Farid vs. Shia Debater on 12 Imaams
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Shia fails in a debate to prove the concept of 12 Imaams pre- Kulayni, then ignores manipulation in Al-Kafi and finally shows his ignorance in science of hadeeth.
Starring pomegranate juice enjoyer @FaridResponds (and his cat)
ib...
Clubhouse: Ibn_Naasr
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
As always barakallah you inspire me to seek knowledge inshallah may you be rewarded for making these videos and us the viewers rewarded for implementing and learning
Wa feek akhi
Damn man so informative.. , watched the whole video..
Barak Allahu feek
Do more videos of debates between shia with references. Realy enjoyed and informative.
@@mohammadzaid1512 InshaAllah
The style of response, arguments of Tanveer isnsimilar to polytheists.
"Some people say most of it was lost"
Deflecting the question on specific report on ismaili's. Doing what aboutism etc and never addressing the problem lying in the foundation? "Do you think" this and that, is not evidence.
The question of aqeedah should be clearly answerable. Unambiguously. Yet, he disappoints.
Farid shows how al-Kulayni played with the words of the hadith about Isma’il and Tanveer starts jumping to a different issue.
No he didn’t prove anything. The narrator who kulayni reports from may have changed the word. To infer what Faris is claiming is the argument of a bafoon. As Abdallah and Musa didn’t have the same mother, so his argument makes no sense. Kulayni reported what he heard, he didn’t manipulate it. There’s no evidence that he did manipulate it. You cannot prove the narrator didn’t say two different things on two different occasions, but with the same meaning. As the meaning you and faris are inferring are nonsensical - Musa and Abdallah do not have the same mother. So changing the word from Ismail to him doesn’t change the meaning of the Hadith.
@@trailblazer7108Where is the Mushaf which the Imams narrate and transmit from each other?
Where is the chain of: Al-‘Askari from the way of Al-Hadi from Al- Jawad from Al-Ridaa form Al-Kazim from Al-Sadiq from Al-Baqir from Zayn Al-‘Abideen from Al-Husien (the grandson of the Prophet) or Al-Hasan (the grandson of the Prophet) from Ali [May Allah be pleased with them all]?
Did the students of these Imams narrate everything from them except the Quran?
If the Companions were Apostates, especially the famous ones from among them, and they were the ones that transmitted the Quran: How can a Shi’ah trust the narration of those who he believe are Apostates? This Quran that is between our hands today, is from the narration of those companions of the Prophet [May Blessings of Allah and Peace be upon him and his household]
The difference between Sunni and Shia is that our scholars unanimously agree that the Quran is not distorted you can use as many weak hadith as you want. You won't hear any ridiculous scholars and personalities of Sunni Islam mouthing off these ridiculous things like Shias do despite the Shias being only 10% and Sunnis being majority. You'd think since there are more Sunnis you'd find more ridiculous claims like this coming from Sunnis but it is opposite.
For that reason you will find that the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah are strict in this matter, and say that whoever says that the Quran is Muharaf is a Kaffir, and they clearly declare such a thing based on what Allah the Exalted said: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian}Hijr 15:9
Any sunni who believes that a part of Qur'an has been lost due to goats eating it or men changing it, is a kafir. There is no difference of opinion on this in sunni Islam. No buts no ifs. Your misunderstanding does not change our stance. Aisha (ra) did not believe in tahreef. Stop putting your own view on the hadith. You are just seeing what you want to see. It wouldn't have mattered if goats ate it because people memorise the Qur'an. What you're basically going to find is that this will likely lead into the topic of abrogation and abrogation was completed whilst the Prophet (pbuh) was alive. Islamqa covers this very well.
Shias might attempt to steal the chains in the Sunni books and attribute them to themselves, which is pathetic and shows the weakness of their way. `Asim bin abi al-Nujoud, Hafs bin Sulayman and Hamzah al-Zayyat are all great Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah, the Twelvers cannot prove that they were Rafidhi imami Shia neither through their books or ours. If they were to prove that they were Shia, the Shia of the time were Sunni in their worship, and even if they try their best to prove that they were Rafidhah, then even the Imamiyyah at the time had different sects all of them enemies who make Takfeer on each-other.
By consensus`Asim and Hafs are two great Imams of Qira’at. The weakness attributed to Hafs is in regards to his skills as narrator, and the accusation of him being a liar is a baseless exaggeration. And if true still doesn’t strengthen Shia’s view.
The rules for the authentication of a narrator in a Hadithi chain are different than the rules for the authentication of a Qur’ani recitation.
Hundreds of narrations from their infallibles prove that the followers of Ibn Saba claim distortion, and the statement that the chains of transmission of these narrations are weak cannot be accepted for reasons such as:
First: The Shiites do not consider the chains of transmission and their lim il rijjal (hadeeth sciences) is very inconsistent
Second: The narrations of distortion are abundant (mutawatir) according to them, and if this were the case, their chain of transmission should not be of concern
Third: There are Shiite scholars who authenticated the chains of narrations of Hadiths regarding distortion
Fourth: Whoever rejects the many narrations about distortion, which amount to nearly two thousand narrations, is obligated to reject the narrations of the Imamate and the narrations of the rajah, the bidaa, and the infallibility, because as their their scholar, Yusuf Al-Bahrani, said: If these narrations aren’t accepted (i.e. the narrations of distortion), despite their abundance and spread, it would be possible to reject to the other narrations related to the religion, since the principles are one, as are the chains, narrators, sheikhs, and transmission.
M. Baqir al-Majlisi also said that Shia narrations that speak of the corruption and distortion of the very text of the Qur’an area at the same level as narrations that support the Shia belief in Imamah. There are over 1000 [Shia] Hadiths confirming speaking of the corruption of the Qur’an. If the Hadiths of Tahrif in Shia books are rejected by sensible Shias, then they are no longer in any position to object why their entire collections of Hadiths should be rejected from A-Z as the same “liars” who attributed the “lie” of the distortion of the Qur’an to the Ahl al-Bayt, narrated also others “lies and exaggerations” [Imamah, Wilayah, ‘Ismah, Ghuluw etc.].
The narrations of distortion that the Shiites have are narrated from the twelve imams who believe in their infallibility, while all those who narrate the absence of distortion from him are the scholars, not the imams. They do not narrate from the imams, and not a single narration says that there is no distortion. Rather, they transmit two thousand narrations from the imams that say there is distortion, and those from whom they quote that there is no distortion are scholars who can aren’t infallible. As for the infallible ones, they quoted from them the statement of distortion, so the Shiites are required to take the words of the infallible ones and not the words of others.
Nimat Allah Al-Jazairi said: The narrations that indicate distortion exceed two thousand hadiths. Then he said: He did not come across a single hadith that said otherwise.
Yusuf Al-Bahrani said: However, there is no opposition to this narration, as I know, other than a mere claim that is devoid of evidence and does not go beyond mere gossip.
All shias should either follow their infallibles or leave this evil religion
ive been dying to watch debates like these. kindly please record all debates like these and upload them.
this can be a means of guidance for many shia
We will be recording more of them InshaAllah
Brother salam
I had a debate with shia i showed him a satanic fatwa of khomani regarding s**with infants he had no answer for that then sent me a link that your own scholars had permitted it brother is it true can you confirm the article is as:-
Khomeini, may God be pleased with him, is permissible to marry a temporary marriage with a female infant, and they claim that there is a fatwa in the book Tahrir al-Wasila like this, and the situation is that there is no text in this book to that effect, and the issue they distorted is:
Issue 12: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with a wife before completing nine years, whether the marriage is permanent or discontinued. As for all other pleasures such as lustful touching, cuddling, and thighs, there is no harm in it, even with a female infant...etc.
What is meant by the fatwa is that it is not permissible to have intercourse with a wife before completing nine years of age, whether the wife is permanent or intermittent, due to the prohibition of intercourse with a young girl who has not reached nine years of age. Until it comes to her nine years. ( Wasa’il Al-Shia 14/70 ) .
As for the rest of the enjoyment, it is permissible, due to the generality of what indicates the permissibility of enjoying the wife, and there is no specification for it in the evidence that indicates the prohibition.
This is only mentioned about the imposition in the books of jurisprudence, regardless of whether it occurred outside or not, because it is another matter, for we have not heard that a man, normal or abnormal, enjoyed a female infant, but if he touched or kissed her and he had a desire, then it is permissible for him; Because she is his wife, although it is forbidden for him to have intercourse with her.
It is no secret that what is included in the fatwa is enjoying the young wife, that is, enjoying her, and it is not intended to marry her for pleasure, and imposing the issue is having intercourse with the young permanent wife and enjoying her, is it permissible or not?
And if we look at the books of the Sunnis, we will find that the scholars of the Sunnis have permitted the marriage of the infant, enjoying it, and even permitted intercourse with her, and they mentioned that in their books.
As for the permissibility of her marriage, it was mentioned by al-Nawawi in Rawdat al-Talibeen , where he said:
The second: It is permissible to endow what is intended for a particular benefit from it, such as trees for fruits, animals for milk, wool, hair, and eggs, and what is intended for a benefit that is received from it, such as a house and land. It is not required that the benefit and interest be obtained immediately, but it is permissible to endow the slave and the young colt and the time during which it is hoped that his time will end, just as it is permissible to marry the infant. ( Rawdat al-Talibeen 5/314 ) .
Al-Sarkhasi said in Al-Mabsout: The contingency of existence in the fact that the eye is beneficiary of it is sufficient for the contract to be concluded, as if he married a female infant, the marriage is valid, given that the contingency of existence in what is contracted upon - which is the property of the dissolution - takes the place of existence. ( Al-Mabsoot li - Sarkhasi 15/109 )
As for enjoying a minor, or even having intercourse with her, Ibn Qudamah said in Al-Mughni:
As for the young one whose like is not intercourse, the apparent meaning of al-Kharqi’s words is the prohibition of kissing her and indulging her with lust before she is discharged, which is the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s words, and in most of the narrations about him he said: She is prevented even if she is in the cradle. And it was narrated from him that he said: If she was young, how could she be disobedient if she was an infant? And he said in another narration: A menstrual period if she is one of those who menstruate, and only three months if she is one of those who have intercourse and becomes pregnant. The apparent meaning of this is that it is not obligatory to instigate it and it is not forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse with it, and this is the choice of Ibn Abi Musa and the saying of Malik, and it is correct, because the reason for its permissibility is established, and there is no evidence for its prohibition, because there is no text in it nor the meaning of a text, because the prohibition of direct adultery was only because it called for forbidden intercourse. Or fearing that she may be the mother of someone else’s child, and this should not be imagined in this case, so it is obligatory to act according to the permissibility. ( Al - Mughni by Ibn Qudamah 9/160 )
Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Sahih Muslim: As for the time of the marriage of a young married girl and consummation of marriage with her, if the husband and guardian agree on something in which there is no harm to the young girl, it will be done. And Malik, Al-Shafi’i, and Abu Hanifa said: The limit for that is that you can bear sexual intercourse, and that differs according to their differences, and it is not determined by age, and this is the correct one. ( Explanation of Al - Nawawi on Sahih Muslim 9/206 )
I said: According to this fatwa, it is permissible for the guardian and the husband to agree that the husband enters into the suckling little girl without having intercourse with her.
And according to the fatwas of Malik, Al-Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa, the female infant who is less than two years old, if she is able to have sexual intercourse, it is permissible for them to have intercourse with her, as well as touching her with lust and her thigh.
Sheikh Ali Al Mohsen
@@SaqifahProductions
Brother I think these shia pagans use taqiya to deceive people that our scholars have permitted this sick practice
no need for ur guidances lol, 2 nobodys debating doesnt mean anything.
Farid is a forensic muhaddith
may allah bless him with the best in the world and in hereafter
Ibn Nassr akhi may Allah grant you and the team the best in this world and hereafter.❤
Ameen for you too brother.
Mashallah. Brilliant analysis of the historicity of the Shia traditions.
Ali bin husayn zainul Abedeen said
These people cry over us but who killed us other than them? [Al-Ihtijaaj of al-Tabarsee (2/29)]
Great video thanks for posting.
Farid makes me jealous, Allah huma barakum
That was intresting research done by Farid and passing it on to the viewers الله يبارك
The video claims Shias believe Kitab Sulaym is fabricated, that’s not correct. Shias maintain some things within Kitab Sulaym are weak, not the entire book. As Tanveer states many claims within Kitab Sulaym are corroborated in other works and therefore, the claim of the video creator are refuted.
this is like forensic sciences to find out the criminal who lied
notice how farid never addresses the issue. he just responds with an off topic argument. he can never defend the claims made. especially the fact that muslim cut out the fact that aisha didn’t like ali.
Agreed, you take reports from Abu Hurayrah that was whipped by Umar for fabricating Hadith. Yet, Bukhari quotes from him.
when Ali bin al-Husayn Zayn al-Aabideen (rahimahullaah) saw the people of Kufah wailing and crying, he rebuked them, saying:
You wail and cry for us, so who are the ones who killed us?
[Maqtal Husayn of Murtadaa Iyaad (p. 83), Tadhlim al-Zahraa of al-Qazweenee (p. 257) and al-Malhoof of Ibn Taawoos (p. 86), Nafs al-Mahmoom of Abbaas al-Qummee (p. 357)]
Accusing Shaykh al-Kulayni of intentionally tampering with hadiths is a serious accusation. Before you proceed with such an accusation, have you ruled out the possibility that Muhammad bin Yahya might have narrated the same hadith in a slightly different way to al-Kulayni and Ali bin Babwayh?
That's the point, if we take your argument then both Babaway and Khulayni have narrated from an unreliable source, making them a bad source to base your faith on. The questions that arise are why would you follow any of those two now? how valid are other 12 imami traditions? What happens to twelverism if you remove all of Khulayni and Babaway's works?
Brother you shouldn't throw your report under the bus to protect Khulayni, as Khulayni is trying to prove your 12 Imams from this narration , and indirectly you are saying that Khulayni and babaway are unreliable narrators
This is clearly false. Abdallah and Musa did not have the same mother, so this doesn’t support Farid’s claim. This is evidence against the narration, not against kulayni.
That’s not the point… it’s kulayni Manipulation !!
@@msabri3417 not necessarily. The report could have been heard one two different occasions and the reporter could have reported it differently on both occasions. You can’t prove that didn’t happen. You don’t know when each report was narrated. However, the person in both reports is the same - Ismail, not Musa, as Farid tries to imply. So, no, you do not have evidence to support your claim.
@@trailblazer7108 so your views are based upon speculations? Like all the shia aqeedahs
The fact is that Muslim reports 418 differently to Ahmad b Hanbal. Muslim or the narrators between removes that Aisha hated Ali. The fact is that Muslim or his narrators are unreliable for having modified Hadith. This would have been verifiable by Muslim in the Musanaf of Abd Razaq. Ahmad ibn Hanbal reports the entire section including the part Aisha hated Ali. So the fact the report is missing this in your books of sahih makes clear your narrators manipulating Hadith for parts that are embarrassing to your sect. Abd Razaq was quoted earlier in both chains.
another narration that he was passing by them and he was ill and he said in a weak voice:
Are you wailing and crying for us? Who are the ones who killed us? [Abbaas al-Qummee in Muntahaa al-Aamaal (1/570)]
Never understood how these sunnis can just shamelessly repackage Non-Muslims arguments and just use them against shia. For example, show me the earliest manuscript of the COMPLETE quran or the quran is muhraf 😂😂😂
What’s even worse, when it comes to bukhari, this argument can’t even be made for bukhari. NOT because bukhari is so academically sound but BECAUSE bukahri is completely pathetic because its all based on bukhari saying “trust me i heard this”.
Nice discussion
guy I noticed you were defending falsehood & it's people who support she'uhs.
In your Yq vs Yq video part 1 I already saw major mistakes you wanted proof for.
10 :00 - No wrong, sahabas took words on literal as asl, Tafsir Quran 6 :82 Bukhari!
2. Quran 11 :101 - says Tawhid Rubb and Ilah were distinct ideas.
3. Quran is uncreated ias ayat Quran 7 :54 & 2 :117 etc. say, just like Allah being All Knowing refuting the Qadriya was always in the text, it was just re emphasized later due unlearned people like you asking for proof or falsely denying what's in the Quran .
So here is here is the proof so repent, Islam is already complete & doesn't need new contradicting bida, & don't parrot imams, who put their ways of making up new ideas later on Sunnis, the way christians assume Muslims have many of the flaws they do.
Qadri deny Allah's siffat due to saying why doesn't Allah stop evil. Allah is Al Hakim as we see in story of Kidr things appear evil, Allah's Siffat help us understand others.
The Mutzailah say each Attribute is a separate being like the idols in Quran 53.19.
Asharis combine these 2 deviations, deny Allah's Siffat Qabr for their own pre conceived notions and see them as parts.
They rely on substance theory as their foundation and call it rationality, after that they filter the holy texts through this ''rational framework'', which in reality is Arestotelian/Greek philosphy.
If everyone makes up their own or use a foreign imperfect inconsistent idea to choose figurative ayat in Quran it will only lead to regular division.
This also appears to contradict, Quran 5 :48 that Quran judges other ideas, even scriptures, not the other way around.
Psuedo Kulab Asharis created endless divide in Aqida by taking ayat as figurative and denying them by man made inconsistent ideas like kalam, against sahabas & salaf's asl of taking words on it's apprent!
Sufis created endless bida & divide in ibada with their misinterpretation of hadith on dreams.
All the while Quran 5 :3 said Islam is a complete din, and Quran 3 :103 says to unite on it. To unite you need Sunna not bida!
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 are you ok? 👀🫣☠️💀
The fact remains the Prophet did say there would be 12 khalifs after him. This is not disputed. He didn’t say 10, 13, 35, he specifically said 12. He also said the Mahdi would be a descendent of Fatima. No other school of thought has this consistent ideology other than the Shia. As much as Sunnis like to create lists that include Yazid, Allah swt says that his covenant does not extend to oppressors. These are not the khalifas dictated by the Prophet, who bore no resemblance to him. And finally, the Ummayids and the Abbasids both had more than 12 khalifas. The rule of khilafah has ended. There is no khalif today, and the Mahdi has not arrived, further proving the 12 khalifas cannot have been the illigitimate rulers of the Islamic ummah who asserted themselves as leaders. The Quran is very clear, the khalif is appointed by Allah, this is repeated again and again in the Quran. Not a single verse allows for the khalif to be appointed by the people.
Totally irrelevant to the topic.
@@SaqifahProductions very relevant to the topic. The idea of 12 leaders takes it root in the words of the Prophet that is universally agreed upon, where he announced the wiliyah of Ali at arafah and again at Ghadeer. That is when this Hadith is recorded, it also when the Hadith of the Mahdi being a descendent of Fatima is recorded. As I stated, your khilafah is finished, there is no more khalifs, and the Mahdi has not appeared. So either the Prophet lied, or your system of khilafah is not the system he spoke of. Again, you had far more than 12 khalifs in each dynasty. So none of these count.
Hit me up on Twitter. We can plan a recorded debate.
What happened? No interested?
@@SaqifahProductions what’s your Twitter handle?
Ali bin Hussain (Zainul Abedeen) said: "O'people Love us to respect Islam, for your excessive love for us has reached a stage which has become disgrace to us(Ahle Bayt)
Source: Tahzib al Kamal & Bihar al Anwar
KAAFI, p.227)
Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams. “(Al- Kulaini. AL- KAAFI, p.231)
Bukhari has big tafsir book as do other from the 6 hadith books, why this guy jump to Suyuti.
brother, change the title from shi'ah to shia because people don't regularly search 'shi'ah'
اقتباس:
عن أبي عبد الله قال » لما ولد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مكث أياما ليس له لبن. فألقاه أبو طالب على ثدي نفسه. فأنزل الله فيه لبنا فرضع منه أياما حتى وقع أبو طالب على حليمة السعدية فدفعه إليها« (الكافي 1/373 كتاب الحجة. باب مولد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ووفاته).
Abu Abdullah said: When the prophet PBUH was born he remained for several days without getting Breast Milk, So Abu Talib put him on his breast and Allah granted him Milk so he fed the Prophet for several days until Abu Talib came upon Haleemah al Sa’adiyah so he handed him to her.
Source: Al Kafi 1/373 Kitab al hujjah, Chapter: The Birth of the Prophet PBUH and his death
Brother Farid...are you saying the 12 imams were first mentioned (talked) about in a book in 1693 CE? Correct??
Where did you get that year i.e. 1693 CE?
Third century after hijra...
did you even watched the video ? he is saying there are no reports of 12 imams before kulyani.
there were ideas about 7 and unlimited imams but not 12
Could you do a video on the matters regarding the beard? Such as is it mustahab or waajib. Can I trim it in any situations? Also one on the strongest most authentic yet elaborate and intricate view on how to pray salah
Dont shave. Keep at least a fist length if you cant resist the urge to mutilate your fitra and beard, but the hadith clearly states to leave the beard, not grow, but leave it, interestingly which means the men already had it. Thats the most widely accepted answer among scholars.
Some shafii (or was it hanbali, or both?) students say its makroo to shave and one is blameworthy in character for doing so, but they don't hold it to be fard like wudu or something. Err on the side of caution and grow the beard because even kuffar are more handsome with one
@@thaknobodi im aware of all the aforementioned. But there are degrees to how much and how something should be implemented relative to the time they are in. Such as wearing an imamah or covering head in salah for men seen as sunnah by so many people when it was rather a practical fashion in arabia. Similarly druga today are the liquor intoxicants of the prophets time. The prophet himself had a thick large beard such that it could be seen from behind him. Yet ibn umar r.a trimmed to a fistful something I can only think of as fashionable. So whats the ruling in light of today. Personally I dont want to take chances so I just let it grow without trimming. But ofc that has its setbacks. First impressions are the last impressions so I wanted akhi Fareeds view on this
@@star_strafe3951 afaik beard has hadith to back it up against the changes of time and culture but imama and thawb are only recommended for specific localities but then are not wajib
@@thaknobodi afaik? I just want to know specifically regarding trimming to make it look neat and uniform.
@@star_strafe3951 afaik is shorthand for, as far as i know. Trimming i have no clue but in my totally unprofessional opinion, is a step for some people to obsession with looks leading to inching closer to trimming the actual beard where they shouldnt. I know a lot of youth with this issue who ask about the limits of beard in order to eventually have only a CM long beard for the rest of their days. If you must just use beard oil, it tidys up the stray hairs
[Rijal Al Kishi p.133]
Zurarah has nothing to do with Islam:
قال إن ذا من مسائل آل أعين ليس من ديني و لا دين آبائي
This issue (masala) is the work of Aal Ayun (referring to Zurarah ibn Ayun), it has nothing to do with my religion and the religion of my father. [Rijal Kashi, p. 137]
Those who doubted their religion:
حدثني محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني جبريل بن أحمد عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد عن يونس عن أبي الصباح قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله (ع) يقول يا أبا الصباح هلك المترئسون في أديانهم منهم زرارة و بريد و محمد بن مسلم و إسماعيل الجعفي
Imam Jafar said: O abu Sabah! those who doubted in their religion are ruined, amongst them are Zurarah and Buraidah and Muhammad bin Muslim and Ismail Jufi.[Tanqih al maqal, Vol. 3 ,p. 186]
Zurarah worse than Jews and Christian:
عن أبي عبد الله ع قال: دخلت عليه فقال: متى عهدك بزرارة؟ قال قلت ما رأيته منذ أيام قال: لا تبال وان مرض فلا تعده وان مات فلا تشهد جنازته قال قلت زرارة؟ متعجبا مما قال قال : نعم زرارة زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى
Imam Jafar asked the narrator : since how much time have you seen Zurarah? Narrator says : I haven’t seen him from some days, Imam said : Don’t care about him , and if he becomes ill, don’t visit him, and if he dies, don’t join his funeral prayer. The narrator said : You mean Zurarah? He said it while he was surprised. Imam said : Yes, Zurarah, for Zurarah is worse than Jews and Christians.[Rijal Kashi, p. 142]
Similar narration:
زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى، ومن قال: إن مع الله ثالث ثلاثة ) (رجال الكشي: ص160. رواية رقم 267)
Zurarah is worse than jews and Christians, and those who say: with Allah is 3 from 3. [Rijal Kashi p:160]
Again, he is cursed by Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
حدثني حمدوية قال؛ حدثني محمد بن عيسى عن يونس عن مسمع كرد بن ابي سيار قال سمعت ابا عبد الله (ع) يقول: لعن الله بريداً، لعن الله زرارة
Aba Abdullah (as) said: May Allah curse Buraydah!, may Allah curse Zurarah! [Rijal Kashi, p. 148]
farid can you stop interuptting the guy, he has an accent
Where do you find these debates?
Clubhouse
❤️❤️❤️❤️🌹🌹🌹
How embarrassing
This is a hadeeth about twelve Imams before kulayni
5 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مُوسَى الْخَشَّابِ عَنِ ابْنِ سَمَاعَةَ وَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ رباطة [رِبَاطٍ عَنْ ابْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ(ع)يَقُولُ الِاثْنَا عَشَرَ الْأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كُلُّهُمْ مُحَدَّثٌ مِنْ وُلْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ(ص)وَ وُلْدِ عَلِيٍّ(ع)فَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ(ص)وَ عَلِيٌّ(ع)هُمَا الْوَالِدَانِ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدٍ وَ ذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ وَ كَانَ أَخاً لِعَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ لِأُمِّهِ فَضَرَبَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ(ع)فَخِذَهُ فَقَالَ أَمَّا ابْنُ أُمِّكَ كَانَ أَحَدَهُمْ.
بصائر الدرجات للصفار
Bro did you even listen to the discussion? There are two.versions of the Basa'ir. One is the OG version by Saffar himself, that is only in manuscript form and it doesn't include these hadeeths, and one is the later version which is twice as big, has added hadeeths and is in print. That is the one you posted that hadeeth from.
@@SaqifahProductions
There are two bas’ir. one sughra one kubra.
@@Religiousstudies2000 show us the hadith in sughra. You can post it in this thread:
twitter.com/ibn_naasr/status/1620044340906295296?t=0i87beVSEeMVfouK-Iy1Iw&s=19
@@SaqifahProductions
Do you even know what the difference between basair al darajat al kubra and al sughra is?
@@Religiousstudies2000 don't answer with generic rebuttals. Show us the hadith in Sughra.
5:48
Khalid fled form hyunain and mutah its fact yet u call him saifullah this is sunni religion in nutshell
What does Khalid ibn Waleed RA have to do with the debate?
You Majoozis are stil mad that Khalid Ibn Waleed RA, destroyed the Sasanian Empire and opened Persia to Islam.
Talking about running. The fact that you believe the 12th Imaam has been hiding for 1150 years out of fear is Shia religion in a nutshell.
@@SaqifahProductions Yup 😂
@@SaqifahProductions BTW I subbed. Keep it up!
@@alhuddatube9473 thanks akhi
@@SaqifahProductions he is angry that is why he is writing about khalid.
Here is another authentic Hadith from the prophet before kulayni written by Sulaym from the early first century
قام عمر بن الخطاب شبه المغضب فقال: يا رسول الله، أكل أهل بيتك؟
فقال: لا ولكن أوصيائي، أخي منهم ووزيري ووارثي وخليفتي في أمتي وولي كل مؤمن بعدي وأحد عشر من ولده، هذا أولهم وخيرهم ثم ابناي هذان - وأشار بيده إلى الحسن والحسين - ثم وصي ابني يسمى باسم أخي علي وهو ابن الحسين، ثم وصي علي وهو ولده واسمه محمد، ثم جعفر بن محمد، ثم موسى بن جعفر، ثم علي بن موسى، ثم محمد بن علي، ثم علي بن محمد، ثم الحسن بن علي، ثم محمد بن الحسن مهدي الأمة. اسمه كاسمي وطينته كطينتي، يأمر بأمري وينهى بنهيي، يملأ الأرض قسطا وعدلا كما ملئت ظلما وجورا. يتلو بعضهم بعضا، واحدا بعد واحد حتى يردوا علي الحوض، شهداء الله في أرضه وحججه على خلقه. من أطاعهم أطاع الله ومن عصاهم عصى الله.
كتاب سليم بن قيس
The book of sulaym has been authenticated chain wise by ayatollah sheikh Muslim aldauri in his book
أصول علم الرجال بين النظرية والتطبيق
There is no way you quoted sulaym 💀
@@thegoat2958
Yes way I quoted sulaym. All scholars of hadeeth quoted sulaym. Kulayni saduq tusi al numani etc.
@@Religiousstudies2000
Where is the chain of narrators?
@@abumuhammad6978
Return to the book
أصول علم الرجال بين النظرية و التطبيق
You can download the pdf version or even access it online.
The sheikh mentions the ijazat and the authentic chain.
The chain is not relevant. The point is that Sulaym is such an early texts that contains the 12 Imam claim, that it proves the notion of the 12 imams pre existed kulayni.
Jazaak Allah kheir Farid