Usool-a-Kafi declares Molana Ismail (a) is rightful Imam

If you have questions or want to share knowledge about Dawoodi Bohra religions and rituals please post them here. Any discussion outside the framework of Dawoodi Bohra beliefs and tradition is not allowed. This forum is primarily for sharing of information and knowledge.
Munira_RV
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:38 pm

Re: Usool-a-Kafi declares Molana Ismail (a) is rightful Imam

#31

Unread post by Munira_RV » Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:21 am

Khadhim Al Mahdi wrote:Salaams brother Javed,

There is no compulsion in religion, so our bohra brethren have their own free choice to make. We are only trying to make them aware of the realities & the truth. I myself was a bohra & am now a follower of the Shia Imamiyya school; this was after alot of reading & research which I still continue to this day.

I have also read Mullah Hasan Ali Sarangpurwala's Kitab-e-Ismail, which if I am honest, I was not so convinced of the arguments. Many of the arguments contained therein I believe are weak and have been refuted.

I believe that one of the main reasons the bohras are facing such a turmoil right now is because of the incorrect Imamate they followed after Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq [as], for there was no 'nass' given to Isma'il or any of the 'Imams' after him; i.e. they were not divinely appointed.

So when you have a system that is not divinely appointed, you are bound to go astray and this current conflict is the outcome of this; I hope in such circumstances, people realise the truth that they are being fooled and deceived by the kothar. This should also encourage many of the truth-seeking bohras to really reflect, seatch and come towards the path of truth.

May Allah SWT guide us all to his way, ameen.
Which non-Ithna Asheri prominent historian has said that Imam Jaffer Sadique a.s. first nuss was done over Hz. Musa Kazim and not over Imam Ismail a.s.?



freebohra2016
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:45 am

#32

Unread post by freebohra2016 » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:21 am

Has anybody read the book "Shia Sects : Kitab al Firaq Al Shia" by Hasan Al Nawbhakti and translated by Abbas Kadhim or can the below quote be verified it is from the book:

Hasan ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti (d. before 922), Firaq al-Shi’a, ed. Ritter (1931 Istanbul), p. 55 – quoted below:
Ja‘far ibn Muhammad designated (ashāra ila) the Imamat of his son Isma‘il ibn Ja‘far.

JazakAllah Khair



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#33

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:55 am


Which non-Ithna Asheri prominent historian has said that Imam Jaffer Sadique a.s. first nuss was done over Hz. Musa Kazim and not over Imam Ismail a.s.?

1. ^ If you pose the above question, then I will turn round and say, all major historians confirm that Hz. Ismail died during the lifetime of Imam Sadiq (as). Also, ad-Da‘i Idris ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Abdillah, ‘Imadu 'd-Din, al- Qurashi al-Yamani says in his book, 'Zahr al ma'aani' that Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Musa al-Kadhim (as) as his successor, but his goal in doing so was to protect the Imamate of Muhammad bin Ismail. If we assume that Ismail was appointed as a successor of Imam Sadiq (As), however, we know that Ismail died while Imam Sadiq (as) was still alive and al-sadiq (as) was the Imam of the time (Imam e zamaan). Then how can you still take him as an Imam? Why do you automatically assume that Muhammad bin Ismail was automatically the successor? The point is, you cannot solely rely on historians for the basis of your faith because they will give their side of the picture only and negate some very important religious aspects. We believe in Qur'an wa Ahlebait (As) as our ultimate proofs.

If you are going to go on the basis that Isma'il was appointed then you also must admit he died during Imam Sadiq (as)'s life time, that bada'a occurred to shift the Imamate to his brother instead. If you are going to rely on such reports you can't just go half way and take the bit you like (a nass was conferred) while ignoring the rest of it (Ismail died, bada' occurred, therefore Ismail wasn't an Imam). But again, no actual texts are provided for any of this, only hearsay from much later after the fact (a century or centuries later), hearsay often designed to make Shiism look bad. On the contrary, there are multiple, historically traced (with isnads) reports of as-Sadiq (as) conferring nass on his son Musa (as). Ismailis simply don't have anything like that and never have. Hence why he has to rely on all this roundabout ways to obfuscate and impress that he has more of an argument than he really does.

2. What historians say (especially non-shia historians) is not a matter of Hujjah (proof) upon us. In Islam, when it comes to the concept of Imamah (And I'm sure you agree with this) there are certain conditions how we can ascertain whom the true Imam of Allah (swt) really is.

i. Infallibility (al-'Ismah) - Divine protection from sins and from failure in fulfilling the obligations, a protection which prevents the person the person from forgetfulness and mistakes in conveying the message, implementing the divine laws, and guiding the people.

ii He should be the best person in his time in all virtues.

iii He should be knowledgeable about the shari‘ah in all its scopes and dimensions. He should also be an expert in managing the ummah, with insight in regulating its affairs, and capable of leading and guiding it.

iv He should be the most brave and courageous person of his time. The kind of courage, which is necessary to lead the ummah at war as well as in peace. He should also be the wisest of all in regard to the ummah's interest, and the most conscious of the needs and the demands of its members in their personal and social life.

v. There should be, in the Imam, no blemish physical or moral, in lineage or descent which would prevent him from commanding total control over the various elements of the ummah and from subjugating them completely to his divine leadership

The imamate as defined above is established through:

i) A clear text (an-nass), either from the Holy Qur'an and statements of RasoolAllah (saws) and Ahlulbayt (as).

ii) Performance of miracles (mu‘jizah), which clearly proves the divine link that would, in turn, proves a divine position for the performer. The numbers of the imams, the identifying process for each one of them, and their relationship to one another (e.g., one is the father and the other is the son; or one is the brother of the other) depends on the nass only.



Siddiqua
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:05 am

#34

Unread post by Siddiqua » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:41 am

Khadhim Al Mahdi wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:55 am

Which non-Ithna Asheri prominent historian has said that Imam Jaffer Sadique a.s. first nuss was done over Hz. Musa Kazim and not over Imam Ismail a.s.?

1. ^ If you pose the above question, then I will turn round and say, all major historians confirm that Hz. Ismail died during the lifetime of Imam Sadiq (as). Also, ad-Da‘i Idris ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Abdillah, ‘Imadu 'd-Din, al- Qurashi al-Yamani says in his book, 'Zahr al ma'aani' that Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Musa al-Kadhim (as) as his successor, but his goal in doing so was to protect the Imamate of Muhammad bin Ismail. If we assume that Ismail was appointed as a successor of Imam Sadiq (As), however, we know that Ismail died while Imam Sadiq (as) was still alive and al-sadiq (as) was the Imam of the time (Imam e zamaan). Then how can you still take him as an Imam? Why do you automatically assume that Muhammad bin Ismail was automatically the successor? The point is, you cannot solely rely on historians for the basis of your faith because they will give their side of the picture only and negate some very important religious aspects. We believe in Qur'an wa Ahlebait (As) as our ultimate proofs.

If you are going to go on the basis that Isma'il was appointed then you also must admit he died during Imam Sadiq (as)'s life time, that bada'a occurred to shift the Imamate to his brother instead. If you are going to rely on such reports you can't just go half way and take the bit you like (a nass was conferred) while ignoring the rest of it (Ismail died, bada' occurred, therefore Ismail wasn't an Imam). But again, no actual texts are provided for any of this, only hearsay from much later after the fact (a century or centuries later), hearsay often designed to make Shiism look bad. On the contrary, there are multiple, historically traced (with isnads) reports of as-Sadiq (as) conferring nass on his son Musa (as). Ismailis simply don't have anything like that and never have. Hence why he has to rely on all this roundabout ways to obfuscate and impress that he has more of an argument than he really does.

2. What historians say (especially non-shia historians) is not a matter of Hujjah (proof) upon us. In Islam, when it comes to the concept of Imamah (And I'm sure you agree with this) there are certain conditions how we can ascertain whom the true Imam of Allah (swt) really is.

i. Infallibility (al-'Ismah) - Divine protection from sins and from failure in fulfilling the obligations, a protection which prevents the person the person from forgetfulness and mistakes in conveying the message, implementing the divine laws, and guiding the people.

ii He should be the best person in his time in all virtues.

iii He should be knowledgeable about the shari‘ah in all its scopes and dimensions. He should also be an expert in managing the ummah, with insight in regulating its affairs, and capable of leading and guiding it.

iv He should be the most brave and courageous person of his time. The kind of courage, which is necessary to lead the ummah at war as well as in peace. He should also be the wisest of all in regard to the ummah's interest, and the most conscious of the needs and the demands of its members in their personal and social life.

v. There should be, in the Imam, no blemish physical or moral, in lineage or descent which would prevent him from commanding total control over the various elements of the ummah and from subjugating them completely to his divine leadership

The imamate as defined above is established through:

i) A clear text (an-nass), either from the Holy Qur'an and statements of RasoolAllah (saws) and Ahlulbayt (as).

ii) Performance of miracles (mu‘jizah), which clearly proves the divine link that would, in turn, proves a divine position for the performer. The numbers of the imams, the identifying process for each one of them, and their relationship to one another (e.g., one is the father and the other is the son; or one is the brother of the other) depends on the nass only.


Hello Khadim,

1. You are preaching lies - Dai Idrees has never wrote what you contends him to have written, on contrary he wrote, "Imam Ismail (a) died after Imam Jaffer Sadiq (a).

Isna'ashri scholar Shaharistani and Bakir Majlisi both wrote: The original Imamat nuss was done on Imam Ismail (a) by Imam Sadiq (a). Then Bakir Majlisi brings in the self invented excuse of "badaa"! By which he is claiming Imam Sadik (a) was not perfect! That he erred in making original nuss! To justify incorrect stand of Isna'asheri he is showing down Imam Sadiq (a).

2. Does in lure of kingship Reza sahib agreed to become the deputy of anti-Shia Abbasi caliph?

3. Who are slave women, those who are not on the religion of Islam and are caught in the war between believers v/s non-believers. Being not on Islam means their Imaan has deficiency. So sons of such slave women too will be deficient in imaan structurally.

All Fatimi Imams are the sons of proper Muslima mother. Now you can check status of Isna'asher Imams mother by yourself and let us know your findings?

4. No true Shia after war of Jamal will keep their children names after "her". But Isna'asheri Imam Must Kazim sahib and Ali Reza sahib kept their daughter name after "her"!!! Where else Ismaili Tayyebi Imams (a) never did that.

5. Miracles - Fake miracles by your leaders are endorsed by none of the sovereign authorities. Where else the official gazette of the Government of India records miracles by the Dai's who are slaves of Ismaili Imams!

6. Characterless - You promote extra marital relations with women under guise of 'muta'. Should it have any higher degree of religious sanctions then it should have been supported by Mola Ali (a), but its zikr is totally absent in Nahjul Balagha!

7. Your leaders - Marja and Ayatullah are all self made and not appointed by your Imam and still they take 20% (Khums) from gullible Isna'asheri follower and fill in their personal coffers which they never give audit report of income & expenditure. When they die, their children's inherit those assets. When Khums is meant for Imam why Marja collect them? They are self-declared leaders. Where else in Ismaili system - the leaders are only appointed by Allah.

8. You claim: No one, never ever had any news of 12th Imam since he is alleged to get disappeared - question is from where you got this news that he is still alive?



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#35

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:31 pm


Hello Khadim,

1. You are preaching lies - Dai Idrees has never wrote what you contends him to have written, on contrary he wrote, "Imam Ismail (a) died after Imam Jaffer Sadiq (a).

Isna'ashri scholar Shaharistani and Bakir Majlisi both wrote: The original Imamat nuss was done on Imam Ismail (a) by Imam Sadiq (a). Then Bakir Majlisi brings in the self invented excuse of "badaa"! By which he is claiming Imam Sadik (a) was not perfect! That he erred in making original nuss! To justify incorrect stand of Isna'asheri he is showing down Imam Sadiq (a).

2. Does in lure of kingship Reza sahib agreed to become the deputy of anti-Shia Abbasi caliph?

3. Who are slave women, those who are not on the religion of Islam and are caught in the war between believers v/s non-believers. Being not on Islam means their Imaan has deficiency. So sons of such slave women too will be deficient in imaan structurally.

All Fatimi Imams are the sons of proper Muslima mother. Now you can check status of Isna'asher Imams mother by yourself and let us know your findings?

4. No true Shia after war of Jamal will keep their children names after "her". But Isna'asheri Imam Must Kazim sahib and Ali Reza sahib kept their daughter name after "her"!!! Where else Ismaili Tayyebi Imams (a) never did that.

5. Miracles - Fake miracles by your leaders are endorsed by none of the sovereign authorities. Where else the official gazette of the Government of India records miracles by the Dai's who are slaves of Ismaili Imams!

6. Characterless - You promote extra marital relations with women under guise of 'muta'. Should it have any higher degree of religious sanctions then it should have been supported by Mola Ali (a), but its zikr is totally absent in Nahjul Balagha!

7. Your leaders - Marja and Ayatullah are all self made and not appointed by your Imam and still they take 20% (Khums) from gullible Isna'asheri follower and fill in their personal coffers which they never give audit report of income & expenditure. When they die, their children's inherit those assets. When Khums is meant for Imam why Marja collect them? They are self-declared leaders. Where else in Ismaili system - the leaders are only appointed by Allah.

8. You claim: No one, never ever had any news of 12th Imam since he is alleged to get disappeared - question is from where you got this news that he is still alive?
Assalaamu alaykum Siddiqua,

I am presuming you are the same person who has username as Munira_rv and Badri Janaab Since your writing seems very similar...

Anyways, I can see you've made a number of points and unfortunately as I've seen from before, you do tend to deviate to various different points without really addressing the core issues at hand. Your thread initially was to prove the Imamah of Ismail ibn Ja'far so I will stick to this only since this is the primary issue of difference between us.

1. Da'i Idrees did infact say this, but I do not agree with what he says since there is no real proof for it. Furthermore, he also admits in his book, Uyuun al-akhbaar wa fununu al-athar (page 349-350), in which he has a big section to proving the supposed Imamah of Ismail, however, he also later admits that Ismail died during the lifetime of Imam Sadiq (as) and that he (as) buried him with his own hands and called witnesses to testify to his death multiple times. He emphasised on this point more than once that Isma'il died during the lifetime of Imam Sadiq (As)

2. Al-Shahrastani wasn't a twelver scholar to begin with so I'm not sure where you got this from..at most he was an Ashari Sunni scholar, or even an Ismaili in taqiyyah. In regards to Allamah Majlisi, yes, he does mention an account in Bihar al-anwar of Imam Sadiq (as) and people thinking Ismail to be the Imam, however this statement he mentions is not a statement of nass. It is simply a statement of expectation as some in the Shi'a community assumed that the Imamate would be transmitted hereditary to the eldest son. Of course, that is not the case, and the successions of Imam Ali (as) and Imam al-Husayn (as) are a testament to that.

I have seen the narration of bad'a which you're referring to. That narration does not indicate that the bad'a was about the Imamate of Ismail, it only indicates that a bada happened about him. Secondly, the narration is mursal and Sheikh as-saduq and Sheikh al-mufeed have mentioned it as an objection that the zaydiyya used to use against the Imamiyyah. Sheikh Mufeed then goes onto mention that the Bada' was actually about Ismails death, as it has been narrated from Imam Sadiq (as) that Allah wanted Ismail to be killed, but Imam sadiq (as) supplicated twice, so Allah let him live a bit more and that is the bada' that Allah had never changed his decision twice like this before.

Of course, when Ismail died during Imam Sadiq (as)'s lifetime, it was clear that he wasn't the next Imam. Why would an Imam choose someone as an Imam who would then cease to live before the actual Imam has even passed away!?

I ask all Bohra brethren to sincerely ponder over the above point, to research further and reflect. Alhamdulillah, today by the will of Allah, many Bohras are waking up and finding the truth.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#36

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:10 am

So till today, the Ismailis have not been able to prove their contention of the supposed Imamate of Ismail ibn Ja'far, who clearly died during the lifetime of his father, Imam Ja'far Sadiq (as) as per many sources. They have had to resort to Westerner historians, Sunnis etc. to prove it, yet the actual supposed Nass of Ismail does not exist any major book(s) of Hadith, of either the Shia or Sunnis.

The original post of this thread contains a reference to Imam Sadiq (as) appointing Ismail in Usul Al-kafi, yet when asking several times for the Full hadith in both Arabic and English, the poster has failed to do so. On the contrary, there is a section in al-Kafi by the title of 'Kitab al hujjah' where clear ahadith have been narrated on the designation of each Holy Imam (as), including the designation of Imam Musa al-Kazim (as) as the true heir and successor of Imam Sadiq (as).

Furthermore, the majority of the Shi'as, including the most prominent companions of Imam sadiq (as) accepted Imam Musa Kazim (as) as the rightful Imam, something which we do not find for Ismail.

Ismailis claim that Ismail's funeral was just a ruse so that the Abbasids wouldn't go after Ismail and that Ismail went into hiding after being buried. This is totally illogical and something which we cannot accept, that Imam sadiq (as) would stage a whole funeral, in turn deceiving thousands of Shias upon the matter of succession! Which is the single most Important affair according to all Shias.

This is beyond the dignity of a Divine Imam (as) to fake the death of his successor, as Allah (swt) has promised to protect his Hujjah (proof), even if the disbelievers would not like it (Surah 61:8)



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#37

Unread post by husayni » Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:17 pm

Br. Khadim,
Several points to clarify:
1. Usul al kafi is a book of hadith, 40-50% are not sahih based on the chain of narrations. Some of those are hasan or weak. This is per shiah islamic scholars. This also applies to all of the 4 major shiah hadith books and also najhul balagha. Shiah hadith books are collections and it is for the scholar to verification the classification and adherence to the quran.

2. Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Muhammad
ibn Isma‘il ibn Bazi‘ who has said the following. "Abu al-Hassan al-Rida (a.s.) was once
asked, "Can Imamat continue in uncles?" He replied, "No, it can not happen." The narrator
has said that he asked the Imams (a.s.), "Can it continue in a brother?" He replied, "No, it can
not happen." I then asked, "With who then it can continues?" He replied, "It will continue
with my children." In those days he had no children."
- So if the Imam Jafar Sadiq gave naas to Imam Ismail, and Imam Ismail died, the naas cannot be transferred.

H 856, Ch. 75, h 10
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Ishaq ibn Muhammad from abu Hashim al-Ja‘fari who
has said the following. "I was in the presence of abu al-Hassan (a.s.) after the death of his son,
abu Ja‘far. I thought to my self like wanting to say, "The two; abu Ja‘far and abu Muhammad
at this time are like abu al-Hassan Musa and ’Isma‘il, the sons of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad (a.
s.)." At such time abu al-Hassan turned to me before I would say anything and said, "Yes, O
abu Hashim, Allah applied Bada’ (a change in the current natural conditions) in the case of
abu Muhammad after abu Ja‘far, a fact that was not known for him. In the same He applied
Bada’ in the case of Musa after the death of ’Isma‘il as an issue that through which his
condition came to light
. That is what you thought to yourself. Even though people of
falsehood may dislike, abu Muhammad, my son will be the succeeding Imam after me. With
him is the knowledge that he will need and with him is the means of Imamat (Leadership with
Divine Authority)."
- in this hadith, Musa acknowledged that the naas was changed from Imam Ismail to him through "Bada".

3. The "majority follows.." is the worst argument to use. The majority of muslims followed Abu Bakr...should we use them as the correct path?
As a side note, twelver shiah was spread just like sunnism. The ruler emir converted to the sect and forced the population to convert as the official religion. The Safavid held power over Persia (east Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, and west Afghanistan) and made twelver islam the official faith. Up until then, the majority faith was sunni in these areas.

I should note, at the time of Musa kadhim, those shia that did follow him were a small minority. Zaydi and Ismaili were more populous shiah sects in these areas during the lifetime of twelver imams, while still being a small minority of the overall.

4. Some of the the Ismaili sources actually state that it was Abdullah who was killed, because in fact Abdullah was Imam Jafar Sadiq first son and Ismail was the second. This was one reason Imam Jafar Sadiq has the kunya "abu Abdullah" (father of Abdullah). Still other sources say he lives after the death of Imam Jafar Sadiq.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#38

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:33 am

Deleted
Last edited by Khadhim Al Mahdi on Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#39

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:36 am

husayni wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:17 pm
Br. Khadim,
Several points to clarify:
1. Usul al kafi is a book of hadith, 40-50% are not sahih based on the chain of narrations. Some of those are hasan or weak. This is per shiah islamic scholars. This also applies to all of the 4 major shiah hadith books and also najhul balagha. Shiah hadith books are collections and it is for the scholar to verification the classification and adherence to the quran.
Br. Husayni:

1. Usul al kafi is a section of kitab al-kafi. We do not just use the chain of narrators to verify hadith, this is Ilm ul-rijaal, which is not the main criteria to determine the authenticity of ahadith. We Compare them with the Holy Qur'an and with other Ahadith on the subject. The shia books of hadith are not merely restricted to 4. There are many books of hadith, some of which are Primary and some of which are Secondary. We always go back to the Primary books of hadith first, as these were compiled before the advent of the occultation of Imam zaman (ajf).


2. Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Muhammad
ibn Isma‘il ibn Bazi‘ who has said the following. "Abu al-Hassan al-Rida (a.s.) was once
asked, "Can Imamat continue in uncles?" He replied, "No, it can not happen." The narrator
has said that he asked the Imams (a.s.), "Can it continue in a brother?" He replied, "No, it can
not happen." I then asked, "With who then it can continues?" He replied, "It will continue
with my children." In those days he had no children."
- So if the Imam Jafar Sadiq gave naas to Imam Ismail, and Imam Ismail died, the naas cannot be transferred.

H 856, Ch. 75, h 10
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Ishaq ibn Muhammad from abu Hashim al-Ja‘fari who
has said the following. "I was in the presence of abu al-Hassan (a.s.) after the death of his son,
abu Ja‘far. I thought to my self like wanting to say, "The two; abu Ja‘far and abu Muhammad
at this time are like abu al-Hassan Musa and ’Isma‘il, the sons of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad (a.
s.)." At such time abu al-Hassan turned to me before I would say anything and said, "Yes, O
abu Hashim, Allah applied Bada’ (a change in the current natural conditions) in the case of
abu Muhammad after abu Ja‘far, a fact that was not known for him. In the same He applied
Bada’ in the case of Musa after the death of ’Isma‘il as an issue that through which his
condition came to light
. That is what you thought to yourself. Even though people of
falsehood may dislike, abu Muhammad, my son will be the succeeding Imam after me. With
him is the knowledge that he will need and with him is the means of Imamat (Leadership with
Divine Authority)."
- in this hadith, Musa acknowledged that the naas was changed from Imam Ismail to him through "Bada".
Nass is not an issue here. The reason why Ismail was compared to the eldest son of Imam hadi (as) was because, again, the eldest son of Al-Hadi (as) was assumed to be the successor of his father by some Shia. This is because narrations exist from Imam Ridha (as), referring to the Imams after him, saying that the eldest son will succeed the coming Imams. So naturally, the Imamiyya looked towards al-Hadi (as)'s eldest son while al-Hadi (as) was still alive. When this son died, he was no longer the eldest - Imam Hasan askari (as) was.

We don't believe that successors can precede the death of their predecessors. A successor is one who who carries on the role of his predecessor once he his gone.

Furthermore, this is usually the 'best' proof that Ismailis usually have to offer when it comes to proving the supposed Imamate of Ismail; they resort to hadiths on bada, yet it really is just shooting themselves in the foot since if they are quoting and admitting the said reports (such as the above), then it still means that Ismail wasn't the Imam.

Again, many Ismailis claim (without providing solid textual evidence for it) that Imam sadiq (as) declared Ismail as his successor in pubic. But this really makes little sense that would have done so even if Ismail had been the successor since it would've been going against their approach of taqiyya and would only have been putting a target on Isma'ils back as such.

3. The "majority follows.." is the worst argument to use. The majority of muslims followed Abu Bakr...should we use them as the correct path?
As a side note, twelver shiah was spread just like sunnism. The ruler emir converted to the sect and forced the population to convert as the official religion. The Safavid held power over Persia (east Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, and west Afghanistan) and made twelver islam the official faith. Up until then, the majority faith was sunni in these areas.

I should note, at the time of Musa kadhim, those shia that did follow him were a small minority. Zaydi and Ismaili were more populous shiah sects in these areas during the lifetime of twelver imams, while still being a small minority of the overall.
The difference with the majority following Abu bakr and Umar was that they believed that successors can be chosen via elections and that the Prophet (saws) left behind no successor at all. All the Shi'a schools agree that each Prophet (saws) and Imam (as) must leave behind a successor.

Plus, the big giants at the time of Imam sadiq (as) were not random people. They were considered big scholars of their time including the likes of Abu Baseer, Mu'min at-taq, Muhammad bin Muslim, Hammad Ibn isa etc.

No, the majority ended up following Imam kazim (as). The idea of Isma'il being the Imam came much later and became popular several centuries after the fact, specifically at the time of the first Fatimid revolution



4. Some of the the Ismaili sources actually state that it was Abdullah who was killed, because in fact Abdullah was Imam Jafar Sadiq first son and Ismail was the second. This was one reason Imam Jafar Sadiq has the kunya "abu Abdullah" (father of Abdullah). Still other sources say he lives after the death of Imam Jafar Sadiq.
This is not correct. The funeral was evidently for Ismail as Imam Sadiq (as) made clear to the people that it was his son Ismail in the coffin. There are many sources (including Ismaili) to prove this.



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#40

Unread post by husayni » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:46 pm

Br. Khadim,

Regarding 1, for twelver shiah, there 4 main books of hadith. Kitab al Kafi, Wasail ash Shiah, Man yad . If you want to consider primary and scecondaryl, there are hundreds to reference; that was not my point. As I stated the hadiths in these books have not been verified via chain of narration (this includes rijal - reliability of the narrator) and adherence to the quran. This the scholar does. So to reference them directly cannot be done....as these books have not been vetted.

Regarding 2, you have missed the point. Naas is the main issue. The hadith specifically correlated the transfer of naas from Ismail to Musa as a precedent for the transfer for abu Ja‘far and abu Muhammad. It is refers to Allah changing the situation via Bada (a change in divine selection). If it just related to eldest son, why is Allah in the conversation? In addition, Ali al ridha says in the hadith this is relation to his son, abu Muhammad, succeeding him as imam.

Your statement regarding sucessors and preceding is false and has no basis. The light of imamat transfers as Allah wills.

Really!??? I quote from your book a statement of an Twelver Imam stating there was a transfer of imamat via bada from Ismail to Musa, talking to another shiah (so no need for taqiya)...am I am making excuses?

Regarding the majority statement, again you missed the point. The shiahs that followed musa kadhim and his descendants were a small group versus the zaydis and ismaili even then. The twelvers now only became the majority via territorial conquering via the safavid in the 15th century. This is comparison to why the sunni are the majority in the world...territorial conquering.

The idea of Ismail as Imam has been there since it inception. Even during the time of the ismaili dawr as satr in the 7th century, Ismaili dais propagated Ismailism in Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. By the 8th century, dais were in north africa converting the berbers to ismailism.

You can't say this is not correct without any proof? What you are saying is only partially correct. The Ismaili sources I referenced, specifically asraru nutaqa, state this regarding Imam Jafar declaring his son Ismail dead. They also state Ismail was made the Imam and his son Muhammad carried on the Imamat after him also. They do not state it was transferred to Musa. Some other references say Musa khadim "acted as the imam or was a pardah" as for the Imam Ismail or Muhammad so that they would not be harmed. This is specifically why we do not say anything bad about the twelver imams in general.

Another reference states that Abdullah was the one that died not Ismail; it is noted that both Abdullah and Ismail looks very similar and most could not tell the difference between the two. This would also explain why Imam Jafar sadiq is called abu Abdullah

One thing to ponder is why Imam Jafar sadiq would put his son on display IN PUBLIC for three days, get letters of witness from at least 10 people verifying who it was that died, go to the caliph and publicly addressing him that his son's death? What was the point of doing all this? The argument of just making it clear that Ismail had died doesn't make sense at all....who would care? Those that were trying to kill Imam Jafar and Ismail would.



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#41

Unread post by husayni » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:54 pm

sorry,
the 4 main books of hadith for twelver shiah are:
Kitab al-Kafi by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni al-Razi (329 AH), 16,199 hadiths
Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih by Muhammad ibn Babawayh, 9,044 hadiths
Tahdhib al-Ahkam by Shaykh Muhammad Tusi, 13,590 hadiths
Al-Istibsar by Shaykh Muhammad Tusi, 5,511 hadiths



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#42

Unread post by husayni » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:01 pm

It should be noted that Shaykh Muhammad Tusi, while being born into a twelver family, is considered to have converted to Ismaili, especially in last 20-30 years of his life in Alamat.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#43

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:36 am

husayni wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:46 pm
Br. Khadim,

Regarding 1, for twelver shiah, there 4 main books of hadith. Kitab al Kafi, Wasail ash Shiah, Man yad . If you want to consider primary and scecondaryl, there are hundreds to reference; that was not my point. As I stated the hadiths in these books have not been verified via chain of narration (this includes rijal - reliability of the narrator) and adherence to the quran. This the scholar does. So to reference them directly cannot be done....as these books have not been vetted.
These are some of the main books of hadith, yes, but the original books of hadith are those which were compiled during the lives of the 12 Imams (as). This includes Kitab Sulaym, Al-Mahasin, Basa'ir al-darajaat, Al-Kafi, Tafseer al-qummi, Tafseer al-Ayyashi etc. Amongst others. Therefore the likelihood of these collections being authentic is a pretty big one. We don't necessarily go on the basis of which books have been verified, but we go on a hadith by hadith basis. For example, not all the ahadith in al-kafi are authentic as some (very few) go against the fundamental principles.

Shaykh al-kulayni (ra) says the following in the introduction of Al-Kafi:

"My brother, may Allah guide you, indeed it is not possible for anyone to differentiate (Tamyeez) in the least on the basis of his own speculation between the narrations of the scholars regarding which there is a disparity in transmission (Riwaayah). This can only be done by following what the Sagacious, on him be peace, has said: “Examine it by the Quran, whatever corresponds to the book of Allah, take it: (however) whatever opposes the book of Allah, reject it.” Also he has said, "Leave alone what agrees with the views of the others because the right is in what is opposite to them. Also there are his (DivineSupremeCovenantBody) words, "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon
because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

So one has to look at a hadith, and if one cannot understand it then he should return it back to it's narrator (As per several narrations) . However, if a hadith goes against the other well established (Popular amongst Shia) Ahadith and Holy Qur'an then one should abandon it.

You say these books have not been vetted, yet your own scholar Qadhi al-Nu'man has no problem with borrowing ahadith from Al-kafi and Shia collections of hadith.

The Shia Imami were the first ones to begin compiling hadith as the Imams (as) used to order their followers to write their narrations down, unlike the sunnis Who's primary works such as Bukhari came much later. The Ismailis main compedium of hadith came much later on as well and hence Qadhi Nu'man had to borrow the hadiths from Shia sources and even some from Sunni sources.

It's quite strange that even though Qadhi Nu'man was a contemporary of the Fatimid caliphs, yet he narrated absolutely nothing from them.
Regarding 2, you have missed the point. Naas is the main issue. The hadith specifically correlated the transfer of naas from Ismail to Musa as a precedent for the transfer for abu Ja‘far and abu Muhammad. It is refers to Allah changing the situation via Bada (a change in divine selection). If it just related to eldest son, why is Allah in the conversation? In addition, Ali al ridha says in the hadith this is relation to his son, abu Muhammad, succeeding him as imam.

Your statement regarding sucessors and preceding is false and has no basis. The light of imamat transfers as Allah wills.
The hadith mentions nothing to do with nass. I've already explained the situation as above -It was rather some people who Imagined about Isma'il and also Abu Ja'far son of Imam al-Hadi (as) to be the next Imams, and they were not appointed by their fathers.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, if you are going to rely on such reports you can't just go half way and take the bit you like (a nass was conferred) while ignoring the rest of it (Ismail died, bada' occurred, therefore Ismail wasn't an Imam). But again, no actual texts are provided for any of this, only hearsay from much later (Like asrar nutaqa) after the fact (a century or centuries later), hearsay often designed to make Shiism look bad.

On the contrary, we have multiple, historically traced (with isnads) reports of Imam as-Sadiq (as) conferring nass on his son Imam Musa al-Kazim (as). Ismailis simply don't have anything like that and never have. Hence, why you have to rely upon all these roundabout ways to obfuscate and impress that you have more of an argument than you really do.

You tell me, do you really think it's logical for someone to be an Imam, yet dies during the lifetime of his predecessor? Also, there cannot be two Imams at any given time so Isma'il couldn't have been the actual Imam at the time of Imam Sadiq (as) since he was still alive, therefore the actual nass could never have transferred to him.

Ismail was also popular amongst the radical Shi'as and was closely asscoiated with them, however Imam sadiq (as) did not approve of these radical Shi'as who were leading his son astray. A person who is meant to be an Imam should have impeccable qualities. Ismail was closely associated with the radical shias, who were not approved by Imam al-Sadiq (as), why?

Ismail was evidently involved in a militant anti-regime plot in collaboration with several others, including Bassam b. Abd Allah al-Sayrafi, another extremist Shia. Imam al-Sadiq (as) expressed his strong disapproval of Ismail’s activities. How can it be possible that Imam al-Sadiq (as) would appoint such a son as his successor?
Really!??? I quote from your book a statement of an Twelver Imam stating there was a transfer of imamat via bada from Ismail to Musa, talking to another shiah (so no need for taqiya)...am I am making excuses?
This has already been explained above.
Regarding the majority statement, again you missed the point. The shiahs that followed musa kadhim and his descendants were a small group versus the zaydis and ismaili even then. The twelvers now only became the majority via territorial conquering via the safavid in the 15th century. This is comparison to why the sunni are the majority in the world...territorial conquering.
No, the Shi'as that eventually followed Imam kazim (as) were the majority. Refer to 'Ismailiye az Guzashte ta hala, p. 21' and 'The Ismailis their history and doctrines' page 89.

Even those who hadn't accepted al-kazim (as) initially, came to accept his Imamate within a span of 2-3 months.

And to be honest, the Imamate of Al-kazim (as) rests on itself. Abdullah's false knowledge had proved he was not the Imam. Isma'il's clear death and showing to the public during his father's lifetime proved Imamate could never have transferred to him.

Imam Kazim (as)' Imamate shines through even if one were ignorant of all of this. It's not for no reason that he was called al-'Abd as-Salih, the Righteous Servant. Everything about his life shows that this truly was someone you should believe in and want to follow.

The idea of Ismail as Imam has been there since it inception. Even during the time of the ismaili dawr as satr in the 7th century, Ismaili dais propagated Ismailism in Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. By the 8th century, dais were in north africa converting the berbers to ismailism.
It was only some simple minded Shi'as who were misguided that continued to hold on to that Idea and even that amongst the early Ismailis, there were several groups including the one group who claimed Isma'il hadn't died, but had gone into occultation and would return as the Mahdi, another group of course believed in his death and automatically assumed that Muhammad bin Ismail was the next Imam. You also had the followers of Abul-Khattab (an extremist condemned by Imam sadiq) who held onto Ismail and then went to Muhammad. The is where the idea became popular as there were many activists amongst these groups.

If you were truly cognizant of your 'aqaaid, you would know it's built on an ever-changing, often contradictory foundation of ideas and concepts. Firstly Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the last imam and al-Qa'im who had gone into ghayba. Then it was revealed that it was just a ruse in order to protect his descendants who were the true imams. There is still controversy regarding the lineage of 'Abdullah al-Mahdi, largely because your own Isma'ili sources contradict each other and there's much more to say but that should be sufficient!

You can't say this is not correct without any proof? What you are saying is only partially correct. The Ismaili sources I referenced, specifically asraru nutaqa, state this regarding Imam Jafar declaring his son Ismail dead. They also state Ismail was made the Imam and his son Muhammad carried on the Imamat after him also. They do not state it was transferred to Musa. Some other references say Musa khadim "acted as the imam or was a pardah" as for the Imam Ismail or Muhammad so that they would not be harmed. This is specifically why we do not say anything bad about the twelver imams in general.

Another reference states that Abdullah was the one that died not Ismail; it is noted that both Abdullah and Ismail looks very similar and most could not tell the difference between the two. This would also explain why Imam Jafar sadiq is called abu Abdullah
I've already answered to your 1st paragraph above in sufficient detail. A later Fatimid Polemical work is not at all convincing to prove that Imam sadiq (as) made Ismail the Imam. We need actual hadiths with it's full of chain of narrators and ideally the original hadith in Arabic. And we must compare one hadith to other ahadith on the matter.

Yes correct, Dai idris says in his book that Imam Sadiq (As) appointed Musa al-kazim (as) as his successor, but his goal in doing so was to protect the the Imamate of Muhammad bin Ismail. Are there any Ahadith from Imam Sadiq (as) clarifying that he appointed Imam kazim (as) as his successor to protect Ismail or Muhammad bin Ismail?

So even the Ismaili Da'i alludes to Imam kazim (as) being appointed.

But another question arises – are the Ismailis accusing Imam al-Sadiq (as) of not telling the truth? Imam, as a Ma’soom (infallible), cannot lie. There are explicit narrations which are hujjah upon us state that Imam kazim (as) was appointed, but there is no where in any hadith stating the Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Ismail, apart from that Fatimid polemical work which you mentioned. Nor is there mentioned in any hadith stating that Muhammad bin Ismail was appointed.


This is what the Contemporary Ismaili Historian Farhad Daftary says in his book, The Ismailis their history and doctrines:

"Many Ismaili and non-Ismaili sources report the story of how, before and during Ismail’s funeral procession, Imam al-Sadiq made deliberate attempts to show the face of his dead son to witnesses. Ismailis believe that Ismail was the 6th Imam and is highly revered by them. Unfortunately, Ismaili sources such as the ‘Uyun al-Akhbar’ contain little historical information of any value concerning him. According to some Ismaili authors, Ismail survived Imam al-Sadiq (as). However, the majority of sources report that he predeceased his father in Medina, and was buried in Baqi cemetery. Hasan b. Nuh al-Bharuchi, an Indian Ismaili author, relates visiting Ismail’s grave in Medina in 904 H/1498 AD. Ismail was popular among the radical Shias and was closely associated with them. Imam al-Sadiq (as) did not approve of these radical Shias who were leading his son astray."
One thing to ponder is why Imam Jafar sadiq would put his son on display IN PUBLIC for three days, get letters of witness from at least 10 people verifying who it was that died, go to the caliph and publicly addressing him that his son's death? What was the point of doing all this? The argument of just making it clear that Ismail had died doesn't make sense at all....who would care? Those that were trying to kill Imam Jafar and Ismail would.
Yes, Imam Sadiq (as) took great pains to see that the death was properly authenticated. The point of this was because he knew there would be a group of people after him would still take his dead son as an Imam. Remember, this is the matter of Imamate (Divine authority).
Last edited by Khadhim Al Mahdi on Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:09 am, edited 2 times in total.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#44

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:50 am

husayni wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:01 pm
It should be noted that Shaykh Muhammad Tusi, while being born into a twelver family, is considered to have converted to Ismaili, especially in last 20-30 years of his life in Alamat.
Proof? Are you also aware of the thousands of Ismailis Bohras who have become Shia Imami?



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#45

Unread post by husayni » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:39 am

Br. Kadhim,
Thank your further explaination on twelver hadith books...and your validation of my statement that they need to be validated.
Kitab as Sulam is considered the oldest hadith book, and accourding to sheikh mufid it is considered unreliable. Al Mahasin is from the 8th century is also considered unreliable. The others are from the 9th and 10th century.

Your statement regarding hadith books in the ismaili tradition is incorrect. Historical references have hadith and theology books of the Ismaili dated back to the 8th and 9th century. However, majority of these were lost to raids and burning by the sunni because they considered them heresy. Rasa'il Ikhwan al-safa which we do have dates from the 8th century, compiled by the Ismaili Imams in Syria.

Regarding your statement regarding Qadi Numan, you obviously have read not read his books. Every book he wrote is authorized by the Imam of that time. His chain of narration start with the Imam. Whether they align with shiah or sunni hadith doesn't matter...it would be odd if it didn't. No one has ever said all twelver or sunni hadiths are false or weak and we should not take from them. We take correct sources and knowledge. Ibn Abbas is a reference for all muslims, for example.

Regarding your statement regarding the naas, it seem you want to ignore the content of hadith altogether and give your spin. The hadith clearly says it was a change by Allah via bada (which does not exist) as an explain for a change in naas. Yes, people thought it, because it happened, and Ali ar Ridha is giving an explanation of why it happens.

Actually I did reference that whole hadith in saying that Ali ar Ridha is saying because Ismail died, imamat was changed via bada from Ismail to Musa. That actually is my point. I am by no means saying it is accurate (ie that it went to Musa) but that the hadith represents how imamat came to Musa.

And please don't make general statement like "oh we have so many hadith conferring naas on Musa...". This is a weak argument.

You tell me, do you really think it's logical for someone to be an Imam, yet dies during the lifetime of his predecessor?
Why not? Who told you it couldn't happen? Do we not believe that an imam is born an imam? During the the events of Karbala, there were three imams present (Imams Husain, Imam Ali, Imam Muhammad). This happens with prophets as well. It isn't until the naas is made that the transfer of rights happens.

No, the Shi'as that eventually followed Imam kazim (as) were the majority
You need to read your history books first. The vast majority of muslim in the religion were still sunnis. The largest shiahs were actually Zaydis. In facts the twelver imams at the time started siding with the abbasid caliphs in the 8th and 9th. The first shiah dynasty was the Idrisid of 9th , who were zaydi. The Uqalids and Buyid shifted between twelver and ismaili in the 10 and 11th century. The fatimid ruled during the 10th thru 12th. So no..the majority of shiah were not twelver until the Safavids in the 15ht

You know so little of your history, let alone ismaili history it is sad. For example:
Firstly Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the last imam and al-Qa'im who had gone into ghayba.
Imam Muhammad went into hiding not Imam Qaim. Imam Qaim came out in north africa. But even then we know Imam Muhammad was in farghana, and the next three imams were in syria.

Do you even know what masoom means? Masoom does not mean infalliable! It means innocent. Imams can perform sin and everything else regular people can do. They just choose not to. They choose not to commit sin.

An again, the Ismaili sources state that Imamat was given to Ismail...that is the point. Even the one that say it was given to Musa Kadhim as protection after given to Ismail.

But regarding the extensive display by Imam Jafar Sadiq....what is the point? It was not done to any Imam (twelver or ismaili) in this way. Why would Imam Jafar do this if there was not a real purpose?
Your saying he did it so they would not follow his dead son....that makes no sense, majority of the people he was showing and declaring it with were sunnis (such as the caliph), not shiahs.

Twelver shiahs have hadith saying Musa kadhim appointed. Well of course they would, doesn't mean they are correct, most aren't even sahih. Ismaili have hadith saying Imam Muhammad was appoint, well of course they would also. What is your point?

The ismaili references I quote are from actual books written by the Dai at the time with the Ismaili Imam...not a hadith.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#46

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:23 pm

Br. Kadhim,
Thank your further explaination on twelver hadith books...and your validation of my statement that they need to be validated.
Kitab as Sulam is considered the oldest hadith book, and accourding to sheikh mufid it is considered unreliable. Al Mahasin is from the 8th century is also considered unreliable. The others are from the 9th and 10th century.
As I said, Most of the ahadith in Al-kafi and Primary compilations are considered authentic. Only some few ones are not reliable. We go based on the criteria given to us by the Ahlulbayt (as). This is natural as the circumstances of the times meant that Shia's were living in were very difficult, the narrators themselves were not perfect and sometimes may have misheard certain wordings of ahadith. Even the enemies of the time used to pose as Shias etc.
Your statement regarding hadith books in the ismaili tradition is incorrect. Historical references have hadith and theology books of the Ismaili dated back to the 8th and 9th century. However, majority of these were lost to raids and burning by the sunni because they considered them heresy. Rasa'il Ikhwan al-safa which we do have dates from the 8th century, compiled by the Ismaili Imams in Syria.
Yeah I'm not talking about history or encyclopedia books. I'm talking about proper compilations of hadith. This was not done until the time of Qadhi al-nu'man.

Regarding your statement regarding Qadi Numan, you obviously have read not read his books. Every book he wrote is authorized by the Imam of that time. His chain of narration start with the Imam. Whether they align with shiah or sunni hadith doesn't matter...it would be odd if it didn't. No one has ever said all twelver or sunni hadiths are false or weak and we should not take from them. We take correct sources and knowledge. Ibn Abbas is a reference for all muslims, for example.
So why did he have to rely upon the literary sources available to him? Surely if he was living amongst the Fatimid Caliphs, then he would have just narrated directly from them?
Regarding your statement regarding the naas, it seem you want to ignore the content of hadith altogether and give your spin. The hadith clearly says it was a change by Allah via bada (which does not exist) as an explain for a change in naas. Yes, people thought it, because it happened, and Ali ar Ridha is giving an explanation of why it happens.

Actually I did reference that whole hadith in saying that Ali ar Ridha is saying because Ismail died, imamat was changed via bada from Ismail to Musa. That actually is my point. I am by no means saying it is accurate (ie that it went to Musa) but that the hadith represents how imamat came to Musa.

In your quoted narration it is not such that Ismail was going to be Imam, but then Allah made him die and made Imam Musa kadhim (as) the Imam after Imam al-Sadiq (as), the narration only indicates that there were some people who might have thought that Ismail is the next Imam, but Allah made him pass away so that they realise that he is not an Imam, like it was the case with Abi Ja'far son of Imam Al-Hadi(a.s), he died during the lifetime of his father, so that people who thought he might be the next Imam realise that it is not so.

And please don't make general statement like "oh we have so many hadith conferring naas on Musa...". This is a weak argument.
How so? Do you not consider ahadith/statements from the Imams (as) to be hujjah for you (Naudhubillah)?
You tell me, do you really think it's logical for someone to be an Imam, yet dies during the lifetime of his predecessor?
Why not? Who told you it couldn't happen? Do we not believe that an imam is born an imam? During the the events of Karbala, there were three imams present (Imams Husain, Imam Ali, Imam Muhammad). This happens with prophets as well. It isn't until the naas is made that the transfer of rights happens.
In the lifetime of an Imam, a dead son cannot be an Imam! But a living Imam (as) appoints and introduces the next Imam (as) which the 6th Imam (as) did by appointing his son, Musa ibn Ja'far (as).

But in any case, the divine Imam has to produce divine evidence and the proofs, which should be clear, regardless of what people claim and narrate.

Thanks for mentioning Karbala; if we look towards karbala, two Imams were present in the battlefield. A place where even a 6 month old was killed! Imam sajjad (as) and Imam Baqir (as) remained alive because Imamate had to be continued..

Allah is the one who gives life and death and if Imamate was destined to Hz Ismail, then he would have remained alive. Allah doesn't need to change plan due to death of Hz Ismail.

No, the Shi'as that eventually followed Imam kazim (as) were the majority
You need to read your history books first. The vast majority of muslim in the religion were still sunnis. The largest shiahs were actually Zaydis. In facts the twelver imams at the time started siding with the abbasid caliphs in the 8th and 9th. The first shiah dynasty was the Idrisid of 9th , who were zaydi. The Uqalids and Buyid shifted between twelver and ismaili in the 10 and 11th century. The fatimid ruled during the 10th thru 12th. So no..the majority of shiah were not twelver until the Safavids in the 15ht
I'm not talking about majority of Muslims. I couldn't care less if Sunnis were the majority. Zaydis are irrelevant because they deviated from the right path after following Zayd. I'm talking specifically after the death of Imam Sadiq (as). Majority of Imam (as)'s followers believed in Imam musa kazim (as) as the rightful Imam.
You know so little of your history, let alone ismaili history it is sad. For example:
Firstly Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the last imam and al-Qa'im who had gone into ghayba.
Imam Muhammad went into hiding not Imam Qaim. Imam Qaim came out in north africa. But even then we know Imam Muhammad was in farghana, and the next three imams were in syria.

You clearly haven't read your own history books.

Are you aware of the Qarmatia Saba'iyyah (Seveners)? Are you aware that that originally was the mainstream Ismaili belief, that is, that Muhammad b. Ismail is the Qa'im, that he is in ghayba, and that he will return to rise and fill the Earth with justice.

They rejected 'Abdullah's claim and made war upon him and his son Muhammad al-Qa'im (and his son al-Mansur and grandson al-Mu'izz li deen Allah). In order to integrate the Da'is from the east like Abu Ya'qoob al-Sijistaani, al-Mu'izz integrated the neo-Platonic concepts which by then had become popular amongst the eastern Qarmati Da'wa.
Do you even know what masoom means? Masoom does not mean infalliable! It means innocent. Imams can perform sin and everything else regular people can do. They just choose not to. They choose not to commit sin.
Sure, that's what we also believe. An Imam can perform sins, but they do not do so. Infallible also means impeccable and having flawless characteristics, so that's what I mean.
An again, the Ismaili sources state that Imamat was given to Ismail...that is the point. Even the one that say it was given to Musa Kadhim as protection after given to Ismail.
Yes but you can't just quote random sources without atleast providing the chain of narrators who narrated the hadith. You mentioned yourself that most of the ismaili sources were lost. The early Ismailis did not produce any substantial volume of literature, preferring instead to propagate their doctrines mainly by word of mouth.

So how are you supposed to verify your own hadiths? How are you supposed to verify that particular hadith, in comparison to all other hadiths which clearly mention Musa ibn jafar (as) as the rightful Imam?

The earliest sources of hadith like Kitab sulaym (which is considered very authentic) written at the time of 5 holy Imams (as) mentions the coming of 12 Imams (as) and even mentions their names. The name of Musa ibn jafar (as) is mentioned but not the name of Ismail.
But regarding the extensive display by Imam Jafar Sadiq....what is the point? It was not done to any Imam (twelver or ismaili) in this way. Why would Imam Jafar do this if there was not a real purpose?
Your saying he did it so they would not follow his dead son....that makes no sense, majority of the people he was showing and declaring it with were sunnis (such as the caliph), not shiahs.
It was the duty of Imam sadiq (as) to inform his followers to clear the matter and avoid the confusion which would arise later. Of course, it wasn't done in this way to other Imams (as) because prior to Imam sadiq (as), despite the various splinter groups, the confusion wasn't so much as in comparison to after Imam Ja'far sadiq (as)'s time.

Also, who are we to question Imam (as)'s actions? He does as per the command of Allah (swt).
Twelver shiahs have hadith saying Musa kadhim appointed. Well of course they would, doesn't mean they are correct, most aren't even sahih. Ismaili have hadith saying Imam Muhammad was appoint, well of course they would also. What is your point?

The ismaili references I quote are from actual books written by the Dai at the time with the Ismaili Imam...not a hadith.
I've explained this above already.



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#47

Unread post by husayni » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:51 pm

Br. Kadhim,

Regarding the authenticity of the compilations, actually they are at best 60-70% authentic...and the hadiths are not noted regarding their status (ie sahih, hasan, gharib, dhaif). The general discussion of hadiths to reaffirm the sunna of Rasullah (as) didn't even start until the time of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq....let alone the compilation of hadiths into books. I am not sure what your point is?

Sahih Bukhari dates to 9th century (approx 835).
al Kafi dates to 941
Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih dates to 960; doesn't have many isnads
Most of Qadi Numan books date from 909 to 960. Daimul Islam took 30 yrs to complete in 960.

So they were all compiled around the same time period. Ismaili actually have books that would be classified as hadith books even older, but either didn't survive or only remnants are in hand.

So why did he have to rely upon the literary sources available to him? Surely if he was living amongst the Fatimid Caliphs, then he would have just narrated directly from them?

He did, and that is what I said...what is your point?

In your quoted narration it is not such that Ismail was going to be Imam, but then Allah made him die and made Imam Musa kadhim (as) the Imam after Imam al-Sadiq (as), the narration only indicates that there were some people who might have thought that Ismail is the next Imam, but Allah made him pass away so that they realise that he is not an Imam, like it was the case with Abi Ja'far son of Imam Al-Hadi(a.s), he died during the lifetime of his father, so that people who thought he might be the next Imam realise that it is not so.

I appreciate your comments....but that is not what the hadith specifically says. It says Imam Ismail was given naas and then by bada Allah changed to Musa Khadim.

How so? Do you not consider ahadith/statements from the Imams (as) to be hujjah for you (Naudhubillah)?

I do, but I also wrote that you have them...and so do we. You also have hadiths saying Imam Ismail was given naas.

In the lifetime of an Imam, a dead son cannot be an Imam! But a living Imam (as) appoints and introduces the next Imam (as) which the 6th Imam (as) did by appointing his son, Musa ibn Ja'far (as).

Where is this from?? Don't make up things that don't exist.

Thanks for mentioning Karbala; if we look towards karbala, two Imams were present in the battlefield. A place where even a 6 month old was killed! Imam sajjad (as) and Imam Baqir (as) remained alive because Imamate had to be continued..

The point of the karbala reference was that you can have mutilple imam present at any one time. According to one historical account, Imam Ismail did naas to Imam Muhammad and sent him to Farghana; so it doesn't matter if Imam Jafar, Imam Ismail and Imam Muhammad are alive during the same time. According to another historical account, Imam Ismail was seen in Basra, a month after the supposed burial of Imam Ismail in Medina.

Allah is the one who gives life and death and if Imamate was destined to Hz Ismail, then he would have remained alive. Allah doesn't need to change plan due to death of Hz Ismail.

Again, while in principle I believe Allah can do all things, when naas is given, Allah has not in the past just given it back to the previous imam to be reassigned.

I'm talking specifically after the death of Imam Sadiq (as). Majority of Imam (as)'s followers believed in Imam musa kazim (as) as the rightful Imam.
My point was that after Imam Sadiq, the majority shiah were Zaidi...not twelver. The next were Ismaili...not twelver.

Are you aware of the Qarmatia Saba'iyyah (Seveners)? Are you aware that that originally was the mainstream Ismaili belief, that is, that Muhammad b. Ismail is the Qa'im, that he is in ghayba, and that he will return to rise and fill the Earth with justice.

Actually no, the mainstream Ismaili didn't follow the Sabaiyahs. The dais were in contact with the Imams in salamiya syria during this time.

The Qarmatian followed the Imams in salamiya, but didn't want to follow Imams Qaim and Madhi in africa because they had a fiefdom in eastern arabia and didn't want to give up power to Imam Mahdi in africa.

Alot of orientalist like to say Ismaili theology adopted neo-platonic concept...this is blantantly false if learn what plato teachings are.

Yes but you can't just quote random sources without atleast providing the chain of narrators who narrated the hadith. You mentioned yourself that most of the ismaili sources were lost. The early Ismailis did not produce any substantial volume of literature, preferring instead to propagate their doctrines mainly by word of mouth.

I am not just quoting random sources...I am quoting from Ismaili sources such as Uyunul akbar by Syedna Idris, Asrar Nutqa by Syedna Ja‘far b. Mansur al-Yemen. Most of the ismaili sources from the late 8th century were lost... but not all of them. And as noted above, we have very authentic sources from the 9th century onward.

The earliest sources of hadith like Kitab sulaym (which is considered very authentic) written at the time of 5 holy Imams (as) mentions the coming of 12 Imams (as) and even mentions their names. The name of Musa ibn jafar (as) is mentioned but not the name of Ismail.
But it is considered NOT AUTHENTIC by your own scholars such as shk mufid!!

It was the duty of Imam sadiq (as) to inform his followers to clear the matter and avoid the confusion which would arise later. Of course, it wasn't done in this way to other Imams (as) because prior to Imam sadiq (as), despite the various splinter groups, the confusion wasn't so much as in comparison to after Imam Ja'far sadiq (as)'s time.

But he did this for the sunnis, not the shiah....so what was the point? Public display of Imam Ismail for 3 days....this is unheard of....unless he had a specific motive. One Ismaili historical account states this motive was to draw harm away from Imam Ismail by display his other son Abdullah (who looked exactly like Ismail) who actulally died. This would also explain why Imam Ismail was seen in Basra after the funeral.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#48

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:10 am

Br. Kadhim,

Regarding the authenticity of the compilations, actually they are at best 60-70% authentic...and the hadiths are not noted regarding their status (ie sahih, hasan, gharib, dhaif). The general discussion of hadiths to reaffirm the sunna of Rasullah (as) didn't even start until the time of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq....let alone the compilation of hadiths into books. I am not sure what your point is?
My point was that the recording and writing of ahadith was very early amongst the Shi'a community and was ordered during the time of the Imams (as), despite the various pressures during the Ummayad and Abbasid Empires. But despite the all the difficulties the Shia narrators ad faced, they had compiled many books of hadith.

Kitaab sulaym is the first Shia book of hadith which has survived till this day and you keep quoting Al-mufid, but seem to disregard all the other scholars that have commented and deem the book to be authentic. I shall expand on al-Mufid's point below Insha'Allah.

Sahifa al-sajjadiya is another book which was compiled during the lifetime of Imam sajjad (as) which has survived till today.

Of all these books, the narrations of all these students of the Imams (as) came into books also known as Al-Osoulul-Arba'a Me'ah' (the four Hundred Origins). These books contained ahadith that the narrators had directly narrated from the Imams (as). These 400 were amongst the main sources that were used to compile Al-Mahasin, Al-Kafi and Man la yahdhuruhu faqih.

Also we don't determine the authenticity of hadith based on Ilm-e-rijaal - this is a sunni concept which unfortunately found it's way into Shias.

------------------

The early Ismailis did not produce anything substantial volume of literature. The modern rediscovery of Ismail literature only confirms this suspicion. The early Ismailis only produced a few treatises at best which only circulated amongst the most trusted members.

There was no such thing as Ismaili law in the pre-Fatimid era and it was only during the fatimid caliphate that the Da'is at the time that codified this.

Only a few works of a historical nature have come to light in the modern discovery of Ismaili textual material including Qadhi Nu'mans book called Iftitah al-da'wa which was compiled in year 346 A.H - This is the EARLIEST KNOWN historical work in Ismaili literature.

Al-kafi was written before 328 A.H. (The year when Sheikh al-kulayni died) so definitely not compiled around the same time period!



He narrates absolutely nothing from the fatimid caliphs. I have a copy of Da'im al-islam and there is nothing in there narrated from the the then current Imam, the fatimid calipha. If he had viewed that the Fatimid khalifa's fatwa were at the same level as the earlier Imams then surely he would have put them on his books!


The hadith mentions absolutely nothing to do with nass. But for the sake of argument if we were to accept the hadith as you say, that Isma'il was appointed and take this as Bad'a then Allah (swt) cannot be questioned!

Why did he change something? Like 30 days were increased to 40 days for Prophet Musa (as), because Allah (Swt) wanted to test them and it's not Allah (swt) who changed; as the circumstances had changed or new information became available - all these are for the creatures.

I've mentioned that a dead son cannot be an actual Imam during the lifetime of a living Imam. Ismail died whilst Imam sadiq (as) was still alive and Imam sadiq (as) was the Imam of the time so the Imamate could not have transferred onto Ismail!

The literal definition of an Imam is a leader and the definition of a wasi is the executor of the will, yet Isma'il did none of these things and there is hardly anything about his life that would suggest he is the real Imam.

When we look at the meaning of bad'a - It is used about Allah (swt) without implying any chance of mind out of ignorance or weakness and thus as a Shi'a belief, it means that Allah (swt) reveals for the people facts that were hidden from then such that they expected otherwise.

There are no ahadith in any of the books of hadith that mention Isma'il was ever appointed.


Because Isma'il never assumed the role of the Imam during his lfietime. Neither did he claim Imamah for himself or his descendants. The fact that he died during the lifetime of the actual Imam (as) only confirms this.

The Ismaili argument just has no weight all and have to give roundabout explanations of why a dead person could still be an Imam (leader) and a wasi (successor) even though none of these were carried out.

His death was only a confirmation of him not succeeding, but even if we look before that at the glimpses of the lifestyle of Isma'il, then he was most certainly not the real Imam - Being popular among the radical Shias and closely associated with them. Imam sadiq (as) didn't approve of these people. Also being involved in a militant anti-regime plot in collaboration with several others (Inc Bassam b. AbdAllah al-sayrafi, another extremist Shia. Imam sadiq (as) expressed his strong disapproval of Isma'ils activities.

This is more than sufficient to show that Imam sadiq (as) could never appoint this son as an Imam, someone to lead and guide the Shia community.


Your understanding of the concept of Imamate is totally wrong - Imam sajjad (as) and Imam baqir (as) were certainly there but they never assumed the Imamate until their respective times! Imam sajjad (as) became the Actual Imam only when Imam husayn (as) declared his nass on him! Otherwise the Imam at present was of course still Imam husayn (as).

The hadith says 'Wa lam ya'rif Imame zamaanihi maata meetatal jaahiliya' - The one who fails to recognise the IMAM OF HIS TIME (Not IMAMS) will die the death of jahiliyya.

Before you go onto Muhammad bin Isma'il, the Imamate of Ismail still needs to be established!


There is no established nass for Ismail. Even if there was one, then Allah can do what he likes, whatever happened in the past or not.



Go read up the early history of the Ismailis. The majority of the nascent Ismailis were indeed Qaramitas and didn't recognise any of the Imams after Muhammad bin Ismail. This is what the pre-fatimid Isma'ili da'wat taught, that there were only seven Imams. This was propagated until one of the Da'is by the name of Sa'id b. Al-Husayn, claimed that he was the Imam himself, claiming descent from Muhammad bin Ismail. This split the da'wat into those who thought this was nonsense, and held onto the seven-imam theory (The qaramita), and those who followed Sa'id. To explain the discrepancy, the da`wat then explained that the whole thing about Muhammad b. Isma'il had really just been a ruse to throw off their enemies, and that he was more a symbol of the general rising of the imams (i.e. Sa'id b. al-Husayn and so on.).

Sa'id, aka 'Ubaydullah al-Mahdi, through the missionary work of Abu 'Abdullah ash-Shi'i established himself in North Africa (leading to the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty. Abu 'Abdillah however after his work for him, was disappointed with his erstwhile master and fell out from him, and was put to death.)


These pro fatimi books were compiled much later on so it's hardly a suprise that they would insert such things. You aren't able to quote me multiple ahadith in Arabic with it's chain of narrators about the appointment of Ismail because they simply do not exist in any of the earlier books of hadith.




Firstly, Sheikh mufid confirms the content of the narration which Saduq also narrated (Hadith number 10 of kitab sulaym). Please read the hadith below:

In Hadeeth # 10 the Commander of the Faithful (a.s) says: I said: "O Prophet of Allah (saw), please tell me their names." He replied: "My, this son (he kept his hand on Hassan's (a.s) head), then after him my this son (and he kept his hand on the head of Hussain (a.s)) and then my this son's son (again he put his hand on Hussain's (a.s) head), then his son whose name will be same as mine, whose name will be Muhammad. He will spread my knowledge and he will be the treasurer of Allah's (swt) Message and O my brother, Alee (a.s) will be born soon during your life time so give him my Salaam."

Then he turned to Hussain (a.s) and said: "Very soon Muhammad ibn Alee (a.s) will be born in your life time – give him my Salaam." Then, O brother, the rest of the twelve Imams in your children" (i.e. twelve Imams including Alee (a.s).) Then I asked: "O Messenger of Allah (saw), tell me the names of all." So he (saw) uttered the name of each one individually.

So O brother of Bani Hilal, By God, the Mahdi (Guide) of this Ummah will be he who will fill this earth with justice and peace in the same manner that it is full of oppression and tyranny. By God, I know all of them who will pay him allegiance in between Rukn-Makam (place between Hajre Aswad and Makame Ibraheem), and I know their names and their tribe."

Fadhl ibn Shazaan in Mukhtasar Ithbatul Raj'ah and Al-Sadooq in Al-I'tiqadaat have narrated this Hadeeth in the exact form by mentioning the names of the Imams one by one and this is its text: The Commander of the Faithful (a.s) said: "O Messenger of Allah (saw), name them to me. He said: "You, O Alee (a.s), then this, my son" - and he put his hand on the head of Hassan (a.s). "And then this, my son" - and he put his hand on the head of Hussain (a.s).

"Then your namesake, O brother, he is the leader of the devotees; then his son, named Muhammad (a.s), the Opener (Baqir) of my knowledge, and the treasurer of the inspiration of Allah (swt). O brother, Alee (a.s) (Zayn ul-Abideen) will be born in your lifetime, so give my greetings to him. And Muhammad (a.s) (Al-Baqir) will be born in your lifetime, O Hussain (a.s), so give my greetings to him. And then Ja'far (a.s) (As-Sadiq); then Musa (Al-Kadhim) b. Ja'far (a.s); then Alee (Ar-Ridha) b. Musa (a.s); then Muhammad (At-Taqi) b. Alee (a.s); then Alee (An-Naqi) b. Muhammad (a.s); then Hassan Az-Zaki (Al-Askari) b. Alee (a.s); then he, whose name is my name and whose colour is my colour, - The upholder of the Command of Allah (swt) (Al-Qa'im Bi-Amri L-lah) in the final era, the Righteous Guide, WHO WILL FILL THE EARTH WITH JUSTICE AND EQUITY, JUST AS NOW IT IS FULL OF OPPRESSION AND WRONG. I swear by Allah (swt) O Sulaym! That people will swear allegiance to him between the Pillar (Rukn) and the Place (Maqam), and I know the names of the people who will support him and I know their tribes."
[Pg. # 627 of the Book of Sulaym]

The above famous narration which has been narrated through many of the great scholars , like Fadhl ibn Shazaan, Al-Saffar, Al-Kulayni, Al-Nu'mani etc. and the trust of all these great scholars of hadith on this great book refutes this general objection of Sheikh mufid, whose main expertise is not in hadith, but rather in theology (Aqida).

Secondly, Al-mufid generalizes his objection saying that the book has been altered and changed, without giving any reference as to what has been altered or changed, so this kind of general statement is of no value in such matters, especially when he himself narrates from the same book and then states that we should refer to scholars in order to distinguish the sound narrations from the spurious, and I'm more than happy to provide you with the statements of the classical scholars who authenticated the book and it's narrators.



Alright, so let me accept the for the sake of argument what you say is correct, that Hazrat Ismail was the Imam and only his imamate was correct. If this is true, then Imam sadiq (as) has himself become responsible for this mess and on the day of judgement, the Ismaili Shia and the Ithna Ashari Shias will ask the Imam (as): Where do we go now!?

According to ahadith and traditions on this matter, when the bier of Ismail was being taken to the Baqi graveyard, Imam Ja’far Sadiq
(a.s.) halted the funeral procession at THREE different places on the way and removing the shroud from the face of Ismail told the people: See, this is my son, Ismail who is dead and this is his corpse. At that time some special Shia companions and prominent personalities asked, “O Master! What are you trying to explain by this?” The Holy Imam (a.s.) replied, “You don’t know what I am aware of Some people would make a false propaganda about this son of mine and claim that he was an Imam."

It could not have been Abdullah because the ahadith such as the above and all major historians confirm that it was indeed Ismail that was being buried.

And of course this tradition became true & is what actually happened , A group came into being after the death of Ismail who claimed that Ismail was an Imam.

According to statements by the historians, they confirm that he died during the lifetime of his father and that he was buried in Madina, so how can he appear in Basra after his death!?

In other words you are telling me that his body was left in the public for 3 days by Imam sadiq (as), that he didn't really die but then disappeared off to Basra!?


I ask Allah (swt) to guide us to the straight path. I also highly recommend you to research further into this and especially about the Imamate of Imam musa al-kadhim (as). You will realise by reading his biography that this was the true Imam after as-Sadiq (as).

I too followed the Ismaili Bohra path previously, but after much research, Allah (swt) opened my heart and allowed me to follow the Shia ithna 'ashari school of thought. Thousands of other Ismaili Bohras have too seen the light and are accepting the true Shia'ism in large numbers.



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#49

Unread post by husayni » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:07 am

Br. Khadim,
Eid Mubarak. Thank you for your responses. I would like to respond to in order, but your reply was long so I apologize if I miss something.

Firstly, hadith recording based on the historical information we have started during in the 3rd AH/9th CE based on both shiah and sunni references in general. Kitab Sulaym is dated based on itself only being from the time of Maulana Ali, 1st AH/8th CE. The problem with this that there is very little evidence historically to provide the validity for the hadith by rijal or context. the oldest copy we have in existence is from the 17th CE. While some of the contents "may be" valid, there are definitely portion that are not. This is the problem the scholars have with it and standing behind it.

Shk Mufid states "This book (Kitab Sulaym) is not reliable, and it is not permissible to act upon most of it, and confusion and tadlees has occurred in it, so the pious should not act upon everything that that is in it (at all), and not rely on what is written in it or imitate its narrations." "Then, he goes on to say how the scholars should separate the saheeh from the fasid. So he doesn't believe that everything in it is false, and that what is authentic should be separated from what is false." Tasheeh al-I'tiqaadaat al Imamiyyah, page 149. Shk Mufid writes this in the 11th CE about Shk Saduq's book Itiqādāt written in 10th CE.

Many shiah scholars do consider it authentic partially...but they have very little to hold support to their belief...especially when major scholars from the 10th and 11th CE didn't consider it authentic.

To say Shk Mufid was just a theologian is a little strange. He was taught the Islamic science of hadith by Shk Saduq, the writer of the second most twelver hadith book Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih.

Ilm-e-rijal is definitely part of both sunni and shiah hadith classification. Shiah differ in that we accept the source as the Rasullah and down to the Imams...not just their companions (which is a sunni idiom). We hold it against the quran and aql primary.

Regarding ismaili sources, I quoted actual dates when the books both twelver and ismaili were written...what did you miss? And to say The early Ismailis did not produce anything substantial volume of literature. is just pure ignorance of what is actually there. Even your reference dates are incorrect.

-Iftitah al dawa was compiled over the last 50 yrs of Qadi Numan's life. It was started in 296 AH/907 CE roughly, the establishment of the fatimid state in afrikiya. This is NOT the earliest ismaili book. Daimul Islam was had two larger versions before the final version in 960 CE. He died in 363 AH/974 CE). In addition, he compiled al-Majalis wal Musayarat during the same periods.
-Rasial Ikwan as'Safa dates from the Ismaili Imams of salamiya Syria roughly 790 and 840 CE. This is 100 years before al Kafi!
-Sirat Ibn Hawshab by Jaafar bin Mansur al-Yamen is dated between 920 CE and 970 CE.

Yes you are right, al Kafi dates to 328 AH...which is 941 CE, which is what I quoted. The next twelver book Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih dates to 960 CE and doesn't have many isnads.

According to just these comparisons, Ismaili books are older that twelver books.

You wrote:
He narrates absolutely nothing from the fatimid caliphs. I have a copy of Da'im al-islam and there is nothing in there narrated from the the then current Imam, the fatimid calipha. If he had viewed that the Fatimid khalifa's fatwa were at the same level as the earlier Imams then surely he would have put them on his books!

Daimul Islam was officialized by Imam Muizz in 349 AH/960 CE. Qadi Numan sat with Imam Muizz during a period of 30 years to compile the final. The hadiths isnads are to the source. It might Imam Jafar or Imam Baqir or Rasuallah. All are accepted.
To think the Qadi Numan took nothing from the Fatimid Imams is just not knowing anything related to Qadi Numan. He followed 4 imams, from being a dai to the position of qadi qudat and dai duat. He has letters begging the Imam to give him advancement to be nearer to them to learn. Each khutbah he gave during the public majalis were reviewed and officialized by the Imam az'Zaman (whether Imam Mansur or Muizz).

You wrote: The hadith mentions absolutely nothing to do with nass. But for the sake of argument if we were to accept the hadith as you say, that Isma'il was appointed and take this as Bad'a then Allah (swt) cannot be questioned!

I agree...but it does attest that naas was made to Imam Ismail. Imam Jafar sadiq cannot then change the imamat, because he is not the Imam anymore to give naas anymore, Imam Ismail is.

And when the Command of God came to him [Imam Ja‘far] to hand over [his high office], he summoned his dignitaries and specially deserving followers, just as it was done by other Imams and Prophets before him, and handed over his authority to his son Isma‘il, by the Command of God and His inspiration of him, making them witnesses of this, his appointment. Thus, Isma‘il became the Gate to God (bab Allah) and His prayer niche (mihrab), the repository of His Light, the link between Him and His creatures – both we and you admit this. And then his body was caused to disappear during the lifetime of his father, as a mystery, intended to protect him from his enemies, and as a test for his followers.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.

We narrate [the tradition] (rawayna) and you narrate [the tradition] (rawaytum) that when [Isma‘il] the son of the Imam [Ja‘far] completed seven years of age, the Master (sahib) of the Time (waqt) declared him (‘arafa-hu) the Master of Religion (sahib al-din) and his heir apparent among sons. And he guarded him from his other of his sons, kept him away from the contact with the public, and his education went on under his own supervision.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.

These hold that Ismā‘il was the designated Imām after Ja‘far, as the sons of Ja’far also agreed.
Abd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī.

You wrote: Because Isma'il never assumed the role of the Imam during his lfietime. Neither did he claim Imamah for himself or his descendants. The fact that he died during the lifetime of the actual Imam (as) only confirms this.

Where do you get the abilities to make these statements from....do you just make them up as you go along. What evidence do you have that he didn't claim imamate? According to twelver hadiths...Imam Jafar pleaded and made dua for Ismail to be made Imam. Do you think Allah denies his representatives dua...where is our belief in shifaa of our ahlul bayt!!!

...Abū ‘Abdullāh had intense love, affection, and devotion for him, and the people believed that he would be the al-qā’im after him, and that he would be his successor. This was because he was the eldest of the brothers, as well as his father’s intense inclination towards him, and the great nobility which his father bestowed upon him.
Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar Al-Anwar 47:246.

You wrote: Imam sajjad (as) and Imam baqir (as) were certainly there but they never assumed the Imamate until their respective times!

I agree, so how can imam jafar give naas to ismail, which the hadith confirms, and then imam jafar change....imam jafar cannot change because it is not his authority to change....ismail is the imam with claim. Imam ismail is the only one that can give naas for the next imam.
In your example, imam sajjad was imam and imam baqir was not. When imam baqir was given naas, imam sajjad cannot pick imam jafar as the next imam after imam baqir...only imam baqir can.

And then regarding Imam Muhammad bin Ismail:

Isma‘il never left this world without leaving in his stead his son, who was of mature age, and that the Imamat had been handed over to him by the Command of God, and His inspiration of him. And that he, Isma‘il b. Ja‘far, when the desire of God became known to him, received an inspiration to hand over the authority to his son Muhammad. He then summoned the dignitaries, and those specially trusted amongst his followers, and handed it over to him in the presence of the chosen ones alone, in secret, in order not to expose him to danger…He, Muhammad b. Isma‘il, was at that time a grown up, 14 years of age. At such age witness is acceptable from a man, according to law. He [Imam Isma‘il] did this in anticipation of the calamities and the attack of the infidels which were to befall him.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.

When Imam Jafar died, imam Muhammad was approx. 25 yrs old, and 8-10 yrs older than musa khadim. By designated right to Imam ismail son, Imam Muhammad would have been Imam Ismail's successor, not to his brother musa. Going to Musa would make sense if Ismail had no children (he had two sons though); it makes even less sense because imam Muhammad was older than Musa also.

Regarding the sects...I actually quoted the actual history of the groups. I suggest you read. You seem to like reading snippets of information without knowing the full story.

For instance, the seventh imam followers (ie they stopped following after the 7th imam) are called the Sabiayah (Seveners). The Qarmatian followed the hidden imams in salamiyya Syria, but broke away when Imam Qaim (the 11th imam) came to Yemen and then afrikiyah.

Also, Dai Abu Abdullah started in yemen and moved to afrikiya and helped convert and conquer the berber and kutama tribe of north Africa and had rulership. When ready, he called imam qaim to afrikiya to rule. Imam qaim and abu Abdullah fought many battles together. During the time of imam madhi, however, his brother Abu Abbas convinced Abu Abdullah that they didn't want to give up power over the clans and conspired to kill Imam Madhi. Imam Mahdi called for their execution, but praised Abu Abdillah and did not speak ill of him. The pro fatimid book that write this stuff is iftitah ad'dawa by qadi numan in 907 CE.

I ask muslims to get all the facts...not the spin of their version of facts. You say twelvers are the right path....which one version of the twelvers. There are as many differences between the Marjah tariqahs in usul and fiqh as the 4 sunni madhabs have. Do you really know the true beliefs of the twelvers, or just what you think it is in your false bubble?



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#50

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:16 pm

Br. Khadim,
Eid Mubarak. Thank you for your responses. I would like to respond to in order, but your reply was long so I apologize if I miss something.
Khayr Mubarak Br Husayni. One thing I will say is that I've quite liked this discussion in comparison to the discussions I've had with the OP of this thread, although I massively disagree with some of your claims. May I ask where abouts you are from?
Firstly, hadith recording based on the historical information we have started during in the 3rd AH/9th CE based on both shiah and sunni references in general. Kitab Sulaym is dated based on itself only being from the time of Maulana Ali, 1st AH/8th CE. The problem with this that there is very little evidence historically to provide the validity for the hadith by rijal or context. the oldest copy we have in existence is from the 17th CE. While some of the contents "may be" valid, there are definitely portion that are not. This is the problem the scholars have with it and standing behind it.

Shk Mufid states "This book (Kitab Sulaym) is not reliable, and it is not permissible to act upon most of it, and confusion and tadlees has occurred in it, so the pious should not act upon everything that that is in it (at all), and not rely on what is written in it or imitate its narrations." "Then, he goes on to say how the scholars should separate the saheeh from the fasid. So he doesn't believe that everything in it is false, and that what is authentic should be separated from what is false." Tasheeh al-I'tiqaadaat al Imamiyyah, page 149. Shk Mufid writes this in the 11th CE about Shk Saduq's book Itiqādāt written in 10th CE.

Many shiah scholars do consider it authentic partially...but they have very little to hold support to their belief...especially when major scholars from the 10th and 11th CE didn't consider it authentic.

To say Shk Mufid was just a theologian is a little strange. He was taught the Islamic science of hadith by Shk Saduq, the writer of the second most twelver hadith book Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih.
Kitab Sulaym was compiled shortly after the Shahadat of RasoolAllah (saws). Sulaym has seen the lifetime of 5 Masoom Imams, including Imam Ali (as), Imam Hassan (as), Imam Hussain (as), Imam Sajjad (as) and Imam Baqir (as).

We also have ahadith from Imam sadiq (as) and Imam Sajjad (as) confirming the validity of this book. For example:

Imam Ja'far ibn Muhammad Al-Sadiq (a.s) said: "Whoever of our Shi'a and Lovers does not have the Book of Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali, he has nothing of our affairs and he does not know any of our events, and this book is the Alphabet of the Shi'a and a secret of the secrets of the family of Muhammad (saw)."

Looking at it from all angles, there is plenty of evidence that the book of Sulaym is one of the oldest and greatest of those Usool which the Shi'a would act and rely upon a long time before the birth of our Twelfth Imam (as).

From a narrators persepctive, you do realise that among the narrators who have narrated the Book of Sulaym are five companions of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) who are of the 'As'haab Al-Ijmaa.'

- The Book of Sulaym was presented to the Imams (a.s) by the author Sulaym himself, then after his death by Aban ibn Abi Ayyash, the narrator from Sulaym, and also through other companions of Ahlulbayt (a.s).

- Plus in regards to Al-Mufeed's view, I've already mentioned hadith number 10 of the book which al-Mufeed himself narrates and testifies to it's content.

I find it amusing that you’ve just disregarded what the most classical scholars of Hadith (those who came before Al-mufeed) have said in regards to Kitab Sulaym and just seem to push the view of Shk al-Mufeed because knowing that the book is authentic, it automatically shatters the basis of the whole Ismaili sect because of the narrations of the 12 successors (as).

We are not bound by the view of Sheikh mufeed either. The ahadith on Kitab sulaym are sufficient for us to act upon as we know the earliest Shia before the 12th Imam (as) did this too.

Attestation of Al-Nu'mani for the Book of Sulaym:

Muhammad bin Ibraheem bin Ja'far Al-Nu'mani (Died. 360 A.H.):

There is no dispute among the Shi'a that the book of Sulaym bin Qays Al-Hilali is considered as one of the biggest books of Usool of the doctrine of the Shi'a that has been narrated by scholars and the carriers of the narrations of Ahlulbayt(a.s) and one of the oldest of those Usool. All that is mentioned in this Asl has been narrated from the Prophet (saw), Imam Alee (a.s), Al-Miqdad (r.a), Salman Al-Farsi (r.a), Aboo Dharr (r.a) and their likes, who have accompanied the Prophet (saw) and Amir ul Mo'mineen (a.s). It is one of the Usool that the Shi'a have depended on and referred to.
However we have narrated from this book and other books some of what has been mentioned from the Messenger of Allah (saw) that the Imams are twelve and his (saw) nomination of them and repetition of mentioning their number and his(saw) statement: "verily the Imams are from the descendants of Al-Husain(a.s), they are nine and the ninth one of them is their Qa'im (atfj) and he is their manifestation and secret and their superior." and this ends every argument and destroys every objection and nullifies the false claim of every falsifier and exposes every innovator and shows the deviancy of every liar and it is an explicit proof about the authenticity of this number, no one of those false claimants, who claim to be Shia and Shia are innocent of them, are not able to present for the authenticity of their claims something like this(i.e. the Book of Sulaym) and they can't find it in any of the book of Usool that Shia refer to and neither in other authentic narrations, And praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.


Beside that we see that the scholars of Hadeeth of Aammah (i.e. the so called Ahl As-Sunnah) have also narrated through different chains that the Imams are twelve. We mention them in the following chapter as they have reached us for further emphasis and as an argument over our opponents and the doubters, to say that we have not limited ourselves in this regard to the narrations of Shia only, so that someone of the people who reads this book who has a brain and can distinguish, may recognize the truth and follow it.

Source: Al-Ghaybah Al-Nu'mani. Pg. # 64 - 65.

Shaykh Nu'mani was a student of Shaykh al-kulayni and was considered one of the giant scholars of his time!

Also, it is not just Shi'a but scholars of the opposing faction (sunnis) have also testified to the validity of Kitab sulaym!
Ilm-e-rijal is definitely part of both sunni and shiah hadith classification. Shiah differ in that we accept the source as the Rasullah and down to the Imams...not just their companions (which is a sunni idiom). We hold it against the quran and aql primary.
It is not. Ilm-e-rijaal is a sunni invention which came much later on found it's way into Shiaism.
Regarding ismaili sources, I quoted actual dates when the books both twelver and ismaili were written...what did you miss? And to say The early Ismailis did not produce anything substantial volume of literature. is just pure ignorance of what is actually there. Even your reference dates are incorrect.

-Iftitah al dawa was compiled over the last 50 yrs of Qadi Numan's life. It was started in 296 AH/907 CE roughly, the establishment of the fatimid state in afrikiya. This is NOT the earliest ismaili book. Daimul Islam was had two larger versions before the final version in 960 CE. He died in 363 AH/974 CE). In addition, he compiled al-Majalis wal Musayarat during the same periods.
-Rasial Ikwan as'Safa dates from the Ismaili Imams of salamiya Syria roughly 790 and 840 CE. This is 100 years before al Kafi!
-Sirat Ibn Hawshab by Jaafar bin Mansur al-Yamen is dated between 920 CE and 970 CE.

Yes you are right, al Kafi dates to 328 AH...which is 941 CE, which is what I quoted. The next twelver book Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih dates to 960 CE and doesn't have many isnads.

According to just these comparisons, Ismaili books are older that twelver books.
It is not so much the importance of when the books were compiled, but on what basis these books were compiled. The Original Shia Imamis started writing down and collecting hadith from the time of the early Imams. It is these original sources that were directly narrated by the companions of our Imams (a.s) verbatim, or through one or perhaps at maximum two intermediaries, these original written books are called 'Asl' (Usool in plural).


Iftitah al-dawa was completed completed in 346/957 and it is indeed the earliest known historical work in Ismaili literature.

Ikhwan al-safa is not a book of hadith. It is a book based on the influence of Neoplatonism which Ismailis started to adopt. There is alot of controversy around the authorship and date of the epistles. Most scholars are actually of the opinions that the Ikhwan safa was actually produced in Secret in the city of Basra by some learned Ismailis. Even the the Rasa'il did not represent the official view of the Fatimid state at the time and went far astray from the tenets of Fatimi ismailism!

Kitab al-kafi is not the first book of hadith, get your facts straight. We regard Kitab sulaym as the first major book of hadith.

None of these Ismaili books apart from the collections of Qadhi Numan are of any real significance and they are certainly not books of hadith.
You wrote:
He narrates absolutely nothing from the fatimid caliphs. I have a copy of Da'im al-islam and there is nothing in there narrated from the the then current Imam, the fatimid calipha. If he had viewed that the Fatimid khalifa's fatwa were at the same level as the earlier Imams then surely he would have put them on his books!

Daimul Islam was officialized by Imam Muizz in 349 AH/960 CE. Qadi Numan sat with Imam Muizz during a period of 30 years to compile the final. The hadiths isnads are to the source. It might Imam Jafar or Imam Baqir or Rasuallah. All are accepted.
To think the Qadi Numan took nothing from the Fatimid Imams is just not knowing anything related to Qadi Numan. He followed 4 imams, from being a dai to the position of qadi qudat and dai duat. He has letters begging the Imam to give him advancement to be nearer to them to learn. Each khutbah he gave during the public majalis were reviewed and officialized by the Imam az'Zaman (whether Imam Mansur or Muizz).
This is correct for the most part, Though it is still a Mystery why Qadhi Numan never narrated any hadiths from the Ismaili Imams after Imam sadiq (as). Nu'man even quotes opinions of the Alids from the Zaydi school (Not recognised by the either the Imamis or Ismailis).

The real question arises as to why The fatimid caliphs didn't just narrate the ahadiths themselves to Nu'man. Why didn't he quote directly from them? Why did he have to use the Hadith books of the Imamis and Zaydis to compile the Ismailis OWN OFFICIAL BOOK OF ISLAMIC LAW!? Were the Fatimid khalifas too busy ruling the state?
You wrote: The hadith mentions absolutely nothing to do with nass. But for the sake of argument if we were to accept the hadith as you say, that Isma'il was appointed and take this as Bad'a then Allah (swt) cannot be questioned!

I agree...but it does attest that naas was made to Imam Ismail. Imam Jafar sadiq cannot then change the imamat, because he is not the Imam anymore to give naas anymore, Imam Ismail is.
It doesn't state nass for crying out loud. Please stop misinterpreting the hadiths according to your own desires. If we read the hadith closely in Arabic, it doesn't mention anything clearly about the Bada in respect of Imamate.

The arabic says: kashafa (reveal) bihi (by it) an haalihi (the situation)

The Bada' here was about the death of Ismail, as there are other hadiths that Imam sadiq (as) wanted Ismail to live a bit longer, which he did, but then was eventually taken away by Allah (swt), so that by the passing away of Ismail the true state of affairs would be revealed.


And when the Command of God came to him [Imam Ja‘far] to hand over [his high office], he summoned his dignitaries and specially deserving followers, just as it was done by other Imams and Prophets before him, and handed over his authority to his son Isma‘il, by the Command of God and His inspiration of him, making them witnesses of this, his appointment. Thus, Isma‘il became the Gate to God (bab Allah) and His prayer niche (mihrab), the repository of His Light, the link between Him and His creatures – both we and you admit this. And then his body was caused to disappear during the lifetime of his father, as a mystery, intended to protect him from his enemies, and as a test for his followers.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.

We narrate [the tradition] (rawayna) and you narrate [the tradition] (rawaytum) that when [Isma‘il] the son of the Imam [Ja‘far] completed seven years of age, the Master (sahib) of the Time (waqt) declared him (‘arafa-hu) the Master of Religion (sahib al-din) and his heir apparent among sons. And he guarded him from his other of his sons, kept him away from the contact with the public, and his education went on under his own supervision.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.
Yeah these statements are merely opinions, but not actual statements of nass. Stating that the nass occurred is one thing, but providing the actual nass (i.e. Hadiths with chain of narrators) is another which is what we require. Ja'far ibn Mansur was an Ismaili author who was in the court of the Fatimids, so it's no real suprise him saying these things. He makes excuses for the clear apparent death of Ismail and claims that he disappeared into hiding, not at all suprising.
These hold that Ismā‘il was the designated Imām after Ja‘far, as the sons of Ja’far also agreed.
Abd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī.
What does a sunni scholar have to do with anything when he doesn't even believe in Imamate? On the contrary I can quote you quotations from the most Prominent Sunni scholars that regard Imam Musa al-kadhim (as) as the 7th successor of the Prophet (saws) and how he was the best person of his time:

Ibn Hajar al-'Asqelani says;

"Musa b. Ja'far b. Muhammed b. 'Ali b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali, Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi, better known as al-Kazim is very truthful
and worshipful; he is of the seventh class." - Al-Taqreeb, p. 366.

Ahmed Bin Hajar al-Haythemi:

"Musa al-Kazim inherited his father's sciences, knowledge, perfection, and excellence. He was called al-Kazim due to his too much pardon and clemency. He was well known among the people of Iraq as the Gate through whom Allah grants needs (Baab Qada' al-Hawaa'ijj 'Inda Allah). He was the most worshipful of the people of his time, the most knowledgeable and generous of them." - Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, p. 121.


You wrote: Because Isma'il never assumed the role of the Imam during his lfietime. Neither did he claim Imamah for himself or his descendants. The fact that he died during the lifetime of the actual Imam (as) only confirms this.

Where do you get the abilities to make these statements from....do you just make them up as you go along. What evidence do you have that he didn't claim imamate? According to twelver hadiths...Imam Jafar pleaded and made dua for Ismail to be made Imam. Do you think Allah denies his representatives dua...where is our belief in shifaa of our ahlul bayt!!!
What sound evidence do you have that he did claim Imamah? The proof is upon you to produce statements of nass, not upon me. I don't accept all ahadith to be genuine either - The hadith about Imam Ja'far (as) pleading for the dead Ismail to be an Imam is something that goes against the basic principles of an Imam (as). An Imam (as) does not go against the wishes of Allah (swt) as it is ultimately Allah (swt) who decides who will be the Imam.
...Abū ‘Abdullāh had intense love, affection, and devotion for him, and the people believed that he would be the al-qā’im after him, and that he would be his successor. This was because he was the eldest of the brothers, as well as his father’s intense inclination towards him, and the great nobility which his father bestowed upon him.
Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar Al-Anwar 47:246.
This, As quoted in the hadith, is not a statement of nass. It is a statement about expectation, as some in the Imami community assumed that the Imamate would be transmitted hereditary to the eldest son. Of course this is not the case, and the successions of Ali (as) and Husayn (as) are a testament to that.

You wrote: Imam sajjad (as) and Imam baqir (as) were certainly there but they never assumed the Imamate until their respective times!
I agree, so how can imam jafar give naas to ismail, which the hadith confirms, and then imam jafar change....imam jafar cannot change because it is not his authority to change....ismail is the imam with claim. Imam ismail is the only one that can give naas for the next imam.
In your example, imam sajjad was imam and imam baqir was not. When imam baqir was given naas, imam sajjad cannot pick imam jafar as the next imam after imam baqir...only imam baqir can.
The real question is how can Imam Sadiq (as) give the nass to someone who would cease to deserve it later? You have provided zero substantial hadiths to back your claim and have only mentioned heresy opinion of an Ismaili Da'i and ahadith on Bad'a from Imami books which do not mention anything specific about a change in nass, but even if we accept for the sake of argument that it was a change nass, then it still proves that al-kazim (as) was the rightful Imam.

Let me now show you proper hadiths with it's chain of narrators that Imam Sadiq (as) did appoint Imam kazim (as) as the next Imam during his own lifetime:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu Najran from Safwan Al-Jammal says from: Who has narrated from Abu Abd Allah [as] that Safwan has said. ‘Mansur ibn Hazim said to him (Abu Abd Allah asws), ‘May I be sacrificed for you, the souls pass through mornings and evenings if that (death for you) comes then who (will be the Imam)?" Abu ‘Abd Allah then said, "If that happens then heasws is your companion." He tapped the right shoulder of Abu Al-Hassan (Imam Musa-e-Kazim) with hi hand. As I know, He was five (feet tall or years old) at that time and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja‘far was also present with us.

Ahmad ibn Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar from Safwan from ibn Muskan from Sulayman ibn Khalid who has said the following:

Abu Abd Allah [as] one day called Abu Al-Hassan (Imam Musa-e-Kazim) while we were in his presence and said to us, "You must take hold of this man, He, by Allah, will be your Master (Imam) after me."


Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad Ibn Al-Husayn from ibn abu Najran from ‘Isa ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Aliasws ibn abu Taliba [as] who says:

"I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah: If it is to happen, and I wish Allah does not show me such a day (death of the Imam), who then must I follow as my Imam?" The Imam pointed to his son Musa [as].

The narrator has said that he asked the Imam, What if something will happen to Musa [as] who then must I follow? The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son." I then asked, "What if something would happen to the son and the Imam [as] would leave behind an elder brother or a small son then who must I follow?" The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son and so on one after the other." In the script of Sawan it says, and so on.

And then regarding Imam Muhammad bin Ismail:

Isma‘il never left this world without leaving in his stead his son, who was of mature age, and that the Imamat had been handed over to him by the Command of God, and His inspiration of him. And that he, Isma‘il b. Ja‘far, when the desire of God became known to him, received an inspiration to hand over the authority to his son Muhammad. He then summoned the dignitaries, and those specially trusted amongst his followers, and handed it over to him in the presence of the chosen ones alone, in secret, in order not to expose him to danger…He, Muhammad b. Isma‘il, was at that time a grown up, 14 years of age. At such age witness is acceptable from a man, according to law. He [Imam Isma‘il] did this in anticipation of the calamities and the attack of the infidels which were to befall him.
Ja‘far ibn Mansur al-Yaman states in Asrar al-Nutuqa.

When Imam Jafar died, imam Muhammad was approx. 25 yrs old, and 8-10 yrs older than musa khadim. By designated right to Imam ismail son, Imam Muhammad would have been Imam Ismail's successor, not to his brother musa. Going to Musa would make sense if Ismail had no children (he had two sons though); it makes even less sense because imam Muhammad was older than Musa also.
There is not much point talking about Muhammad bin Ismail when you have no proofs whatsoever that Imam sadiq (as) ever appointed ismail in the first place.
Regarding the sects...I actually quoted the actual history of the groups. I suggest you read. You seem to like reading snippets of information without knowing the full story.
Actually all what I have written comes from the works of contemporary Ismaili history books.
For instance, the seventh imam followers (ie they stopped following after the 7th imam) are called the Sabiayah (Seveners). The Qarmatian followed the hidden imams in salamiyya Syria, but broke away when Imam Qaim (the 11th imam) came to Yemen and then afrikiyah.

Also, Dai Abu Abdullah started in yemen and moved to afrikiya and helped convert and conquer the berber and kutama tribe of north Africa and had rulership. When ready, he called imam qaim to afrikiya to rule. Imam qaim and abu Abdullah fought many battles together. During the time of imam madhi, however, his brother Abu Abbas convinced Abu Abdullah that they didn't want to give up power over the clans and conspired to kill Imam Madhi. Imam Mahdi called for their execution, but praised Abu Abdillah and did not speak ill of him. The pro fatimid book that write this stuff is iftitah ad'dawa by qadi numan in 907 CE.
This doesn't disprove the fact that the majority of Ismailis originally believed in Muhammad bin Ismail to be the 7th Imam and the Mahdi - These were called the Qaramatis.

It was infact this point, the genealogy of the Fatimid caliphs has been the center of numerous controversies. The ancestors of the Fatimid, according to the later official doctrine, were the Ismaili imams who descended from Muhammad ibn Ismail. However, Ismaili sources do not mention these names, i.e. the supposed mastur Imams, who are the links between Ubaydullah and Muhammad bin Ismail.

The Fatimids caliphs themselves refused to publish their official genealogy. Ubaydullah did however do this; strangely enough he actually traces his lineage as follows: Al Husayn ibn Ahmed ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd Allah ibn Jafar, strangely enough instead of tracing his descent to Ismail ibn Jafar and his son Muhammad ibn Ismail, he names the other son, Abdullah ibn Jafar as his progenitor!!

This explanation was never accepted as the official genealogy of the Fatimid dynasty by his successors. So already we see so many contradictions between the so-called 'Imams' of the Ismailis that our heads start to spin upon reading such Drama!

Ubaydullah and his forefathers were merely Dais and representatives of the Hidden Imam (Muhammad bin Ismail). But, Ubaydullah had no right to the claimant of being the Imam. in 286/899, Ubaydullah had felt secure enough to make a public claim to the imamate for himself and his ancestors who had led the movement after Muhammad bin Ismail.

It was here when Ubaydullah was united with his Dai 'Abdullah Al-Shi'i, that serious disagreements came abouts due to Ubaydullah claiming to be an Imam and the 'Mahdi'. Of course, both Abdullah al-Shi'i and his brother were executed on his order as a result. At this point, Abdullah al-Shi'i had a large following especially among the Kutama berbers and was the main success behind Ubaydullah.

This blood thirsty Ubaydullah 'Mahdi' not only killed this Da'i and his brother, but also killed the supporters of Abd 'Abdullah Al-Shi'i! This is how this supposed 'Mahdi' established his power on the blood of the ones who brought him to power (Also taken from Iftitah al dawat)
I ask muslims to get all the facts...not the spin of their version of facts. You say twelvers are the right path....which one version of the twelvers. There are as many differences between the Marjah tariqahs in usul and fiqh as the 4 sunni madhabs have. Do you really know the true beliefs of the twelvers, or just what you think it is in your false bubble?
First get your 'aqeeda (core beliefs) corrected, then we can talk about other issues.


So far, from the discussions, I can safely conclude the following:

- You've failed to bring a single evidence of the nass of Ismail bin Ja'far, you seem to only resort to the narrations on bada' which have been answered already but fail to bring me ahadith with chain of narrators which explicitly point to the fact that Ismail was chosen as Imam

- The Fatimids were not true Imams as the Ismailis make them out to be; they had nothing in respect to the teachings of Islam/Ahadith narrated from them via Qadhi Nu'man; rather the Fatimid caliphs were simply rulers who's main goal was to gain territory

- The lives of some of these so-called 'Imams' show that they could definitely not have been true successors of the Prophet (saws)

- The Ismaili core doctrine has changed many times in the course of history that today they are so confused amongst themselves; the Agha khanis have gone astray because their playboy Imam has abrogated the Shariah, the Bohras are divided into so many factions with each Da'i claiming to be the rightful Da'i and no one knows who is right anymore. Compare All this darkness with the lives of the pure twelve Imams (as) of ahlulbayt and you will come to know the true light of Islam



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#51

Unread post by husayni » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:10 pm

Br. Khadhim,
I agree. I am orignally from Gujarat, India, but grew up in the US, majority of my life. I have extensive association with sunni of all madhabs, khwaja twelver, agha khani, as well as arabs of various persuassion. This is fortunately allowed me to from an overall perspective and l have seen a lot of flaws in our own people's knowledge of history and fiqh as well as the common flaws in the others groups.

Re kitab sulaym
I keep referencing Shk mufid and shk saduq's opinion is they are the preeminent shiah scholars of the 10th and 11th CE...they laid the foundation of shiah usual and fiqh. When they question the validity of a book, it means something. You using a hadith to validate is not proof because the hadith may be fabricated. Up until the time of Imam Baqir and Imam Jafar Sadiq, few people wrote down hadith...the vast majority transmitted it verbally. Access to ink and either papyrus or skins was not available.

The information related to Sulaym and Aban and other transmitters within are part of what is questionable and many of those people were not from the areas where they are referenced to be in the kitab. Sulaym, other then his own book, is not reference in any other book as a reference or authority...is not that strange? Miqdad and Salman are referenced by sunni and shiah alike, but no one else quotes from Sulaym, who apparently fought along side Maulana Ali?

I am not sure what scholars you refer to that consider it reliable.

Actually most of the current scholars of the twelver also say it should not be followed: Ayatuallah Khui considers is weak. Ayatuallah Sistani considers it weak and possibly fabricated.

I am not sure you understand what ilm-rijal is...knowledge and authority of the transmitter...not from whom it was transmitted. I am not questioning the Imam as the source....but the downstream transmitter of the hadith. The book we have today is at best from 1653 CE, so its content is questionable just in itself. Majority of the transmitters, if any, are not given. So that is why I reference Shk Mufid, who lives 2 centuries after the book was supposedly written...and he considers it weak and not to be followed. If he thought so...why would I follow it?

Regarding Ismaili sources
Iftitah dawa was started in 907 and completed during the life of Imam Mahdi, approx. 940-950 CE. Qadi Numan work 40 major works during his life time. Sayedna kirmani lived during Imam Hakim, and wrote 30 kitabs, 13 of which survived to today. Syedna Shirazi lived during Imam Mustansir and wrote 8 major kitabs. Most of these are related to riwaya or teaching...which are based on a foundation of hadith.

Ikwan as safa is definitely the ismail imams in syria. Ismaili thoughts and deriatives are all through it. Most 10 and 11 CE sunni historians note it because it was from them. Regarding neoplatoism comments, please stop reading webpage snippinets...the books are avialable for purchase. Some are free. Ismailism and the epistles have nothing to do with neoplatoism. At least learn something about neoplatoism and you will see it has nothing to do with Islam at all. PS...I love how your able to state things like "Rasa'il did not represent the official view of the Fatimid state at the time" yet your comments indicate you do not know this at all. Have you read the majalis musayarat of qadi numan or the majalis-ul muayyadiya of sayedna shirazi? You would be surprise how alike they are.

Regarding hadith
I think we need to discuss what is a hadith....hadith means tradition or teaching (riwayat). It typically comes from a sources, typically an imam or scholar connected with an imam. They are by definition historical in nature and relay a point of view or opinion. So to say iftitah ad dawa or the risalas of the ikwan safa are not hadith is not understanding what hadith is infact.

Regarding Fatimi hadith
You've again made the assumption that he did not quote from them. Just because he doesn't cite their names or any of the other imams name doesn't mean he isn't quoting from them. If Imam Mansur said to him that there is a hadith from Imam Baqir that so and so....you think they isn't a trail from Mansur up through Jafar sadiq to Muhammad Baqir?

Regarding the hadith of naas
Actually the arabic version has words bada in it...maybe try reading it.

And actually the book Asrar Nutuqa is a book of hadith from Jafar al Mansur during the time of Imam Qaim and Madhi. And to your point, it would be expected...just as the twelver version have musa khadim.

Regarding Sharanstani...my point is that a sunni scholar is reporting a hadith of the designation of Ismail by Jafar. Why would he lie?

What sound evidence do you have that he did claim Imamah? The proof is upon you to produce statements of nass, not upon me. I don't accept all ahadith to be genuine either - The hadith about Imam Ja'far (as) pleading for the dead Ismail to be an Imam is something that goes against the basic principles of an Imam (as). An Imam (as) does not go against the wishes of Allah (swt) as it is ultimately Allah (swt) who decides who will be the Imam.

I provide proof from twelver hadith saying that it was given to him and then switched to musa. I provided sunni hadith and you wrote it off. I provided ismaili sources, but you wrote them off. What more do you want? The hadith of Imam Jafar pleading for his death son to a sunni caliph is call taqiyyah...which twelvers shiah consider 1/3 of religion.

The real question is how can Imam Sadiq (as) give the nass to someone who would cease to deserve it later?
Excuse me....deserve it later! Was Imam Hasan wrong in not fighting and Imam Husain right from fighting....was Imam Hasan deserving of naas. Imam Zaynul Abidin broke away from all political association and went completely recluse...was he deserving?

You cited the following hadith (as well as others):
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad Ibn Al-Husayn from ibn abu Najran from ‘Isa ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Aliasws ibn abu Taliba [as] who says:
"I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah: If it is to happen, and I wish Allah does not show me such a day (death of the Imam), who then must I follow as my Imam?" The Imam pointed to his son Musa [as].
The narrator has said that he asked the Imam, What if something will happen to Musa [as] who then must I follow? The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son." I then asked, "What if something would happen to the son and the Imam [as] would leave behind an elder brother or a small son then who must I follow?" The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son and so on one after the other." In the script of Sawan it says, and so on.

How can Imam Jafar sadiq give naas to musa kadhim, ali ridha, etc? This hadith is either fabricated or Imam Jafar has the capacity to select multiple successors that no other Imam had. And again, most twelver shiah scholars consider al Kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best.

Actually all what I have written comes from the works of contemporary Ismaili history books.

No, your copy and pasting half information from web sites. Just based on your next statement:

This doesn't disprove the fact that the majority of Ismailis originally believed in Muhammad bin Ismail to be the 7th Imam and the Mahdi - These were called the Qaramatis.

This is completely false and not base on anything.

It was infact this point, the genealogy of the Fatimid caliphs has been the center of numerous controversies. The ancestors of the Fatimid, according to the later official doctrine, were the Ismaili imams who descended from Muhammad ibn Ismail. However, Ismaili sources do not mention these names, i.e. the supposed mastur Imams, who are the links between Ubaydullah and Muhammad bin Ismail.
Again, this is not correct. If it were, why do books by Dai Jafar mansur, who live during Imam Husain and Mahdi and Qaim time, quote the history and events of the Imams in syria (the al mastur imams) if he didn't who they were?

When you write Ubayduallah...do you even know who your talking about? Ubayduallah is Imam Madhi, the imam would came to africa and had the support of major dais Abu ali in egypt, Abu Abdullah in yemaen/afrikiya, jafar mansur in yemen, and qadi numan. To say he is blood thirty is the worst kind of rheteric you have said yet. Imam Qaim, his son, who came to imam well after it was established in the north africa area. Imam Qaim expanded in north africa and Muizz then create Qahera.

In conclusion, you have most of your twelver facts wrong and 90% of your ismaili facts completely wrong. You want ismaili to defend our history, while twelver scholars don't supports the books you reference for your history and aqida.
Your ignorance of the writings of the imams is your justification that there is none....using the ostrich with it head in the hole in the earth as reasoning.

And spare me the "pure" history of the twelver imams. after imam jafar, three were at the beck and call of the abbasid caliphs, the next two did nothing...and the final "mahdi" goes against the belief of having a imam present in the earth until the end of time. Now the group is run by marjahs who gets the most murids.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#52

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:52 am


Re kitab sulaym
I keep referencing Shk mufid and shk saduq's opinion is they are the preeminent shiah scholars of the 10th and 11th CE...they laid the foundation of shiah usual and fiqh. When they question the validity of a book, it means something. You using a hadith to validate is not proof because the hadith may be fabricated. Up until the time of Imam Baqir and Imam Jafar Sadiq, few people wrote down hadith...the vast majority transmitted it verbally. Access to ink and either papyrus or skins was not available.
Proof that Shk Saduq didn't think the book of Sulaym was valid? That hadith has been mentioned by many scholars by the way that claim that they have found this hadith present in old manuscripts of the book.

I've answered Shk Mufiid's objections already. He may have considered alot of it to be unreliable, but that didn't stop him from quoting narrations out of the book (Including the hadith bout 12 imams). This means, if you accept his authority on this matter then it also means you too will have to accept the narration on 12 Imams (as) and accept them as the true divinely appointed Imams and disassociate yourself from the Fake Fatimid 'Imams'.

Also Shk Mufid himself narrates one of the most controversial narrations of the book!

It has been narrated from Sulaim from Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr who said: When it was near the death of Abu Bakr, he started restlessly crying and blaming himself, Umar was also present, so he said to us: "Keep it confidential from your father, because he is delirious and you are of that family in which to be delirious in illness is well known." Aisha then said: "You have said the truth." Then Umar went out and then Abu Bakr died.

Source: Al-Kafiha Fi Ibtaal Tawbatil Khatiha. Pg. # 46.

So again, these general objections against the book are of no value whatsover unless we know what specifically has been objected to!

The information related to Sulaym and Aban and other transmitters within are part of what is questionable and many of those people were not from the areas where they are referenced to be in the kitab. Sulaym, other then his own book, is not reference in any other book as a reference or authority...is not that strange? Miqdad and Salman are referenced by sunni and shiah alike, but no one else quotes from Sulaym, who apparently fought along side Maulana Ali?
These objections have been answered many times by those who've actually done research into the book of Sulaym. Perhaps you should take time to properly research rather than throwing statements that support your view.
I am not sure what scholars you refer to that consider it reliable.
I gave an example of Sheikh Nu'mani, who is also considered in high esteem by many including Sheikh mufeed himself!
Ayatuallah Khui considers is weak. Ayatuallah Sistani considers it weak and possibly fabricated.
Proof!? Again, most of the objections against the book have been refuted and answered by the researchers into the book itself, whether that objection be against Aban Ibn Abi Ayyash
I am not sure you understand what ilm-rijal is...knowledge and authority of the transmitter...not from whom it was transmitted. I am not questioning the Imam as the source....but the downstream transmitter of the hadith. The book we have today is at best from 1653 CE, so its content is questionable just in itself. Majority of the transmitters, if any, are not given. So that is why I reference Shk Mufid, who lives 2 centuries after the book was supposedly written...and he considers it weak and not to be followed. If he thought so...why would I follow it?
I think I know Ilm rijaal better than you do.

Again you are making your own assumptions. Go do some proper research into the transmitters of the book of Sulaym and you will find it has come through the Ashaab al-'ijma. The existing manuscripts we have today go back to atleast 2 of these Ashaab al-ijma.

A group of the existing manuscripts of the book even go through the revered scholars of the so-called 'Ahl Al-Sunnah', such as Abdul Razzaq Al-San'ani and Ma'mar ibn Rashid!


If he thought so...why would I follow it?
According to your statement, you regard al-mufeed in high esteem. In that case, you should also accept the things which he has narrated from the book, including the hadith on 12 Imams (as)!

Regarding Ismaili sources
Iftitah dawa was started in 907 and completed during the life of Imam Mahdi, approx. 940-950 CE. Qadi Numan work 40 major works during his life time. Sayedna kirmani lived during Imam Hakim, and wrote 30 kitabs, 13 of which survived to today. Syedna Shirazi lived during Imam Mustansir and wrote 8 major kitabs. Most of these are related to riwaya or teaching...which are based on a foundation of hadith.
Where are you getting all this from? Iftitah dawa was completed in 346 A.H. which corresponds to 957 C.E. You mention all these things, yet none of these are considered to be books of hadith or atleast considered the main books of hadith. The main book of hadith for Ismailis today is Da'im al-Islam which Nu'man himself has to rely upon books of other sects!!

Infact Kirmani himself presented an idea on a new cosmological system. He was himself acquainted with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies as well as the metaphysical systems of the Muslim philosophers and drew up his own elaborate metaphysical system in Rahat al-'aql.

Ikwan as safa is definitely the ismail imams in syria. Ismaili thoughts and deriatives are all through it.
You act like you are a revelation of the Ismailis/Bohras or something. Again, majority of scholars find the authorship of the Ikhwan al-safa to be dubious at the very least and most scholars believe it was compiled by some learned men in Basra.
Most 10 and 11 CE sunni historians note it because it was from them.
But according to the evidence, it wasn't. Samuel Stern says the following in regards to the Ikhwan safa:

It may well be that the Shi'i authors of the Epistles were motivated in their encyclopedic endeavour by a desire to reunite the non-Fatimid Ismailis, including the Qarmatiıs of Bahrayn and the dissident eastern Ismaili communities, on a common and idealised doctrinal ground. These authors adopted a type of Ismaili Neoplatonism, on the basis of which they elaborated their emanational cosmological doctrine, conceiving of a hierarchy of beings in nine stages
Regarding neoplatoism comments, please stop reading webpage snippinets...the books are avialable for purchase. Some are free. Ismailism and the epistles have nothing to do with neoplatoism. At least learn something about neoplatoism and you will see it has nothing to do with Islam at all. PS...I love how your able to state things like "Rasa'il did not represent the official view of the Fatimid state at the time" yet your comments indicate you do not know this at all. Have you read the majalis musayarat of qadi numan or the majalis-ul muayyadiya of sayedna shirazi? You would be surprise how alike they are.
It is the neutral researchers into Ismailism who have commented all this about neoplatoism within the Ikhwan al-safa, so you better take your points up with them. They also mention that The Ikhwan al-Safa, in fact, place their teaching under the auspices of the hidden seventh imam of the Ismailiyya, the same Muhammad b. Ismail whose emergence was at the time expected by the Qaramatis of Bahrain and all other dissident Ismailiıs. In other words, the authors did not recognise the imamate of the Fatimid caliphs, nor did they find it necessary to mention the early Fatimid caliph-imams and their ancestors.

I have gone through some glimpses of Majalis-ul Muayyadiya. It mainly revolves around 'aqaid and matters of belief whereas Ikhwan al-safa has nothing to do with 'Aqaid!


Regarding hadith
I think we need to discuss what is a hadith....hadith means tradition or teaching (riwayat). It typically comes from a sources, typically an imam or scholar connected with an imam. They are by definition historical in nature and relay a point of view or opinion. So to say iftitah ad dawa or the risalas of the ikwan safa are not hadith is not understanding what hadith is infact.
There's no where that mentions Ikhan al-safa is considered a major book of hadith. Even amongst the Fatimids; they never took their inspiration from the Ikhwan al-Safa. It was infact later on that one of the Bohra Da'is who then first re-introduced the ikhwan safa into the literature of the Bohras.

In Shi’a terminology ‘hadith’ means the talk of a ma’sum and also that narration which describes the talk, action or ‘taqrir’ of a ma’sum.

Talk of a ma’sum includes his writings and sign (Isharah) also. If a ma’sum abstains from a work or thing, then this abstaining also is counted as an ‘action’ (in the above definition). But also part of the hadith includes the sanad (chain of narrators) which are absent in almost all Fatimid legal literature! But it has always been the practice of Ulama to include the chain of narrators as commanded by our Imams. Seems like most of the compilations of Ismaili books went against this basic principle.
Regarding Fatimi hadith
You've again made the assumption that he did not quote from them. Just because he doesn't cite their names or any of the other imams name doesn't mean he isn't quoting from them. If Imam Mansur said to him that there is a hadith from Imam Baqir that so and so....you think they isn't a trail from Mansur up through Jafar sadiq to Muhammad Baqir?
:lol: I haven't assumed anything. I'm just writing what I see and don't see - I have the book of Da'im al-islam in front of me and I don't see the beautiful narrations of these so-called Fatimid 'Imams' teaching me about Islam. Well according to you, Mansur is on the same level as Imam Baqir (as), so Mansur should also have the authority to narrate hadith himself! He was in charge of a Fatimid state for crying out loud so there was definitely no need for taqiyya either.
Regarding the hadith of naas
Actually the arabic version has words bada in it...maybe try reading it.
It says bada', but not about the Bada' of Imamate...
And actually the book Asrar Nutuqa is a book of hadith from Jafar al Mansur during the time of Imam Qaim and Madhi. And to your point, it would be expected...just as the twelver version have musa khadim.
Can you quote some ahadith from the book? It's a book of mere opinions by Ja'far al mansur. He mentions all the things about Ismail, but what's his evidence? Where are the ahadith about Imam sadiq (as) clearly appointing Ismail as his successor?
Regarding Sharanstani...my point is that a sunni scholar is reporting a hadith of the designation of Ismail by Jafar. Why would he lie?
Yeah because quoting a sunni scholar is considered hujjah for us...
What sound evidence do you have that he did claim Imamah? The proof is upon you to produce statements of nass, not upon me. I don't accept all ahadith to be genuine either - The hadith about Imam Ja'far (as) pleading for the dead Ismail to be an Imam is something that goes against the basic principles of an Imam (as). An Imam (as) does not go against the wishes of Allah (swt) as it is ultimately Allah (swt) who decides who will be the Imam.

I provide proof from twelver hadith saying that it was given to him and then switched to musa. I provided sunni hadith and you wrote it off. I provided ismaili sources, but you wrote them off. What more do you want? The hadith of Imam Jafar pleading for his death son to a sunni caliph is call taqiyyah...which twelvers shiah consider 1/3 of religion.
I've explained that hadith to you a dozen times already. It has nothing to do with what you are claiming. I also replied to the hadith you quote in your last post that it has nothing to do with nass.

Which Sunni hadith exactly? It's funny how you're so adamant on quoting sunnis, Yet when Shi'as do the same thing in quoting the hadith of 12 successors (as) from multiple books of hadith then the misguided Ismailis and Mullahs like Ahmed ali Raj and Sarangpurwalas are always quick to dismiss them claiming it is fabricated!

Also you said that Isma'il himself specifically claimed Imamah. What's the proof for this?

Yes and we don't accept that Imam sadiq (as) would plead his son to be an Imam but then later would die, amongst all the other factors that Ismail couldn't have been Imam, including him not being a ma'soom.

Tell me where in the history prior to Imam sadiq (as) did an Imam (as) die during his predecessor (as)'s lifetime?
The real question is how can Imam Sadiq (as) give the nass to someone who would cease to deserve it later?
Excuse me....deserve it later! Was Imam Hasan wrong in not fighting and Imam Husain right from fighting....was Imam Hasan deserving of naas. Imam Zaynul Abidin broke away from all political association and went completely recluse...was he deserving?
Yes, what I meant was, why would an Imam (as) appoint someone as his successor but then the same person would die during his (as) own lifetime? How does that even make sense?

It's like a King appointing his son to the throne, but if that son dies during the King's lifetime then the son will not SUCCEED him! Similarly, Isma'il never actually succeeded Imam sadiq (as).
You cited the following hadith (as well as others):
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad Ibn Al-Husayn from ibn abu Najran from ‘Isa ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Aliasws ibn abu Taliba [as] who says:
"I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah: If it is to happen, and I wish Allah does not show me such a day (death of the Imam), who then must I follow as my Imam?" The Imam pointed to his son Musa [as].
The narrator has said that he asked the Imam, What if something will happen to Musa [as] who then must I follow? The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son." I then asked, "What if something would happen to the son and the Imam [as] would leave behind an elder brother or a small son then who must I follow?" The Imam [as] said, "Follow his son and so on one after the other." In the script of Sawan it says, and so on.

How can Imam Jafar sadiq give naas to musa kadhim, ali ridha, etc? This hadith is either fabricated or Imam Jafar has the capacity to select multiple successors that no other Imam had. And again, most twelver shiah scholars consider al Kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best.
LOL your argument is absolute bogus. General statements like 'Most twelver shia scholars al kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best' really do you no favours. It's like you've just ignored everything I've said near the beginning of our discussion.

Why can't Imam (as) give nass to both? He is their father and grandfather! Imam (as) has knowledge of what is to come! Just like how RasoolAllah (saws) foretold the coming of 12 successors (as). Of course it was Imam kadhim (as) that gave the actual nass to Imam ridha (as) and introduced him to the people. Imam sadiq (as) just gave the indication.

RasoolAllah gave nass to Imam ali (as), but also declared Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Husayn (as) in the following hadith:

”These two children of mine are Imams whether they stand up or sit down”


Actually all what I have written comes from the works of contemporary Ismaili history books.

No, your copy and pasting half information from web sites. Just based on your next statement:

This doesn't disprove the fact that the majority of Ismailis originally believed in Muhammad bin Ismail to be the 7th Imam and the Mahdi - These were called the Qaramatis.

This is completely false and not base on anything.
What is the half information? I've got it from reliable sources of Ismaili history. Even if you do a simple search on the Qaramatis, it will tell you that this was the majority of Ismailis at the time. You are just living in your own denial because at each step, the foundations of your mad-dhab are being shattered. It seems you've come out from India to the USA and have found yourself amongst various muslims including Shia Imamis, yet you still want to remain upon your deviated sect.


It was infact this point, the genealogy of the Fatimid caliphs has been the center of numerous controversies. The ancestors of the Fatimid, according to the later official doctrine, were the Ismaili imams who descended from Muhammad ibn Ismail. However, Ismaili sources do not mention these names, i.e. the supposed mastur Imams, who are the links between Ubaydullah and Muhammad bin Ismail.
Again, this is not correct. If it were, why do books by Dai Jafar mansur, who live during Imam Husain and Mahdi and Qaim time, quote the history and events of the Imams in syria (the al mastur imams) if he didn't who they were?

When you write Ubayduallah...do you even know who your talking about? Ubayduallah is Imam Madhi, the imam would came to africa and had the support of major dais Abu ali in egypt, Abu Abdullah in yemaen/afrikiya, jafar mansur in yemen, and qadi numan. To say he is blood thirty is the worst kind of rheteric you have said yet. Imam Qaim, his son, who came to imam well after it was established in the north africa area. Imam Qaim expanded in north africa and Muizz then create Qahera.
Of course I know it is referring to the founder of the fatimid state. It was the Dais such as Abdullah al-shi'i and his brother Abul Abbas who helped him to power, only to have this pretender 'Imam' stab them in the back and claim the Imamate for himself when he had no right to as he himself was a Da'i of the hidden Imam!!

But one thing is strange, is why this Ubaydullah called himself as 'Al-Mahdi'? Maybe because there are several ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sawa) and the rightful Imams about Imam Mahdi that he will appear and establish peace and justice in the world.

It's also possible that when the 11th Imam, Imam Hasan al-askari (as) was martyred in 260 A.H and when the twelfth Imam (as) went into occultation, that Ubaydullah took advantage of the timing and declared himself as the Mahdi?

Of course, being the Mahdi (as), Ubaydullah never established any peace and justice in the world and subsequently died in the year 322 AH.

In conclusion, you have most of your twelver facts wrong and 90% of your ismaili facts completely wrong. You want ismaili to defend our history, while twelver scholars don't supports the books you reference for your history and aqida.
Your ignorance of the writings of the imams is your justification that there is none....using the ostrich with it head in the hole in the earth as reasoning.
All of this has been answered enough times.
And spare me the "pure" history of the twelver imams. after imam jafar, three were at the beck and call of the abbasid caliphs, the next two did nothing...and the final "mahdi" goes against the belief of having a imam present in the earth until the end of time. Now the group is run by marjahs who gets the most murids.
Why don't you go do some actual research into the lives of pure Imams of ahlulbayt (as)? Simply compare their biographies to the biographies of the Fatimids and it will be clear whom are the rightful Imams of Prophet Muhammad (saws).



husayni
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:34 pm

#53

Unread post by husayni » Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:23 am

Br. Khadim
Regarding book of Sulaym
Proof that Shk Saduq didn't think the book of Sulaym was valid? That hadith has been mentioned by many scholars by the way that claim that they have found this hadith present in old manuscripts of the book.
-Actually, you have not responded to the actual issues. You cite a hadith that is in the book itself as proof. How valid is the hadith, when the entire book is questionable according to twelver shiah scholars (old and current).
-Next you cite a hadith by Imam Jafar clarifying its importance. The hadith is from Bihar Anwar of Allamah Majalisi, and is not a reliable hadith itself.
-You say Shk Saduq cited the imams names in his book "Itiqadat" which is similar to the hadith that appears in the kitab of Sulaym. This does not prove the hadith or the book is authentic. First, the hadith doesn't say the names of the imams after imam baqir. Second, shk saduq does not reference the book of Sulaym or the hadith as a source in his book.
-You have not given any rebuttal to the validity to Shk Mufid or Shk Saduq opinion of the book of Sulaym. Citing other scholars opinion does not rebut Shk Mufid opinion.

Let me point out some obvious discrepancies in the book of Sulaym:
1. Aban received the book of hadiths written by Sulaym of his own experiences or memory. So why are there many hadiths that have other people transmitting from Sulaym, it shouldn't have any?
2. Why is Aban listed in the transmitter of hadiths if the book was written by Sulaym? It shouldn't have anyone's name but Sulaym as the transmitter.
3. The reference hadith 10 you cited has some flaws in itself. IF again, the book was written by Sulaym, the majority of the hadith is written from Aban, where he verifies Sulaym's hadith of the number of imams.. How is this so?

You cited a hadith by Shk Mufid in a book called "Al-Kafiha Fi Ibtaal Tawbatil Khatiha". This is not listed as a book by him.

So far, your references are wrong, your argument have no basis, and your reasoning is flawed.

Regarding ilm-e-rijaal
Based on what you have written, you do not understand it. Ilm-e-rijaal is the analysis of the capabilities and reliability of the transmitter (rijaal). Regarding the book of Sulaym, the only transmitter is Sulaym as he wrote the book. Ashab ijma do not apply as transmitters.

Regarding my opinion of Shk Saduq and shk Mufid, I reference their statements because to twelver shia, they are preeminent scholars. Shk Saduq has written the second most revered book to twelver shia.

Regarding ismaili books
Where are you getting all this from? Iftitah dawa was completed in 346 A.H. which corresponds to 957 C.E. You mention all these things, yet none of these are considered to be books of hadith or atleast considered the main books of hadith. The main book of hadith for Ismailis today is Da'im al-Islam which Nu'man himself has to rely upon books of other sects!!
I referenced them because the books these individuals, were written along side the imam of their time and were either historical and theological accounts of the teachings of that Imam. This is what a definition of what hadith collection are for. This is exactly what the book of Sulaym, except it relates to event of Maulana Ali.

Iftitah Dawa was started in 295 AH/907 CE and completed in 346 AH/957 CE. It is a historical recording of events (a diary) that occurred where he is a first hand witness. That is the definition of hadith. He is the first transmitter of what was happening to the imam (whether Mahdi, Qaim, Mansur, or Muiz).

The Sira of Ibn Hawshab was written by Ibn Hawshab (ie father of Jafar al Mansur) during the time of Imams Husain and Madhi and records the first hand events (a diary) he witness during the Imams Husain and Madhi to Syria and Imam Madhi in Yemen to Afrikiya.

Sira of Syedna Shirazi was written by Syedna Muyuhiddin Shirazi during the time of Imam Muizz and again records the first hand events of the life of Imam Muizz during his lifetime.

In fact there is a book of khutbas by the Fatimi Imams called "Orations of the Fatimid Caliphs" by Paul Walker...read it.
Infact Kirmani himself presented an idea on a new cosmological system. He was himself acquainted with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies as well as the metaphysical systems of the Muslim philosophers and drew up his own elaborate metaphysical system in Rahat al-'aql.
Again do you know what neoplatonic philosophy teaches? Do you know what is written in Rahat al'Aql? Again your reading snippits of internet garbage without doing you own research. Neoplatonist believe in the following key items:
1. The One - the source of all things and all things eminent from it to lesser beings [Does that sound like Allah? Not to me]
2. Emanations - the transmitter of the image of the One and is considered a creator [this is used as the "BE" or kun and is compares to intellect; the problem is we and our universe are not an image or emation of Allah]
3. Celestial hierarchy - belief in lower gods, angels, demons that work as mediators [we absolutely don't believe in this]
4. Evil - their is no evil, just the absence of good [we do not believe in this]
5. Return to the One - perfection to be achieved and to return to the One [we do not believe we are a part of Allah and we do not return to become part of Him afterward]
You act like you are a revelation of the Ismailis/Bohras or something. Again, majority of scholars find the authorship of the Ikhwan al-safa to be dubious at the very least and most scholars believe it was compiled by some learned men in Basra.

I am not even a trained student...but I can do my own research. All of this information is readily available if you actually look. Your again snipping from the web for you research. I have read some of epistles and they are Ismaili. They are shiah by fact that salwat and praise for Ali and the ahlul bayt. However, they are not twelver because it considers those waiting for the hidden imam as erroneous. For me, the only question is if the epistles are written by dais of the Imams as'mastur or directly by the Imams.
There's no where that mentions Ikhan al-safa is considered a major book of hadith. Even amongst the Fatimids; they never took their inspiration from the Ikhwan al-Safa. It was infact later on that one of the Bohra Da'is who then first re-introduced the ikhwan safa into the literature of the Bohras
Again, please learn what a hadith is and what it is for. A hadith (saying) transmits historical or belief information from a sources. The source for us is back to the Imams teachings. The epistles were written by either Ismaili dais or the Imams themselves. And the epistles are definitely about historical and belief understanding. That's funny, because it is referenced by Ibn Hawshab in his Sira Hawshab (9-10 CE) and in Uyun al'akbar by Syedna Idris (14-15 CE).
Talk of a ma’sum includes his writings and sign (Isharah) also. If a ma’sum abstains from a work or thing, then this abstaining also is counted as an ‘action’ (in the above definition). But also part of the hadith includes the sanad (chain of narrators) which are absent in almost all Fatimid legal literature! But it has always been the practice of Ulama to include the chain of narrators as commanded by our Imams. Seems like most of the compilations of Ismaili books went against this basic principle.
You do realize in twelver hadith books, majority of hadiths don't have the chain of transmitter....right?
And hope you do realize most of the writers of Ismail books are direct dais or companions of the Imam. Other than the author to the Imam...there is not chain of transmission. Most of the official books (such as Daimul Islam) are approved or dictated by the Imam.
I haven't assumed anything. I'm just writing what I see and don't see - I have the book of Da'im al-islam in front of me and I don't see the beautiful narrations of these so-called Fatimid 'Imams' teaching me about Islam. Well according to you, Mansur is on the same level as Imam Baqir (as), so Mansur should also have the authority to narrate hadith himself! He was in charge of a Fatimid state for crying out loud so there was definitely no need for taqiyya either
The fact that you have the Daimul Islam is the miracle. It was commissioned and sealed by Imam Muizz. In addition, it was normal with both twelver and ismail imams to source back to the Prophet or earlier Imams. In al Kafi, Imam Jafar refers to sayings or actions of the Prophet or Maulana Ali most of the time. It should be noted that if you are looking at the English version by Poonawala, in most cases the transmission was shorten to the final imam sourced. This is written in the introduction.

In addition, the book was written as the offical islamic law of the fatimid empire (including sunni, twelver, sufi, etc)...and an empire what ismaili were a very small minority. So it was written in the manner that the majority sunni would be familiar with.
It says bada', but not about the Bada' of Imamate
The whole point of the hadith has the context that the imamate was changed (according to twelvers) from Ismail to Musa just as it changed from muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
Yes, what I meant was, why would an Imam (as) appoint someone as his successor but then the same person would die during his (as) own lifetime? How does that even make sense?
It's like a King appointing his son to the throne, but if that son dies during the King's lifetime then the son will not SUCCEED him! Similarly, Isma'il never actually succeeded Imam sadiq (as).
Firstly, Ismail was designated as imamate...the discussion was changing it from Ismail to Musa. Again once Imam Jafar designated Ismail...only Ismail can select his sucessor...not Imam Jafar. Ismail did select Muhammad. The kingship analogy is a false one...because imamate is divinely appointed.

You keep saying your explaining it, but your just flat out wrong.
Can you quote some ahadith from the book? It's a book of mere opinions by Ja'far al mansur. He mentions all the things about Ismail, but what's his evidence? Where are the ahadith about Imam sadiq (as) clearly appointing Ismail as his successor?
Did you read what I wrote. The book was written by Jafar al Mansur while being with the Imam of his time.

Regarding quoting Shahrastani, while we may not agree with his understanding of the islam (sunni vs shiah) as a historical figure quoting a shiah event, why would he lie? Oh, and you quoting web encyclopedias and orientalist for your historical references is ok?
Yet when Shi'as do the same thing in quoting the hadith of 12 successors (as) from multiple books of hadith then the misguided Ismailis and Mullahs like Ahmed ali Raj and Sarangpurwalas are always quick to dismiss them claiming it is fabricated!
I have no idea what you are talking about. I said twelver shia scholars consider the shia hadith books mostly weak or fabricated. Not sunni, not ismaili, not orientialists….twelver shia scholars.
Tell me where in the history prior to Imam sadiq (as) did an Imam (as) die during his predecessor (as)'s lifetime?
Tell me where in the history an imam designate someone and then change it. Or designated multiple imams like your saying. It apparently happened twice in twelver imamate history...once with ismail to musa and second with muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
LOL your argument is absolute bogus. General statements like 'Most twelver shia scholars al kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best' really do you no favours. It's like you've just ignored everything I've said near the beginning of our discussion
.
These are not my statements, they are from twelver shia scholars. If you want to choose to ignore them...keep going your merry way.
According to the Imami scholar Zayn al-Din al-`Amili, known (1505-1559 CE) examined the asnad or the chains of transmission of al-Kafi's traditions, 5,072 are considered sahīh (sound); 144 are regarded as hasan (good), second category; 1,118 are held to be muwaththaq (trustworthy), third category; 302 are adjudged to be qawī‘ (strong) and 9,485 traditions which are categorized as da'if (weak).
60% are weak!
Why can't Imam (as) give nass to both? He is their father and grandfather! Imam (as) has knowledge of what is to come! Just like how RasoolAllah (saws) foretold the coming of 12 successors (as). Of course it was Imam kadhim (as) that gave the actual nass to Imam ridha (as) and introduced him to the people. Imam sadiq (as) just gave the indication.
Yes exactly, they have knowledge of what is to come...and Imam Jafar did select Imam Ismail. If it was changed from Ismail to Musa as per the hadith...then the statement of knowing the future is false. Imams don't give indications. And the imams can't be compared to Rasuallah in hidden knowledge.
What is the half information? I've got it from reliable sources of Ismaili history. Even if you do a simple search on the Qaramatis, it will tell you that this was the majority of Ismailis at the time. You are just living in your own denial because at each step, the foundations of your mad-dhab are being shattered. It seems you've come out from India to the USA and have found yourself amongst various muslims including Shia Imamis, yet you still want to remain upon your deviated sect.
But you did not verify if the information was correct...which it most definitely was not. That is half information. And again, the Qarmatians were a contingent of ismaili in Bahrain that had autonomy...which was threaten when Imam Mahdi came to Yemen. This is was not the majority of Ismaili. If fact Hamdan Qarmat allied with both the Abbasid and Fatimis Imam as needed. Your pure lack of factual research is deplorable. You say I am in denial...yet I actually have facts and can source them.
Regarding the other sects, and yes I did learn a lot about them. And the more I learned, the more I realized how little they knew about there own actual beliefs and historical references.
I give you an example...the twelvers believe the burial place of Zainab is in Damascus Syria. All historical accounts say after karbala, and hated life in medina, she retired to Egypt where she died.
Of course I know it is referring to the founder of the fatimid state. It was the Dais such as Abdullah al-shi'i and his brother Abul Abbas who helped him to power, only to have this pretender 'Imam' stab them in the back and claim the Imamate for himself when he had no right to as he himself was a Da'i of the hidden Imam!!
Do you why they were killed? After they had been in power for a number years using the imam name, they had to give it up when the Imam Madhi came. They conspired to take over control again and kill Imam Mahdi; they even had the plan of attack figured out. So who stabbed who?
But one thing is strange, is why this Ubaydullah called himself as 'Al-Mahdi'? Maybe because there are several ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sawa) and the rightful Imams about Imam Mahdi that he will appear and establish peace and justice in the world.
Firstly, his name is Abdullah, not ubaydullah. and he never claimed the messianic title of Mahdi per the hadith. Madhi is suppose to come shortly before Qiyamah.
Why don't you go do some actual research into the lives of pure Imams of ahlulbayt (as)? Simply compare their biographies to the biographies of the Fatimids and it will be clear whom are the rightful Imams of Prophet Muhammad (saws).
It think you should take your own advice...look at what Fatimis have done (wrote, built, taught) and what Twelvers actually did (you might not have much to talk about though).



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#54

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:18 am

Br. Khadim
Regarding book of Sulaym
Proof that Shk Saduq didn't think the book of Sulaym was valid? That hadith has been mentioned by many scholars by the way that claim that they have found this hadith present in old manuscripts of the book.
-Actually, you have not responded to the actual issues. You cite a hadith that is in the book itself as proof. How valid is the hadith, when the entire book is questionable according to twelver shiah scholars (old and current).
What's the proof that Shk Saduq didn't think that the book of Sualym was Valid? Answer the question.

Which hadith are you referring to? Hadith no. 10 that I mentioned or the one from Imam sadiq (as)? Hadith number 10 is the one narrated via several giant scholars. In addition, the holy imams (as) from Imam Ali (as) to Imam baqir (as) too have authenticated it! It's been narrated in many classical hadith collections through various chains as well!

-Next you cite a hadith by Imam Jafar clarifying its importance. The hadith is from Bihar Anwar of Allamah Majalisi, and is not a reliable hadith itself.
Oh how rich of you; now you're just giving your own opinions without any reasoning or proof. I guess its not a problem then when Ismailis love to quote from Bihar about Hazrat Ismail but yet can hardly come up with anything substantial from the primary sources of hadith.
-You say Shk Saduq cited the imams names in his book "Itiqadat" which is similar to the hadith that appears in the kitab of Sulaym. This does not prove the hadith or the book is authentic.
I said Said Al-mufid has confirmed the content of the narration which al-sadooq has narrated in I'tiqad (i.e. hadith 10, which explicitly mentions the coming and names the of 12 imams).

So according to you who is holding onto Al-Mufid's authority, you can't just pick and choose what you like. If you accept that he's said there are some distortions in the book, fine ok, but atleast be consistent with your stance when the same person verifies a narration from the book!

First, the hadith doesn't say the names of the imams after imam baqir.
Ok this is a lie because it clearly does.
Second, shk saduq does not reference the book of Sulaym or the hadith as a source in his book.
Oh and he indeed does! He narrates from Sulaym himself and the exact same hadith.
-You have not given any rebuttal to the validity to Shk Mufid or Shk Saduq opinion of the book of Sulaym. Citing other scholars opinion does not rebut Shk Mufid opinion.
I've already answered the general objection of al-mufid in previous posts. You've not even presented what the specific objections that Al-Mufid has and nor are we bound by Al-Mufid's opinions either. You are just going in a roundabout manner without giving any specific details.

Let me point out some obvious discrepancies in the book of Sulaym:
1. Aban received the book of hadiths written by Sulaym of his own experiences or memory. So why are there many hadiths that have other people transmitting from Sulaym, it shouldn't have any?
Can you clarify what you mean please?
2. Why is Aban listed in the transmitter of hadiths if the book was written by Sulaym? It shouldn't have anyone's name but Sulaym as the transmitter.
The book we have from him today is a mixed collection of Sulaym's book and his individual narrations to Aban which were not part of the book. Back then books were narrated like normal narrations meaning they used to include the chain, if you look all the books thats Sheikh Al-Kulayni narrates from, he doesn't mention that he has taken it from such and such book, he rather includes his entire chain to the author.

3. The reference hadith 10 you cited has some flaws in itself.
I've answered this in some detail.
IF again, the book was written by Sulaym, the majority of the hadith is written from Aban, where he verifies Sulaym's hadith of the number of imams.. How is this so?
Already answered above to point 2
You cited a hadith by Shk Mufid in a book called "Al-Kafiha Fi Ibtaal Tawbatil Khatiha". This is not listed as a book by him.
I don't think it's available in English, but it was a brother who sent me the scan of the book and hadith in Arabic.

Sheikh Al-Mufid has mentioned it in his other books, Sheikh Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi have mentioned it among the books of Sheikh Al-Mufid, later also mentioned by Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi quotes from it in Bihar, and Sheikh Noori Al-Tabarsi had two manuscripts of it. the current printed book is a collection of the book from a few books like Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi, Al-Tabarsi etc.

Though this was just an example. Another example him quoting from Kitab Sulaym is in his fiqh book, Al-Muqni'a:

Aban ibn Abi Ayyash has narrated from Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali who said: I heard the Commander of the Faithful (a.s) saying: "We are by Allah (swt), what Allah (swt) has mentioned as 'the near of kins' and puts them in the same line of Himself and His Prophet (saw), He says: 'Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer' {59:7}, it is about us in particular and He did not specify a share in the charity, Allah Almighty has honored His Prophet (saw) and honored us by denying us the impure that is in the hand of people."
So far, your references are wrong, your argument have no basis, and your reasoning is flawed.
Rich coming from you who doesn't even know the basic difference between a book of hadith, a book of history or a book of sciences & philosophy.

But anyways, getting into a debate on the Ilm-e-rijaal side of things for Kitaab sulaym is really getting away from the main point.

The book of Sulaym was also presented to the 4th and 6th Imams (asws) so both of them have approved it's ahadith - This is our base. Ilm-e-rijaal is a man made method. If it's totally reliable then the same method should also be applied to the Holy Qur'an because the one we have today it was compiled and issued by Uthman over 15 years after the departure of the Prophet (Saws). Though on the basis of Ilm-e-rijaal it would certainly reject it, but we accept it simply because the Imams (as) have commanded us to take it, So why can't the same be applied to the book of Sulaym?

If we're going to start doubting ahadith then we might as well doubt the Holy Qur'an too.

The only reason you try to cast doubts on the book is because it contains narrations which goes against your aqeeda, yet you will happily take books such Sahifa Sajjadiyya and Nahjul Balagha.


Regarding ilm-e-rijaal
Based on what you have written, you do not understand it. Ilm-e-rijaal is the analysis of the capabilities and reliability of the transmitter (rijaal).
The literal definition of Ilm e rijaal is 'The knowledge of men' and is also referred to as the 'science of narration'. The 'science' is a founding pillar of Ijtihad and thus the system of Taqleed. This science is used to grade and filter hadith by evaluating the biographies of the narrators instead of by examining the content (text). It is a sunni invention that was invented by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and is not something the classical scholars of tashayyu' depended upon.
Regarding the book of Sulaym, the only transmitter is Sulaym as he wrote the book. Ashab ijma do not apply as transmitters.
Sulaym is the author, some of the as'haab al-'ijma are among the sub-narrators of his book.
Regarding my opinion of Shk Saduq and shk Mufid, I reference their statements because to twelver shia, they are preeminent scholars. Shk Saduq has written the second most revered book to twelver shia.
Who says we take everything that Sheikh Saduq and Sheikh Mufid says to be 100% accurate? They were not ma'soom. I've already replied in regards to the statement of Al-Mufid. Please read above.

Regarding ismaili books
Where are you getting all this from? Iftitah dawa was completed in 346 A.H. which corresponds to 957 C.E. You mention all these things, yet none of these are considered to be books of hadith or atleast considered the main books of hadith. The main book of hadith for Ismailis today is Da'im al-Islam which Nu'man himself has to rely upon books of other sects!!
I referenced them because the books these individuals, were written along side the imam of their time and were either historical and theological accounts of the teachings of that Imam. This is what a definition of what hadith collection are for. This is exactly what the book of Sulaym, except it relates to event of Maulana Ali.

Iftitah Dawa was started in 295 AH/907 CE and completed in 346 AH/957 CE. It is a historical recording of events (a diary) that occurred where he is a first hand witness. That is the definition of hadith. He is the first transmitter of what was happening to the imam (whether Mahdi, Qaim, Mansur, or Muiz).
So according to your statement, it's a book of tareekh then, not hadith!
The Sira of Ibn Hawshab was written by Ibn Hawshab (ie father of Jafar al Mansur) during the time of Imams Husain and Madhi and records the first hand events (a diary) he witness during the Imams Husain and Madhi to Syria and Imam Madhi in Yemen to Afrikiya.
Well that's not suprising is it, being an Isma'ili propagator under the time of the Fatimids.

Sira of Syedna Shirazi was written by Syedna Muyuhiddin Shirazi during the time of Imam Muizz and again records the first hand events of the life of Imam Muizz during his lifetime.
Cool. An Ismaili Da'i recording the events of the Fatimids; no suprises there.
In fact there is a book of khutbas by the Fatimi Imams called "Orations of the Fatimid Caliphs" by Paul Walker...read it.
Insha'Allah I'm planning to order some books on Ismailism so will include that one in my list too.
Infact Kirmani himself presented an idea on a new cosmological system. He was himself acquainted with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies as well as the metaphysical systems of the Muslim philosophers and drew up his own elaborate metaphysical system in Rahat al-'aql.
Again do you know what neoplatonic philosophy teaches? Do you know what is written in Rahat al'Aql? Again your reading snippits of internet garbage without doing you own research. Neoplatonist believe in the following key items:
1. The One - the source of all things and all things eminent from it to lesser beings [Does that sound like Allah? Not to me]
2. Emanations - the transmitter of the image of the One and is considered a creator [this is used as the "BE" or kun and is compares to intellect; the problem is we and our universe are not an image or emation of Allah]
3. Celestial hierarchy - belief in lower gods, angels, demons that work as mediators [we absolutely don't believe in this]
4. Evil - their is no evil, just the absence of good [we do not believe in this]
5. Return to the One - perfection to be achieved and to return to the One [we do not believe we are a part of Allah and we do not return to become part of Him afterward]
I'm not sure where you got the above from but there's many forms of neoplatonism actually which the Ismaili Da'is incorporated. The earlier concepts were quite close to tawhid because the Iranian Da'is tried largely to link Neoplatonic concepts into Islamic perspective, but then as they started borrowing more neoplatonic ideas, they incorporated into ismailism which was then even approved by the likes of Al-Muizz In order to integrate the Da'is from the east like Abu Ya'qoob al-Sijistaani, al-Mu'izz integrated the neo-Platonic concepts which by then had become popular amongst the eastern Qarmati Da'wa.

Prior to al-Mu'izz, the "official" Da'wa had used largely gnostic symbols and ideas to frame their esoteric beliefs. Post al-Mu'izz, we see a pseudo philosophical neo-Platonism becoming central to ideas expressed by the Da'wa.

Again, refer to Daftary's work as he discusses this in quite some detail.

Even there is a book available called 'The Isma'ili Neoplatonism of Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistani' By Paul walker which I'm looking to order.


You act like you are a revelation of the Ismailis/Bohras or something. Again, majority of scholars find the authorship of the Ikhwan al-safa to be dubious at the very least and most scholars believe it was compiled by some learned men in Basra.

I am not even a trained student...but I can do my own research. All of this information is readily available if you actually look. Your again snipping from the web for you research. I have read some of epistles and they are Ismaili. They are shiah by fact that salwat and praise for Ali and the ahlul bayt. However, they are not twelver because it considers those waiting for the hidden imam as erroneous. For me, the only question is if the epistles are written by dais of the Imams as'mastur or directly by the Imams.
Well there you have it, you yourself aren't sure either so what is an average Muslim from another school of thought supposed to think? Yes it's most likely that the authors were Shia/Ismaili. Whether they were the Da'is or not is another question.

One thing for sure though is that the authors didn't recognise the Imamate of the Fatimid caliphs. It was written in Basra at the time when most of Southern Iraq was under the influence of the Qaramatis of Bahrain. The ikhwan al-safa actually places their teachings under the auspices of the hidden seventh imam of the Ismailis, the same Muh.ammad b. Ismail whose emergence was at the time expected by the Qarmatis of Bahrayn.

There's no where that mentions Ikhan al-safa is considered a major book of hadith. Even amongst the Fatimids; they never took their inspiration from the Ikhwan al-Safa. It was infact later on that one of the Bohra Da'is who then first re-introduced the ikhwan safa into the literature of the Bohras
Again, please learn what a hadith is and what it is for. A hadith (saying) transmits historical or belief information from a sources. The source for us is back to the Imams teachings. The epistles were written by either Ismaili dais or the Imams themselves. And the epistles are definitely about historical and belief understanding.
So then answer my question, where is it written that Ikhwan al-safa was considered a main book of hadith? Let's say even at the time of Nu'man when he began collecting hadith materiaL

The Rasail ikhwan as-safa, numbering fifty-two epistles, are divided into four books or sections, dealing with mathematical sciences (geometry, astronomy, music, logic, etc.), bodily and natural sciences, psychical and intellectual sciences(cosmology, eschatology, etc.), and theological sciences. Doesn't seem like a book of ahadith to me...


That's funny, because it is referenced by Ibn Hawshab in his Sira Hawshab (9-10 CE) and in Uyun al'akbar by Syedna Idris (14-15 CE).
Do you have the quotation what he says? Referencing is one thing, but having major significance is another. The Rasa'il ikhwan safa really didn't have a major significance at the time of the Fatimids. Neither were they adopted or endorsed, in any significant sense by the Fatimid Ismaili dawa. It was only when one of the Bohra Da'is, Ibrahim b. Al-Husayn, who re-introduced it into the literature of the tayyebis when they started taking it more seriously.

Talk of a ma’sum includes his writings and sign (Isharah) also. If a ma’sum abstains from a work or thing, then this abstaining also is counted as an ‘action’ (in the above definition). But also part of the hadith includes the sanad (chain of narrators) which are absent in almost all Fatimid legal literature! But it has always been the practice of Ulama to include the chain of narrators as commanded by our Imams. Seems like most of the compilations of Ismaili books went against this basic principle.
You do realize in twelver hadith books, majority of hadiths don't have the chain of transmitter....right?
As far as I'm aware, Most of the primary Imami books of hadith, i.e those books compiled before the occultation of the Twelfth Imam (as) do contain the sanad. There are few books like Tafseer al qummi that has no isnad but most of the ahadith books do have it.
And hope you do realize most of the writers of Ismail books are direct dais or companions of the Imam. Other than the author to the Imam...there is not chain of transmission. Most of the official books (such as Daimul Islam) are approved or dictated by the Imam.
I realise that, but then it means that this is going against the recommendation of our Imams (as), Although it was not technically not obligatory, for the most part atleast the main books should contain the sanad.
I haven't assumed anything. I'm just writing what I see and don't see - I have the book of Da'im al-islam in front of me and I don't see the beautiful narrations of these so-called Fatimid 'Imams' teaching me about Islam. Well according to you, Mansur is on the same level as Imam Baqir (as), so Mansur should also have the authority to narrate hadith himself! He was in charge of a Fatimid state for crying out loud so there was definitely no need for taqiyya either
The fact that you have the Daimul Islam is the miracle. It was commissioned and sealed by Imam Muizz. In addition, it was normal with both twelver and ismail imams to source back to the Prophet or earlier Imams. In al Kafi, Imam Jafar refers to sayings or actions of the Prophet or Maulana Ali most of the time. It should be noted that if you are looking at the English version by Poonawala, in most cases the transmission was shorten to the final imam sourced. This is written in the introduction.
I guess the fact that we have Bukhari and Muslim too is a miracle? The two versions of the Da'im al-islam I do have, one in English and the other in Gujarati & Hindi, the sanad isn't there either.
In addition, the book was written as the offical islamic law of the fatimid empire (including sunni, twelver, sufi, etc)...and an empire what ismaili were a very small minority. So it was written in the manner that the majority sunni would be familiar with.
So what? The Fatimids had nothing to fear. They were chosen by Allah right? If people were willing to accept ahadith from the earlier Imams (as) then surely they wouldn't have a problem with accepting narrations from the later Ismaili Imams? So why try and please the sunnis when as an Imam you should be narrating your own traditions, unless of course there was a severe need for taqiyya (which is highly unlikely).

If you look at the lives of the 12 Imams (as) including Imam kadhim (as), then you'll find that despite being constantly harassed and oppressed by the then ruling authorities, they still managed to disseminate their knowledge and teachings which are present in many books today.
It says bada', but not about the Bada' of Imamate
The whole point of the hadith has the context that the imamate was changed (according to twelvers) from Ismail to Musa just as it changed from muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
You are just implying your own meaning on the hadith...The Imamate did not change at all because there's no other ahadith that say Isma'il was appointed in the first place! Infact if we look at all the bada' narrations that the Ismailis love to cherry pick about Isma'il, the context of them is basically that Allah (swt) knew Isma'il would be taken before Imam Al-Sadiq (as), however, the people did not, so Allah changed the affair (meaning what was written) enacting Bada'.

Allah does not do Bada' from Jahl (ignorance), it's Haram to say he didn't know or he changed it on regret, as it states in the hadith:

قال الصادق عليه السلام : ( من زعم أن الله تعالى بدا له في شئ بداء ندامة فهو عندنا كافر بالله العظيم )

Al-Sadiq (as): Whoever alleges that Allah the high changed something changing on regret, so he is to us a great disbeliever of Allah.


So the true meaning of the hadith you narrated on Bada' is that Allah exposed something after hiding. That is to say that Allah knew from the very beginning that Musa ibn Ja'far (as) would be the Imam after his father (as) and Allah knew that He would introduce him as the next Imam. Allah knew that initially the Imamate (leadership) of Ismail would be raised and He would expose the truth as per expedience (Yamhullaha ma yashaa wa yosbet … Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases And with Him is the basis of the Book), but the people did not know that.

So Allah exposed (unveiled) the thing that was hidden to them i.e. the Imamat of Musa ibn Ja'far (as) In any case, what the Ismailis say about the Imamate of an individual other than Imam kazim (as) is false because Imam kazim (as) had been appointed as the Imam after him by Allah and he had also been introduced as the Imam by his father (as) during his lifetime since he was a child and by the Holy Prophet (saws)
Yes, what I meant was, why would an Imam (as) appoint someone as his successor but then the same person would die during his (as) own lifetime? How does that even make sense?
It's like a King appointing his son to the throne, but if that son dies during the King's lifetime then the son will not SUCCEED him! Similarly, Isma'il never actually succeeded Imam sadiq (as).
Firstly, Ismail was designated as imamate...the discussion was changing it from Ismail to Musa. Again once Imam Jafar designated Ismail...only Ismail can select his sucessor...not Imam Jafar. Ismail did select Muhammad.
Firstly, there's no ahadith from any books of ahadith whatsoever that state Isma'il was ever chosen as Imam by Imam sadiq (as). Some statements from a fatimid era work saying that such a nass occurred but not actually providing the nass is not proof at all.

For example, When we look at proving the Mastership of Ali ibn abi talib (as), do we usually quote western orientalists? Not really - We go directly to the textual evidences and ahadith of the Prophet (saws) proving that he (saws) did indeed chose Imam Ali (as) on many occasions as his successor after him, not just at Ghadeer.

So the same applies to the appointment of each respective Imam, as that is what is considered hujjah (binding proof) upon us.
The kingship analogy is a false one...because imamate is divinely appointed.
Ok For the sake of argument, I will say the King analology is false. So in the case of Imamate then, If Isma'il passed away during the lifetime of Imam sadiq (as), then you should agree that the actual position of Imamate never got transferred to him.
Can you quote some ahadith from the book? It's a book of mere opinions by Ja'far al mansur. He mentions all the things about Ismail, but what's his evidence? Where are the ahadith about Imam sadiq (as) clearly appointing Ismail as his successor?
Did you read what I wrote. The book was written by Jafar al Mansur while being with the Imam of his time.
This is not something that can be cited as proof against us for his Imamate. After all he was an Isma'ili propagandist who was in the Fatimid court, what else do you expect he'd say?

Though what I find interesting is how the above in fact was somewhat of a reversal of Fatimid doctrine, in that the founder, `Abdullah al-Mahdi aka Sa`id bin. al-Husayn, actually said that he was a descendent of `Abdullah b. Ja`far not Muhammad b. Isma`il (this would have been once he started claiming to be the Imam, which was itself a reversal of the earlier da`wa claims that Muhammad b. Isma`il was the living Imam in ghayba. During that phase, it's not even clear they believed Isma`il had been an Imam himself, rather that the Imamate went from Ja`far as-Sadiq (as) to his grandson Muhammad b. Isma`il b. Ja`far whom they considered the seventh and final Imam).

In fact, he claimed that Isma`il b. Ja`far and Muhammad b. Isma`il were just code names for `Abdullah b. Ja`far and his descendant Imams (though it is not known that `Abdullah had any sons surviving him).

By the time of Ja`far b. Mansur, the Fatimid caliph al-Muizz was changing the story (yet again) and now claiming that in fact they were descended from the real Muhammad b. Isma`il. Of course, Ja`far b. Mansur being the loyal Fatimid supporter he was, would be reflecting this in his own writings.
Regarding quoting Shahrastani, while we may not agree with his understanding of the islam (sunni vs shiah) as a historical figure quoting a shiah event, why would he lie? Oh, and you quoting web encyclopedias and orientalist for your historical references is ok?

As said before, Sunnis don't believe in Imamate and their purpose for stating such things would only be to make Shiism look bad, and the only place you'll find this about Isma'il is from later heresy writer's books, i.e. books that list out all the sects that are doomed before the day of judgement except themselves.

Also in regards to nass, statements of ulama or historians are not a valid proof nor are we bound by them. What establishes the nass, are the textual statements from the Imams (as) themselves.

On the contrary, I can give you a list of Sunni scholars who adored Imam Musa (as) even though they had pretty Anti-Shia stances in alot of cases. For example:

Ibn Hajar al-asqalani says:

"Musa b. Ja'far b. Muhammad b. 'Ali b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali, Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi, better known as al-Kazim is very truthful and worshipful; he is of the seventh class.

Ibn al-Jawzi says:

"Musa b. Ja'far was called al-'Abd al-Salih (the righteous servant of Allah). He was clement and generous. When some one harmed him, he sent him money.

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami says:

"Musa al-Kazim inherited his father's sciences, knowledge, perfection, and excellence. He was called al-Kazim due to his too much pardon and clemency. He was well known among the people of Iraq as the Gate through whom Allah grants needs (Baab Qada' al-Hawaa'ijj 'Inda Allah). He was the most worshipful of the people of his time, the most knowledgeable and generous of them.


Tell me where in the history prior to Imam sadiq (as) did an Imam (as) die during his predecessor (as)'s lifetime?
Tell me where in the history an imam designate someone and then change it. Or designated multiple imams like your saying. It apparently happened twice in twelver imamate history...once with ismail to musa and second with muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
Except that Imam sadiq (as) never chose Ismail and you've not given any textual evidence for it. There are no explicit narrations present where Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Isma'il.

LOL your argument is absolute bogus. General statements like 'Most twelver shia scholars al kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best' really do you no favours. It's like you've just ignored everything I've said near the beginning of our discussion
.
These are not my statements, they are from twelver shia scholars. If you want to choose to ignore them...keep going your merry way.
According to the Imami scholar Zayn al-Din al-`Amili, known (1505-1559 CE) examined the asnad or the chains of transmission of al-Kafi's traditions, 5,072 are considered sahīh (sound); 144 are regarded as hasan (good), second category; 1,118 are held to be muwaththaq (trustworthy), third category; 302 are adjudged to be qawī‘ (strong) and 9,485 traditions which are categorized as da'if (weak).
60% are weak!
Again, you are playing the ilm-e-rijaal game. This is not the criteria for accepting or rejecting a hadith. Even the above quotation mentions 'according to the chain of transmission' and not because the actual texts itself are problematic.

Why can't Imam (as) give nass to both? He is their father and grandfather! Imam (as) has knowledge of what is to come! Just like how RasoolAllah (saws) foretold the coming of 12 successors (as). Of course it was Imam kadhim (as) that gave the actual nass to Imam ridha (as) and introduced him to the people. Imam sadiq (as) just gave the indication.
Yes exactly, they have knowledge of what is to come...and Imam Jafar did select Imam Ismail. If it was changed from Ismail to Musa as per the hadith...then the statement of knowing the future is false.
Allah (swt) knew what is to come. The bada' here was simply to make Isma'il live a bit longer because that's what Imam sadiq (as) but then he was taken away by Allah swt proving he was not the Imam to succeed.
Imams don't give indications. And the imams can't be compared to Rasuallah in hidden knowledge.
Who says they don't? Don't we believe that the Imams of ahlulbayt (as) inherited the knowledge of Rasoolallah (saws) as they are the divinely appointed authorities after him?


But you did not verify if the information was correct...which it most definitely was not. That is half information. And again, the Qarmatians were a contingent of ismaili in Bahrain that had autonomy...which was threaten when Imam Mahdi came to Yemen. This is was not the majority of Ismaili. If fact Hamdan Qarmat allied with both the Abbasid and Fatimis Imam as needed. Your pure lack of factual research is deplorable. You say I am in denial...yet I actually have facts and can source them.
Regarding the other sects, and yes I did learn a lot about them. And the more I learned, the more I realized how little they knew about there own actual beliefs and historical references.
In regards to the Qaramita, see above (or better yet see Professor Daftary's work for clarification). Of course I'm not referring to the later stage when they declared a Persian Zoroastrian to be the return of Muhammad b. Isma'il. I mean prior to the Fatimid split and as continued afterwards by the Persian da'is for instance who didn't accept the new teachings of the Fatimid caliphs and their pretensions to the Imamate.

Whilst I agree there's a large amount of people within our school that do not understand their beliefs properly, in comparison to the Bohra community, they are still pretty better off and are generally better practicing. Nowadays the Bohris are too busy squabbling amongst themselves as to whom the rightful Da'i is. At this rate, Bohrism will become extinct as there's no actual growth and alot of them are converting to Sunni/Wahhabi or many are seeking the truth and Coming to the Shia Imami school.
I give you an example...the twelvers believe the burial place of Zainab is in Damascus Syria. All historical accounts say after karbala, and hated life in medina, she retired to Egypt where she died.
As per the records, historians have recorded three burial places of Lady Zainab (as) - Shaam, Cairo and Madina. Madina being the lesser possibility. Some Historians do believe in Cairo and I have visited that shrine but I've also visited the shrine in Damascus too alhamdulillah. We Shias believe Damascus is the strongest possibility. Though, I don't see why we can't revere both places and I know many Imami Shias who've been Egypt will also visit that shrine too.

From having visited both shrine, I feel more spiritually connected at the one in Shaam.

Of course I know it is referring to the founder of the fatimid state. It was the Dais such as Abdullah al-shi'i and his brother Abul Abbas who helped him to power, only to have this pretender 'Imam' stab them in the back and claim the Imamate for himself when he had no right to as he himself was a Da'i of the hidden Imam!!
Do you why they were killed? After they had been in power for a number years using the imam name, they had to give it up when the Imam Madhi came. They conspired to take over control again and kill Imam Mahdi; they even had the plan of attack figured out. So who stabbed who?
Except the fact that Abdullah had no right to the claim of Imamate as he himself was considered a hujjah of the hidden Imam.


But one thing is strange, is why this Ubaydullah called himself as 'Al-Mahdi'? Maybe because there are several ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sawa) and the rightful Imams about Imam Mahdi that he will appear and establish peace and justice in the world.
Firstly, his name is Abdullah, not ubaydullah. and he never claimed the messianic title of Mahdi per the hadith. Madhi is suppose to come shortly before Qiyamah.

Well technically his original name was Sa'id ibn al-Husayn. It's written in the Bohri book called 'Aimmat-tahireen' authored by the 51st Da'i Taher Saifuddin, that this Abdullah did claim to be a Mahdi.

It think you should take your own advice...look at what Fatimis have done (wrote, built, taught) and what Twelvers actually did (you might not have much to talk about though).
I have nothing personal against the Fatimids. Yes the Fatimid period was a golden period no doubt. Egypt was certainly flourishing and great institutions like al-Azhar were built and they invented many things too, but this doesn't mean that the Fatimids were the rightful Imams chosen by Allah (swt). There are many qualities and signs of an Imam and the Fatimids fail to meet these criterias.

I ask you to research into the lives of the 12 imams (as). They were full of knowledge, had the greatest of characters, their noble sayings, their lifestyles and du'as are all things which ultimately lead us closer to the Almighty Allah (swt).


Anyways, I think we should mainly confine our discussion to one aspect rather than many aspects in one thread. This thread is about the supposed imamate of Ismail, therefore we should focus on this matter as it is the key issue of dispute amongst us. Plus it's getting a bit long and I don't get as much free time to do such long responses.
Last edited by Khadhim Al Mahdi on Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:29 am, edited 2 times in total.



Khadhim Al Mahdi
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:44 pm

#55

Unread post by Khadhim Al Mahdi » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:20 am

Br. Khadim
Regarding book of Sulaym
Proof that Shk Saduq didn't think the book of Sulaym was valid? That hadith has been mentioned by many scholars by the way that claim that they have found this hadith present in old manuscripts of the book.
-Actually, you have not responded to the actual issues. You cite a hadith that is in the book itself as proof. How valid is the hadith, when the entire book is questionable according to twelver shiah scholars (old and current).
What's the proof that Shk Saduq didn't think that the book of Sualym was Valid? Answer the question.

Which hadith are you referring to? Hadith no. 10 that I mentioned or the one from Imam sadiq (as)? Hadith number 10 is the one narrated via several giant scholars. In addition, the holy imams (as) from Imam Ali (as) to Imam baqir (as) too have authenticated it! It's been narrated in many classical hadith collections through various chains as well!

-Next you cite a hadith by Imam Jafar clarifying its importance. The hadith is from Bihar Anwar of Allamah Majalisi, and is not a reliable hadith itself.
Oh how rich of you; now you're just giving your own opinions without any reasoning or proof. I guess its not a problem then when Ismailis love to quote from Bihar about Hazrat Ismail but yet can hardly come up with anything substantial from the primary sources of hadith.
-You say Shk Saduq cited the imams names in his book "Itiqadat" which is similar to the hadith that appears in the kitab of Sulaym. This does not prove the hadith or the book is authentic.
I said Said Al-mufid has confirmed the content of the narration which al-sadooq has narrated in I'tiqad (i.e. hadith 10, which explicitly mentions the coming and names the of 12 imams).

So according to you who is holding onto Al-Mufid's authority, you can't just pick and choose what you like. If you accept that he's said there are some distortions in the book, fine ok, but atleast be consistent with your stance when the same person verifies a narration from the book!

There are 98 narrations in Kitab Sulaym so which one did he have a problem with?
First, the hadith doesn't say the names of the imams after imam baqir.
Ok this is a lie because it clearly does.
Second, shk saduq does not reference the book of Sulaym or the hadith as a source in his book.
Oh and he indeed does! He narrates from Sulaym himself and the exact same hadith.
-You have not given any rebuttal to the validity to Shk Mufid or Shk Saduq opinion of the book of Sulaym. Citing other scholars opinion does not rebut Shk Mufid opinion.
I've already answered the general objection of al-mufid in previous posts. You've not even presented what the specific objections that Al-Mufid has and nor are we bound by Al-Mufid's opinions either. You are just going in a roundabout manner without giving any specific details.

Let me point out some obvious discrepancies in the book of Sulaym:
1. Aban received the book of hadiths written by Sulaym of his own experiences or memory. So why are there many hadiths that have other people transmitting from Sulaym, it shouldn't have any?
Can you clarify what you mean please?
2. Why is Aban listed in the transmitter of hadiths if the book was written by Sulaym? It shouldn't have anyone's name but Sulaym as the transmitter.
The book we have from him today is a mixed collection of Sulaym's book and his individual narrations to Aban which were not part of the book. Back then books were narrated like normal narrations meaning they used to include the chain, if you look all the books thats Sheikh Al-Kulayni narrates from, he doesn't mention that he has taken it from such and such book, he rather includes his entire chain to the author.

3. The reference hadith 10 you cited has some flaws in itself.
I've answered this in some detail.
IF again, the book was written by Sulaym, the majority of the hadith is written from Aban, where he verifies Sulaym's hadith of the number of imams.. How is this so?
Already answered above to point 2
You cited a hadith by Shk Mufid in a book called "Al-Kafiha Fi Ibtaal Tawbatil Khatiha". This is not listed as a book by him.
I don't think it's available in English, but it was a brother who sent me the scan of the book and hadith in Arabic.

Sheikh Al-Mufid has mentioned it in his other books, Sheikh Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi have mentioned it among the books of Sheikh Al-Mufid, later also mentioned by Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi quotes from it in Bihar, and Sheikh Noori Al-Tabarsi had two manuscripts of it. the current printed book is a collection of the book from a few books like Ibn Shahr Ashoub, Al-Majlisi, Al-Tabarsi etc.

Though this was just an example. Another example him quoting from Kitab Sulaym is in his fiqh book, Al-Muqni'a:

Aban ibn Abi Ayyash has narrated from Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali who said: I heard the Commander of the Faithful (a.s) saying: "We are by Allah (swt), what Allah (swt) has mentioned as 'the near of kins' and puts them in the same line of Himself and His Prophet (saw), He says: 'Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer' {59:7}, it is about us in particular and He did not specify a share in the charity, Allah Almighty has honored His Prophet (saw) and honored us by denying us the impure that is in the hand of people."
So far, your references are wrong, your argument have no basis, and your reasoning is flawed.
Rich coming from you who doesn't even know the basic difference between a book of hadith, a book of history or a book of sciences & philosophy.

But anyways, getting into a debate on the Ilm-e-rijaal side of things for Kitaab sulaym is really getting away from the main point.

The book of Sulaym was also presented to the 4th and 6th Imams (asws) so both of them have approved it's ahadith - This is our base. Ilm-e-rijaal is a man made method. If it's totally reliable then the same method should also be applied to the Holy Qur'an because the one we have today it was compiled and issued by Uthman over 15 years after the departure of the Prophet (Saws). Though on the basis of Ilm-e-rijaal it would certainly reject it, but we accept it simply because the Imams (as) have commanded us to take it, So why can't the same be applied to the book of Sulaym?

If we're going to start doubting ahadith then we might as well doubt the Holy Qur'an too.

The only reason you try to cast doubts on the book is because it contains narrations which goes against your aqeeda, yet you will happily take books such Sahifa Sajjadiyya and Nahjul Balagha.


Regarding ilm-e-rijaal
Based on what you have written, you do not understand it. Ilm-e-rijaal is the analysis of the capabilities and reliability of the transmitter (rijaal).
The literal definition of Ilm e rijaal is 'The knowledge of men' and is also referred to as the 'science of narration'. The 'science' is a founding pillar of Ijtihad and thus the system of Taqleed. This science is used to grade and filter hadith by evaluating the biographies of the narrators instead of by examining the content (text). It is a sunni invention that was invented by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and is not something the classical scholars of tashayyu' depended upon.
Regarding the book of Sulaym, the only transmitter is Sulaym as he wrote the book. Ashab ijma do not apply as transmitters.
Sulaym is the author, some of the as'haab al-'ijma are among the sub-narrators of his book.
Regarding my opinion of Shk Saduq and shk Mufid, I reference their statements because to twelver shia, they are preeminent scholars. Shk Saduq has written the second most revered book to twelver shia.
Who says we take everything that Sheikh Saduq and Sheikh Mufid says to be 100% accurate? They were not ma'soom. I've already replied in regards to the statement of Al-Mufid. Please read above.

Regarding ismaili books
Where are you getting all this from? Iftitah dawa was completed in 346 A.H. which corresponds to 957 C.E. You mention all these things, yet none of these are considered to be books of hadith or atleast considered the main books of hadith. The main book of hadith for Ismailis today is Da'im al-Islam which Nu'man himself has to rely upon books of other sects!!
I referenced them because the books these individuals, were written along side the imam of their time and were either historical and theological accounts of the teachings of that Imam. This is what a definition of what hadith collection are for. This is exactly what the book of Sulaym, except it relates to event of Maulana Ali.

Iftitah Dawa was started in 295 AH/907 CE and completed in 346 AH/957 CE. It is a historical recording of events (a diary) that occurred where he is a first hand witness. That is the definition of hadith. He is the first transmitter of what was happening to the imam (whether Mahdi, Qaim, Mansur, or Muiz).
So according to your statement, it's a book of tareekh then, not hadith.
The Sira of Ibn Hawshab was written by Ibn Hawshab (ie father of Jafar al Mansur) during the time of Imams Husain and Madhi and records the first hand events (a diary) he witness during the Imams Husain and Madhi to Syria and Imam Madhi in Yemen to Afrikiya.
Well that's not suprising is it, being an Isma'ili propagator under the time of the Fatimids.

Sira of Syedna Shirazi was written by Syedna Muyuhiddin Shirazi during the time of Imam Muizz and again records the first hand events of the life of Imam Muizz during his lifetime.
Cool. An Ismaili Da'i recording the events of the Fatimids; no suprises there.
In fact there is a book of khutbas by the Fatimi Imams called "Orations of the Fatimid Caliphs" by Paul Walker...read it.
Insha'Allah I'm planning to order some books on Ismailism so will include that one in my list too.
Infact Kirmani himself presented an idea on a new cosmological system. He was himself acquainted with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies as well as the metaphysical systems of the Muslim philosophers and drew up his own elaborate metaphysical system in Rahat al-'aql.
Again do you know what neoplatonic philosophy teaches? Do you know what is written in Rahat al'Aql? Again your reading snippits of internet garbage without doing you own research. Neoplatonist believe in the following key items:
1. The One - the source of all things and all things eminent from it to lesser beings [Does that sound like Allah? Not to me]
2. Emanations - the transmitter of the image of the One and is considered a creator [this is used as the "BE" or kun and is compares to intellect; the problem is we and our universe are not an image or emation of Allah]
3. Celestial hierarchy - belief in lower gods, angels, demons that work as mediators [we absolutely don't believe in this]
4. Evil - their is no evil, just the absence of good [we do not believe in this]
5. Return to the One - perfection to be achieved and to return to the One [we do not believe we are a part of Allah and we do not return to become part of Him afterward]
I'm not sure where you got the above from but there's many forms of neoplatonism actually which the Ismaili Da'is incorporated. The earlier concepts were quite close to tawhid because the Iranian Da'is tried largely to link Neoplatonic concepts into Islamic perspective, but then as they started borrowing more neoplatonic ideas, they incorporated into ismailism which was then even approved by the likes of Al-Muizz In order to integrate the Da'is from the east like Abu Ya'qoob al-Sijistaani, al-Mu'izz integrated the neo-Platonic concepts which by then had become popular amongst the eastern Qarmati Da'wa.

Prior to al-Mu'izz, the "official" Da'wa had used largely gnostic symbols and ideas to frame their esoteric beliefs. Post al-Mu'izz, we see a pseudo philosophical neo-Platonism becoming central to ideas expressed by the Da'wa.

Again, refer to Daftary's work as he discusses this in quite some detail.

Even there is a book available called 'The Isma'ili Neoplatonism of Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistani' By Paul walker which I'm looking to order.


You act like you are a revelation of the Ismailis/Bohras or something. Again, majority of scholars find the authorship of the Ikhwan al-safa to be dubious at the very least and most scholars believe it was compiled by some learned men in Basra.

I am not even a trained student...but I can do my own research. All of this information is readily available if you actually look. Your again snipping from the web for you research. I have read some of epistles and they are Ismaili. They are shiah by fact that salwat and praise for Ali and the ahlul bayt. However, they are not twelver because it considers those waiting for the hidden imam as erroneous. For me, the only question is if the epistles are written by dais of the Imams as'mastur or directly by the Imams.
Well there you have it, you yourself aren't sure either so what is an average Muslim from another school of thought supposed to think? Yes it's most likely that the authors were Shia/Ismaili. Whether they were the Da'is or not is another question.

One thing for sure though is that the authors didn't recognise the Imamate of the Fatimid caliphs. It was written in Basra at the time when most of Southern Iraq was under the influence of the Qaramatis of Bahrain. The ikhwan al-safa actually places their teachings under the auspices of the hidden seventh imam of the Ismailis, the same Muh.ammad b. Ismail whose emergence was at the time expected by the Qarmatis of Bahrayn.

There's no where that mentions Ikhan al-safa is considered a major book of hadith. Even amongst the Fatimids; they never took their inspiration from the Ikhwan al-Safa. It was infact later on that one of the Bohra Da'is who then first re-introduced the ikhwan safa into the literature of the Bohras
Again, please learn what a hadith is and what it is for. A hadith (saying) transmits historical or belief information from a sources. The source for us is back to the Imams teachings. The epistles were written by either Ismaili dais or the Imams themselves. And the epistles are definitely about historical and belief understanding.
So then answer my question, where is it written that Ikhwan al-safa was considered a main book of hadith? Let's say even at the time of Nu'man when he began collecting hadith materiaL

The Rasail ikhwan as-safa, numbering fifty-two epistles, are divided into four books or sections, dealing with mathematical sciences (geometry, astronomy, music, logic, etc.), bodily and natural sciences, psychical and intellectual sciences(cosmology, eschatology, etc.), and theological sciences. Doesn't seem like a book of ahadith to me...


That's funny, because it is referenced by Ibn Hawshab in his Sira Hawshab (9-10 CE) and in Uyun al'akbar by Syedna Idris (14-15 CE).
Do you have the quotation what he says? Referencing is one thing, but having major significance is another. The Rasa'il ikhwan safa really didn't have a major significance at the time of the Fatimids. Neither were they adopted or endorsed, in any significant sense by the Fatimid Ismaili dawa. It was only when one of the Bohra Da'is, Ibrahim b. Al-Husayn, who re-introduced it into the literature of the tayyebis when they started taking it more seriously.

Talk of a ma’sum includes his writings and sign (Isharah) also. If a ma’sum abstains from a work or thing, then this abstaining also is counted as an ‘action’ (in the above definition). But also part of the hadith includes the sanad (chain of narrators) which are absent in almost all Fatimid legal literature! But it has always been the practice of Ulama to include the chain of narrators as commanded by our Imams. Seems like most of the compilations of Ismaili books went against this basic principle.
You do realize in twelver hadith books, majority of hadiths don't have the chain of transmitter....right?
As far as I'm aware, Most of the primary Imami books of hadith, i.e those books compiled before the occultation of the Twelfth Imam (as) do contain the sanad. There are few books like Tafseer al qummi that has no isnad but most of the ahadith books do have it.
And hope you do realize most of the writers of Ismail books are direct dais or companions of the Imam. Other than the author to the Imam...there is not chain of transmission. Most of the official books (such as Daimul Islam) are approved or dictated by the Imam.
I realise that, but then it means that this is going against the recommendation of our Imams (as), Although it was not technically not obligatory, for the most part atleast the main books should contain the sanad.
I haven't assumed anything. I'm just writing what I see and don't see - I have the book of Da'im al-islam in front of me and I don't see the beautiful narrations of these so-called Fatimid 'Imams' teaching me about Islam. Well according to you, Mansur is on the same level as Imam Baqir (as), so Mansur should also have the authority to narrate hadith himself! He was in charge of a Fatimid state for crying out loud so there was definitely no need for taqiyya either
The fact that you have the Daimul Islam is the miracle. It was commissioned and sealed by Imam Muizz. In addition, it was normal with both twelver and ismail imams to source back to the Prophet or earlier Imams. In al Kafi, Imam Jafar refers to sayings or actions of the Prophet or Maulana Ali most of the time. It should be noted that if you are looking at the English version by Poonawala, in most cases the transmission was shorten to the final imam sourced. This is written in the introduction.
I guess the fact that we have Bukhari and Muslim too is a miracle? The two versions of the Da'im al-islam I do have, one in English and the other in Gujarati & Hindi, the sanad isn't there either.
In addition, the book was written as the offical islamic law of the fatimid empire (including sunni, twelver, sufi, etc)...and an empire what ismaili were a very small minority. So it was written in the manner that the majority sunni would be familiar with.
So what? The Fatimids had nothing to fear. They were chosen by Allah right? If people were willing to accept ahadith from the earlier Imams (as) then surely they wouldn't have a problem with accepting narrations from the later Ismaili Imams? So why try and please the sunnis when as an Imam you should be narrating your own traditions, unless of course there was a severe need for taqiyya (which is highly unlikely).

If you look at the lives of the 12 Imams (as) including Imam kadhim (as), then you'll find that despite being constantly harassed and oppressed by the then ruling authorities, they still managed to disseminate their knowledge and teachings which are present in many books today.

It says bada', but not about the Bada' of Imamate
The whole point of the hadith has the context that the imamate was changed (according to twelvers) from Ismail to Musa just as it changed from muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
[/quote]

You are just implying your own agenda on the hadith...The Imamate did not change at all because there's no other ahadith that say Isma'il was appointed in the first place! Infact if we look at all the bada' narrations that the Ismailis love to cherry pick about Isma'il, the context of them is basically that Allah (swt) knew Isma'il would be taken before Imam Al-Sadiq (as), however, the people did not, so Allah changed the affair (meaning what was written) enacting Bada'.

Allah does not do Bada' from Jahl (ignorance), it's Haram to say he didn't know or he changed it on regret, as it states in the hadith:

قال الصادق عليه السلام : ( من زعم أن الله تعالى بدا له في شئ بداء ندامة فهو عندنا كافر بالله العظيم )

Al-Sadiq (as): Whoever alleges that Allah the high changed something changing on regret, so he is to us a great disbeliever of Allah.


So the true meaning of the hadith you narrated on Bada' is that Allah exposed something after hiding. That is to say that Allah knew from the very beginning that Musa ibn Ja'far (as) would be the Imam after his father (as) and Allah knew that He would introduce him as the next Imam. Allah knew that initially the Imamate (leadership) of Ismail would be raised and He would expose the truth as per expedience (Yamhullaha ma yashaa wa yosbet … Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases And with Him is the basis of the Book), but the people did not know that.

So Allah exposed (unveiled) the thing that was hidden to them i.e. the Imamat of Musa ibn Ja'far (as) In any case, what the Ismailis say about the Imamate of an individual other than Imam kazim (as) is false because Imam kazim (as) had been appointed as the Imam after him by Allah and he had also been introduced as the Imam by his father (as) during his lifetime since he was a child and by the Holy Prophet (saws)
Yes, what I meant was, why would an Imam (as) appoint someone as his successor but then the same person would die during his (as) own lifetime? How does that even make sense?
It's like a King appointing his son to the throne, but if that son dies during the King's lifetime then the son will not SUCCEED him! Similarly, Isma'il never actually succeeded Imam sadiq (as).
Firstly, Ismail was designated as imamate...the discussion was changing it from Ismail to Musa. Again once Imam Jafar designated Ismail...only Ismail can select his sucessor...not Imam Jafar. Ismail did select Muhammad.
Firstly, there's no ahadith from any books of ahadith whatsoever that state Isma'il was ever chosen as Imam by Imam sadiq (as). Some statements from a fatimid era work saying that such a nass occurred but not actually providing the nass is not proof at all.

For example, When we look at proving the Mastership of Ali ibn abi talib (as), do we usually quote western orientalists? Not really - We go directly to the textual evidences and ahadith of the Prophet (saws) proving that he (saws) did indeed chose Imam Ali (as) on many occasions as his successor after him, not just at Ghadeer.

So the same applies to the appointment of each respective Imam, as that is what is considered hujjah (binding proof) upon us.
The kingship analogy is a false one...because imamate is divinely appointed.
Ok For the sake of argument, I will say the King analology is false. So in the case of Imamate then, If Isma'il passed away during the lifetime of Imam sadiq (as), then you should agree that the actual position of Imamate never got transferred to him.
Can you quote some ahadith from the book? It's a book of mere opinions by Ja'far al mansur. He mentions all the things about Ismail, but what's his evidence? Where are the ahadith about Imam sadiq (as) clearly appointing Ismail as his successor?
Did you read what I wrote. The book was written by Jafar al Mansur while being with the Imam of his time.
This is not something that can be cited as proof against us for his Imamate. After all he was an Isma'ili propagandist who was in the Fatimid court, what else do you expect he'd say?

Though what I find interesting is how the above in fact was somewhat of a reversal of Fatimid doctrine, in that the founder, `Abdullah al-Mahdi aka Sa`id bin. al-Husayn, actually said that he was a descendent of `Abdullah b. Ja`far not Muhammad b. Isma`il (this would have been once he started claiming to be the Imam, which was itself a reversal of the earlier da`wa claims that Muhammad b. Isma`il was the living Imam in ghayba. During that phase, it's not even clear they believed Isma`il had been an Imam himself, rather that the Imamate went from Ja`far as-Sadiq (as) to his grandson Muhammad b. Isma`il b. Ja`far whom they considered the seventh and final Imam).

In fact, he claimed that Isma`il b. Ja`far and Muhammad b. Isma`il were just code names for `Abdullah b. Ja`far and his descendant Imams (though it is not known that `Abdullah had any sons surviving him).

By the time of Ja`far b. Mansur, the Fatimid caliph al-Muizz was changing the story (yet again) and now claiming that in fact they were descended from the real Muhammad b. Isma`il. Of course, Ja`far b. Mansur being the loyal Fatimid supporter he was, would be reflecting this in his own writings.
Regarding quoting Shahrastani, while we may not agree with his understanding of the islam (sunni vs shiah) as a historical figure quoting a shiah event, why would he lie? Oh, and you quoting web encyclopedias and orientalist for your historical references is ok?

As said before, Sunnis don't believe in Imamate and their purpose for stating such things would only be to make Shiism look bad, and the only place you'll find this about Isma'il is from later heresy writer's books, i.e. books that list out all the sects that are doomed before the day of judgement except themselves.

Also in regards to nass, statements of ulama or historians are not a valid proof nor are we bound by them. What is considered as evidence is the statements of the Imams (as) themselves.

On the contrary, I can give you a list of Sunni scholars who adored Imam Musa (as) even though they had pretty Anti-Shia stances in alot of cases. For example:

Ibn Hajar al-asqalani says:

"Musa b. Ja'far b. Muhammad b. 'Ali b. al-Husayn b. 'Ali, Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi, better known as al-Kazim is very truthful and worshipful; he is of the seventh class.

Ibn al-Jawzi says:

"Musa b. Ja'far was called al-'Abd al-Salih (the righteous servant of Allah). He was clement and generous. When some one harmed him, he sent him money.

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami says:

"Musa al-Kazim inherited his father's sciences, knowledge, perfection, and excellence. He was called al-Kazim due to his too much pardon and clemency. He was well known among the people of Iraq as the Gate through whom Allah grants needs (Baab Qada' al-Hawaa'ijj 'Inda Allah). He was the most worshipful of the people of his time, the most knowledgeable and generous of them.


Tell me where in the history prior to Imam sadiq (as) did an Imam (as) die during his predecessor (as)'s lifetime?
Tell me where in the history an imam designate someone and then change it. Or designated multiple imams like your saying. It apparently happened twice in twelver imamate history...once with ismail to musa and second with muhammad al'hadi and hasan al‘askari.
Except that Imam sadiq (as) never chose Ismail and you've not given any textual evidence for it. There are no explicit narrations present where Imam Sadiq (as) appointed Isma'il.

LOL your argument is absolute bogus. General statements like 'Most twelver shia scholars al kafi to be only 40-50% authentic at best' really do you no favours. It's like you've just ignored everything I've said near the beginning of our discussion
.
These are not my statements, they are from twelver shia scholars. If you want to choose to ignore them...keep going your merry way.
According to the Imami scholar Zayn al-Din al-`Amili, known (1505-1559 CE) examined the asnad or the chains of transmission of al-Kafi's traditions, 5,072 are considered sahīh (sound); 144 are regarded as hasan (good), second category; 1,118 are held to be muwaththaq (trustworthy), third category; 302 are adjudged to be qawī‘ (strong) and 9,485 traditions which are categorized as da'if (weak).
60% are weak!
Again, you are playing the ilm-e-rijaal game. This is not the criteria for accepting or rejecting a hadith. Even the above quotation mentions 'according to the chain of transmission' and not because the actual texts itself are problematic.

Why can't Imam (as) give nass to both? He is their father and grandfather! Imam (as) has knowledge of what is to come! Just like how RasoolAllah (saws) foretold the coming of 12 successors (as). Of course it was Imam kadhim (as) that gave the actual nass to Imam ridha (as) and introduced him to the people. Imam sadiq (as) just gave the indication.
Yes exactly, they have knowledge of what is to come...and Imam Jafar did select Imam Ismail. If it was changed from Ismail to Musa as per the hadith...then the statement of knowing the future is false.
Allah (swt) knew what is to come. The bada' here was simply to make Isma'il live a bit longer because that's what Imam sadiq (as) but then he was taken away by Allah swt proving he was not the Imam to succeed.
Imams don't give indications. And the imams can't be compared to Rasuallah in hidden knowledge.
Who says they don't? Don't we believe that the Imams of ahlulbayt (as) inherited the knowledge of Rasoolallah (saws) as they are the divinely appointed authorities after him?


But you did not verify if the information was correct...which it most definitely was not. That is half information. And again, the Qarmatians were a contingent of ismaili in Bahrain that had autonomy...which was threaten when Imam Mahdi came to Yemen. This is was not the majority of Ismaili. If fact Hamdan Qarmat allied with both the Abbasid and Fatimis Imam as needed. Your pure lack of factual research is deplorable. You say I am in denial...yet I actually have facts and can source them.
Regarding the other sects, and yes I did learn a lot about them. And the more I learned, the more I realized how little they knew about there own actual beliefs and historical references.
In regards to the Qaramita, see above (or better yet see Professor Daftary's work for clarification). Of course I'm not referring to the later stage when they declared a Persian Zoroastrian to be the return of Muhammad b. Isma'il. I mean prior to the Fatimid split and as continued afterwards by the Persian da'is for instance who didn't accept the new teachings of the Fatimid caliphs and their pretensions to the Imamate.

Whilst I agree there's a large amount of people within our school that do not understand their beliefs properly, in comparison to the Bohra community, they are still pretty better off and are generally better practicing. Nowadays the Bohris are too busy squabbling amongst themselves as to whom the rightful Da'i is. At this rate, Bohrism will become extinct as there's no actual growth and alot of them are converting to Sunni/Wahhabi or many are seeking the truth and Coming to the Shia Imami school.
I give you an example...the twelvers believe the burial place of Zainab is in Damascus Syria. All historical accounts say after karbala, and hated life in medina, she retired to Egypt where she died.
As per the records, historians have recorded three burial places of Lady Zainab (as) - Shaam, Cairo and Madina. Madina being the lesser possibility. Some Historians do believe in Cairo and I have visited that shrine but I've also visited the shrine in Damascus too alhamdulillah. We Shias believe Damascus is the strongest possibility. Though, I don't see why we can't revere both places and I know many Imami Shias who've been Egypt will also visit that shrine too.

From having visited both shrine, I feel more spiritually connected at the one in Shaam.

Of course I know it is referring to the founder of the fatimid state. It was the Dais such as Abdullah al-shi'i and his brother Abul Abbas who helped him to power, only to have this pretender 'Imam' stab them in the back and claim the Imamate for himself when he had no right to as he himself was a Da'i of the hidden Imam!!
Do you why they were killed? After they had been in power for a number years using the imam name, they had to give it up when the Imam Madhi came. They conspired to take over control again and kill Imam Mahdi; they even had the plan of attack figured out. So who stabbed who?
Except the fact that Abdullah had no right to the claim of Imamate as he himself was considered a hujjah of the hidden Imam.


But one thing is strange, is why this Ubaydullah called himself as 'Al-Mahdi'? Maybe because there are several ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sawa) and the rightful Imams about Imam Mahdi that he will appear and establish peace and justice in the world.
Firstly, his name is Abdullah, not ubaydullah. and he never claimed the messianic title of Mahdi per the hadith. Madhi is suppose to come shortly before Qiyamah.

Well technically his original name was Sa'id ibn al-Husayn. It's written in the Bohri book called 'Aimmat-tahireen' authored by the 51st Da'i Taher Saifuddin, that this Abdullah did claim to be a Mahdi.

It think you should take your own advice...look at what Fatimis have done (wrote, built, taught) and what Twelvers actually did (you might not have much to talk about though).
I have nothing personal against the Fatimids. Yes the Fatimid period was a golden period no doubt. Egypt was certainly flourishing and great institutions like al-Azhar were built and they invented many things too, but this doesn't mean that the Fatimids were the rightful Imams chosen by Allah (swt). There are many qualities and signs of an Imam and the Fatimids fail to meet these criterias.

I ask you to research into the lives of the 12 imams (as). They were full of knowledge, had the greatest of characters, their noble sayings, their lifestyles and du'as are all things which ultimately lead us closer to the Almighty Allah (swt).


Anyways, I think we should mainly confine our discussion to one aspect rather than many aspects in one thread. This thread is about the supposed imamate of Ismail, therefore we should focus on this matter as it is the key issue of dispute amongst us. Plus it's getting a bit long and I don't get as much free time to do such long responses.