Ads by Muslim Ad Network


No announcement yet.

Becareful of these Historical Sources.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Becareful of these Historical Sources.

    While surfing the net one may come across many Polemic Shi'ite pages in which they attempt to prove a shia viewpoint or belief by quoting from certain sources which these Polemics allege them to be trustworthy Sunni references. Close analysis of these sources reveal otherwise. Here we attempt to shed some light on some of the most frequently quoted sources by the likes of the shia enecyclopaedia, answering ansar and other Rafidhi missionaries, in order for all to know the truth and stay aware.:

    Al-Imamah was Siyaasah

    This work is a possible Shia forgery that has been falsely attributed to Sheikh al-Islam and Imam of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, Ibn Qutaiybaah al-Danouri. This is because:
    1. The scholars who wrote the biography of Ibn Qutayibah did not mention any book of Ibn Qutayabah named "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah". Ibn Qutayibah’s books include "Al-Ma'arif", and the books that is mentioned by the author of "Sahib Al-Dhonoon".

    2. If a person reads Al_Imamah wa Al-Siyasah, he would notice that Ibn Qutayabah lived in Damascus and Maghrib, whereas in reality he did not leave Baghdad but to Daynoor.

    3. The method and the course that the real author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" used, differs completely from the method and the course of Ibn Qutayabah in his books that we have. One of the main characteristics in the methods of Ibn Qutayabah is that he writes long prefaces or introductions explaining his method and the reasons for the writing of the book. In the opposite side, we see the author of "Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah" has a very short preface, not more than 3 lines..

    4. The real author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrated from Ibn Abi Layla in a way that you feel he got it from him personally, that the authoer met Abi Layla face to face (Talaqa a'anhu). The full name of Ibn Abi Layla is Muhamed bin Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla the jurisprudent, the judge of Kufah, who died in 148H, and it is known that Ibn Qutayabah was born in 213H, after the death of Ibn Abi Layla by 65 years.

    5. Even the orientalists questioned the true identity of the book’s authoer First of them was De Gainjose in his book "The history of the Islamic rule in Spain", then Dr. R. Dozi supported him in his book "The Political and the Lecture History of Spain", and the book mentioned Brokilman in "Tareekh Al-Adab Al-Arabi", the Baron De Slan in the index of the "Arabic manuscripts" in Paris Library under the name of "Narrations of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah", and Margholios in "Dirasat a'an Al-Mu'arekheen Al-Arab", and they all decided that the book is falsly attributed to Ibn Qutayabah and that he could not be the real author.

    6. The narrators and the Sheikhs that Ibn Qutayabah usually narrates from in his books were never mentioned in any place in the book of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah.

    7. It seems from the book that the author tells the news of the invasion of the Andulus orally from people who contemporaried the invasion period, like "I was told by a Muwla for Abdullah bin Musa" and it is known that the Fath of Andulus was in 92H, before the birth of Ibn Qutayabah by about 120 yrs.

    8. Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah contains horrible historical mistakes, like making Aba Al-Abbas and the Saffah (The Slayer) two different people, making Haroon Al-Rasheed the immediate successor to Al-Mahdi, saying that Haroon Al-Rasheed gave Wilayat Al-A'ahd for his son Al-Ma'moon then to Al-Ameen, but if we go back to Ibn Qutayabah book "Al-Ma'arif" we find that he gaves us correct infiormations about Al-Saffah and Haroon Al-Rasheed which disagrees with what the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah said.

    9. In the book, there are many narrators that Ibn Qutayabah never narrated from, e.g. Abi Maryam, and Ibn A'feer.

    10. In the book, there are sentences that are not in the writings of Ibn Qutayabah, like "Qal Thuma Ina", "it was mentioned about some cheifs", and "some cheifs told us" and like these structures which are far from the methods and sentences of Ibn Qutayabah and were never mentioned in any of his books.

    11. It is obvious that the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah does not care about arrangements, organization, and order, for he states the information, then goes to another one and jumps to complete the first information. This chaos does not agree with the method of Ibn Qutayabah who looks for organization and order.

    12. The author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrates from two of the biggest Egyptian scholars, and Ibn Qutayabah never entered Egypt and never was a pupil for these two scholars.

    13. Ibn Qutayabah has a very high rank among the scholars, for he is from Ahl Al-Sunnah and Trust (Thiqah) in his knowledge and religion. Al-Salafi said: "Ibn Qutayabah was from the Thiqat and Ahl Al-Sunnah, Ibn Hazm said: "he was thiqah in his religion and knowledge", Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi said the same, Ibn Taymiyah said about him: "ibn Qutayabah belongs to Ahmad, Ishaq and one of who supports the famous Sunni schools", and he is the Speaker for Ahl Al-Sunna as Al-Jahidh is the speaker of Mu'atazilah. A man in this rank among the great scholars could not be the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah which changed the history and attributed to the Companions what is not true.

    14. In Ibn Qutayabah’s book "Al-Ekhtilaf fi Al-Lafd wa Al-Rad ala Al-Jahamiyah wa Al-Mushabiha" he said that the Rafidah are kafirs because they slandered the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), then he says: "and I saw them too when they saw the Rafida's exaggeration in the love of Ali and prefer him on who the Prophet (pbuh) preferred, and their claims that Ali was a partner of Muhamed (pbuh) in his prophethood, and the knowledge of the unknown is for the Imams from his sons and these talks and the secret matters that consolidated to the lies, kufr, extreme ignorance and stupidity, and they saw them slandering the best Companions and their hatred towards them", then can someone attribute Al-imamah wa Al-Siyasah to him which is full of slanders against the great Companions?

    Sharh Najhul Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadeed

    It should be known that author of this work is "Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Iraqi." This person never belonged to Ahlus sunnah and was in fact an extermist Shia Mutazilite.The Mu'tazilites never claimed to be of the Ahl as-Sunnah. If anything, they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahl as-Sunnah.Allamah Ibn Katheer describes Ibn Abil Hadeed as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82):
    Ibn Abil Hadid al-'Iraqi: the poet 'Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, 'Izz ad-Din al-Mada'ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi'i. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada'in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-'Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi'ism in common.
    Ibn Abil Hadeed was an extermist Shia to such an extent that he almost attributed divinity to Imam Ali ibn abi Tali[ra]. This feature is clearly evident in his poetry which can be seen in Abul Fadl Ibrahim's introduction to his Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah. No wonder that a person which such a background will prepare a work full of lies and slanders against the best generation of this Ummah.As an extremist Shi'i, his being cited on a matter concerning the Sahabah cannot be free from prejudice, and must therefore not be relied

    AL-Iqd al Fareed

    The author of this work is Ibn Abd Rabbuh al Andalusi.Ibn 'Abd Rabbuh's book "al-'Iqd al-Farid" is a literary book about which the author states in his introduction, "I have written this book, and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select gemstones of literature." He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and authentic. The basis of the authenticity of a historical report depends upon the trustworthiness of the chain of trasmitters[of that narration]. Al-Iqd al Fareed lacks isnad or chain of narrators for its accounts, thus placing the authenticity of its reports in jeopardy. Without an isnad a "narration" is classified as a fabrication. The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when he said: "Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone could have said just what he wished"[Sahîh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawawî’s commentary)
    ]Above all of this, the author of this work himself was untrustworthy. Ibn Katheer describes Ibn Abd Rabbuh, the author of Iqd al Fareed, in his work al Bidayaah wan Nihayaah as a person with Shiite inclinations who disguised himself as a loyal Ummayad servant in court of the Spanish caliph. Hence his work is not a reliable source to get historical information.

    Tadkhiratul Khawas

    The author of this work is a well known Shiite scholar "Ibn Sibt Al Jawuzi".

    Tareekh al Ummam wal Muluuk[ also Known as "Tareekh Tabari"]

    This is a work prepared by the great scholar and historian of Islam Ibn Jarir at Tabari. at-Tabari himself makes a disclaimer in the introduction of his work in such words:
    "Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told." [Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13] So at-Tabari admits that his work contains narrations that are fabricated and worthy of censure. He also states that for such narrations he should not blamed because all what he did was to pass down to others what he heard.The bulk of Tabari's Tareekh is not regarded to be authentic. This is because the reports ,especially those dealing with the sahaba/Ahlul Bayt after the death of the prophet,are narrated by Shiite and untrustworthy reporters/transmitters. These reporters include Shiites like Abi Mikhnaf Lut ibnu Yahya, Nasr ibnu Muzahim, Muhammad ibn Umar al Waqidi,the two al-Kalbi brothers etc. as well as well known liars and fabricators like Sayf ibnu Umar atTamimi. Ibn Abi Hatim describes Abi Mikhnaf in his work Jarrh wa Tadeel, as a "Rafidiun Khabees". Thus he is not regarded to be trustworthy. Al-Aqeeli says about Nasr bin Muzahim, “He tends to be a Shia, and his narrations are filled with confusions and mistakes.” [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.300, #. 1899]. Ad-Dhahabi says about him, “A hardcore Rafidhi (Shia), and his narrations are not taken as authentic. Abu Khaythamah said, ‘He was a liar.’ Abu Hatim said, ‘Weak narrator, and is not taken as an argument.’ Al-Darqutni said, ‘His narrations are weak.’” [Al-Mizan by Al-Thahabi, vol.4, p.253, #. 9046]. “Al-Jowzani said, ‘Nasr was a fake person and far away from truth.’ Salih bin Muhamed said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim narrated ugly stories from unreliable narrators.’ Al-Hafudh Abi Al-Fath Muhamed bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim goes excess in his denomination.’” [Tareekh Baghdad by Al-Baghdadi, vol.13, p.283]. Muhammad ibn Umar al Waqidi is described as a Shiite by both Sunni and Shiite scholars of Rijaal. There is in an ijmaa amongst the scholars of rijaal like An-Nasai, Muhammad ibn Ismael Al-Bukhari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibnu Hajar al Asqalani and others that al-Waqidi is weak, a liar and untrustworthy. Also Imam Shaafii states: "In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi."[Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 194, in a footnote ]. Similar is situation with the two alKalbi brothers who were regarded to be weak and liars by the scholars of Rijaal in their respective biographical dictionaries.
    About Sayf ibnu Umar at Tamimi, Ibn Hibbân has summed up the opinions of him in the words: “He narrates forged material from reliable narrators. They (the critics) say he used to forge hadîth.” He adds that Sayf was suspected of zandaqah (secret heresy).[Cited in al-Mizzî, Tahdhîb al-Kamâl vol. 12 p. 326 (ed. Dr. B.A.Ma‘rűf, Mu’assasat ar-Risâlah, Beirut, 1413/1992)

    AL-Kaamilu Fit Tareekh , Also known as "Tareekh ibn Atheer"

    This work is nothing but an extension of Tareekh at Tabari. The author Ibn Atheer reproduces the narrations/reports of Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, in his work by deleting the isnad provided intially by the latter. Ibn Atheer then records historical accounts that happened after the death of Tabari without any isnad or chain of transmitters.

    Tabaaqaat Ibnu Sad

    The author of Tabaqaat,Muhammad Ibn Sa'd az-Zuhri was called "Katib al-Waqidi" or the secretary-editor of the historian Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi and of the materials the latter had assembled and then amplified. We have already introduced who al Waqidi was. Ibn Saad although himself is reilable as described by Ibnu Hajar, yet he took accounts and isnad of his Tabaqaat from his teacher Muhammad ibn Umar al Waqidi. It should be known that almost 90% of the Tabaqaat comprises of reports transmitted by alWaqidi therefore they are rendered as untrustworthy.

    Tareekh Abil Fida, Tareekh Yaqubi, Murooj al Dhahab/Isbaat al Wasiyyah/tareekh of alMasudi

    These are all well known Shiite sources. Abil Fida, although wrongly assumed to be from Ahlus sunnah, is regarded as a "shiite" by the Shiite scholars of Rijaal. The Scholars of Rijaal from amongst the Ahlus sunnah regard him as a hypocrite. Abil Fida's Tashiyou3 is clearly evident when he describes the Caliphate of Imam Ali in his work. Yaqubi is a well known Shiite historian and is regarded to be a liar. He is notorious for his fabricated slander on Ibnu Shihaab az Zuhri in his Tareekh, in which he alleged that the later fabricated hadith in order to appease the Ummayad Caliph Abdul Malik ibnu Marwan ibn al Hakam. This claim has been refuted in the following link:
    Abul Hasan Ali ibn Hussein al Masudi is a well known Shiite historian and there is no one can deny this fact.

    Faraid As Simyatain, Yanabi Al Muwaddah, Kifayat at Talib, Manaqib Ibn al Maghazali, Manaqib al Khawarazmi

    It should be noted that these sources contain narrations (without isnad) that are absent in the Primary sources. In this case the narration is classified as a fabrication. In his book al-Mahsul fi 'Ilm al-Usul (vol. 4 p. 299) Fakhruddin ar-Razi lists the kinds of narrations which are known with certainty to be untrue and baseless. The fourth kind is the following:
    The narration which is narrated at a time when narrations have already become established, and when it is searched for it cannot be found in books nor in the memories of the narrators-such a narration is known to be baseless.
    The same line reasoning is to be found in Abul Husayn al-Basri's book, al-Mu'tamad (vol. 2 p. 79):
    A narration which, after the stabilization of hadith, is searched for but cannot be traced in the corpus of hadith, is known for a fact to be a forgery, since we know that the ahadith have been documented. The narration of a hadith after documentation can therefore only be the narration of documented ahadith. So if we do not find that (i.e. we find a hadith being narrated which was not previously documented) then we know it to be an untrue narration. "
    Unless the authors of these secondary sources donot specify from which primary source they obtained a particular narration, that narration is regarded a forgery.Such is the condition of the work "Manaqib al-Khawarazmi". This an unknown sourceFurthermore the editions found of this work are those which are published by Shiite publications in Iran. So hence one cant trust it.Regarding the work "Yanabi al Muwaddah" the author Suleman al-Qundozi was a late one. He was not even a Sunni. Muj'am al-Moalifeen( vol.4, p.252) describes him a Sufi who lived in the latter half of the 19th century. Al-Kanji, author of Kifayat at- Talib, although very prominently labelled by Polemic Shiites as a Shafi'i, is completely unknown to biographers of the Shafi'i fuqaha such as Imam an-Nawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma' wal-Lughat, Ibn as-Subki in Tabaqat ash-Shafi'iyyah al-Kubra, Ibn Qadi Shuhbah in his Tabaqat ash-Shafi'iyyah, and Jamal ad-Din al-Isnawi in his Tabaqat. Having died in 658 (as stated by Zerekly in al-A'lam vol. 7 p. 150) he lived at least a century before an-Nawawi (who died in 767) and two centuries before the remaining biographers. It is therefore of great significance that not one of these biographers make any mention of him. About al-Hamawayni author of Faraid as-Simtayn there is not even a single trace of him in any of the biographical dictionaries. Likewise is the condition of the other unknown person Ibn Maghazali. The majority of the narrations in the four works "Yanabi al-Muwaddah", "Faraid as-Simtayn", "Manaqib Ibn Maghazali" , and "Kifayat at-Talib" are doubtful as they all lack isnad and are absent in the Primary sources

    So dear brethren it is from sources like these which the Polemic Rafdhis get their pro Shiite quotes in order to misguided the ignorant masses and fool them. 80% of Answering Ansar and Shia Enecyclopaedia's references originate from the doubtful and untrustworthy sources mentioned above.
    Please Re-update your Signature

  • #2
    Re: Becareful of these Historical Sources.

    There is in an ijmaa amongst the scholars of rijaal like An-Nasai, Muhammad ibn Ismael Al-Bukhari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibnu Hajar al Asqalani and others that al-Waqidi is weak, a liar and untrustworthy. Also Imam Shaafii states: "In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi."[Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 194, in a footnote ]
    how can mizzi mention ibn hajr in his book, when he wasnt even born?
    can u tell what is actually from the quote mentioned ibn tahdheeb al kamal