Bilal Ali Bokhari wrote:
As per my understanding, Shia's are the people who follow the Fiqah of Imam Jaffar Al-Sadiq. The person descending from the family of the Prophet himself and taught and trained by the very people who were raised and educated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself. Kufis who claimed to be the Shia were the agents of Yazid Bin Muawiyyah who reptreesented the kingship instead of the norms of Caliphate that was the way of Islam and were planted and tasked to mislead the house of the Prophet so they could be eliminated to validate the clan's right to rule. Banu Ummaiyah were never about the relegion and its glory.
=========================================
I wont deny the Tragedy of Karbala but the way it is reported by Historians is basically an insult for the Great Hazrat Hussein Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], if you live in India then buy a Book on the Tragedy of Karbala compiled by Abi Mikhnaf by the name of Maqtal Hussein aka Maqtal Abi Mikhanf [the book was translated in Hyderabad Deccan India] and go through it and you will be ashamed to know as to how the Ahl Al Bayt were discussed in that book and its author is the only Source which are quoted by Historians and from this book is also quoted every year in Muharram ul Haram by Shia Scholar in their Majalis.
No doubt the Tragedy of Karbala was a great tragedy and Hazrat Hussein Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and his Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah have mercy on their souls] were innocent and wrongfully martyred but it was Hazrat Hussein's [May Allah be pleased with him] individual act and had nothing to do with Islam. Hazrat Hussain Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was a Human and to err is human and Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] was not free from mistake. Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] wasn't going on a War, people dont take their Women and Children to war.
Islam was perfected much earlier before the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] and his Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah have mercy on their souls], as Quran says:
This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. [AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) Chapter 5 - Verse 3]
Kufis betrayed Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] like they betrayed Hazrat Hasan Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], like they betrayed Hazrat Ali Bin Abi Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] and if you dont believe me then read Nehjul Balagha [alleged sermons which are attributed to Hazrat Ali - May Allah be pleased with him] [Same History of Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Tabaqat-e-Ibn-e-Saad, Sawaiqul Muharriqa, Nehjul Balagha by Ibn Abi Al Hadid, Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya, Ibn-e-Khaldun, Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliullah and Tareekh-e-Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi]
Hazrat Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] didn't aspire for power but these Historians and their lies narrated History in such a blasphemous way as if Ali, Hasan and Hussein were power hungry. These Lofty Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] i.e. Ali, Hasan and Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] were free from such vices due to the pious training and pure company they enjoyed.
From the same History:
1 - Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abu Lulu Feroze Majoosi [Zoroastrian] and he committed suicide after injuring/martyring several Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}
2 - Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Kanana Bin Bashir Tajeebi, Umro Bin Hamaq, Umair Bin Zabi, Saudan Bin Imran, Ghafiqi bin Harb Akki, Qateera, Zaid Bin Safwan, Malik Ashtar Nakha'i, Ziyad Bin Nasar, Abdullah Bin Al Asim Amri, Hakeem Bin Jubla Abdi, Zarbaj Bin Ibad, Bashir Bin Shareeh Qaisi, Ibn Al Marhash, Harqoos Bin Zahir Sa'adi and Ibn Adees {These Anarachists were leading the Deviant Mob of 2500 from Basra, Kufa and Egypt}. This may please be kept in mind that majority of the people in those fateful days were on Hajj to Makkah. {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
3 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and his immediate family members rather his [May Allah be pleased with him] i.e. sons [May Allah be pleased with all of them] were offerring the duty to protect Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and with them Mohammad Bin Talha and Abdullah Bin Zubair [May Allah be pleased with him] and these Great Personalities were sent back by Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] to their homes because he didn't want bloddshed and anarchy in Medina. Hazrat Ali and his sons [May Allah be pleased with them] were free from any kind of allegation of taking part in the Martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him], even to think that Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with] was involved in Uthman's Murder is a Sin. The only difference between Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with both of them] was the method of Qisas for Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and that was it. Hazrat Ali's only problem was that most of those who took part in Hazrat Uthman's murder, joined and accepted him as Caliph and Hazrat Ali was surrounded by anarchist and waiting for the right moment to do the needful regarding Qisas of Hazrat Uthman whereas the opposing Camp was demanding immediate action.{Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
4 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abdul Rahman Ibn Muljam Muradi [Khariji] and he was killed in Qisas by Hasan Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], keep in mind that Ibn Maljam was earlier in Hazrat Ali's Army [in Jamal and Siffin] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
If you talk about the Incident of Karbala as quoted in History i.e. Tabari [you wont approve what Tabari has written about Shia in the same History], Ibn-e-Athir, Tabaqat-e-Ibn-e-Saad, Sawaiqul Muharriqa, Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir [you wont agree with the text written about Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah], Tareekhul Khulafa by Siyoti, and last but not the least Ibn-e-Khaldun then please do remember on thing that they all have quoted Tabari and Tabari has quoted Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi to report the Incident of Karbala, and this narrator Abu Mikhnaf is known as a Liar:
Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi:
Abu Mikhnaf: Mohsin writes in his book "Ayyan-ush-Shia" in a chapter on Shia writers: "Abu Mikhnaf is Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi. Najashi believes that he was one of the historians of Kufah. He complied a number of books. The most noteworthy books are the ones dealing with the conquests of Syria, Iraq, Khorasan, Jamal, Safin, Nahr and Gharat and the book dealing with the murder of Hussain. Ibn Nadim in "Al-Fehrist" has recorded the comments of Ahmad bin Harith Khazzaz who thinks that Abu Mikhnaf is more will-in-formed than others about the conquest of Iraq, Madaini is more well-informed about Kharasan, India and Persia while Waqidi excels them in his grasp of facts about Hijaz and a psychological understanding of people. The information about Syria is evenly distributed among them and they can not claim any edge over one another. But it should be noted that two of these three i.e., Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi are Shias".
As is well known, Najashi has rated him among the Shia authors and, besides the list furnished by Mohsin, he is also supposed to have complied the following books:
"Kitab-us-Saqifah" , the book of Shura, the book on the murder of Uthman, Kitab-ul-Hikmin, the murder of Amir-ul-Momini, the murder of Hussain, the murder of Hajr bin Adi, Akhbareul-Mukhtar, Akhbar-uz-Ziyat, Akhbar Muhammad bin abi Bakr and the murder of Muhammad etc. He has also mentioned that he was one of the distinguished historians and writers of Kufah. He derived a great deal of consolation from relating his traditions. He has also borrowed a number of traditions from Jafar bin Muhammad.
Tusi is of the opinion that his father was included among the companions of Hadhrat Ali. Tusi has therefore mentioned him in his study of men. Hilli states in Thaqat that his father was one of the companions of Baqir and he himself was one of the companions of J’afar.
Qummi refers to him in his book: "Lut bin Yahya bin S’aid bin Mikhnaf bin Salim Azdi was a tutor of historians in Kufah. He died in 157 A.H. Hishman Kalbi attributes it to Imam J’afar that his grand father Mikhnaf bin Salim was a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who was one of the companions of Hadhrat Ali during the battle of Jamal and he was carrying the flag of the tribe of Azd. He drank the cup of martyrdom in the same battle in 36 A.H. Abu Mikhnaf was one of the most distinguished Shia historians. Abu Mikhnaf has written a number of books on history and biography of which the murder of Hussain is especially noteworthy. Therefore, even the most distinguished scholars have reported from it and relied on its veracity".
Thus the Shia scholars themselves have confirmed his existence and the list of books provided by Najashi clearly establishes his Shiaism and extremism.
Abu Mikhnaf and Sunni Scholars:
Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani has summed up the attitude of Sunni scholars towards Abu Mikhnaf. He observes that he is an uncultured, unreliable and unveracious historian. Imam Abu Hatim etc. have called him obsolete and outdated. Imam Dar Kutni calls him a weak source. Yahya bin Mu’in considers him unauthentic and disparages him as if he is a nonentity. Ibn ‘Adi regards him an extremist Shia and a historian. Hafiz Ibn Hajr is of the opinion that he has followed his authority. He died before the advent of the year 170 A.H. Abu Ubaid Ajri relates that when he asked Abu Hatim about him, he rubbed his hands and said that there was hardly any need to inquire about him (which reflected his insignificance as a reporter). ‘Uqaili has placed him among the weak sources of information.
Allama Zahbi in his book "Mizan" has mentioned him in the same strain and in the abridgement of "Minhaj-us-Sunnah" by Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah which is known as "Muntaqa", he has identified him with those who are notorious for palming off fibs. He has also referred to a statement by Ashhab bin Abdul Aziz Qaisi which he made in response to a question put to Imam Malik about the Rafidhis. He replied that they should neither be conversed with nor reported from because they are liars. Hurmilah bin Yahya has quoted Imam Sharfi’I that he never found anyone who excelled the Rafidhis in cooking up the evidence. Momil bin Wahab Ribi is reported to have heard from Yazid bin Harun that, with the exception of Rafidhis, the traditions of each innovator can be recorded as long as he does not force or persuade people to accept his innovation. The traditions of Rafidhis cannot be recorded because they speak lies.
Muhammad bin S’aid Isfahani heard it from Sharik bin Abdullah Nalhfi that knowledge should be gained from each and every person except the Rafidhis. Knowledge should not be gained from them because they invent the traditions and raise them to the level of hadith. Abu Mu’awiyyah is reported to have heard from Amash that people generally regarded the Rafidhis as liars. Then, following the authority of Shaikh-ul-Islam, he believes that any one who cares to study well-reasoned and cogently-argued books on the subject will be automatically led to the conclusion that the Shias are comparatively greater liars than other groups and sects. When a Rafidihi stresses Yaqiyyah, he indirectly confesses his lie".
These are the opinions of the leading scholars about Abu Mikhnaf. These scholars have made a comparative study of the sources of information and have backed up their conclusions with logic and reasoning. And similar and the views of the traditionists and religious scholars about the reliability of the Shias as vehicles of information.
The gist of the matter is that both Shias and Sunnis believe that Abu Mikhnaf was a Shia, that he was unveracious and untruth-worthy and Qummi’s words that Tabri and other Sunni scholars have relied on him inspite of his being a Shia, are nothing but a basket of bubbles and it is quit consistent with their nature which finds its exclusive nourishment in stringing up lies and fibs. Any one who had studied Tabri knows that he has nowhere indicated the option to stress only the veracious traditions. It is a mixed bag and he has explained the hodge-podge complexion of the book in his preface:
"There are certain traditions in this book which have come down to us from people who are disliked by the readersand the audience alike. These traditions are neither valid nor have they any link with realith. It should, however, be noted that these traditions are not invented by us but have been reportedby people who have conveyed htem to us. We have recorded them verbatim without making any alterations in them, and as they have been communicated to us".
Ibn Athir has also explained in the preface of his book that he has reported them from Tabri and relied on his authority: He observes:
"I have collected materials in my book that lay scattered and was not accessible in the form of a single book. Any one who cares to reflect will soon grasp the truthfulness of my statement. First of all I have picked up "Tarikh-I-Kabir" written by Imam Abu Jafar Tabri because all people depend in this book and they revert to it when differences crop up among them, and I have relied on all the various translations and left out not a single one-of them".
This is the reality behind the trust of Tabri and Ibn Athir on Abu Mikhnaf.
As per my understanding, Shia's are the people who follow the Fiqah of Imam Jaffar Al-Sadiq. The person descending from the family of the Prophet himself and taught and trained by the very people who were raised and educated by the Prophet (PBUH) himself. Kufis who claimed to be the Shia were the agents of Yazid Bin Muawiyyah who reptreesented the kingship instead of the norms of Caliphate that was the way of Islam and were planted and tasked to mislead the house of the Prophet so they could be eliminated to validate the clan's right to rule. Banu Ummaiyah were never about the relegion and its glory.
=========================================
I wont deny the Tragedy of Karbala but the way it is reported by Historians is basically an insult for the Great Hazrat Hussein Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], if you live in India then buy a Book on the Tragedy of Karbala compiled by Abi Mikhnaf by the name of Maqtal Hussein aka Maqtal Abi Mikhanf [the book was translated in Hyderabad Deccan India] and go through it and you will be ashamed to know as to how the Ahl Al Bayt were discussed in that book and its author is the only Source which are quoted by Historians and from this book is also quoted every year in Muharram ul Haram by Shia Scholar in their Majalis.
No doubt the Tragedy of Karbala was a great tragedy and Hazrat Hussein Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and his Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah have mercy on their souls] were innocent and wrongfully martyred but it was Hazrat Hussein's [May Allah be pleased with him] individual act and had nothing to do with Islam. Hazrat Hussain Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was a Human and to err is human and Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] was not free from mistake. Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] wasn't going on a War, people dont take their Women and Children to war.
Islam was perfected much earlier before the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] and his Ahl Al Bayt [May Allah have mercy on their souls], as Quran says:
This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. [AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) Chapter 5 - Verse 3]
Kufis betrayed Hazrat Hussain [May Allah be pleased with him] like they betrayed Hazrat Hasan Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], like they betrayed Hazrat Ali Bin Abi Talib [May Allah be pleased with him] and if you dont believe me then read Nehjul Balagha [alleged sermons which are attributed to Hazrat Ali - May Allah be pleased with him] [Same History of Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Tabaqat-e-Ibn-e-Saad, Sawaiqul Muharriqa, Nehjul Balagha by Ibn Abi Al Hadid, Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya, Ibn-e-Khaldun, Izalatul Khifa by Shah Waliullah and Tareekh-e-Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi]
Hazrat Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] didn't aspire for power but these Historians and their lies narrated History in such a blasphemous way as if Ali, Hasan and Hussein were power hungry. These Lofty Companions of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] i.e. Ali, Hasan and Hussein [May Allah be pleased with him] were free from such vices due to the pious training and pure company they enjoyed.
From the same History:
1 - Hazrat Omar [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abu Lulu Feroze Majoosi [Zoroastrian] and he committed suicide after injuring/martyring several Companions of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}
2 - Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Kanana Bin Bashir Tajeebi, Umro Bin Hamaq, Umair Bin Zabi, Saudan Bin Imran, Ghafiqi bin Harb Akki, Qateera, Zaid Bin Safwan, Malik Ashtar Nakha'i, Ziyad Bin Nasar, Abdullah Bin Al Asim Amri, Hakeem Bin Jubla Abdi, Zarbaj Bin Ibad, Bashir Bin Shareeh Qaisi, Ibn Al Marhash, Harqoos Bin Zahir Sa'adi and Ibn Adees {These Anarachists were leading the Deviant Mob of 2500 from Basra, Kufa and Egypt}. This may please be kept in mind that majority of the people in those fateful days were on Hajj to Makkah. {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
3 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] and his immediate family members rather his [May Allah be pleased with him] i.e. sons [May Allah be pleased with all of them] were offerring the duty to protect Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and with them Mohammad Bin Talha and Abdullah Bin Zubair [May Allah be pleased with him] and these Great Personalities were sent back by Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] to their homes because he didn't want bloddshed and anarchy in Medina. Hazrat Ali and his sons [May Allah be pleased with them] were free from any kind of allegation of taking part in the Martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him], even to think that Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with] was involved in Uthman's Murder is a Sin. The only difference between Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Muawiyah [May Allah be pleased with both of them] was the method of Qisas for Hazrat Uthman [May Allah be pleased with him] and that was it. Hazrat Ali's only problem was that most of those who took part in Hazrat Uthman's murder, joined and accepted him as Caliph and Hazrat Ali was surrounded by anarchist and waiting for the right moment to do the needful regarding Qisas of Hazrat Uthman whereas the opposing Camp was demanding immediate action.{Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
4 - Hazrat Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was martyred by Abdul Rahman Ibn Muljam Muradi [Khariji] and he was killed in Qisas by Hasan Ibn Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], keep in mind that Ibn Maljam was earlier in Hazrat Ali's Army [in Jamal and Siffin] {Reference: Tabari, Ibn-e-Athir, Ibn-e-Kathri and Ibn-e-Khaldun}.
If you talk about the Incident of Karbala as quoted in History i.e. Tabari [you wont approve what Tabari has written about Shia in the same History], Ibn-e-Athir, Tabaqat-e-Ibn-e-Saad, Sawaiqul Muharriqa, Al Bidayah Wal Nihaya by Ibn Kathir [you wont agree with the text written about Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah], Tareekhul Khulafa by Siyoti, and last but not the least Ibn-e-Khaldun then please do remember on thing that they all have quoted Tabari and Tabari has quoted Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi to report the Incident of Karbala, and this narrator Abu Mikhnaf is known as a Liar:
Abu Mukhnif Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi:
Abu Mikhnaf: Mohsin writes in his book "Ayyan-ush-Shia" in a chapter on Shia writers: "Abu Mikhnaf is Lut bin Yahya Azdi Ghamidi. Najashi believes that he was one of the historians of Kufah. He complied a number of books. The most noteworthy books are the ones dealing with the conquests of Syria, Iraq, Khorasan, Jamal, Safin, Nahr and Gharat and the book dealing with the murder of Hussain. Ibn Nadim in "Al-Fehrist" has recorded the comments of Ahmad bin Harith Khazzaz who thinks that Abu Mikhnaf is more will-in-formed than others about the conquest of Iraq, Madaini is more well-informed about Kharasan, India and Persia while Waqidi excels them in his grasp of facts about Hijaz and a psychological understanding of people. The information about Syria is evenly distributed among them and they can not claim any edge over one another. But it should be noted that two of these three i.e., Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi are Shias".
As is well known, Najashi has rated him among the Shia authors and, besides the list furnished by Mohsin, he is also supposed to have complied the following books:
"Kitab-us-Saqifah" , the book of Shura, the book on the murder of Uthman, Kitab-ul-Hikmin, the murder of Amir-ul-Momini, the murder of Hussain, the murder of Hajr bin Adi, Akhbareul-Mukhtar, Akhbar-uz-Ziyat, Akhbar Muhammad bin abi Bakr and the murder of Muhammad etc. He has also mentioned that he was one of the distinguished historians and writers of Kufah. He derived a great deal of consolation from relating his traditions. He has also borrowed a number of traditions from Jafar bin Muhammad.
Tusi is of the opinion that his father was included among the companions of Hadhrat Ali. Tusi has therefore mentioned him in his study of men. Hilli states in Thaqat that his father was one of the companions of Baqir and he himself was one of the companions of J’afar.
Qummi refers to him in his book: "Lut bin Yahya bin S’aid bin Mikhnaf bin Salim Azdi was a tutor of historians in Kufah. He died in 157 A.H. Hishman Kalbi attributes it to Imam J’afar that his grand father Mikhnaf bin Salim was a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who was one of the companions of Hadhrat Ali during the battle of Jamal and he was carrying the flag of the tribe of Azd. He drank the cup of martyrdom in the same battle in 36 A.H. Abu Mikhnaf was one of the most distinguished Shia historians. Abu Mikhnaf has written a number of books on history and biography of which the murder of Hussain is especially noteworthy. Therefore, even the most distinguished scholars have reported from it and relied on its veracity".
Thus the Shia scholars themselves have confirmed his existence and the list of books provided by Najashi clearly establishes his Shiaism and extremism.
Abu Mikhnaf and Sunni Scholars:
Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani has summed up the attitude of Sunni scholars towards Abu Mikhnaf. He observes that he is an uncultured, unreliable and unveracious historian. Imam Abu Hatim etc. have called him obsolete and outdated. Imam Dar Kutni calls him a weak source. Yahya bin Mu’in considers him unauthentic and disparages him as if he is a nonentity. Ibn ‘Adi regards him an extremist Shia and a historian. Hafiz Ibn Hajr is of the opinion that he has followed his authority. He died before the advent of the year 170 A.H. Abu Ubaid Ajri relates that when he asked Abu Hatim about him, he rubbed his hands and said that there was hardly any need to inquire about him (which reflected his insignificance as a reporter). ‘Uqaili has placed him among the weak sources of information.
Allama Zahbi in his book "Mizan" has mentioned him in the same strain and in the abridgement of "Minhaj-us-Sunnah" by Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah which is known as "Muntaqa", he has identified him with those who are notorious for palming off fibs. He has also referred to a statement by Ashhab bin Abdul Aziz Qaisi which he made in response to a question put to Imam Malik about the Rafidhis. He replied that they should neither be conversed with nor reported from because they are liars. Hurmilah bin Yahya has quoted Imam Sharfi’I that he never found anyone who excelled the Rafidhis in cooking up the evidence. Momil bin Wahab Ribi is reported to have heard from Yazid bin Harun that, with the exception of Rafidhis, the traditions of each innovator can be recorded as long as he does not force or persuade people to accept his innovation. The traditions of Rafidhis cannot be recorded because they speak lies.
Muhammad bin S’aid Isfahani heard it from Sharik bin Abdullah Nalhfi that knowledge should be gained from each and every person except the Rafidhis. Knowledge should not be gained from them because they invent the traditions and raise them to the level of hadith. Abu Mu’awiyyah is reported to have heard from Amash that people generally regarded the Rafidhis as liars. Then, following the authority of Shaikh-ul-Islam, he believes that any one who cares to study well-reasoned and cogently-argued books on the subject will be automatically led to the conclusion that the Shias are comparatively greater liars than other groups and sects. When a Rafidihi stresses Yaqiyyah, he indirectly confesses his lie".
These are the opinions of the leading scholars about Abu Mikhnaf. These scholars have made a comparative study of the sources of information and have backed up their conclusions with logic and reasoning. And similar and the views of the traditionists and religious scholars about the reliability of the Shias as vehicles of information.
The gist of the matter is that both Shias and Sunnis believe that Abu Mikhnaf was a Shia, that he was unveracious and untruth-worthy and Qummi’s words that Tabri and other Sunni scholars have relied on him inspite of his being a Shia, are nothing but a basket of bubbles and it is quit consistent with their nature which finds its exclusive nourishment in stringing up lies and fibs. Any one who had studied Tabri knows that he has nowhere indicated the option to stress only the veracious traditions. It is a mixed bag and he has explained the hodge-podge complexion of the book in his preface:
"There are certain traditions in this book which have come down to us from people who are disliked by the readersand the audience alike. These traditions are neither valid nor have they any link with realith. It should, however, be noted that these traditions are not invented by us but have been reportedby people who have conveyed htem to us. We have recorded them verbatim without making any alterations in them, and as they have been communicated to us".
Ibn Athir has also explained in the preface of his book that he has reported them from Tabri and relied on his authority: He observes:
"I have collected materials in my book that lay scattered and was not accessible in the form of a single book. Any one who cares to reflect will soon grasp the truthfulness of my statement. First of all I have picked up "Tarikh-I-Kabir" written by Imam Abu Jafar Tabri because all people depend in this book and they revert to it when differences crop up among them, and I have relied on all the various translations and left out not a single one-of them".
This is the reality behind the trust of Tabri and Ibn Athir on Abu Mikhnaf.
No comments:
Post a Comment