One of the Shia brothers wanted some help for me regarding Ta'reef
alsahabi
i got the sunni sources and gave it to him however he needs to know what
the view of shia is regarding who a sahabi is.
yahya recommended i should check dirayat alhadith for shahid althani i
am going to check that out however i need more sources.
so u know any books where shias say who a sahabi is and who isnt?
perhaps shaykh almufeed or saduq or majlisi.
my second urgent question is what do u think of jafar murtadha al-amili

and which scholars at this time are the best in shia-sunni issues so we can
read their books and listen to their recordings.
yahya showed me mistakes concerning murtadha al-amili in his book
sahih min seerat alrasul and he doesnt think his a great scholar but from
what ive heared he is one of the best researchers and his book alsahih min
sirat alrasul is one of the best books written on the sira of the prophet and
it got awards for it. what do you think of the books?
ws wr wb
45
Alaikum Al Salam Brother,
so u know any books where shias say who a sahabi is and who isnt?
Shias don't have a specific definition for the Term Sahabi, because
this term does not have any religious value to us. That's why you will see
our scholars call some narrators companion of Imam Al Redha even
though they never met. So, to us we will recognize a narrator who lives
during a certain Imam as his companion, even if he never met the Imam
and even if he does not believe he is an Imam.
This behavior can be seen in any Rijal books of ours.
what do u think of jafar murtadha al-amili and which scholars at this

time are the best in shia-sunni issues so we can read their books and
listen to their recordings.
Sayed Jaffar Murtadha Al Amili's Books & Sayed Ali Al Milani's Books
can only be used as Archives, but you cannot rely on them for debate,
because they are full of mistakes. Instead you can read and listen to Sayed
Kamal Al Haidari who is accurate in what he says, and who knows what
sources are really Hujja on the Sunnis in General and Salafies in Particular.
Also you can check the books of Shikh Ali AlMohsen and Shikh
Hassan Abdulah Al Ajami. Both of them are great. Here are their websites:
http://www.almohsin.org/
http://www.h-alajmi.com/
Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
46
Can we rely on AlMilani, AlAmeli, and AlAskaris Books when
Debating with Sunnis?
What do you think of what Shikh AlGhezi said regarding the Shia
Sience of Rijal?
Sallamun alaykum
What about alquds work I find it is among the best
Also what about the book alsahih min Sirat alrasul do u consider it full of
flaws or has few mistakes.
What do u think of abaqat alanwar I heard it's one of the best
compilation to prove imamah
What about the book alghadir by alamini
What do u think of Murtadha askari?
I've got a few of Sayed ali milanis books and they seem good like the
book on tahreef
My final question is I saw the main scholar on mawaddah channel and
he showed how weak we are if we rely on narrators as Sunnis do
because we don't have the rival books Sunnis do and as I understand
listening to people that if we are to rely on narrators only then much of
shiasim will be lost so I was wondering if u have any answer to this
problem and if u could mention a book which solves this problem I
would appreciate it
Also do u know any book has been written criticising Sunni Hadith
methodology?
I apologise for a lot of questions inshallah u can answer me
Ws wr wb
47
Alaikum Al Salam,
What about alquds work I find it is among the best

Also what about the book alsahih min Sirat alrasul do u consider it full
of flaws or has few mistakes.
What do u think of abaqat alanwar I heard it's one of the best
compilation to prove imamah
What about the book alghadir by alamini
What do u think of Murtadha askari?
I've got a few of Sayed ali milanis books and they seem good like the
book on tahreef
You can learn good things from all the books and the people you
have mentioned. However, when debating you should never rely on what
they say without verify it by yourself, because their books do include lots
of gaps in terms of the following:
1. Their researches focused on Sunni books only, and tend to avoid what
is in the Shia books. So, they may deny something that has been proven
in our books, or they may criticize Sunnis of something that the Shia may
have it as well.
2. Sometimes they take what they quote out of context, so if you limit
yourself with what they say you may not get the full image of the proof.
3. Some of them (especially al Milani) does not always narrate the exact
quote, instead he narrate the meaning of what he understood. Which
means that if you use any sort of search engine, you may not find what he
is refereeing to.
4. Most of them use the old arguments and sources, which only worked
at the time when Shia was dealing with Mutazila & Asha'era and not with
today's Salafies.
48
By saying this, I don't mean that you should disregard those books,
in fact I do look at what they say in my researches. However, I do not limit
myself to them, and I do not rely on what they say. Instead, I double check
what they quote, further investigate their arguments, and try to extend
my research beyond the sources they used. I simply ask you to do the
same if you want to spread the knowledge of Ahlulbayt.
I saw the main scholar on mawaddah channel and he showed how weak
we are if we rely on narrators as Sunnis do
Shikh Abdulhaleem al Ghezi is a good scholar, but he does lots of

Scientific mistakes when it comes to the science of Rijal.
All the criticism that he mentioned against the science of Rijal works
only on the Sunnis (who believes Weak Hadith = Fabricated), but it does
not work on the Shia (who believe there are many ways to accept Weak
Hadiths).
Our Science of Hadith is taken from Ahlulbayt, just like our Feqh &
Aqeda. So, if you rely on the basics that Ahlulbayt gave us regarding the
Hadith, then you will be able to distinguish between the Hadiths that can
be used as a Hujja from the rest.
because we don't have the rival books Sunnis do
Sorry, I did not understand this argument, can you clarify it?
I understand listening to people that if we are to rely on narrators only

then much of shiasim will be lost
Shia's science of Hadith does not allow us to rely on Narrators only.

In the same time, it does not allow us to disregard looking at the narrators.
It is a very Balanced Science that helps you in distinguishing what is Hujja
and what is not a Hujja.
49
and if u could mention a book which solves this problem I would
appreciate it
Also do u know any book has been written criticising Sunni Hadith
methodology?
I don't know of a Book that gathers all the answers. However, these
answers are spread in the Rijal Books that Shia have. You can begin with
Shikh Jaffar Al Subhani book:
or
And I pray that Allah support you in your Journey,
Abu Yaqeen
23/8/2011
50
:
51

**** ****
52

520/5
2397 ( ):
" : : !
!"
" "
- -
:
" "

( ) :258/3
.

"

".

:477
"
".

"".
53

2011/1/4
54
Isma in the Shia Traditions
salam brother
Inshallah u r doing well.
1. Is it right for us to say 'Isma' is the removal of Rijs?
2. Also these words, Masoom Isma, did the imams ever use them or did
us shias make it up?
3. Also are there any big name old scholars who have the same belief of
Isma of the imams like we do today?
I look forward to your reply

With duas
*****
55
Alaikum Al Salam Brother,
1. Is it right for us to say 'Isma' is the removal of Rijs?

Yes, Isma is the removal of the Rijs and the Purification. Any of
those will mean the same in the end.
2. Also these words, Masoom Isma, did the imams ever use them or did
us shias make it up?
Yes, the Imams did use the word Isma in Tons of Hadiths. Here is an
example with Authentic Chain:
Al Khisal for Shikh Al Sadooq (29):

"Allah only commanded to Obey the Prophet because he is a Purified
Infallible (Masoom), and does not order you to sin.
And he only commanded to Obey Uli Al Amir (Imams) because they
are Purified Infallibles (Masoomeen), and do not order you to sin. "
"
"
3. Also are there any big name old scholars who have the same belief of
Isma of the imams like we do today?
Yes, Shikh Al Toosi has the same belief in Isma like us, and he is from
the old scholars. Also, Alama Al Majlisi said in Bihar Al Anwar (30):
"The belief of all our Scholars except Al Sadooq & his Teacher Ibn Al
Waleed is that the Imams & the Prophets are infallible from minor and
major sins, tensional or intentionally, before or after Prophethood and
Imama, starting from this birth till their death."
351 - 350 - 25 - -
:

. :
Inshallah this answers your questions,

Abu Yaqeen
p139#158 29
25/350-351 30
56
Did Imam Ali use Hadith Al Ghadeer as a proof for Imama?
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmetuAllah akhee.
JazakAllah khayr for taking the time to answer my question. I am sorry to

hear about your son being unwell. Inshaa'Allah he recovers soon. I have a
couple of more questions if you allow me.
If you permit me, I have another question on a different topic. It is about

Ghadeer Khum. While the event is saheeh, in Sunni and Shia books, its
interpretation is disputed. Many Imamis say that the Prophet was saying
"whomever I am the master of, Ali is (now) the master of", whereas some
Sunnis will say it means that "whomever I am the friend of, Ali is the friend
of".
I have seen the argument that Imamis make, which is that the context
("Do I not have more authority over you than yourselves?") shows that
mawla means leader, not friend, and it is quite convincing...
But I wonder if this argument is really true because: According to the

tareekh I have read, Imam Ali (A) never used this argument to show his
right to the khalifate during Abu Bakr's struggle for caliphate, nor during
the shura for Uthmaan's khalifate. Ghadeer Khum was only mentioned in
the bayàh given to him in his war against the khawaaraj; the bayàh had
the formula: "O God be a friend of whoever he (Ali) befriends, and an
enemy of whoever he takes as an enemy". The Imam asked some sahaba
to testify what the Prophet had said in Ghadeer Khum, infront of masjid
al-kufa. Ghadeer Khum seems to have been used to show the superior
status of Ali (A), (i.e. that all must befriend him, and that all his enemies
are in the wrong), rather than that he had been appointed successor.
So if the Imam never used this argument as proof of his right to caliphate,
then does this not show it is not about succession but rather about the
position of him (being his friend or enemy)?
The same applies to the sahaba. If the Prophet's designation of the Imam
as his successor had been that explicit and that public, how could Abu
Bakr become khalifa without some major dispute which involved the
57
argument that "what are you doing?! The Prophet already appointed!"
Wasalam.
58
Alaikum Al Salam brother,
According to the tareekh I have read, Imam Ali (A) never used this
argument to show his right to the khalifate during Abu Bakr's struggle
for caliphate, nor during the shura for Uthmaan's khalifate. Ghadeer
Khum was only mentioned in the bayàh given to him in his war against
the khawaaraj;
The claim that History books are empty from Imam Alis argument
of Ghadeer Khum is certainly wrong. There are many Sunni & Shia sources
that mentioned Imam Alis argument in many different places and times.
The following are some example:
During the days of Abu Baker: Multiple times.

During the days of Omar: Time of the Shura before Omar dies.
During the days of Othman: After Othman received Khilafa
During the days of Imam Ali: In Rahuba, Kofa, and the Battle of the
Camel.
Here are some samples of what I currently have ready in my hands

now:
Imam Alis Argument during Abu Bakers time:
Saleem Ibn Qays (31): Imam Ali said that Prophet Muhammad ordered Abu
Baker among 7 companions to make Baya for him. He added that Abu
Baker & Omar asked the Prophet if this was from him or from Allah, and
that Prophet said from Allah (referring to the event of Ghadeer). Note that
the chain of Saleems book is authentic.
148 - 147 - - :
"
31
Kitab Saleem Ibn Qays p147-148
59
: . :
( ) . ( :
) .
. : ( : ) . :
.
. :
:
.
. : ".
Al Tabrasi (32): Imam Ali said that when the Prophet died he was worried
about burring him and not running behind Khilafa, because the Prophet
made everything clear in Ghadeer Khum regarding Khilafa. Note that the
chain of this hadith has been authenticated by Al Tabrasi himself. The
same hadith is narrated by Sunni scholars like Ibn Qutaiba (33).
: - - - 1 97 - 89
" ( )34

...
:
. :

" :
32
Al Ehtijaj p1/89-97
33
Al Imam Wal Syasa 1/18-19
34
280
60
" . :
. :
:
".
Shikh Al Sadooq (35): Abu Baker asked Imam Ali Why do you show your
hatred to me? Imam Ali replied According to Hadith Al Ghadeer, am I
?your Mawla and the Mawla of all Muslims or you
- - 550 - 548
"
- 30 : :
: : ( )36 :
( )37 : :
:

:
( )38
: ... :
: :
: :
: "
35
Al Khisal for Al Sadooq p548-550#30
36 .
37 " "
38 : . " "
61
Al Kulaini (39): 7 days after the Prophet died, Imam Ali made a lecture and
said that when people claimed they are the Mawale of the Prophet, the
Prophet said in Ghadeer Khum Whoever Im his Mawla, then Ali is his
Mawla, and Allah said Today, I have completed your religion. Then,
Imam Ali added that his Wilaya was the completion of the Religion and
the way to please Allah.
- - - 8 27 - 18
"( ( ) ) * ( ) *
- 4
: ( ) :
( )40 :
: :
( ) : ( )41 :
( ) (
) :

: :
... (
) " : ( ) (
)
" "
. "
( " )42 "
39
Al Kafi for Al Kulaini 8/18-27#4
40
41 ( ) ( : )
( ) :
42 3 :
62
Imam Alis Argument during Omar's time:
Al Qadhi Al Noman Al Maghribi (43): Imam Ali said during the Shura of
Omar that any sin that would be commited after that day will be held
against those who do not chose him as a Khalifa, because the Prophet said
""Whoever I'm his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla.
- - - 2 191 - 185
"[ ( )
[ 529 ( )44 :
" :
( )45 " "
.

.
. " "
" :
" ( )46 ( )47

...
:
: :
. : : ".
43
Sharh Al Akhbar for Al Qadhi Al Noman Al Maghribi 2/185-191#529
44
45 - : -
46 23 :
47 : - -
63
Imam Alis Argument during Othmans time:
Saleem Ibn Qays (48): Imam Ali said that Prophet Muhammad declared his
Wilaya in the day of Ghadeer, and that he told the audience to spread this
information to everybody. Note that the chain of Saleems book is
authentic.
: - - 195 - 191
"( * 1 * ) 11
:
...
* * 2
: :
. :
: .
. :
...
: :
. : " .
Imam Alis Argument right before taking Khilafa:
Shikh Al Sadooq (49): Imam Ali prayed against 4 companions who heard
Hadith al Ghadeer but did not accept his WIlaya. Note that the chain is
authentic.
48
Kitab Saleem Ibn Qays p191-195
49
Al Khisal for Al Sadooq p219-220#44
64
: - - 220 - 219
" - 44 :
- -
:
:
:
" : "
" :
" ( )50
" :
"
" :
" . : :

:

.
" .
Imam Alis Argument during his time in Rahuba:
Al Haithami (51): Imam Ali in Rahuba asked the Muslims to admit they
heard Hadith Al Ghadeer from the Prophet. Then, 30 people admitted it,
which made Abu Al Tufail surprised until Zaid Ibn Al Arqam verified the
50
5151
Majma Al Zawaed 9/104
65
Hadith. Note that the Hadith was authenticated by Al Haithami in the
same source, and by Al Albani as well (52).
: - - - 9 104
"

.
"
Imam Alis Argument during his time in Kofa:
Al Nisaei (53) & Abu Asem (54): Imam Ali above the Minbar of Al Kofa
mosque asked the companions to admit they heard Hadith Al Ghadeer
from the Prophet. Note that the chain in Al Sunna for Abu Asem is
Authnetic.
: - - - 5 132
"( )8473

"
52
Al Selsela Al Saheeha 4/331
53
Sunan Al Nisaei 5/132#8473
54
Al Sunna for Abu Asem p593#1374
66
: - - 593
" - 1374 : :
( ) ( )
: (
) : " .
Imam Alis Argument during his time in Battle of the Camel:
Al Hakem (55): Imam Ali told Talha in the Battle of the Camel Did you hear
that Prophet says whoever Im his Mawla then Ali is his Mawla? Talha
replied I dont remember.
- - - 3 371
" ( )

* "
55
Mustadrak Al Hakem 3/371
67
Conclusion
So, saying that Imam Ali only provided Ghadeer Khum as an

argument against Khawarij is a short dream for the Sunnis, which sooner
or later they will wake up from it. The truth is that he used that argument
in many different events with around 6 Authentic narrations.
Also, we cannot accept the loving Ali interpretation, because this

is a fact that is already established in Quran (9:71). While in Al Haithamis
narration we see that Abu Al Tufail was really shocked when he heard the
Hadith, and went further to confirm the Authenticity of it from other
companions like Zaid Ibn Al Arqam. It must be that he understood
something above Love from the Hadith, and this could be the reason
that made Abu Al Tufail convert to Shiaism. Al Dhahabi admits that even
though Abu Al Tufail is a companion and a great guy, he is also a Shia (56):
470 - 467 - 3 - -
... * * ( ) - 97"
: ... .
.
" . .
56
Siar Alam Al Nobala 3/467-470 #97
68
The same applies to the sahaba. If the Prophet's designation of the
Imam as his successor had been that explicit and that public, how could
Abu Bakr become khalifa without some major dispute which involved
the argument that "what are you doing?! The Prophet already
appointed!"
Abu Baker becoming a Khalifa without major dispute does not make
us point our accusation fingers towards the Hadith. Instead we should
point it towards the companions who understood the Hadith correctly,
but did not obey the Hadith. Here is an example that shows how the
companions interpreted the Hadith:
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal narrates that a group of Al Ansar including Abu

Ayoob Al Ansari passed by Imam Ali and said Salam Alaikum our Mawla.
Then the Imam asked How can I be your Mawla when you are Arabs (Free
not Slaves)? They replied Because weve heard the Prophet say who
ever Im his Mawla then Ali is his Mawla. (57). Note that this narration
was authenticated by Al Haithami (58) and Al Albani (59).
:22461 / / :
"

"
As you can see, Abu Ayoob and a group of al Ansar believe that they
are NOT free people, and that Imam Ali is their Master. All of that is based
over Hadith al Ghadeer.
So, we cannot claim that the Hadith was not clear. Instead we
should blame the whole Umma for not defending the Truth. The Umma,
57
Musnad Ahmad #22461
58
Majma Al Zawaed 9/104
59
Selsela Al Saheha 4/340
69
who the Prophet knew was going to betray Imam Ali in the following
Authentic Hadith:
Al Hakim narrates that Imam Ali said Among the promised I

received from the Prophet that the Umma will betray me after him (60).
Note that this narration was authenticated by Al Hakim in the same
source, and Al Dhahabi agreed with him in al Talkhees.
140 - 3 - - :
" ( )

" * *
. :
I hope this clarify something,

Abu Yaqeen
30/10/2011
60
Al Mustadrak 3/140
70
A Discussion with a Christian Regarding Jesus in the Bible
I hope you don't place any credence in this fellow!
I believe God is the Trinity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They
are one in the same but three separate entities...if that makes sense. All
three elements need to be in place for a Christian to truly have faith.
And as you see with this believer, it is often difficult to explain. Faith, in
this complicated matter, is the key to the understanding.
God has left so many things for humans that they will never
understand...that's where Faith comes in to the picture!
*****
71
Hello,
The Word Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Also,

Jesus never said that he is God, and never ordered anybody to worship
him. This support the Islamic belief that this ideology was added to
Christianity later.
We believe that there are things that are Beyond Logic, but there
are others that Contradict Logic.
3 = 1 is not something that is Beyond Logic, but it is something that

Contradicts with it.
Faith must be based over sound reasoning, and not illogical claims.
This is the only fair way in which Humanity will be judged in the day of
Judgment and will be held responsible of.
Thank you,
Abu Yaqeen
72
Hi ****:
Oh how I love our discussions! Here are some thoughts on the Trinity
as discussed with my friend *******!
You are correct--the word "trinity" does not exist in any
Bible translation I am aware of. Trinity simply means "three"
and the concept of the "Blessed Trinity" or the "Holy Trinity"
actually does exist in the Bible, as I will show. But these
two terms--which is what the term "trinity" evokes in most
people--were coined by extra-Biblical people. And the way it
is defined by say, the Catholic Church is arguable. It seems
to me this originally came about via the Nicene Creed.
But to begin with, let's look at how the concept of a holy
Trinity exists in the Bible, and then
look at where the term Holy Trinity comes from after than.
Concept of a holy trinity -- Biblical
-------------------------------------
We get a clue that there is more than just God in the beginning
in Genesis 3:22 (the 'Us' is capitalized in the scripture)--
| Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become
| like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he
| might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree
| of life, and eat, and live forever 23 therefore
| the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden,
| to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Us? Who is the "Us"? We get another clue in John 1:1 --
| In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
| God, and the Word was God.
|
| The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not
| any thing made that was made.
So, Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who in the beginning was
the Word. And then the Word dwelling among us in the flesh
uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together in
one passage, and in others making references Himself to both
the Father (or God) and the Holy Spirit in a number of ways.
In Galations 4:6 (Apostle Paul) we also see all three--

| Beause you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit
| of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then any

statement made by Jesus while on earth that includes the
Holy Spirt and either God or "The Father" is a reference to
the concept of the HT, because Jesus is implied as He is the
speaker of these words.
One good example of this is in Luke 11:13 (Jesus speaking)--

| If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts
| unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly
| Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
In this same context, we must realize that Jesus spoke of the

Holy Spirit often as just "the Spirit of God" or "the Spirit
of the Father" or even as "the Holy Ghost".
One brief example of this is in Matthew 10:20 (Jesus speaking)--

| For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your
73
| Father which speaketh in you.
And one excellent example of God's spirit being with Jesus is

here in Luke 4:1 (Holy Ghost)--
| And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from
| Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness
And then as to whether or not a Christian may receive not only

the Baptism of water but also Baptism through the Holy Spirt,
we have this example:
John 7:37-39
| In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus
| stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him
| come unto me, and drink.
|
| He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said,
| out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
|
| (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that
| believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost
| was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet
| glorified.)
Some may say, doesn't this contradict Luke 4:1 because they
would wonder how Jesus could be full of the Holy Ghost when
he says here that it is not yet given. It is not yet given
to any but He at this point. But he clarifies this for us
in later verse, in two different places.
John 15:26-27 --
| But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
| you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
| proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
|
| And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been
| with me from the beginning.
Here Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as both

"the Comforter" and the "Spirit of truth".
Then, using the same language, He makes it clear that after

he is gone then the Holy Spirit will be given them (his
true disciples; He is at this point talking to his Apostles,
telling them of His coming trial and what they should expect):
John 16:6-13
But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow
hath filled your heart.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient

for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart,
I will send him unto you.
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,

and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye
74
see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is

judged.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot

bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will

guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
speak: and he will shew you things to come.
As to the truth reference, there is quite a bit about "truth"

in the Gospels. Pilate asks a key question when he was hearing
the accusations of the Jews against Jesus. Taking a quick look
at John 18:37-38--
| Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king
| then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To
| this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the
| world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every
| one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
|
| Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he
| had said this, he went out again unto the Jews,
| and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Of course he found no fault in Him. Jesus was filled with the

Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is of God. Therefore God is truth,
Jesus is truth, and the Spirit is truth. When Pilate asked
"What is truth?" he was looking at it. Jesus was also "the Word":
John 1:14 --
| And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
| (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
| begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:17 --
| For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth
| came by Jesus Christ.
John 8:32 (Jesus speaking of Himself, or the Spirit, or both)

| And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
| you free.
John 14:6 --
| Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and
| the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 17:17 (Jesus praying to the Father on behalf of the Apostles)

| Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 16:13 (Jesus speaking again of the Holy Spirit as "___ of Truth"
| Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
| guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
| himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
| speak: and he will show you things to come.
By this we know that Prophecy given by the Apostles was shown

to them by God through the Holy Spirit.
75
And as to the fact that people say the Holy Trinity is the
"Godhead" or that God is three things, we have already seen
in Luke 4:1 that Jesus was fill of the Holy Spirit. Now in
John 14:10 we see that the Father is in Him, and He in the
Father:
| Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
| Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak
| not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me,
| he doeth the works.
How can all this be? People struggle with it all the time.
How can you have three lit candles in one room but have one
light filling it?
By the way, a parting thought on this section. In order to

die Jesus had to part with the Holy Ghost, and take all of
our sin upon Himself and become accursed, taking our sin to
the grave, and leaving it behind when He arose from the dead.
Look what it says about his actual death--most people miss
the significance of this:
Mark 15:37
| And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
Mark 15:39
| And when the centurion, which stood over against him,
| saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said,
| Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 23:46
| And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
| Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having
| said thus, he gave up the ghost.
John 19:30
| When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It
| is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
One last point. After Jesus was resurrected and just before He
ascended to Heaven, He gave on last direction to the Apostles
and disciples around them, and this has become known as the
Great Commission. It is a commandment. Here it is:
Matthew 28:19--
| Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
| and of the Holy Ghost
This is why you hear "in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in church.
76
Hello,
Thanks for the explanations. I will respond to the verses that deals
with the main issue.
We get a clue that there is more than just God in the beginning
in Genesis 3:22 (the 'Us' is capitalized in the scripture)--
| Then the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become
| like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he
| might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree
| of life, and eat, and live forever 23 therefore
| the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden,
| to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
"Us" Here, is not referring to God, Son, and the Holy Ghost. There are
many creations that were created before humans like Angels, Genes and
possibly other creations.
77
Us? Who is the "Us"? We get another clue in John 1:1 --
| In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
| God, and the Word was God.
There are several mistranslation of this verse from Greek to English.

The verse must be translated like this:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and the
Word was Devine".
" (at) (first) (is/was) (the) (reason/intellect)

(and) (the) (reason/intellect) (is/was)
(towards/facing/with) (the god) (and)
(god/divine/random deity) (is/was) (the) (reason/intellect)"
The word God is mentioned twice here:

1. "Ton Theon" (the god)
2. "Theos" (god/divine/random deity)
Since "Theos" can simply mean divine, and it does not have "The"
before it, then it should not necessarily be translated as God, but it can be
translated as Divine.
Note that the word "Logos" should not be translated as

"Word". Instead it should be translated as "reason" or "intellect". Because
the Greek word for Dictionary is "Lexilogio", which is a combination of two
words "Lexi" (word) and "logio" (logos = reason/intellect). So it cannot be
said that lexilogio means wordword, but it means word-intellect. Since the
purpose of the dictionary is the knowledge of words. This means that the
best translation of this verse is:
"In the beginning was The Intellect, and The Intellect was with The God,
and The Intellect was Devine".
By the way, this agrees with the Authentic Islamic Tradition which
says the thing that was created before anything else was "The Intellect"
(61).
Al Kafi 1/20 #14 61
78
And as to the fact that people say the Holy Trinity is the
"Godhead" or that God is three things, we have already seen
in Luke 4:1 that Jesus was fill of the Holy Spirit. Now in
John 14:10 we see that the Father is in Him, and He in the
Father:
| Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
| Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak
| not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me,
| he doeth the works.
This is an expression that means God will be guiding Jesus in his

movements, and that both have the same authority. It does not mean that
Jesus is God; otherwise we will have to say that the Disciples are Gods as
well since they are in Jesus and Jesus is in them as well. Look at the
following two examples:
John 14:20
"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are
in me, and I am in you".
John 17:20
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will
believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one,
Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so
that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them
the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in
them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the
world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have
loved me.
As you can see, Jesus is not claiming that he or his Disciples are Gods.
He is just saying that he is a messenger that was sent by God, and that his
Disciples will be his messengers to the people after him. All of them being
in God and God being in them means that they have the Guidance and the
Authority of God.
79
From what weve seen, all what you have mentioned does not
prove that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Gods or that they are equal.
It just say that they are, like the Disciples, have the same Authority, which
came from God as the main source. That is the same idea that exists also
in Islam. The Islamic Traditions also say that God, Muhammad and the
Holy Ghost have the same Authority. We do have lots of Authentic
Traditions that say the Holy Ghost was given to Prophet Muhammad and
his Disciples, but this does not mean that they became Gods. The Holy
Ghost is one of God's tools that is used to guide holy people in their
actions. You will not be able to see any where in Quran or in the Bible that
the Holy Ghost is God.
So, back to the 3 essential questions that were not answered :)
Did Jesus say that he is God?
No, instead he admitted that he is not equal to God in many different

incidents. He did this by admitting that he is not as good as God and that he by
himself can do nothing! He also recognized his Father as his God. Here are some
examples:
Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good
except God alone.
John 13:16
Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is
a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
John 14:28
If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father,
for the Father is greater than I.
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing;
John 20:17
Jesus said, " I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my
God and your God."
Mark 15:34
... Jesus cried out in a loud voice "My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?"
80
Did Jesus tell anybody to worship him?
No, instead he told people to worship God only

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only
Did Jesus say that God, he and the Holy Ghost are Gods?
No, in fact, according to Jesus peace be upon him, all what you need to
believe in to enter heaven is to believe in the only God and that Jesus is his
Messenger:
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth
by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me
in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. 6"I
have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They
were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now
they know that everything you have given me comes from you.
So the answers to these questions are clearly no, Jesus:

Is not God (just like us)
Is not equal to God (just like us)
Is not the source of Power (just like us)
Recognizes his Father as his God (just like us)
Order us to worship God only (just like us)
After looking at what Jesus has said, to conclude that he is God, it is not
enough to say that
God said Us (it is not refereeing to Gods)
God is IN Jesus (God is IN the Disciples as well)
The WORD is God (Not part of the bible, and not referring to Jesus)
I hope this clarify something,

Thank you,
AbuYaqeen
8/10/2011
81
:
82
Tabeedh Vs Following the Most Knowledgable
Salam brothers
So i have been reading about tab'eed-ut-taqlid and i know we have

spoken about it in the past but not in detail. So here is what i think about
the topic, and i'm afraid its bad news :(... I have to agree with fadullah on
this topic and i like the idea of tab'eed-ut-taqlid.
tab'eed is when a person takes the fatwa of any marja because he is

unable to know who is al alaam. So in other words we pick and choose
whatever we want.... the reason I feel this works for me is because, we do
this in real life, say we are sick we have 10 doctors they give us 10 options
we go with the doctor we feel works best for us and we go with the doctor
who gives us the easy answer, so instead of having an operation he says
take pills and we do because that easy way out..
Here are my questions.
1. When did the issue of doing taqleed to al'alum start as i feel like this is
something osooli people have made up.
2. tab'eed is this a bida of fadullah or did real ayatolalhs also speak about
this in the past, did Imams speak about it like they spoke about taqleed?
3. a person on shiachat made a really good point about tab'eed and

sistani, please can u comment on his point.
'...even Sistani says Tab'eed is ok but he has this ihtiyaat wujuban that you
have to do ihtiyaat ihtiyaatan at the end.
it doesn't even matter because if you see sistani as equal to the others his
view is not stronger than the others and the others say you can pick and
choose. even then we all know that ihtiyaat wujuban means you can go
to the next marja' and he doesn't impose ihtiyaat...'
4. Are my following facts about tab'eed true.
83
you can pick and choose a fatwa simply because its easier on you
the marja who you take the fatwa from does not need to agree with
tab'eed because u r not doing taqleed to him, just taqleed on that
issue.
we can say the 12th imam said 'our fuqaha are hujjah on u and we
are hujjah on them'.. so here imam did not say 'one faqi u pick is
hujjah on u and i am hujjah on them.
ok email is getting long so i will stop now and look forward to your reply
brother abu yaqeen. Please don't forget us in your duas in these holy
nights.
with Duas
*****
84
Alaikum Al Slam brother,
Today was my first day to start replying to email. I started with

yours because I liked the topic :) If you sent other emails, expect a reply
from me in the following few weeks.
1. When did the issue of doing taqleed to al'alum start as i feel like this
is something osooli people have made up.
I have the same feeling, but I cannot prove this scientifically.

However, I am certain that it began after Ghayba, because Ahlulbayt
never mentioned it even though they spoke about Taqleed a lot. Beside
the fact that the Shia did actually make Taqleed to the non Alam during
their time.
2. tab'eed is this a bida of fadullah or did real ayatolalhs also speak

about this in the past, did Imams speak about it like they spoke about
taqleed?
Yes, many of our old and new Scholars allowed it. Some called it
Tabeedh and others called it Takhyeer. And we do have many authentic
Hadiths were Ahlulbayt allowed their Shia to make Taqleed to any Scholar
without limiting them to Al Alam.
3. a person on shiachat made a really good point about tab'eed and

sistani, please can u comment on his point.
'...even Sistani says Tab'eed is ok but he has this ihtiyaat wujuban that
you have to do ihtiyaat ihtiyaatan at the end.
it doesn't even matter because if you see sistani as equal to the others
his view is not stronger than the others and the others say you can pick
and choose. even then we all know that ihtiyaat wujuban means you
85
can go to the next marja' and he doesn't impose ihtiyaat...'
He is right, in fact all of our scholars believe in Tabeedh, and all of

them allow you sometimes to pick between two Fatwa because it is
easier. They just disagree on the conditions of when are we allowed to do
that.
4. Are my following facts about tab'eed true.
you can pick and choose a fatwa simply because its easier on you
the marja who you take the fatwa from does not need to agree
with tab'eed because u r not doing taqleed to him, just taqleed
on that issue.
we can say the 12th imam said 'our fuqaha are hujjah on u and
we are hujjah on them'.. so here imam did not say 'one faqi u
pick is hujjah on u and i am hujjah on them.
Yes, I personally agree with you in the 3 points, and inshallah when
we discuss this matter in detail, you will see that many of our scholars
agree with you as well.
Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
23/8/2011
86
:
87

88

" [ [
( )62 "! . .
- :
( ( ) 212 .)87 :
( ( ) 314 .)578 / 2 :
( ( ) 328 ( 309 - 308 / 4 : ) ( 335 - 334 / 4 )).
( ( ) 568 .)175 :
( ( ) 656 .)186 74 / 15 :
( ( ) 821 .)273 / 1 :
( ( ) 871 .)357 / 1 :
- :
( ( ) 413 .)287 :
( ( ) 670 .)385 28 :
( ( ) 877 .)11 / 3 :
62 :
89

" . . : . .

. . ".
- :
( ( ) 562 .)166 / 7 :
( ( ) 656 .)183 / 15 :
( ( ) 737 .)236 / 7 :
( ( ) 821 .)276 / 1 :
( ( ) 871 .)374 / 1 :
- :
( ( ) 406 123 - 122 : .)28

( ( ) 447 .)237 :
( ) ( .)178 / 1 :
( ( ) 614 .)245 / 3 :
( ( ) 652 : .)67
( ( ) 670 .)29 :
90
:
:
.
: " :
:

:
(.)63
- - - 15 188 - 184
" [ : :

:
: ( )64

( )65
.
63 188-184/15
64 :
65 :
91

( )66

. :
.
. :
.

.
( : )
( )67
.
.

.

.
66 :
67 29
92
.
.
. ( :
) ( . )68

(
) (. )69
:
. :
" :
( )70 ( )71 " .
:
!
".
- - - 15 184 - 181
"( ) 28 : :

.
. !
68 17
69 264
70 : :
71 ( ) :
93
!
!
! . -
-
: !
:
!
.
.

!
( : ) ( )72
( : ) ( )73
.
.
* .
* :
! !
.
!
! (
) ( . )74
* . *
.
! *
*
72 75
73 68
74 18
94

(
) (". )75
35-30/3 28
.

2011/2/25
75
95

sa abu yaqeen
how old was Fatimah when she really married Imam Ali. Was she really 9
years old and Imam Ali was 21?
I want to refuse Aisha's claim that she married the prophet at age 9!
******
96

[ 5 = 18 :
(.)76
[ 1 = 12 : 41
(.)77
[ 2 = 11 : (.)78
[ 5 = 8 : (.)79
5
:
: - ( ) - 79
" - 18 / 18 : :
( )80
( ) : ( )
76
77
78
79
80 " " :
299 : 9
97
( )
( )81
( ) (". )82
: - - - 1 457
"[ - 10
: :

(" . )83
( )84
9 :
: - - - 8 341 - 338
"( ( ) () )85
81 " " :
82 16 / 9 : 43 ( ) 5 / 36 : ( ) 43
83

84 141/2
85 ( )

[
( )

( . ) :
98
- 536 : (
) ( ) : (
) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) (
) ( ) (
) ( )

( )
:
:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (
)
( )
( ) :
( )
- ( ) -
( )86 ( )
( ) ( )
( ) . ( ) :
( ) :
( ) ( ) :
( )87
219
( )
86 . - : -
87 : ( . )
99
( ) : ( )88
:
( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) ( ) . : ( ) (
) ( ) :
: ( ) : ( ) ( )
( )89 ( )
( ) ( )90
( ) :
. (
) : :
[ ( )

( ) " :
( " )91 ".
5 2
9 ( )92 3 .
88 : ( . )
89
90
91 78 :
8 92 1 +
100

2011/8/23
101

102
Is it True that Aysha commited Adultry?
Salaam 'Alaikum Shaykhna,
Insha Allah I hope you are in the best of health.
I do not mean to disturb you for I am aware of just how busy you are =)
I just wanted to ask you for some of the stuff I needed and I thought you
maybe able to help me with.
1) al-Radd 3la Riwayat alatee yastakhdam Yassir al-Habeeb fi Ithbaat

Fa7isha 3nd Ayesha bint Abi Bakr
2) You said you had some lectures which were made into PDF files, if you
could send me these it would be much appreciated.
3) How do you deal with the texts in Kaamil al-Ziyarah which seem
anthropomorphist?
Jazak Allah khair Shaykhna,

We ask you for our du'as.
103
Alaikum Al Salam Shaykhe,
1) al-Radd 3la Riwayat alatee yastakhdam Yassir al-Habeeb fi Ithbaat

Fa7isha 3nd Ayesha bint Abi Bakr
There are two narrations that are used to prove the claim against
Aysha. However, none of them can be relied on scientifically. Here they
are with their refutations:
377 - 2 - - :
( : " ( )
)
. . .
"
The Source: Tafsir Al Qumi 2/377, for Ali Ibn Ebrahim Al Qumi.
The Content: Al Qumi says "She (Aysha) will be punished because of what
she has done in her way. Because he (Talha) used to love her. And when
she decided to go out (Al Jammal Battle), someone told her you are not
allowed to go out alone. So, she married from Folan (Talha)"
The Refutation: The reasons why this narration cannot be relied on are:
It is taken from Tafsir Al Qumi, which is not even proven to be for

Al Qumi.
The quotation is an opinion for Al Qumi, and not a narration from
Ahlulbayt.
If it was a narration from Ahlulbayt, then it is a weak and
disconnected narration.
129 - - :
: "( )
:
104
:

".)93( :
The Source: Mashariq Anwar Al Yaqeen p129, for Rajab Al Bursi.
The Content: Imam Al Hassan told Aysha "Don't you remember the 40
Dinar that you gathered by betrayal, which you spread it to Imam Ali's
haters?"
The Refutation: The reasons why this narration cannot be relied on are:
It is taken from Mashareeq Anwar Al Yaqeen for Rajab Al Bursi,

which is weakened by Al Majlisi (94). So, the whole book is weak.
The narration has disconnected chain here, and a weak chain in
Madinat Al Ma'ajiz.
There are many forbidden ways to gather money from and it will be
"betrayal" of Allah & his Messenger, but not by the claimed
"betrayal". So, this is not necessarily pointing to the claimed
accusation.
The conclusion is that we do not have any thing that proves this
claim in the Shia Tradition. All what we have is a quotation of a Scholar
that is not proven to be his, and a weak narration that has nothing to do
with the claimed accusation.
197 : 93
Bihar Al Anwar 1/10 94
105
2) You said you had some lectures which were made into PDF files, if
you could send me these it would be much appreciated.
Inshallah I will upload them soon to my website. Sorry for the delay.
3) How do you deal with the texts in Kaamil al-Ziyarah which seem
anthropomorphist?
The same way I deal with the verse in Quran which seem
anthropomorphist. There must be an explanation or an interpretation for
those Verses & Hadiths. We just have to look for them.
Nas'alakum Al Dua,
Abu Yaqeen
23/9/2011
106
:
107

108

!
.

2011/2/20
109
How can we Balance between Relegious Dawa & Political Activities in
the West?
Salaamou Alaykom dear Bro,
Inshallah all is well with you and your beloved ones...
I am just asking for an advice or for your opinion..
In my area (Canada), at the university, there are Islamic clubs you know.
Some of them like to get involved politically, and some of them don't want
to get involved politically and I am one of the ones who do not want to
start a Shiite club already going into politics because I don't think it is
effective since non-muslims in the west look at muslims as if we beat up
our wives, and we stone our daughters and we oppress the women.
I am just discussing with a friend who believes in getting the Shiite club at
our university very politically active in the university. And I was trying to
explain to him to leave politics for now, but to spread Usool-e-Deen FIRST
before we try to get involved politically such as starting events, inviting
political speakers or even to advertise for other political events that we
will not be involved in at all. I gave him the example of the Quran being
split up into Makki and Madani verses, the Makki verses were revealed
upon the polytheists and the style of the verses were Usool-e-Deen which
teaches them about Tawhid and etc. I was showing him that why is it that
Nabi Mohammad (saw) only talked about Tawhid and etc. before he tried
to convince people of Furoo-e-Deen and eventually politics? I said
because Nabi Mohammad (saw) needed the people's support first in
order to be a leader of the country and if he had already attempted to
become a leader of the country before convincing people of Usool-e-
Deen, he would fail miserably because he did not have the people's
support since the polytheists (who converted to islam later) initially
thought we were crazy for worshipping someone that cannot be seen and
because of many other reasons.
Also the fact that we want to propogate Islamic politics in a western

country when we are already so weak in here is a bad idea because the
club's image will be ruined by the enemies of Islam before we have the
chance to invite people to Usool-e-Deen.
110
What do you think? Are there hadiths to prove that it is better to spread
Usool-e-Deen before Politics? Even I disagree doing Usool-e-Deen and
poltiics at the same time because the politics part is not 100% clean and
it may hurt our image in case a Shiite political leader does something bad.
WaSalaam and Fee Amanillah,

-Bro ********
111
Alaikum Al Salam dear Brother,
I agree with you on all what you have said. the examples you
provided are more than enough to support your approach in Dawa.
Before getting involved in politics, and before giving politics the chance to
pull us away from our Religious Dawa, we all need to understand the
following points:
It is more important to guide people and pull them to heaven than

to gain some power in Dunia.
It is dangerous to focus on spreading our political power and
influence without making sure we have strong fundamentals within
us.
That's why Imam Ali stopped Spreading Islam when Khilafa reached
him. Instead he focused on fixing Muslims.
By skimming through Imam Ali's words, you can see that he treated
the political issues as minor issues in front of the religious issues.
Even though he was the most involving Imam in politics.
Also the fact that we want to propogate Islamic politics in a western

country when we are already so weak in here is a bad idea because the
club's image will be ruined by the enemies of Islam before we have the
chance to invite people to Usool-e-Deen.
What you said here is a very important strategic point specially in

the long run. It also fit those who ask for unity with Sunnis, without trying
to explain to them our real ideology. Unfortunately, our generation is
suffering because of the short run solutions that were provided by the
previous generations. What our generation should do is focus on the
basics of the essential and religious issues, and try to clarify them to Non-
Shias. We should stop spending all our efforts in Short Run solutions and
focus more on Long Run solutions. Otherwise, we will keep making the
same mistakes again and again, and the valuable efforts spent on people
who don't know us will be lost.
112
What do you think?
I think the solution should be the following:
Give religious issues the Priority.

Work on political issues but according to the Sharia, and according
to the tradition of Ahlulbayt.
This solution cannot be made with Shias who are ignorant of the
Authentic Tradition of Ahlulbayt.
So, one must spend enough time and see how did Ahlulbayt deal
with the Oppressors, Revolutions, Followers and Enemies with paying
attention to the Situation around them. Then and only then, we will be
able to balance between Religion and Politics like the way Ahlulbayt did.
It is not a secret to us that in most cases Ahlulbayt decided to ignore
politics and focus on religion, and this was for a reason that can be seen
in their tradition.
Are there hadiths to prove that it is better to spread Usool-e-Deen

before Politics? Even I disagree doing Usool-e-Deen and poltiics at the
same time because the politics part is not 100% clean and it may hurt
our image in case a Shiite political leader does something bad.
I have a book regarding this topic that is called (

). In it I discussed the conditions that must exists before making any
political movement, including the conditions that must exist in the Leader.
Whoever study those conditions he will realize why Ahlulbayt decided to
support some political movements, and why they refused to support
others. By looking carefully at those reasons, then we can decided how
much we should be involved in politics and how.
Hope this clarify something,

Abu Yaqeen
17/9/2011
113
:
114
Sayed Al Sistani & Walayat Al Faqeh
SalaamouA alaykom dear bro, I have a quick question, I know it is selfish

of me to bother you at this time in your country's situation and your job
search (which I hope you found one -- I am assuming that Bahrain Ipod
store belongs to you -- I hope it is going well inshallah)...
My question is simple it is long because I am sharing with you with what I

know but requires one very short evidence/reply from you, do you have
any evidence or knowledge from personal statements from reliable
people about whether or not Ayatollah Sistani (qs) accepts Imam
Khamene'y (qs) as the wali al faqih, because Sayyed Muhammad Rizvi
(one of the wakeel of Imam Sistani (qs) in Canada has published an article
saying that we should follow the wali e faqih in Iran since most ulema
were quiet on politics) however I noticed a big flaw in his article, and that
is... it was published in 1997 when Imam Sistani (qs) was under house
arrest or silenced by Saddam Hussein (la) so it is clear he could not
comment on politics or WF al mutlaqa but since 2003 he is free, I haven't
heard of him supporting it publicly or whatnot but rather he made his own
little 4 ulema council to help with the politics of Iraq (without the
influence of Iran as well)...and he has many times stopped america from
taking over the government completely al hamdulilah...
Inshallah you are in Allah's (Swt) care!
115
Alaikum al Salam brother,
Mashallah, it is good to hear from you again. You are always in my mind,
so please always keep me in your Duas.
do you have any evidence or knowledge from personal statements from

reliable people about whether or not Ayatollah Sistani (qs) accepts
Imam Khamene'y (qs) as the wali al faqih
I have heard a person or two that mention the opinion of Sayed al

Sistani, but they were not reliable to me. However, I do not think Sayed al
Sistani would mind people accept Sayed al Khamanei or any other
Mujtahid including himself as Wali Al Faqeh. He is not one of those who
Fantasize on having one universal Wali Faqeh, so he wouldn't say anything
near limiting the leadership to Sayed al Khamanaei or any other Mujtahid
in the world.
Sayyed Muhammad Rizvi (one of the wakeel of Imam Sistani (qs) in

Canada has published an article saying that we should follow the wali e
faqih in Iran since most ulema were quiet on politics)
Why in Iran? Why not in Lebanon or Pakistan? There are many Shia
Scholars around the world that are involved in politics, and are able to
understand the situations just like our Shia Scholars in Iran.
We should never limit the leadership or the political guidance views

to one scholar. Because no matter who this scholar will be limited by his
abilities and by the political pressure. We should also note that even if a
Scholar becomes a leader of a strong country like Iran, he will still have
political pressure that would prevent him from giving direct orders to the
Shias around the world, and sometimes even to his own followers.
however I noticed a big flaw in his article, and that is... it was published
in 1997 when Imam Sistani (qs) was under house arrest or silenced by
Saddam Hussein (la) so it is clear he could not comment on politics or
WF al mutlaqa but since 2003 he is free
You are right, Sayed al Sistani tends to avoid making such

statements even when he is free, so the case will be more clear when he
is not.
116
I haven't heard of him supporting it publicly or whatnot but rather he
made his own little 4 ulema council to help with the politics of Iraq
(without the influence of Iran as well)...and he has many times stopped
america from taking over the government completely al hamdulilah...
Sayed al Sistani is just like many other Scholars who are practicing
their Wilaya socially and politically. Alhamdulilah he is setting an example,
and is practicing it in a unique way. I believe that everybody should look
closely to how he deals with the conflicts around him. Not necessary
everybody should react like him, because we need to have multiple ways
to overcome our obstacles, but at least we can learn from his unique
method.
Hope this helps,

Abu Yaqeen
3/6/2011
117
What is the Opinion of Sayed Al Haidari & Sayed Al Sistani on Walayat
Al Faqeh?
Salaamou Alaykm dear Bro,
I just wanted to tell you ignore the other email I sent because we got it
resolved, sorry for bothering you with a worthless email :(. I just realized
I should have kept it to myself...
Anyways a friend of mine told me that he said a student of another Sheikh

told him that Sayed Kamal Haydari (qs) believes in the same authority of
WF as Imam Khamene'y (qs).... I told him that you told me that Syed Kamal
Haydari (qs) himself has said more than one occasions that he does not
believe in it in his lectures? Do you have a direct file to that lecture? If so,
please send it to me....
And another Sheikh (sistani taqleed) told me that Imam Khomeini (ra)
actually went down from al-Mutlaqa to something less in the practical
sense because he realized it could not be applied fully, is this true? He did
not give me concrete evidence at the time and I don't think he has any
but I trust his words a lot because he is a very careful man. Do you know
if al-Sistani (qs) believes in WF of Iran the lesser authority since it is not
al-Mutlaqa in reality? Apparently al-Sistani (qs) is quiet on this issue but I
have heard of him praising Iran a couple of times...
WaSalaam and Fee Amanillah,

-Bro ********
118
Alaikum Al Salam,
I just wanted to tell you ignore the other email I sent because we got it
resolved, sorry for bothering you with a worthless email :(. I just realized
I should have kept it to myself...
I learned a lot from your other email. Thank you very much for
sharing it with me the valuable information that was included in it.
Anyways a friend of mine told me that he said a student of another

Sheikh told him that Sayed Kamal Haydari (qs) believes in the same
authority of WF as Imam Khamene'y (qs).... I told him that you told me
that Syed Kamal Haydari (qs) himself has said more than one occasions
that he does not believe in it in his lectures? Do you have a direct file to
that lecture? If so, please send it to me....
Sayed Kamal Al Haidari refused to speak about this Topic before,

due to the negative reaction according to him. However, he did declare
that he does not agree with Wilayat Al Faqeeh and does not Agree with
Shura Al Marajie. He said this in an online Q&A Session in Safinat Al Najat
Forum long time ago. Here is what he said:
"

.
119

".
http://www.annajat.us/4um/showthread.php?t=3922
another Sheikh (sistani taqleed) told me that Imam Khomeini (ra)

actually went down from al-Mutlaqa to something less in the practical
sense because he realized it could not be applied fully, is this true?
I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Because Sayed Khamanei does

have moderate view toward the disagreement in Wilayat Al Faqeeh. Here
are few Examples:
He believes that Khums should be paid to Waly Al Faqeeh, unless if

your Marji disagree (from his website).
He believes that if someone studied Wilayat Al Faqeeh and ended
up not believing in it, then he is Excused (from Istefta'at #67).
I remember that he did vote against an aspect of Wilayat Al Faqeeh
in the past, but I don't exactly remember what.
Do you know if al-Sistani (qs) believes in WF of Iran the lesser authority

since it is not al-Mutlaqa in reality?
Sayed Al Sistani beleives in Wilayat Al Faqeeh. However, he believes

there must be a fulfillment of preconditions. One of the conditions is that
people must choose the Wali Al Faqeeh. Here are his words from his
website:
120
:
:
()

.
Apparently al-Sistani (qs) is quiet on this issue but I have heard of him
praising Iran a couple of times...
Yes, Al Sistani has good relationship with Al Khamanie and Iran. Just
like many of the Marajie, but this does not mean they believe in Al
Mutlaqa. otherwise, we will say that Al Khamanie believes in Shura Al
Marajie when he praise Al Shirazi after his death.
Please Keep me in your Prayers,

Abu Yaqeen
17/9/2011
121
What is the Opinoin of Sayed Al Khoei on the Pre-emptive Jihad?
Alaykem Salaam Ya Bro Abu Yaqeen Zahra,
Thank you very much for these emails! I really appreciate it. I heard
there's another heavy breakdown going on in Bahrain, I hope you and
your loved ones are okay by the Will of Allah (Swt).. I always pray for this
breakdown to be abolished by our Imam's (aj) arrival, inshallah asap! I
don't have any more questions but below is what I encountered recently
in case you are interested in reading about.
Just an interesting note I want to make, at a friend's house I've recently

discussed with Sheikh Hamza Sodagar about WF in general (as well as al-
Mutlaqa), he claims that Sayyed Kamal Haydari does believe in WF (If I do
remember correctly), not necessarily al-Mutlaqa but I don't know where
he got this evidence from though.
He also believes that Sheikh Muhammad Sanad (who was his teacher by
the way) has some Akhbari tendencies, I think he brought that up
because I said Sheikh Muhammad Sanad is not with WF even in general
(when we were naming some of the ayatollahs and senior clerics who
weren't with WF general or mutlaqa).
Also, he tried to make it look like Imam al-Khoe'i believed in the pre-
emptive offensive Jihad because Sheikh Hamza was trying to support his
view on the authority of Imam Khomeini being allowed to make
something wajib haraam temporarily as that's the al-Mutlaqa authority
such as making Hajj haraam until his death, but I remember you in another
email sent me saying that people confused what Imam al-Khoe'i actually
meant by this fatwa. And I also have Sheikh Odeh Muhawesh's article
proving that this fatwa isn't any different from the one Sayyed Fadlallah
has issued and it's not necessarily the Imam's (aj) authority to do it. But I
didn't bring it up as we didn't have enough time, so I let it go but inshallah
I will next time so I can see what he has to say about it.
Lastly but not the least... he thought I was Bahraini :P, probably because I
referred to Sheikh Muhammad Sanad AND I look like the gulf people even
though I'm Lebanese! (My mother's ancestors are from Najaf, Iraq (we are
122
related to the well-known poet Sheikh Ahmad-Safi Najafi), that's why I
look darker than the average Lebs) :D.
WaSalaam w Fee Amanillah,

-Bro ********
123
Alaikum Al Salam Dear Brother,
I always look forward to read anything from you, because they

always add something to me. So, keep them coming :)
I've recently discussed with Sheikh Hamza Sodagar about WF in general

(as well as al-Mutlaqa), he claims that Sayyed Kamal Haydari does
believe in WF (If I do remember correctly), not necessarily al-Mutlaqa
but I don't know where he got this evidence from though.
He is right. Sayed Kamal Al Haidari does believe in Wilayat Al

Faqeeh, and he did briefly speak about it in one of his Books (95). However,
he does not believe in Al Mutlaqa as you saw in a quotation that I
previously sent to you.
He also believes that Sheikh Muhammad Sanad (who was his teacher by
the way) has some Akhbari tendencies, I think he brought that up
because I said Sheikh Muhammad Sanad is not with WF even in general
(when we were naming some of the ayatollahs and senior clerics who
weren't with WF general or mutlaqa).
Both Sayed Al Haidar & Shikh Sanad believe in Wilayat Al Faqeh, but
not al Mutlaqa. So, even if we say that Shikh Sanad has some Akhbari
tendencies, this changes nothing. Many of the Usooli Scholars, like Sayed
Al Khoei, dont agree with al Mutlaqa.
By the way, if you read Shikh Sanads arguments against Akhbaris

in his Rijal book you will see that he is very far from being Akhbari. Also,
he is one of our Scholars who believe we are not allowed to make Taqleed
to dead people at all in every circumstance. Even if a living scholar allows
you to do it, he still believes that we are not allowed to do so. These views
and others show that he is far away from being an Akhbari. Yes, he does
95
Falsafat Al Deen p134
124
believe that the Hadiths in the 4 Books have extra value, but this does not
mean that he accepts all those Hadiths in his Fatwas.
Also, he tried to make it look like Imam al-Khoe'i believed in the pre-
emptive offensive Jihad because Sheikh Hamza was trying to support his
view on the authority of Imam Khomeini being allowed to make
something wajib haraam temporarily as that's the al-Mutlaqa authority
such as making Hajj haraam until his death, but I remember you in
another email sent me saying that people confused what Imam al-Khoe'i
actually meant by this fatwa.
Sayed Al Khoeis explained this Fatwa in Minhaj Al Saleheen (96). He

was mainly refuting those who believe that Jihad can only be practices
during the days of the Imams. He provided some narrations that support
this idea, and refuted them all chain wise and content wise, and
concluded that Jihad is still Wajib today as it was during the days of the
Prophet. His main proof was that the number of Verses and Hadiths
talking about Jihad cannot be specific or limited to the Imams times. Also,
he added that there are some Hadiths that allow Muslims to take Jizia
from people of the book, and this can only be practiced in wars.
So, he concluded that Jihad is Wajib under the right conditions, and
that conditions must be reasoned by the Muslims:
366 - 365 - 1 - -
"

" .
Then he discussed whether any Muslim can make this decision by

himself, or if it should be by the permission of the Faqeh. He concluded
that leaving this decision in the hand of anybody is very dangerous.
Instead, it should be made by a Faqeh (since he knows the Shareia), who
96
1/358-366
125
Muslims chose, and who consults with Muslims with other professions to
be fully aware of the situation.
- - - 1 366
" :
( ) .

".
This means that such responsibility and decision cannot be by the

Faqeh himself. Instead, the whole Umma must use its professional
knowledge and participate in making this decision.
So, Sayed Al Khoei was not talking about an individual Wilaya, but
a civilized effort to make a decision.
I hope this helps in your next discussion,

Abu Yaqeen
1/11/2011
126
:
127

.. ..
.. ..
.. ..

128

129
.. ..
-1

-2 ..

-3
-4
..
..
130

-1

" " ()97
.
: - - - 2 354
"

"
: - - - 1 18 - 17
" 1 / 7 - 7 -

:
".
97 60-59/516
131
:
( )98

.
: - - - 8 260 - 259
" :
: ! : !
: ( )99 :
. : ! :
. :
. .
- - : ( :
( ) )100
.
: .
: ! !
! . :
! : : :
! : :
: : : :
98 162-159/13" 36492 "

99 :
100 28
132
! : : :
". .
: - - - 8 255 - 252
" [ :
: " "
:
. .

: ! !
:
! :
...
: ! :
. : ! : !
: : :
. : !
! : ! ".
:

:
133

: - - - 8 261 - 260
" :
:
: :
. :
: : : ! . :
: . :
: : :
. : .
".
:

" " " "
( )101
.
: - - - 8 257 - 255
"
.
" 101
" 148-147/1
134

: :
( )
. : :

. :
: :
! : . .
:
.
: .

.
: ".
: - - 165 - 161
" - 4 : : :
: : ( )102
:

. :

( . )103
102 121
103 ( " : ) 291 : 4
" .
: . :
135
: .
: ( )104 . ( ) 3
: :
.
( )105
: ( )106
: :
:
. :
.
( )107

.
( )108 :
. :
( )109 : .
: ( )110 !
:

104 : ) 3 ( . : .

105 ( )
106 :
107 " : "
108 " : "
109 " " : :
"
110 " : "
136
( . )111 :
( )112
( . )113
:
!
.
: .
:
. ".
: - - 122 - 121
" - 5 : : :
: :
( )114 :
:
()115
[ . ( [ )116

111

112 " : : " " : " ( ) " : : :
: "
113 : : . " : " .
" : " .

.
114 187 " "

115
116 " : "
137
. : ( )117
122 ( )118 .
.
: ( )119 :
. ".
: - - - 8 258 - 257
" " " :

: . .
: : . : !
! :
: ! !
. :
( )120
( )121 :
.
" : " .
: : "
117 " "

118 : "" "" . " :
"
119 " :
" " :
" " : "

" : :
" " "
120 :
121
138
" " : " .
. : .
( )122
. : : : :
: : ".
:
" ... " "
" "
" " " "
" "
"
"
" "
"
.
: - - - 8 257
" : ".
: - - - 1 101
"
"
122 :
139
: - - - 31 274
" : :
: . : ( . )123
: :
: (")124
: - - - 8 262
" :
"
: - - - 8 260 - 259
" :
... :
( )125 : ...
123 [ 223 / 2 285 / 2 : :

. [ 58 / 4
: : . .
. . 210 : 243 / 5 123 / 3
342 / 1 : . .
. . . :
. . [ 93 / 1 81 : . 281 / 2

151 - 149 / 9
124 : 135 / 1 : . : 114 / 1 :

125 :
140
: .
...
: ! : :
: ! :
: :
: : : ! : :
: .
".
: - - - 8 254 - 252
" [ :
" "
... : : - - :
...
: !

".
:

.
141

142
-2 ..

700 4
:
: - - - 2 258 - 256
"

143

"
:
(.)126
2 840 : " 1437

".
4 334 : " 5167

".
1 : " 396

".
1 : " 451
".
7 :" 191

126 72/2
144

. ".
:
.
: - - - 2 337 - 334
"\ \ 574

"
: " "
" " " "
" "
.
145

" ".
-3
-4

2011/6/22
146

2011/11/14
1432/12/18
147

Q A 4 - Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q A 4 - Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4

10 ................... ................................ Nimatullah Al Jazaeri & Tahreef Al Quran

19 ................................. Does Al Kulayni believe in all what he narrated in Al Kafi?

55 .................................... ................................ Isma in the Shia Traditions

71 ................................. A Discussion with a Christian Regarding Jesus in the Bible

83 ............................................. Tabeedh Vs Following the Most Knowledgable

?103 ................... ................................ Is it True that Aysha commited Adultry

: 107 ................................. ................................

115 ....................... ................................ Sayed Al Sistani & Walayat Al Faqeh

128 ............... ................................

128 ......................... ................................

147 ........................... ................................ ................................

my Salafi friend is harassing me on this issue, I was wondering if you had

?Subject: Salam *****, can you explain this to me

Taken from http://gadir.free.fr/Ar/Ehlibeyt/kutub2/Nurul_Barahin/noor%20-%2001.htm...

There are several quotations of Nimatullah Al Jazaeri regarding

1- Al Anwar Al Nomania: He finished from it in 1089H (1), when he was 39

2- Noor Al Baraheen: He finished from it in 1099H (2).

3- Manba' Al Hayat: He finished from it in 1100H (3).

4- Oqood Al Marjan: He finished from it in 1102H (4).

In this book he clearly refuted Tahreef Al Quran, by saying the

So, my conclusion is that Nimatullah Al Jazaeri did not believe in

1- Tawator Hadiths of Tahreef: If he really meant Tahreef then he is

2- Refuting the Tawator of Qira'at: Many Scholars from both school of

Hopefully you find this answer benefiting,

Does Al Sadooq believe in all what he narrated in Al Faqeeh?

Did the Two Hishams believe God has a Body?

Did Zurara not Know the Imam of his Time?

Asalaamu 'Alaykum Shaykh,

'Eid Mubarak, Kul Am wa Antum Bi khair insha Allah ta' ala

Out of curiosity shaykhna, there are a couple of issues which have

1) Did Thiqatul Islam al Kulayni (RA) considers everything he put in Kaafi

2) Same question in regards to Shaykh Ibn Babuwayh al Saduq (RA) and

1) Did Thiqatul Islam al Kulayni (RA) considers everything he put in Kaafi

This claim is based on a misunderstanding of Shikh Al Kulayni 's

He is saying "You (as a reader) want to have an adequate book with

And even if we say that Al Kulayni's goal was to write an Authentic

He is saying "And I HOPE it is how I thought it to be, and as much

" ... " []

2. With Authentic Hadiths only: There is no doubt that he included Non-

He narrated from Abu Al Bukhturi, who is one of the famous liars.

He narrated Hadiths that contradict with Quran (Imams making

I personally did not investigate if there is any weak Hadith in Al

a) Hisham ibn al Hakam (RA), Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi (RA),

However, what our enemies need to know is that if it was proven

Hadith #1 - Kafi 1/106#8: It says that Muhammad Ibn Hakeem explained

The Answer to Hadith #1: The Young Man Hadith

Yes, this Hadith is considered to be weak, because Al Hussain Ibn Al

Sign#1 - Kafi 1/83-85#6: The only narration we have from Hisham

This Hadith is narrated by Abbas Ibn Amr Al Fuqaimi, who is

Shia Narration - Bihar Al Anwar 3/305#43:

Even though this narration is weak due to multiple Unknown

Sunni Narration - Maqalat Al Islameen 2/6#9:

Abu Al Hassan Al Ashari, the Imam of the Ashaera, quotes Hisham

So, by looking at this quotation, a new possibility comes to our mind

Sign#3 - Al Milal Wa Al Nihal 1/185: There is a huge possibility that

Al Shihristani, which is a famous Sunni Scholar, said that Hisham

This quotation adds another important possibility that proves

By looking at those 3 signs, no one can conclude that Hisham does

Narration#252: Was weakened by some scholars because it includes Ali

Narration#254: Was weakened by some scholars because Ibn Al Waleed

Narration#255: No one should deny the authenticity of this narration.