Read on Twitter
"The dark history of Islam" [thread]
So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736
!["The dark history of Islam" [thread]So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErhIdMDUUAIpJnw.jpg "\"The dark history of Islam\" [thread]So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736")
!["The dark history of Islam" [thread]So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErhIerVVQAAA3Y-.jpg "\"The dark history of Islam\" [thread]So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736")
So lets analyze the bold move here by @IhsanNaseer, one of the kids who are involved in spreading these shia heretical beliefs in Maldives. https://twitter.com/IhsanNaseer/status/1348713871096180736
As usual, here the shia tools have brought a claim with a "sunni reference" . This is a technique they use to build up the frame work to shake the fundamentals of naive sunnis who are fragile.
/2
/2
Firstly about Mr. Maududi
One: He is a contemporary, which means his words are same as me and you and are in need of sources. (This is the fundamental difference between muslims and shia, we are attached to sources and not names and titles).
/3
One: He is a contemporary, which means his words are same as me and you and are in need of sources. (This is the fundamental difference between muslims and shia, we are attached to sources and not names and titles).
/3
Two: The book has been refuted thoroughly, by MuftÄ« TaqÄ« UsmÄnÄ«, and he has detailed responses to alk the sources which Maududi relied upon.
(For example some narrations cited from At-Tabari via the narrator Abu Mukhnaf. =
/4
(For example some narrations cited from At-Tabari via the narrator Abu Mukhnaf. =
/4
The imams of hadeeth verification has a consensus upon the non realiability of Abu Mikhnaf. Amongst it:
The author of "Al-qÄmÅ«s" said: āAbu Mikhnaf is is a corrupted shia narrator, is rejected.ā
AbÅ« HÄtim said: He is rejected in hadÄ«th.
/5
The author of "Al-qÄmÅ«s" said: āAbu Mikhnaf is is a corrupted shia narrator, is rejected.ā
AbÅ« HÄtim said: He is rejected in hadÄ«th.
/5
Al-Daraqutnī said: He is rejected in hadīth, and they say: He narrates from a group of unknown narrators.
Ibn Ma'Ä«n said: He is not a reliable narrator.
Al-Dhahabī said: His narrations are corrupted, he is not to be relied. )
/6
Ibn Ma'Ä«n said: He is not a reliable narrator.
Al-Dhahabī said: His narrations are corrupted, he is not to be relied. )
/6
Three:
Maudūdī not just accused sahabah with baseless accusations, he has also accused Prophets, including Dawūd, Yūsuf, Mūsa and others of claims only a heretic would claim
=
/7
Maudūdī not just accused sahabah with baseless accusations, he has also accused Prophets, including Dawūd, Yūsuf, Mūsa and others of claims only a heretic would claim
=
/7
For an extensive refutation of your "source", i.e. MaudÅ«dÄ«'s āKhilÄfat wa MulÅ«kiyyatā , please refer to MuftÄ« TaqÄ« UsmÄnÄ«ās āHazrat Mu'Äwiyah aur TÄrÄ«khÄ« HaqÄiqā.
/8
/8
Secondly:
As many shia do, you have claimed something and then thrown some ambiguous references saying to "refer to al-Tabarī or Ibn Kathīr... this page to this"
So instead of citing an actual "narration" shia will bring a falsehood and tell you to refer to a sunni source.
/9
As many shia do, you have claimed something and then thrown some ambiguous references saying to "refer to al-Tabarī or Ibn Kathīr... this page to this"
So instead of citing an actual "narration" shia will bring a falsehood and tell you to refer to a sunni source.
/9
Often, naive readers would think that the sources are exact or are authentic, while for a fact, shia usually fabricates.
They would not either cite the quote or would quote partially. And if they quote they would not declare the authenticity of such quote.
/10
They would not either cite the quote or would quote partially. And if they quote they would not declare the authenticity of such quote.
/10
Lets check just the main "source" he is telling us to refer : Al-Bidayah (the infamous, scholar and student of ibn taymiyyah: ibn Kathīr's history on Islam)
So Ihusan Naseer bring a statement (most probably in a shia propaganda cite like, al-islam. org if we are =
/11
So Ihusan Naseer bring a statement (most probably in a shia propaganda cite like, al-islam. org if we are =
/11
= to give him benefit of the doubt of not fabricating) that MaudÅ«dÄ« quoted, Ibn KathÄ«r saying: Mu'Äwiyah "started" a practice in which AlÄ« was cursed on Friday prayers by the governors of Mu'Äwiyah.
/12
/12
So I actually went through the references and found amidst a lot of narrations about Mu'Äwiyah, ibn KathÄ«r actually points out several weaknesses
And in the Book 7 page 283 of Al-BidÄyah (Maktabah Al-Ma'Ärif, 1990 CE) he cites this narration
(SS from original print)
/13
And in the Book 7 page 283 of Al-BidÄyah (Maktabah Al-Ma'Ärif, 1990 CE) he cites this narration
(SS from original print)
/13
Ibn Kathīr says:
āAbÅ« Mikhnaf (notice that we already talked about this narrator) reported from AbÅ« HabbÄb Al-KulabÄ«: that when it reached to 'AlÄ« (the news) of what 'Amr did, he ('AlÄ«) started to curse Mu'Äwiyah & Amr Bin Al-Äs & AbÅ« Al-A'war Al-SulamÄ« & on HabÄ«b bin=
/14
āAbÅ« Mikhnaf (notice that we already talked about this narrator) reported from AbÅ« HabbÄb Al-KulabÄ«: that when it reached to 'AlÄ« (the news) of what 'Amr did, he ('AlÄ«) started to curse Mu'Äwiyah & Amr Bin Al-Äs & AbÅ« Al-A'war Al-SulamÄ« & on HabÄ«b bin=
/14
=Al-Maslamah & DhahhÄk binQais & 'Abdu-RahmÄn bin KhÄlid bin Al-WalÄ«d & Al-WalÄ«d bin Al-'Utbah in his QunÅ«t. So when this (news) reached Mu'Äwiyah he started to curse upon 'AlÄ« & Hasan & Hussein and Ibn 'AbbÄs & Al-AshtarÄ« Al-Nakha'Ä« ā& THIS IS NOT SAHEEH & Allah knows bestā
/15
/15
Compare this to what the shia propagator who said nothing about the part of AlÄ« starting the curse and tried to portray that this i.e. Mu'Äwiyah cursing 'AlÄ«, to be something that ibn KathÄ«r adhered to, while in fact ibn KathÄ«r brought it and rejected it as inauthentic.
/16
/16
You will find many similar reports by Ibn Kathīr and sometimes he reports multiple similar statements and then would at the end or in its midst state that these are inauthentic & unreliable.
Then you would find these shia quoting half of it and attributing it to ibn Kathīr
/17
Then you would find these shia quoting half of it and attributing it to ibn Kathīr
/17
Lastly:
Even if such a narration is brought by ibn Kathīr or At-Tabarī or any other historian or even a book of sunan, they are irrelevant in our eyes, unless they are authentic. (Many of these fabrication were actually done by shia themselves.)
18/
Even if such a narration is brought by ibn Kathīr or At-Tabarī or any other historian or even a book of sunan, they are irrelevant in our eyes, unless they are authentic. (Many of these fabrication were actually done by shia themselves.)
18/
We are ahlusunnah. We even reject ahÄdÄ«th of the Prophet based on its inauthenticity. For how many ahÄdÄ«th in sunan are rejected due to its defects? So why will we not reject lies attributed to sahabah and Tabi'Ä«n that may carry in the books of history?
19/19
End.
19/19
End.
ahÄdÄ«th *attributed* to the prophet
