on ghumaris

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by shahnawazgm, Apr 1, 2018.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    whether nawaz is careless that he does not reference properly, or that he does not know how to do referencing, or whether he deliberately omits key elements in references as a stalling technique, i do not know. see, if you have famous and oft-referred books such as bukhari or radd al-muhtar or ihya ulum al-din etc. one can quickly find them out even without page numbers or other pointers (such as number of hadith or listing number, volume no. etc.). in other works, volume and page no. are good indicators. also such referencing depends on the structure of the book - if it is organised as chapters or topics or arranged chronologically, one can find it based on where the quote might probably figure. in any case, if it is in a printed (and available) book, in sha'Allah, i will be able to find it - even if i have to scan it page by page. usually, i can find the quoted passage, with just the name of the book (or in most cases, just the author's name), alHamdu-lillah.

    i write this because in my experience, nawaz's quotes are almost always out of context and need to be verified. and when he throws a reference, it is usually without proper pointers. the literal aspect of a red-herring. sometimes, he does mention references, but not without a sneer or in a condescending manner, such as:
    as i said, if there is a quote in a printed and available book - in sha'Allah, i will be able to find it even without references. but it takes time. i have a habit of mentioning precise pointers and additional information, in case the book has multiple editions. so imprecise references, will waste our time - and give time for nawaz (or people like him) to insist that they are right.

    the above rant has nothing to do with my current break - as i got busy with other things. i found some time yesterday, and i said, let us check nawaz's quotes first.
    if i quoted, or translated like this nawaz would skin me alive. but you know, he has the privilege of doing as he likes without being held accountable - and if you point it out, it is like water off a duck's back.

    i urge readers to pay attention to the clauses missed, and how this kind of translations distort the picture. also, this very quote refutes nawaz and calls him bidati - but what does he care?
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    Ghulam Ali, Bazdawi, Aqdas and 2 others like this.
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you are incorrigible.

    all of your nonsense will be refuted when *i* get time. i resolve not to answer your posts as the errors, foolishness and your obstinate refusal to accept truth is self-evident. but i do keep hitting the ball back, even though -


    but one thing was amusing in your post:
    sub'HanAllah! do you even understand its meaning? if you did, you wouldn't have done it a few times in this very post!

    your post is a good example to illustrate poor logic and how to avoid fallacies. you can relax until i find time...in sha'Allah.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    Umar99 likes this.
  3. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    (just found a little time for this...)

    The discussion was about sufyan al-thawri and his kufan colleagues who believed in the afdaliyyah of Imam Ali (as) over Shaykhayn (ra). To this end, I have provided on your request some names of those colleagues from the earliest of sources. Those colleagues were trustworthy and reliable reporters of hadith. Three of al-thawri’s colleagues believed in tafdil of Imam Ali and the fourth, in protest states, perhaps, with some exaggeration that overwhelming Kufan population believed in the afdaliyyah of Imam Ali. The point of the discussion has been established. Your objections have been dispelled. Your accusations of the reporters being shi`i is misunderstood by you. For example, you said that Ibn Ma`een called ya`la ibn ubayd a shi`i hence he is rejected. The fact is that Ya`la ibn Ubayd is relied upon and trustworthy. And even Ibn Ma`een himself says that he is a trustworthy reporter. See Uthman al-Darimi’s tarikh from Ibn Ma`een. Moreover, to state that a reporter is shi`i does not mean he is a liar but it just says that he loved the ahl al-bayt dearly. The same Ibn Ma`een called Imam al-Shafa`i a shi`i. See manaqib of al-Bayhaqi and al-Razi. You have seen in a previous post in this thread that the same Ibn Ma`een calls al-Madini being a shi`i. Loving the ahl al-bayt does not render a reporter untrustworthy. Even the Sahaba have been called shi`i for considering Imam Ali afdal to others. Just being called a shi`i is insufficient to reject a reporter. Look at Imam Bukhari, he reports from his senior teacher Ubaydullah ibn Musa and that too in praise of Imam Ali (as). He knew that Ubaydullah considers Imam Ali afdal to others and could have a vested interest in reporting “You are from Me ﷺ and I am from you” yet Imam Bukhari reports from him. See what the fierce opponent of Rawafid Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi says in his fatwa about those who hold Imam Ali (as) afdal. He says that those who hold Imam Ali afdal but love and respect shaykhayn (ra) are also ahl al-sunnah though they erred in this belief. And their difference in tafdil is like the differences between Asharis and Maturidis.
    tafzil azizi.PNG

    Though, the discussion was particularly about al-Thawri and his Kufan colleagues who believed in the tafdil of Mawla Ali (as), you have now introduced a red herring. Frankly, I do not have time because these are lengthy discussions and will go on and on... However, for the sake of brother faizanattari786, who asked that what is your reply to al-Sha`abi quote? I will briefly try to provide my humble opinion.
    tafzil sha`abi four.PNG
    This report first occurs in Ibn Asakir (d. 571) through nine reporters in the chain that al-sha`abi (d. 103) said that I met around five hundred Sahabah and all said that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali.

    Firstly, around five hundred years after the demise of al-sha`abi, we find this report for the first time in Ibn Asakir, for example, compare it with the report I provided from Ibn Ma`een (d. 233) from Yahya ibn Adam’s observation about the people of Kufa and then the same report also appears in Ibn Asakir (d. 571) but in this case, as far as I know, it appears five hundred years after, for the first time. Secondly, and importantly, the text does not state that it is about ‘tafdīl’ but rather it only provides the order of Khilafah. Compare that with the report in Bukhari in which Ibn Umar says that in the times of the Prophet ﷺ we did not equate anyone with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman but then when he was asked about it, see sahih report in al-Tibrani and then in Ibn Asakir and various other sources, Ibn Umar said that what I meant was that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman in Khilafah. Similarly al-sha`abi also meant the order of Khilafah as mentioned by the Sahabah and not Tafdīl. It is the rawafid who believe that for caliphate, it is necessary that one has to be the afdal but ahl al-sunnah believe that in the presence of afdal, a non-afdal can be a Khalifah. When Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) became the Khalifah, this is what he said to Sahabah that I am not afdal to you, etc.

    However, the major point of contention at the time of al-sha`abi (d. 103) was that Umayyads did not consider Imam Ali as Khalifah and openly cursed him throughout their empire in their Friday Sermons. And Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (d. 101) was the first person to put a stop to this practice as documented by numerous scholars such as al-Qaari, al-Qurtubi, etc. see al-Suyuti:

    tafzil sabb.PNG
    Umayyads used to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib in their Khutbas and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz stopped this practice...

    al-sha`abi was merely stating the order of Khilafah on the authority of the Sahabah. Furthermore, the umayyads also disparaged al-Zubayr because of Marwan and abdul al-malik’s fight with abdullah ibn al-zubayr, hence, we also find that al-sha`abi is attributed to have said:

    tafzil sunniport 2.PNG
    I have met around five hundred Sahabah and they said Ali, Talha and al-Zubayr will go to Jannah.

    The point is that we have a text from al-sha`abi which appeared five hundred years after he died that Ali was a rightful Caliph just like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were before him in the series. And He also on the authority of Sahabah said that Ali, Talha and Zubayr are Jannati. Therefore, the text from al-Sha`abi only states the obvious order of legitimate caliphs and there is no mention of tafdil. Furthermore, Allamah Alahazrat, for example, in his book matla al-qamrayn states his opinion that there is difference amongst ahl al-sunnah between Uthman and Ali, some held Ali afdal and others suspended their judgemnet, etc.

    tafzil matla.PNG

    Let us suppose for the sake of the argument that al-sha`abi quote is about tafdil and the order is also that of the caliphate then those ahl al-sunnah who disputed tafdil between three and four, would also be committing the same crime as those who dispute between one and four. Surely, in each case the order of tafdil attributed to Sahabah is broken!

    However, al-Sha`abi and others have been reported in much earlier sources than Ibn Asakir. Al-asqalani in fath al-bari and in Mukhtasar Zawa’id al-Bazzar grades it authentic, respectively:

    tafzil khalq.PNG
    tafzil khalq asqalani.PNG
    Imam Ali fought with the Khawarij and Umm al-Mumineen Ayesha Siddiqa said that Rasul Allah ﷺ said that the best of my Ummah will fight them and they will be the worst of my Ummah.

    So here you have it from that which is graded authentic in one of the routes from al-sha`abi that best of My ﷺ Ummah will fight the khawarij. Imam Ali was the leader and the first who fought them. Rasul Allah ﷺ said that afdal in My ﷺ Ummah will fight them. I think, it is for this reason that some Shaykhs held the belief in the tafdil of Imam Ali as vouched for by al-Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi towards the end of his life. Here he says in Shamm al-awaarid fi dhamm al-rawafid, his book in refutation of rawafid:

    tafzil shamm.PNG

    Some Mashaa’ikh have said that Ali towards the end of his reign and towards the end of his life became afdal to Abu bakr al-Siddiq and others due to his contribution to knowledge and practical endeavours.
  4. @Nawazuddin cut and paste is easy these days but that doesn't make one student of deen unless you address and refute the opposing views in your book or here.

    so what is your reply to Sha'bi and other scholars who gave tafDeel to Sayyiduna: Abu Bakr and Umar over Ali ?

    if you can't reply then better put your book in shredder or click delete because anyone can get those odd reports by copy and paste.

    @abu Hasan
    appreciate if a small booklet or article can be composed addressing the distortions of these closet shites.

    Also: best thing would be to start with statements of prophet sallahu alayhi wa salaam on the tafDeel of sayyiduna Abu Bakr.

    no heretic has addressed that too, because there isn't, oh some kufan resident's saying takes precedence over saying of the Prophet the lawmaker.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is exactly where we started. imam sufyan al-thawri, when in kufa spoke of the merits of shaykhayn, and when he went to baSrah spoke of the merits of mawla ali (raDiyAllahu anhum). this i presented to demonstrate that ghumaris sneering upon sufyan al-thawri was unjust, and his accusation was false.

    you said i can also be called a shi'i, and in that context of loving mawla ali and ahl al-bayt, and that we detest the nawaSib and oppose their heresy, yes we are the "shiah of ali". however, as the trustworthy, truthful and accused-of-tashayy'uy abdu'r razzaq San'ani said: it would

    tahdhib al-tahdhib, ibn hajar, v6/p313

    tahdhib, v6p313.png

    abdullah ibn Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) said: "i asked my father, was abd al-Razzaq leaning towards shi'ah and was extreme in his shi'ah beliefs (if he were a shiah)?" he replied: "as for me, i have not heard anything like that from him."

    ibn shabib said: i have heard abd al-Razzaq say: "by Allah, my heart could never accept that i should consider ali superior to abu bakr and umar; raHimahumullah. abu bakr, umar and uthman - whoever does not love them is not a believer (mu'min)."

    abu'l az'har said: i have heard abd al-Razzaq say: "i consider shaykhayn superior to ali, because he did it himself - and if he did not consider them superior, i would not have [either]. how disgraceful it would be, that i love ali and then oppose his saying!"

    nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
    Noori, Unbeknown, Aqdas and 1 other person like this.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    can you jog my memory? please help me with the link to your previous post or the reference.

    Bazdawi likes this.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the fact is, sufyan and sha'abi are also truthful, pious and trustworthy - and far greater than all those you mentioned. THEY said that abu bakr and umar were superior to mawla ali. but you don't care for their opinion because it is not conducive to you. (raDiyAllahu `anhum)

    when you ignore sha'abi who reports from 500 companions that shaykhayn were afDal to mawla ali, and make a big fuss of reporters two-three levels down, that shows your standard and your intelligence. also, i never expected you to be fair-minded.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    all hadith scholars say so. being trustworthy and truthful and pious does not mean that everything they say is accepted, or that they cannot be ahl al-bid'ah. ruwwat can be pious, trustworthy and truthful, and at the same time, khawarij or shiah (meaning tafzilis in the parlance of the early generation).

    you are mixing up.

    - ubaydullah ibn musa is shi'i as mentioned by imams of hadith.

    - ya'ala ibn ubayd was called shi'i by yaHya ibn ma'yin for his claim that his father also believed in tafzil (though his own brother said not).

    - ubayd ibn abi umayyah is CLAIMED to be tafzili by one of his sons.

    the context is clear for someone who is not muta'SSib. i just showed that you omitted that narration, and we were not competing here with SaHiH only narrations.

    but for a person like you who is bent on reviling salaf, you will stick to literal interpretations.

    my point was only that imam sufyan al-thawri was not inimical to mawla ali and his statement was in the context of abstaining from fighting. all the narrations (including the one you presented) ARE in that context.

    i am sure you may not be that thick not to note that hazrat sufyan said: "i would not go out with mawla ali", he did not say: "i would go against him". the obvious implication is he would stay away from fighting. the narration being weak doesn't mean anything.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
    Noori, Unbeknown, AbdalQadir and 2 others like this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    looks like your mind is addled. tafdil of mawla ali without reviling shaykhayn IS tafdil; those who revile are rawafiD.

    we accept the excellence and praise of mawla ali. alHamdulillah. no need to give a false impression that we don't.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the names quoted below are only (some of) those, whom yahya ibn aadam heard and narrates from.

    now yaHya ibn aadam was born sometime after 130 AH and passed away in 203 AH.

    and in that period, surely, it beggars belief that he might not have the following kufans:

    for example, imam azam and his students - those who have explicitly attested to the order of fazilat as the order of khilafah.

    now, when you take his statement literally and in absolute terms, it would mean that he either did not meet any of these kufans, or that they held tafzili beliefs (which is what nawaz wants unsuspecting people to believe, by these citations). but numerous other documents show otherwise.

    times change and madh'habs change; also certain heresies take hold in certain places which were opposed to such heresies previously. only a fool will generalise, without considering historical contexts.

    for example, one hundred years ago, in hijaz and particularly, the haramayn, sunnis were predominant. wahabis were subdued and did not dare to show up and tried to conceal their beliefs. times changed and in less than a fifty or sixty years (i.e. post-1921 wahabi rule) these places became 'wahabi' dominated.

    anyone will say, that "all are wahabis", even though people in the know, KNOW that staunch sunnis are still present in these places. if one says: 'all are wahabis, except shaykh muhammad ibn alawi' does not mean he was the only sunni who remained. it is just that he is the most famous of sunnis.

    i suppose thus is yaHya's statement.

    yet, it proves nothing. even if the whole of (latter-day) kufa became tafzili, can they match abu amr aamir al-sha'abi?

    sha'abi who met 500 companions and narrates from 48 companions says:

    siyar, v4p301.png

    so whose opinion is more weightier? the kufan sha'abi who saw and met 500 companions who all said: abu bakr, umar, uthman and ali
    OR those who came much after and differed with them?

    Noori, Unbeknown, AbdalQadir and 2 others like this.
  11. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    The fact is that from the four truthful, pious and trustworthy reporters from Kufa, the point of the this discussion has been established. Three trustworthy reporters held the opinion of tafdil of Imam Ali (as) and the fourth trustworthy reporters, a Kufan resident, states that he has not met in Kufa apart from al-Thawri who does not believe in the Tafdil of Imam Ali (as). It is clear that the point is established.

    Your insistence that even though they were trustworthy and reliable and truthful but were Shi`i hence we do not accept. It is common to be called shi’i for the love of ahl al-bayt but that does not mean they were rafidis and cursed the Shaykhayn (ra). There were various reasons for being called shi’i such as hold Ali afdal to Usman, believing those who fought Imam Ali were upon error, etc. Sahabah have also have been called shi’i. Since you also believe that those who fought Imam Ali were upon error, this also makes you a shi’i...what matters is being truthful and trustworthy.

    Look at Imam Bukhari reporting from his senior teacher Ubaydullah ibn Musa, who believed in the tafdil of Imam Ali (as) without reviling Shaykhayn (ra). Below, for example, see in sahih bukhari, Imam bukhari reporting from him in the excellence and praise of Imam Ali that Rasul Allah ﷺsaid that You are from Me and I am from you. See he reports this from Ubaydullah ibn Musa:

    ubaydullah in bukhari.PNG

    As for Ibn Ma`een calling Ya’la ibn Ubayd as Shi`i then it was also for the extreme love of Imam Ali and not the hatred of Shaykhayn. You already know as I have demonstrated for you that Ibn Ma`een had called Imam Shafi also a shiah because he called Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan a baaghi. However, here is another example:

    shii ibn maeen madini.PNG

    Ibn Ma`een said about al-Madini that when he is with us, he is upon al-sunnah and when he goes to Basrah he expresses being a shiah. Al-dhahabi says that al-madini is being called a shi’i by ibn ma`een because in basrah there were anti-Ali usmanis so he openly related the excellences of Imam Ali.

    First you pull a sleight of hand on the Kufan colleagues key point and now you accuse me of dishonesty. Please do not label others for your own shortcomings in research. That report if it was authentic, I would have dealt with it but even the researcher said that the report is weak/daeef due to two reporters. It is strange that you are rejecting truthful, trustworthy reporters presented by me and yet you your self advance weak reports and on the basis, accuse me of dishonesty. and boast of removing fuse :). See below what the centre right researcher said on the report:

    a1 sufyan jang.PNG
    the chain of this report are weak due to two reporters: mohammed bin yazid and yahya ibn yamaan.

    Poetic Justice:)
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    ah, there! now, i understand what you are driving at.

    but nawaz, you now changed your position to "all the people of kufa" whom you call "predominantly sunni city". we will talk about this shortly, but first let me remind you that all this ghuma'ing* was unnecessary and now, one may mistake the title of the thread ghumari to refers to this ghuma'ing.

    i translated the first post in this issue: 'people of kufa'
    then you got all worked up, accusing me of sleight of hand etc.
    this became the issue. 'colleagues'.

    and finally, you come around to prove that 'kufans were predominantly tafzilis'. and you call it a 'predominantly sunni city'.

    it is an exaggeration, and certainly not literal. because if it were literal, it would mean EVERY KUFAN yahya met was a tafzili except sufyan al-thawri. for someone like you, nawaz, who is audacious enough to rejects sahih marfuu ahadith when it doesn't suit you, your clinging to one statement of a later scholar as if it were revealed qur'an is very rich.

    but let us take the people yaHya ibn adam narrates from (because he has met them, capiche), let us sort out the kufans and whether they believed in tafzil. (

    1. yisa ibn Tahman

    2. malik ibn mighwal

    3. fiTr ibn khalifah

    4. yunus ibn abi is'Haq

    5. mis'ar ibn kidam

    6. sufyan al-thawri

    7. Hamzah al-zayyat

    8. jarir ibn Hazim

    9. Hasan ibn Hayy

    10. Israyil

    11. `ammar ibn zurayq

    12. mufaDDil ibn muhal'hal

    13. yazid ibn abd al-Aziz

    14. abu bakr al-nahshali

    15. sulayman ibn al-mughayrah

    16. sharik

    17. Hammad ibn salamah

    18. zuhayr ibn mu'awiyah

    19. abu'l aHwaS

    20. sufyan ibn uyaynah

    21. quTbah ibn abd al-Aziz

    22. Hasan ibn ayyash, and his brother:

    23. abu bakr ibn ayyash

    some of them you can easily recognise that they were not tafzilis; others, you will have to prove that they had tafzili belief.
    besides, also, check that very yaHya ibn ma'yin who spared no one, whether he accused them of tafzil!


    in urdu: going around in circles, beating around the bush.
    Noori, Unbeknown, AbdalQadir and 3 others like this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    that very source mentions that ya'ala became a shiyi and ubaydullah ibn musa is known to be shiyi.

    regardless of being thiqat or shuyukh of bukhari.

    you have once again misrepresented and dishonestly quoted imam sufyan al-thawri.

    you quoted:


    and you said about this:
    the impression you want to give is sayyiduna sufyan al-thawri was inimical to mawla ali karramAllahu wajhah.

    but the context is clear if you read the quote before this: i.e. #98

    sunnahkhallal, n98.png
    sufyan said: 'we take the opinion of umar raHimahullah in the case of jama'ah and the statement of his son in the case of dispute/fighting"

    everyone knows that in the battles among SaHabah, there were three groups: those who were against mawla ali, those who supported mawla ali and those who abstained. hazrat ibn umar was known to among the third group who did not participate in the fighting.

    it is in THIS context sufyan al-thawri said that he would not fight alongside mawla ali. indeed, we do not follow that opinion, because our imam (abu Hanifah) said that Haqq was with mawla ali always. but we do not disparage those who abstained, and the saHabah who fought him.

    raDiyALlahu anhum ajma'yin.

    see, i told you. you keep throwing duds. and i keep removing the fuse.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    now, imam sufyan al-thawri narrates from nearly 600 shaykhs and ibn jawzi says those who report from him are nearly 20,000; though dhahabi is skeptical of the latter number. dhahabi says: "as far as i know malik had the greatest number of downstream narrators (i.e. those who report from him) and they are no more than 1400. so sufyan's narrators could be around 1000"

    if you take all of them, and evaluate - who said what, it will take a lifetime (and info about all of them might not be available even).

    when you say 'colleagues' to mean those who were his peers or equals or closer to him in rank among his students, we have yaHya ibn ma'yin who mentioned the "colleagues" of sufyan al-thawri:

    tarikh ibn ma'yin: #2748

    tarikhibnmayin, n2748.png

    i heard yaHya say: 'the companions (or "colleagues" according to some) of sufyan al-thawri are six:

    yaHya ibn sa'yid (al-qaTTan), 120 AH -198 AH [he is baSriyy]

    waki'y ibn al-jarraH, 129 AH -197 AH [he is kuufiy]

    (abdullah) ibn al-mubarak,118 AH -181 AH [mar'wazi, khurasani, turkish; his mother was from khawarizm]

    al-ashja'ayi (ubaydullah ibn ubaydu'r raHman)

    abd al-raHman ibn mahdi, 135 AH - 198 AH [ he is baSriyy]

    abu nu'aym (faDl ibn dukayn) 130 AH - 219AH*


    imam sufyan was born around 97AH and passed away in 161 (or 162 AH). so all of them are junior to him by at least 20 years.

    [* dhahabi said that he had slight tashayyuy in him; but i don't know if tafzil is reported from him]
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    Unbeknown, AbdalQadir and Bazdawi like this.
  15. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    Same report of yahya ibn adam from Ibn Asakir that whole of kufa believed Imam Ali (as) as Afdal to others:

    sufyan thawri ibn asakir.PNG
  16. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    The context of the discussion is that sufyan al-thawri’s colleagues in Kufa held the opinion that Imam Ali (as) is afdal to Shaykhayn (ra). The discussion emanates from the following report in Hilyah 1.PNG
    “the opinion of sufyan al-thawri was the same as his kufan colleagues that Ali is afdal to Abu Bakr and Umar, then he went to Basrah and retracted from this position and considered Abu bakr and Umar afdal to Ali...”

    Abu Hasan asked me the particulars of those colleagues of al-thawri and in response, I presented from the earliest of sources, the following three reports by Ibn Ma`een (d. 233) from ma`arifah al-rijaal:

    1. Ibn Ma`een said that I heard Ya`la ibn Ubayd say that My father (Ubayd ibn Abi Umayyah) considered Ali afdal to Abu Bakr and Umar and this is also my opinion.

    2. Yahyah ibn Adam said...I have not met anyone in this City who does not hold Ali afdal to Abu Bakr and Umar except Sufyan al-Thawri...

    3. Ibn Ma`een said that Ubaydullah ibn Musa said that no one doubts that Ali is afdal to Abu Bakr and Umar...

    These are all Kufi colleagues of Sufyan al-Thawri and one of them was also from the senior teachers of Imam Bukhari. Three held the opinion that Imam Ali (as) was afdal to Shaykhayn (ra) and the fourth states that everyone he has met in Kufa holds Imam Ali (as) afdal to Shaykhayn (ra) except al-thawri. All the reporters are reliable and trustworthy as vouched for by prominent hadith scholars including Ibn Ma`een. For example, Ibn Ma`een says about Ya`la ibn Ubayd that he reliable and trustworthy from everyone else but makes mistakes when reporting al-Thawri but for the sake of the argument, let us only take the word of Yahya ibn Adam-the Umayyad client- and a reliable and truthful reporter, agreed by both parties. Regardless of his own opinion, he was a Kufan resident who informs us that the whole of Kufa except al-Thawri held the opinion of Tafdil of Imam Ali(as). This proves the point. As I said before, I don’t care what Sufyan al-Thawri believed but rather a whole predominantly Sunni City considered Imam Ali (as) afdal and an authentic and energetic reporter yahyah ibn adam from the school of our brother Abu Hasan was at pains to find someone like himself. Here he is again telling us the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri as reported by al-Khallal in his al-Sunnah with the Salafist al-Zahrani declaring the chain as sahih


    “ Sufyan al-Thawri says that Had I been in the times of Ali, I would have not fought on his side”


    There is a considerable research on the issue of shii-reporter-accusations and how nawasib convolute its application but unfortunately I can’t share it here because it will be an independent chapter in the book on tafdil, in-shaa-Allah! This much is sufficient to substantiate our claim.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in ma'arifatu'r rijaal, yaHya ibn mayin says: vol.2, #52 (p.36):

    ma'rifaibnmayin, v2n52.png

    now it is the same ma'rifah that nawaz first quoted and which is being argued:


    in another book by yaHya ibn ma'yin, "tarikh yaHya ibn ma'yin", we read: (#1929, #1930, #2390)

    that imam sufyan al-thawri narrates from ubayd ibn abi umayyah:

    tarikhibnmayin, n1929-30.png

    and in the same tarikh, we read about yaHya ibn ma'yin's own madh'hab: tarikh (#1620)

    tarikhibnmayin, 1620.png
    the best of this ummah after the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is abu bakr, then umar, then uthman and then ali. this is our belief (or our statement) and this is our madh'hab.

    in fact, in tahdhib, ibn hajar says that muhammad ibn ubayd said:

    tahdibibnhajar, v9p329.png

    duri said, i heard muhammad ibn ubayd say: "the best of this ummah after the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is abu bakr, then umar and then uthman; and would say: fear (Allah), let these kufans not deceive you."

    yaHya ibn mayin also said that as a hafiz, ya'ala was more reliable than his brother, muhammad. but still, he respected muhammad ("did not speak of him except good") and about ya'ala he said, that he had a shiyi belief (i.e. held mawla ali superior to shaykhayn).

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    Noori, Unbeknown and Bazdawi like this.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    of course, we are not cherry pickers like you. just because someone is not mentioned as a shiyi in a particular text doesn't mean that it becomes the absolute truth. and one closes their eyes to everything else, because it is conducive to them. one has to examine other sources as well. if none of the well-known sources mention such criticism, then we must keep quiet. however, if other sources mention so, and in one source, such a thing is omitted - does not mean that we must take the truncated source and ignore others.

    there are two things here.
    1. as for ya'ala ibn ubayd, that he was shi'yi, we will prove that.

    2. and it is HIS (i.e. ya'ala's) statement that he and his father believed that mawla ali was superior to shaykhayn.

    here, i am citing tahdhib al-tahdhib of imam ibn hajar concerning ubayd and his son ya'ala. and ubayd and all his sons were thiqah ruwwat. there is no problem with that. being thiqah and being tafzili or khariji is not mutually exclusive. the only issue is ya'ala's claim that his father was also tafzili - vide yahya ibn ma'yin's report - ONLY IMPLIES that ubayd ibn abi umayyah was also tafzili. besides, to my knowledge the only statement concerning ubayd ibn abi umayyah is through his son's claim reported by yahya ibn mayin.

    if you have noticed, i have not accepted this claim regarding ubayd ibn abi umayyah.

    this is based on ya'ala's claim as reported by yaHya ibn ma'yin.

    but first tahdhib of ibn hajar, vol.7 p.59-60

    tahdhib, v7p59.png

    and his son ya'ala ibn ubayd, vol.11 p.402-403:

    tahdhib, v11p402.png

    tahdhib, v11p403.png

    one more thing you should note, is that ya'ala is not relied upon in his reports from sufyan al-thawri THOUGH his reports through others are trustworthy. this was mentioned by ibn hajar, even in his had'y al-sari (p.1222)
    hady, p.1222.png

    Aqdas, Noori and Bazdawi like this.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    haha. who is doing novel-nigari?

    what does it prove? no novel-nigari, just tell me what does it prove? does it prove that imam sufyan was a tafdili? you have already relinquished your previous false claim that imam sufyan was a tafzili and said:

    strange. now tell me WHY is the opinion of his 'colleagues' so important?

    now, when you are not concerned about imam sufyan's opinion himself, why should the opinions of his colleagues matter?

    i cannot commit that i have completed. because you will make another illiterate, ignorant or dishonest statement and i will have to show the hollowness of your posts. better, go ahead and post - and i will do my job. let us not waste time. everyone knows who runs away and resurfaces after the dust settles.

    that is because of you don't know. i can give you an even older reference. regardless, imam sufyan narrated from ubayd ibn abi umayyah, and ubayd narrated from imam sufyan.

    suppose ubayd WAS a tafzili, this proves nothing.

    the son was a tafzili (mentioned as a shiyi) so his opinion does not count. besides, his reports from thawri are severely frowned upon. but that would require you to have knowledge of rijal, which you have demonstrated that you don't.

    ya'ala was a shiyi. his report or opinion in this matter means nothing.

    old escape route. deja vu. but do remember to reply when you get time.
  20. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    This was the first reference as mentioned by Ibn Ma'een (d. 233) and I explicitly pointed to them at first yet you clung on to the last one of the three but ignored the first one, we will discuss all three and dispel your accusations. As I said, I will wait until you complete. I posted as evidence from the earliest sources, in response to your request to demonstrate the belief of sufyan thawri's colleagues. However, you keep talking about crash course in rijaal yet ignore the very first report of two colleagues of al-thawri. al-kuna wa'l asmaa was cited because the author died in 310 AH, to cite earliest of references to show the association. You are advising me to use tahdhib al-tahdhib of al-asqalani so please cite for me that work for a biographical note on ya'la ibn ubayd and ubayd ibn abi umayya; the father and son amongst the colleagues of al-thawri, who held the aqidah as attested by ibn ma'een (d. 233) that they both believed that Imam Ali (as) was afdal to shaykhayn (ra). It is only logical to respond in the order of the extract rather than play to the gallery with your novel-nigaari. So please complete your response by addressing the three quotes and their content and especially the first one. I will wait and please let the chamchas stay out of it :) I will address all three once you have addressed them, in-shaa-Allah! I will be busy in the next few days but will respond when I can. Jazak Allah!

Share This Page