Monday, January 2, 2012

al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, The Liar

Here is a aḥīḥ or Hasan (Authentic or Good) adīth that says al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī used to lie against (or, about) `Alī bin al-ussayn (عليه السلام).

I have posted earlier that al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī has a aī (Authentic) adīth that praises the action that al-Mukhtār did by avenging the deaths of Karbalā’. Click here: http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/12/al-mukhtar-al-thaqafi_16.html

I was under the impression that all of the adīth in condemnation of al-Mukhtār were da`īf (weak). I was unfortunately relying on al-Khoei’s grading, but after careful research I was wrong.

One might think that these two adīth contradict each other, when this is not the case at all. This is very easily reconcilable. The Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) have praised al-Mukhtār for his “action” for avenging the deaths at Karbalā’, they have never praised al-Mukhtār the person. This adīth, on the other hand, condemns al-Mukhtār the person and calls him a liar. Others might try to say this was said under taqiyyah, when this is not the case at all, since both these adīth are easily reconcilable.

When you research the life of al-Mukhtār bin Abī `Ubaydah al-Thaqafī you will see that he was one of the leaders of the Kaysāniyyah sect. The Kaysāniyyahs were those who believed that Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah was the Imām after his father. The sect was called Kaysāniyyah because al-Mukhtār’s laqab (nickname) was Kaysān.  (For more information on this see: al-Nawabakhtī, Firaq al-Shī`ah, pg. 33, # 55).


According to the al-Mukhtāriyyah (sub-sect of the Kaysāniyyahsect: "Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah is Imām al-Mahdi, and he was the successor of Imām `Ali. And no one from the Ahl al-Bayt can oppose him, and no one can rise up against his (Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah's) Imāmate, and no one can use his sword except with his (Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah's) permission."
Source:
1.     Al-Nawabakhti, Firaq al-Shi'a, Chapter: "Imamate of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya", pg. 38

To prove that al-Mukhtār bin Abī `Ubaydah al-Thaqafī was the leader of the Kaysāniyyah sect, here are two videos from the famous TV series by Iran Mukhtār Nameh (Narratives of Mukhtār), with English Subtitles.


First Video:
al-Mukhtār asking permission from Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah for the uprising.  (Click link below to watch video and continue until 43:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7xi7eIfg6jg#t=2408s

Second Video:
al-Mukhtār shows a letter from Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah to Ibrahim bin Malik al-Ashtar and it is signed "Muhammad al-Mahdi". Ibrahim bin Malik says that Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah always signs his letter "Muhammad bin `Ali", and not as "Muhammad al-Mahdi". al-Mukhtār says it is a "secret" between Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah and him. (Click link below to watch video and continue until 8:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ba-mwo_awbw#t=355s


I have felt the need to make a post about al-Mukhtār for a very long time, because unfortunately, some of our Shee`ahs are getting misguided  and swayed by this new phenomenon TV series by Iran titled Mukhtār Nameh (Narratives of Mukhtār). If you were to watch this TV series, by the time you finish watching it you will be under the impression that al-Mukhtār was a “good” guy, when it is farther from the truth.

(Taken from my personal copy of al-Kashī’s al-Rijāl, (Beirut, Mu’assasah al-`Amalī lil-Matbū`āt, 1st ed., 1430), pg. 97)
(Click to enlarge)



محمد بن الحسن و عثمان بن حامد، قالا حدثنا محمد بن يزداد الرازي، عن محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن عبد الله المزخرف، عن حبيب الخثعمي، عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال كان المختار يكذب على علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام
From Habīb al-Khath`amī from Abī `Abd Allāh (عليه السلام) said: “al-Mukhtār used to lie against (or, about) `Alī bin al-Ḥussayn (عليه السلام)
Source:
1.     Al-Kashī, al-Kashī, ed. Sayyid Mahdi al-Rijā’ī, (Qum: Mu’assasah Ālī al-Bayt al-Aḥyā’ al-Turāth, 1404), pg. 340, ḥadīth # 198
Grading:
1.     Muqaddis al-Ardabili said this hadeeth is Hasan Tarīq wāḍiḥ al-matn (Through a Good Path (chain), with clear text)à Jāmi` al-Ruwāt, 2 vols., (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar`ashi, 1403), vol. 2, pg. 221
2.     `Alī al-Burujerdi said this hadeeth is Hasan Tarīq (Good Path (chain))àTarā’if al-Maqāl, (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar`ashi, 1st ed., 1410) vol. 2, pg. 590
3.     `Āsif al-Muḥsinī said There is No Problem in its Chain à Mashra`ah Bihār al-Anwaar, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-`Ārif lil-Matbū`āt, 2nd ed., 1426) vol. 2, pg. 159

Al-Khoei says in his Mu`jam Rijāl al-adīth that this adīth is da`īf (weak). (See: al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-adīth, vol. 19, pg. 105). Now if you look throughout al-Khoei’s Mu`jam and go by his standards, you will see that he has contradicted his own standards and gradings.

Breakdown of the isnaad (chain of narrators):

عثمان بن حامد (`Uthmān bin āmid) is thiqah (trustworthy) according to:
1.     Al-Ṭūsī, Rijāl, pg. 429, person # 6163
2.     Al-Hillee, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 126, person # 3
3.     Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-ḥadīth, vol. 11, pg. 106, person # 7573

محمد بن يزداد الرازي (Muhammad bin Yazdād al-Rāzī) is فلا بأس به  (And There is No problem with him) according to:
1.     Al-Kashī, Rijāl, pg. 530 – 531, hadeeth # 1014
2.     Ibn Dawūd, Rijāl, pg. 388
3.     Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-ḥadīth, vol. 18, pg. 245 – 247 (Al-Khoei is authenticating a ḥadīth with Muhammad bin Yazdād al-Rāzi in it)

محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب (Muhammad bin al-ussayn bin Abī al-Khattāb) is thiqah (trustworthy) according to:
1.     Al-Najāshī, Rijāl, pg. 334, person # 897
2.     Al-Ṭūsī, Rijāl, pg. 400, person # 608
3.     Al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, pg. 379, person # 5615
4.     Al-Hilli, al-Khulāṣah, pg. 141, person # 19
5.     Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-ḥadīth, vol. 15, pg. 291, person # 10554

عبد الله المزخرف (`Abd Allāh bin Muhammad al-ajjāl al-Mazkharaf) is thiqah (trustworthy) according to:
1.     Al-Najāshī, Rijāl, pg. 226, person # 595
2.     Al-Ṭūsī, Rijāl, pg. 360, person # 5332
3.     Al-Hilli, Rijāl, pg. 105, person # 18
4.     Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-ḥadīth, vol. 10, pg. 301, person # 7095

حبيب الخثعمي (Habīb bin al-Mu`allil al-Kath`amī) is thiqah (trustworthy) according to:
1.     Al-Najāshī, Rijāl, pg. 141, person # 368
2.     Al-Hillee, Al-KhulaaSah, pg. 62, person # 4
3.     Al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-ḥadīth, vol. 4, pg. 224, person # 2570


About Muhammad bin Yazdād al-Rāzī

There is an authentic  narration that is taken by all scholars in al-Kashī’s Rijāl, pg. 530 – 531, adīth # 1014, that Muhammad bin Mas`ūd al-`Ayyāshī says فلا بأس به (And there is no problem in him) about Muhammad bin Yazdād al-Rāzī.

When you look through al-Khoei’s Mu`jam Rijāl al-adīth, you will find al-Khoei never weakens or call him (Muhammad bin Yazdād al-Rāzī) majhūl (unknown). Rather, you see al-Khoei take his narrations. Here is an example:

محمد بن الحسن البراثي و عثمان قالا: حدثنا محمد بن يزداد، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن الحجال، عن أبي مالك الحضرمي، عن أبي العباس البقباق قال

After this narration al-Khoei says أقول: هذه الرواية صحيحة (I say: This narration is aī (Authentic)). (See: al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijāl al-adīth, vol. 18, pg. 245-246)

About فلا بأس به (And There is No Problem in him)

Scholars through majority of Shī`ah Islām have taken the words لا بأس به as a form of tawtheeq (authenticity) or mad (praise), not only al-Khoei:

1.       Al-Bihbahani, al-Fawaa’id al-Waheed, pg. 31-32
2.      `Iddah al-Rijāl, vol. 1, pg. 122-123
3.      Mulla `Alī al-Tihrani, Taweeh al-Maqāl, pg. 203
4.      Al-Mamaqānī, Miqbās al-Hidaayah, vol. 2, pg. 228
5.      Hasan bin `Abd al-Samad al-Hā’irī, Wusūl al-Akhyār, pg. 192
6.      Sayyid al-Dāmād, al-Rawāshi al-Samāwiyyah, pg. 60
7.      Muhammad `Alī al-Mu`allim, Usool `Ilm al-Rijāl, vol. 1, pg. 50


As you can see this adīth is aī or Hasan and there is no doubt about its authenticity. After studying this narration and compare it with the life of al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī it is obvious that the A’immah (عليهم السلام) praised him for his action of killing the killers of Karbalā’, but al-Mukhtār as a person has be condemned heavily in this authentic narration and history books.

76 comments:

  1. Thanks for your effort.

    TripolySunni,

    ReplyDelete
  2. u have mentioned in passing that he was leader of kasaniyyah sect, please post ur research on this evidence. If so, then do explain the stroy regarding how mukhtar sought permission to avenge karbala and whether haniffiyah or 4th Imam (as) gave the go ahead. Also show proofs of this kasaniyyah thing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Anonymous,

    Assalaamu `Alaykum,

    I have already gave the proof of the Kaysaniyyah sect. It is in our oldest Shee`ah firaq book called Firaq al-Shee`ah, by al-Nawabakhti. The version of the book I have is by Sa`ad bin `Abd Allaah's Kitaab al-Maqaalaat along with al-Nawabakhti's Firaq al-Shee`ah.

    Here is what I said:
    When you research the life of al-Mukhtār bin Abī `Ubaydah al-Thaqafī you will see that he was one of the leaders of the Kaysāniyyah sect. The Kaysāniyyahs were those who believed that Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah was the Imām after his father. The sect was called Kaysāniyyah because al-Mukhtār’s laqab (nickname) was Kaysān. (See: al-Nawabakhtī, Firaq al-Shī`ah, pg. 33, # 55).


    From what I have seen, even in the Mukhtar Nameh TV series, Mukhtar seeks permission for the uprising from Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah. And also, he goes to the people of Koofah and shows them the letter from Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah, and it is signed "Muhammad al-Hanafiyya al-Mahdi".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salam!
      You wrote that Mukhtar (as) was the follower of the Kaysāniyyah sect which named after his nickname and which believes that Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah as the authentic authority after his holy father Imam Ali (as) however when i read his history i came to know that In 692 A.D. he traveled to Damascus and swore allegiance to Abd al-Malik; now my question is that how can a Imam go under the Bayt(allegiance) of a non-Imam when he himself was an Imam? Thus it proves that he was not an Imam and therefore was under the bayt of Abd Al Malik.
      As far as Mukhtar's character goes, like you concluded, i would stick to the point that "it is obvious that the A’immah (عليهم السلام) praised him for his action of killing the killers of Karbalā" and this, according to me, is the biggest of all his doings and his nijaad for Jannah.
      Ali Khawaja

      Delete
    2. Also, i spoke to few Alim e Deen; and as per them, the fact that Mukhtaar (as) was a believer of Kaysāniyyah sect is true but the majority of Ulema believe that Mukhtaar (as) had converted to true Shia'ism in the end and lastly died the death of a Martyr following true path of Mola Ali (as).

      Delete
  4. Salam Aleykum,

    After reading this hadith, I checked the other hadith that mentioned Mukhtar. There's nothing good said about him OR his action.

    The other hadith just states a matter of fact.
    NOTHING good, not even his action.

    So, from both of these hadiths, and knowing Mukhtar's deviant views about the successful of Imam Hussain (as), we have absolutely no reason to praise Mukhtar.

    It seems Mukhtar was just a power-hungry, angry person, who USED ahlul bayt (as) to pursue HIS OWN agenda.

    He did NOT have the permission of the Imam of the time to do what he did, so he circumvented and pursued his agenda ANYWAYS.

    We have zero reason to praise Mukhtar or even consider him a good person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wa `Alaykum Assalaam,

    We do have hadeeth that praise al-Mukhtar, but they are weak. But there are more explicit hadeeth that praise al-Mukhtaar.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally I do not even bother with weak hadiths. When there are sahih hadiths that paint a different picture of Mukhtar, why even bother with weak hadiths?
    Who will we be fooling except ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well it is always good to look to weak hadeeth, and see the contrast between those and the SaHeeH hadeeth.

    UPDATE: I have added information about the Mukhtaariyyah sect (sub-sect of the Kaysaniyyah). Also, I have added two videos from the Mukhtar Nameh that exposes Mukhtar al-Thaqafi to be from the Kaysaniyyah sect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The people who praise Mukhtar need to ask themselves the following questions.

    1) Who was the Imam after Imam Hussain (as)?

    2) What happens when someone dies without recognizing the Imam of the time?

    3) What type of people ignore and reject the Imam of the time?

    4) What type of a person lies against the Imam of the time?

    5) What does our faith say about lying and liars?

    6) There is not a doubt that lying is amongst the worst sin, but what about lying about/or against the Imam of the time? How horrendous is lying against or about the Imam of the time?

    .....

    There are many more questions that they should ask themselves.


    I hope they put their pride aside and examine this topic fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Salam Nader, this is TripolySunni... There's a good number of narrations that mention al-Mukhtar in the history books, I've had these for a while maybe you'll find something interesting in them:

    (1) - When al-Mukhtar's empire was about to crumble, his follower asked what the best course of action was thinking that his master was actually a Prophet, but soon he was disappointed:

    فقال له السائب: الرأي لك؟ قال: أنا أرى أم الله يرى؟ قال: الله يرى, قال: ويحك أحمق أنت! إنما أنا رجل من العرب رأيت ابن الزبير انتزى على الحجاز, ورأيت نجدة انتزى على اليمامة, ومروان على الشام, فلم أكن دون أحد من رجال العرب, فأخذت هذه البلاد, فكنت كأحدهم إلا أني قد طلبت وبالغت في ذلك إلى يومي هذا, فقاتل على حسبك إن لم تكن لك نية, فقال السائب: إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون

    al-Mukhtar told al-Saeb bin Malik al-Asha'ari: What do you think? ibn Malek said: The opinion is yours, al-Mukhtar said: My opinion or the opinion of Allah? al-Saeb said: That of Allah, al-Mukhtar said: Are you an idiot!? I am only a man from the Arabs, I saw ibn al-Zubair rule the land of al-Hijaz and I saw Najdah rule the land of al-Yamamah and Marwan ruled al-Sham, I was not lower in status than any of these Arabs so I claimed these lands for myself although I exaggerated and I am not greater than any ordinary man among you, so if you wish to fight then fight for yourself. al-Saeb said: ... to Allah we belong and to him we shall return.

    source: Tareekh al-Tabari 6/677.

    (2) - When one of his close followers and body-guards learned of his deceit he abandoned him:

    رفاعة بن شداد قال: كنت أقوم على رأس المختار, فلما عرفت كذبه هممت أن أسُلَّ سيفي فأضرب عنقه, فذكرت حديثًا حدثناه عمرو بن الحمق قال: سمعت رسول الله يقول: «من أمَّن رجلاً على نفسه فقتله, أعطي لواء غدر يوم القيامة»

    Rifa'ah bin Shaddad narrated: I used to stand guard near the head of al-Mukhtar (as he sleeps), when I learned of his lies and deciet I intended to cut it off but then I remembered the narration of Rassul-Allah SAWS: "If a man asks another for his safety then he kills him, he shall hold the flag of treachery on the day of judgement."

    source: Sunan ibn Majah 2688, Hadith-Sahih.

    (3) - Ibn al-Hanafiyyah (ra) himself abandonned al-Mukhtar, he stood on the doors of the Ka'abah and exposed him:

    إنه كان كذابًا يكذب على الله ورسوله

    "He was a liar, he would lie on Allah and his Messenger SAWS."

    source: Tabaqat ibn Sa'ad al-Kubra 5/158.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol!! I can also do what you've done. But neither I'm a liar like you, nor i feel it right to insult someone. You people are far from the truth. And as it is, Allah unko hidayat deta hai jo hidayat pana chahte hain. Sadly, aplog gumrah logon mai se hain k jinko allah hidayat de wo tab b nahe lete.
      Firstly, who in the world gave you the right to say such great person a liar? He was the man who stood first to take revenge from qatilaan-e-Imam Hussain(a.s).
      Secondly, Hazrat Ameer e Mukhtar Saqafi was the son & grandson of eminent Sahabah
      e Karaam and a true follower of Ahlebayt (a s) and his love for them had no bounds and it is natural that you haters of Ahlebayt e Rasool (saaws) and the followers of their enemies, who showed his criminality by burning the door of the Beti of his own Nabi (s) killing her unborn son and martyring her too.The friends of the Pioneer of the Terrorism can not but call such pious true mohibbe Ahlebayt only a liar , who
      according to former Sunni Allamah Rashidul Khairi writes in his ”Sayyedah ka Laal”that ”he was neither interested in wealth,nor rule , he took up one by one all the criminals of karbala and sent them to Jahannum ” In a well known hadis RasoolAllah (s)had himself told his father that one day this (noble son of yours) will punish the killers of my grandson.It was the message of his great achievement finishing all the killers and finally Omar & Ibn e Ziad Maloun,which brought a faint smile on the face of the 4th successor of the Rasool e Maqbool (saaws) , Imam Aali Muqaam Zainul Abedeen (a s) which we celebrate as the day of Eid e Shuja’a. Because of his love and his affection had a very soft corner for him The real hero of Islam and the shias is only next to Ahlebayt in nobility and status and it is natural that dushmanane Ahlebayt , the friends of munafeqeen will only find faults in him. Shame on such kafereen. Ala La’anat Allah e ala qaumizzalemeen wa munafeqeen wa mushrekeen. No one is interested in your false & fabricated
      stories which are lies much to the extent of absurdity.

      Delete
    2. Hazrat Umar par yeh tohmat hai ki apne Sayyidah Fatimah az Zahra alaihi salaam ka ghar jalaya aur darwaza gira kar unka hamal mubarak giraya aur ye unki maut ki wajah hui.

      Balki, Sahih Sanad se ye hadees Shia aur Sunni dono hadees ki kitabon mein moujood hai ki apni wafaat ke waqt Rasool e Khuda SAWS ne Sayyidah Fatima AS ke kaan mein kuchh kaha aur wo rone lageen aur phir dobara kuchh kaha to aap hasne lageen. Poochhne par apne bataya ki pehle to Rasool e Khuda SAWS ne farmaya ki,"Meri beti mai duniya se jald rukhsat hone wala hoon." Aur doosri baar ye farmaya ki, "Mere baad mere Hauz e Kausar par sabse pehle tum aakar mujhse milogi."

      Isse pata chalta hai ki aapko Sayyidah Fatima az Zahra AS ki parda e hayaat ka pata tha. Apke jaane ke baad Sayyidah Fatimah Az Zahra AS beemar padeen aur phir is duniyawi zindagi ko chhod kar Jannat ki galiyon mein ja pohonchi.

      Jahan tak Umar bin al Khattab ke tashaddud waali hadees hai to bhai usme Abaan bin Abi Ayash raavi ne bina kisee se sune hadees bayan ki hai (Alfaaz: Maine suna ki) Isko Hadees ke ilm mein Tadlees karna kehte hain. Agarche Hz Abaan bin Ayaash Shiaa the, lekin SHia aur Sunni dono girohon ke muhaddith is usool par muttafiq hain ki An waali rawayat to Sahabah ki bhi nahi li jayegi.

      Umar bin Khattab rz se jo ghaltiyan huin ALlah unko maaf farmaye, lekin SHia ki tamam hadees ki kitabon mein apko Maula ALi AS ke fatwe mil jayenge khusoosan jo Umar bin Khattab ki khilafat mein apne bahaisiyat Qaazi ke diye. Aur Maula Ali as Hz Umar ke damaad bhi the kyonki apne Hasnain alaihim us Salaam ki behen Umm Qulsoom AS ko Umar ke nikah mein diya tha.

      Ek baar Umar bin Khattab ki ye zaeef hadees ka zeher apne dil se nikal kar dekhein. Umar bin Khattab hote to Banu Umayya ka giroh kabhi panapne nahi paata. Na Siffin hoti aur na Karbala hoti. Lekin Allah azz wa jall ki marzi. Humare Imam ko Jannati naujawanon ki tajposhi jo ho chuki thee.. Labbaik Ya Hussein. alaihi salaam.

      Allahumma Salle alaa Sayyidina Muhammad wa alaa Aal e Muhammad

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, brother the fabricated hadees about mukhtar your referring, sourse is from sunni books and shia's have no aqeeda in sunni sources as shia's are guided by imam a.s.

      Delete
  10. Where was our fourth Imam in all this?

    I do not understand. Lived not our Imam (4) in the same period?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not to be rude, but most of your Imams whom I respect and love never contributed anything at all in History especially the last 4 (not counting the 12th one whom I don't believe in).

    TripolySunni.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (not counting the 12th one whom I don't believe in)
      Then u dont have a business here

      Delete
    2. I believe that you are not a true shia because if u were u would never be so brave to say something about imam such like that....u are just a liar....i have a greatest proof from mukhtar nama which was said by his(mukhtar)wife...if u want u can see when she was standing face to face to musa'ab before she was being killed....if someone wants to believe on truth this proof is enough

      Delete
    3. The brothers name is TripolySUNNI, why would he be Shi'a? Use some common sense, or at least learn how to read!

      Delete
    4. lol..Tripoli sunni..check out what your great scholar, the founder of the hanafi sect. The great Abu Hanifa has to say about Imam Jaafar e Sadiq. He stayed 2 yrs with the imam n said that he would have been a 'Jaahil' had he not stayed with the 6th imam. Oh n btw, I hope you don't consider the lion of Allah was a name given to you for your brave deeds in the nascent battles of Islam.
      Your thinking belongs in the gutter really.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is what I found in this book: [http://www.al-islam.org/history-shiism-from-the-advent-of-islam-to-end-of-minor-occultation-muharrami/14.htm]

    ---

    Ayatullah al-Khu’i thus writes:

    Some Sunni ‘ulama’ associate Mukhtar with the Kaysaniyyah sect and this is definitely a false statement because Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah never claimed Imamate {imamah} for himself for Mukhtar to call on the people to recognize his Imamate.

    Mukhtar was killed prior to Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah’s demise and the Kaysaniyyah sect came into being after Muhammad al-Hanafiyyah’s death. But as to the fact that they regard Mukhtar as “Kaysan” (it is not because he was following the Kaysaniyyah sect), granting that this label is appropriate for him, its origin is traceable to the same questionable report from the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) who is alleged to have said: “O Kays! O Kays!” Thus, he was called, “Kaysan”.

    Sayyid Abu’l-Qasim al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.), vol. 18, pp. 102-103.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brother Naqvi,
    Ayatollah Amini in his book states:
    http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-1.htm

    (1) Muhammad b. Hanafiyya:

    Since he had the name and patronymic of the Prophet, there was a group that believed him to be the Mahdi. According to Tabari, when Mukhtar b. Abu 'Ubayd Thaqafi wanted to revolt against the Umayyads and exact revenge from those who had murdered the grandson of the Prophet, Husayn, he ascribed Mahdiism to Muhammad b. Hanafiyya. And he claimed to be his envoy and his deputy and showed the letters he had brought with him to the people.[53]

    Ibn Sa'd tells us that when people wanted to greet Ibn Hanafiyya they would address him thus: "Peace be to you, O Mahdi!" And he would reply: "Yes, I am the Mahdi, and I shall guide you towards the straight path and prosperity. My name is the same as the name of the Prophet, and my patronymic is also his patronymic. Whenever you want to greet me say: 'Peace be to you O Muhammad; peace be to you O Abu al-Qasim!'"[54]

    This and other similar reports indicate that one of the signs of the appearance of the promised Mahdi was the combination of the Prophet's name and patronymic for a person. This is the reason Ibn Hanafiyya made a reference to this fact for himself. However, careful investigation of historical sources reveals that it was not Ibn Hanafiyya who made such claims for himself. It was others, like Mukhtar, who introduced him thus. On his part, sometimes Ibn Hanafiyya kept silent on the matter, confirming the attribution to him. This policy was probably followed with the hope that the murderers of Karbala would be avenged and the Islamic leadership would revert to its rightful holder. This is supported by another report in which Ibn Hanafiyya tells the people: "Be aware that the rightful people have a government, which will be established when God desires it. Anyone who witnesses it will be fortunate and anyone who predeceases it will enjoy the blessings of God in the hereafter."[55]

    Muhammad b. Hanafiyya, in a sermon that he delivered in the presence of some seven thousand people, said: "You have hastened in this matter. Yet, among your descendants are people who, with the help of the family of the Prophet, will wage war against the enemies of God. The government of the family of the Prophet is not concealed from anyone. However, its materialization will take time. I declare solemnly in the name of the One in whose hand is Muhammad's life, the rule will return to the Prophet's family."[56]

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Syed Naqvi,

    Assalaamu `Alaykum,

    The author has made a gross mistake. al-Khoei hasn't says this, but he is simply quoting from a narration in al-Kashi's Rijaal, that al-Khoei himself graded as Da`eef.

    الأمر الثالث: أنه نسب بعض العامة المختار إلى الكيسانية، و قد استشهد لذلك بما في الكشي من قوله
    The Third Point: The attribution of some of the `amah (Sunnis) of al-Mukhtār to the al-Kaysāniyyah, and I have cited for that, what is in al-Kashi
    Source:
    al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal al-Hadeeth, vol. 18, pg. 101

    This is what al-Khoei says after he quotes this narration from al-Kashi's Rijaal:
    و هذه الروايات ضعيفة الأسناد جدا
    "And these narrations have a VERY weak isnaad (chain of narrators)"
    Source:
    al-Khoei, Mu`jam Rijaal a-Hadeeth, vol. 18, pg. 98


    But the issue here is that al-Khoei fails to mention that it isn't just "some Sunnis", the Shee`ahs have also attributed this to al-Mukhtaar. As I have shown from al-Nawabakhti's Firaq al-Shee`ah. Which is the oldest surviving book we have for the sects of the Shee`ahs authored by a Shee`ah.

    Wa `Alaykum Assalaam

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wa Allaikum Salam

    ^Interesting.

    This chapter in a different book shows a completely different picture of Mukhtar:

    Some sources present him as an ambitious adventurer seeking political authority for himself in the name of the Ahl al-Bayt. Others give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that his actions were in reality motivated by his love for the family of the Prophet, though his approach and tactics were different from those of the Tawwabun.

    . .

    The Twelver Shi'i sources present him in an unfavourable light since it was he who for the first time began propaganda for the Imamate of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya, thus deviating from the line of Fatima.

    ..

    The fact, however, remains that Mukhtar, in all probability due to the quiescent policy of Zayn al-'Abidin,-to be discussed below, was responsible for shifting the Imamate from the descendants of the Prophet through Fatima to another son of 'Ali! Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya, thus creating the first deviation from the legitimist body of the Shi'a.


    http://www.al-islam.org/the-origins-and-early-development-of-shia-islam-sayyid-jafari/9.htm

    -----

    As for Anonymous - from the same book in chapter 8, Ayatollah Amini further writes about Mukhtar himself:

    The first person who took advantage of the people's faith in Mahdiism and its religious underpinnings was Mukhtar. Following the tragic event of Karbala in 61 AH/680 CE, Mukhtar wanted to avenge the martyrs of Karbala and overthrow the Umayyad government. But he realized that the Hashimites and the Shi'is had lost hope in seizing the caliphate for themselves. Consequently, he saw the belief in Mahdiism as the only way to awaken the people and make them hopeful. Since Muhammad b. Hanafiyya's name and patronymic were the same as that of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) (this was one of the recognized signs of the Mahdi) Mukhtar decided to seize the opportunity and introduced Muhammad b. Hanafiyya as the promised Mahdi and himself as his vizier and envoy. He told the people that Muhammad b. Hanafiyya was the promised Mahdi of Islam. At the time when the oppression and tyranny were increasing and Husayn b. 'Ali, his family, and companions were killed mercilessly at Karbala, the Mahdi had decided to rise in order to avenge the martyrs of Karbala, and restore justice on earth as it had been filled with wickedness. He then introduced himself as the Mahdi's representative. In this manner Mukhtar launched an insurrection and killed a group of murderers who had participated in killing Imam Husayn. This was, by the way, the first time that an insurrection had been launched against the caliphate.

    http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-8.htm

    ReplyDelete
  17. ^
    Right. In other words, Mukhtar was a power-hungry opportunistic individual, who lied about and against the Imam of the time, Imam Sajjad (as), in order to pursue his own agenda of killing people.
    In doing so, he confused people and shifted the line of Imamate and ever since then, dozens of other sects claimed legitimacy.

    It is very clear that if one studies Mukhtar with open eyes, fairly and without artificially implanted pride, he would realize that Mukhtar does not deserve to be praised, as he was labelled a liar by our Imam (as).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you Shiaa?? And can you please tell which Imam labelled him as a liar??

      Delete
  18. Can any of you provide your research on the following narrations then (mentioned in the book linked previously; History of Shi'ism) - no primary sources seem to be mentioned though:

    Imam al-Baqir (‘a) thus said about him: “Do not speak ill of Mukhtar because he killed our murderers, did not allow our spilled blood to be disregarded, gave our daughters in marriage, and at the time of difficulty he distributed properties among us.

    When Abu’l-Hakam, son of Mukhtar, came to Imam al-Baqir (‘a), the Imam (‘a) showed him a great deal of respect. Abu’l-Hakam asked about his father, saying: “The people are talking about my father, but your view, whatever it is, is the criterion.” At that moment the Imam (‘a) praised Mukhtar and prayed for God to have mercy on him, saying: “Glory be to Allah! My father said that the affection of my mother was from the property that Mukhtar sent to my father.”

    And the Imam (‘a) said many times: “May God have mercy upon your father! He did not allow for our right to be trampled. He killed our murderers and did not permit our blood to be disregarded.”

    --

    From the footnotes, I think this may be the source: Rijal ibn Dawud (Qum: Manshurat ar-Radhi, n.d.), p. 277.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Syed Naqvi,


    Imam al-Baqir (‘a) thus said about him: “Do not speak ill of Mukhtar because he killed our murderers, did not allow our spilled blood to be disregarded, gave our daughters in marriage, and at the time of difficulty he distributed properties among us.

    --> This hadeeth is da`eef because of Sadeer bin Hukaym al-Sayrafi. He is either Da`eef or Majhool.


    When Abu’l-Hakam, son of Mukhtar, came to Imam al-Baqir (‘a), the Imam (‘a) showed him a great deal of respect. Abu’l-Hakam asked about his father, saying: “The people are talking about my father, but your view, whatever it is, is the criterion.” At that moment the Imam (‘a) praised Mukhtar and prayed for God to have mercy on him, saying: “Glory be to Allah! My father said that the affection of my mother was from the property that Mukhtar sent to my father.”

    --> This hadeeth is da`eef as well. Many majhool narrators.


    And the Imam (‘a) said many times: “May God have mercy upon your father! He did not allow for our right to be trampled. He killed our murderers and did not permit our blood to be disregarded.”

    --> This is in the same hadeeth as above, which is also weak.

    I have already said in my previous post and this post. All of the post regarding the praise of al-Mukhtaar is weak, except for the one I posted earlier. And all the other hadeeth about the condemnation of al-Mukhtaar is also weak, aside from the post in this post.

    Wa `Alaykum Assalaam

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another thing that all this shows is that the concept of Mahdi was there since the beginning and is not a later innovation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Can u Pls shut your mouth if u do not know Mukhtar.
    He was not A Liar like u.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ^Have better akhlaaq, then he might listen. His job is to provide the truth through our sources, and Nader has done a great job of providing you with authentic narrations. If you have a problem with Nader's post, then research yourself and provide proof. Put your money where your mouth is.

    Get mad at Iran for making a documentary showing how Mukhtaar forged Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah's signature in order to do an uprising. First and foremost, you should ask your Imaam (AS), not Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah if you are going to uprise in a rebellion. Yes, Muhammad was a pious and righteous man, but he was not an Imaam (AS). This should be enough proof as to Mukhtaar creating the Mukhtaariyyah sect, and his disbelief in the Imaam (AS) of his time, which would mean he is a Kaafir/Munaafiq according to authentic narrations. He was not of the mustaD'afeen (weak ones in knowledge). He knew fairly well what he was doing. With things like that, it can put Shee'ahs more in harms way, then helping us out. There is wisdom to why our A'immah (AS) didn't rebel after Imaam al-Husayn (AS). Even the rebellion of Zayd was okay to our A'immah (AS) because they knew of his character, but they weren't for the rebellion. They were asked regarding the rebellion of Zayd, and so the Imaam (AS) had to make sure he didn't make other Shee'ahs rebel, so he said that Zayd would have given us the caliphate if he had gotten power, but don't use Zayd as an excuse to rebel. Our Imaams (AS) also have negative hadeeth regarding the uprising of Zayd, this shows if you look at all the ahaadeeth objectively, then you realize they didn't like the uprising, but they had to do tawtheeq (authenticate) on Zayd because of the times and because of his followers. More to unite the Shee'ahs. This is my opinion when you look at the SaHeeH ahaadeeth in our books and even history.

    I for one don't even think Zayd's rebellion was a gung ho thing our Imaams (AS) liked. I believe they HAD to like Zayd's rebellion to show to the people as a form of Taqiyyah or politics. Zayd wasn't like Mukhtaar because he believed in the Imaam (AS) of his time, whereas Mukhtaar didn't and believed in Muhammad bin al Hanafiyyah.

    If you need the authentic ahaadeeth to these Zayd rebellions, then let me know, and I will provide the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mir Muntazir HussainJanuary 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM

    stupids dont write like this idiots

    ReplyDelete
  24. al-Mokhtar r.a said the Imamate of Sayed Muhammad al-Hanafiya so Imam Sajad could be safe in Madinah. The narrations against him were taqiya. You might ask then why are there ahadith which compliment him? The answer is in the clash of the Ummayad and Abbasid empires it was easy to spread hadith that's one of the reasons Imam Ja'afar and Imam Baqir a.s have more hadith than the other Imams. Other reasons might be private.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sooo you sunnis have had enough time trying to fix Shias (in your dreams) to become sunni, and yet now u are accepting our imamat and everything that we mention and now u are trying to stir a fitna about al Mokhtar so we can divide in-between our selfs. i wonder what will come next. Then after we start rejecting mokhtar then will we turn back to the begining, ahh abu bakr, ah omar, ah sahabi etc.... Ya shias wake up and turn back from these fitnas. They are trying to divide us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good one..
      thats what seems to be the purpose of all this..
      There seems to be a lot of poison in this man nadir

      Delete
    2. Admin is such a shameless man!! You have no fear of death?!
      If Hazrat Mukhtar(r.a) had power-hunger, he would have ruled for centuries over kufa. But he was never greedy. He was a true follower of Imam Ali(a.s) !!

      Delete
  26. Nader your take on Ayatollah Rohani's reply

    Q: Considering that some praise and some criticize Mokhtar Saqafi , what do you think about him? According to the narration, why did Mohammad Hanfia claimed to be an Imam?

    A: what Mokhtar did for Islam and the value of his acts can not be described well enough by me or anyone else like me. It is a lie that he claimed Mohammad Hanafia as his Imam.

    Mukhtar's grandson meeting with Imam Sadeq (AS) reveals his high position among the Imams (PBUH) and his behavior with the killers of Imam Hussain (AS), his interest in Imams (AS). Furthermore, there was a political aspect to his relationship with Mohammad Hanafyh. Some also accuse him of forming and leading Kisanya Hezb; however, according to solid proofs, this party was formed after he passed away.

    He is definitely one of the greatest men of Allah and has his place in heaven. May Allah exalt him. It should also be noted that he explicitly said that Imam Sajjad (AS) is both your Imam and mine.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ^Brilliant answer by Ayatollah Rohani, the political situation was so messed up during that time, too much propaganda, false information was being spread out about Hazrat Mukhtar r.a, not everyone can understand the wisdom of the pious men of Allah swt.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As far as I have read and understood in many books after the tragedy of Kerbala, Imam Zainul Abideen (AS) was not involved in day to day affairs whether politics or anything other than mourning and spending his time in prayers and hence called Zainul Abideen. He (Imam AS) had handed over the political affairs, particularly about Kufa to his Uncle Mohammed ibn Hanfia and that is why Al-Mukhtar sought permission from Mohammed ibn Hanfia rather than Imam himself. Surely, Imam would have been pleased to see head of ibn Ziyad and prayed for Al Mukhtar for perfoming the deed of bringing killer of Imam Hussain AS to justice.

    About AL-Mukhtar's tactics how he managed to bring all those killer of Ahulbayt to justice - Imam Ali (AS) used to address Al-Muktar as Akelmand Akelmad (wiseman wiseman). Not being part of Twabeen movement (or refusing to be part of their revolt), associating with Zubariyans in the beginning, not reacting against Muwayah when Imam Hassan was injured and his followers wanted to revolt, these are some of the examples of how intelligent Al-Muktar was.

    If Sunnis (mostly Salafis) refuse (or refrain) to condemn or lanath Yazid for
    his deeds why are you people calling Al-Muktar a liar who atleast did avenge the killers of Imam Hussain AS. I am sure if a non-muslim had avenged the killing of our Imam, he would surely have blessing from our Alhulbayt. You people should stop discussing this and give some respect to this man who did which no one could do during that cruel Ummayid and Zubariyan times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct reply brother.
      Our Imam was not involved in day to day affairs of Politics and that is the reason Al- Mukhtar had to take approval from Mohammad bin Hanfia.
      Also if it was wrong to take revenge from those involved in the Massacre of Karbala then or if Mukhtar was a lier then our Imam would have surely rejected Al- Mukhtar because the position of IMAMAT wants the imam to show the right path to UMMAH. If Imam was against MUKHTAR the person he must have said this in open but he didnt. If he has we need correct narration. If Imam has not praised the person Mukhtar who according to the writer was a lier then Imam should have spoken against him.

      And you were quite right to mention that when they dont want to speak against someone like YAZEED then they say it is good to refrain but when it comes to People like Al- Mukhtar and Malik e Ashtar or Ibrahim bin Malik then it is easy for them to call them Liers. HAHAHAHA
      Atleast the true religion of NAVED ZAVERI is open to all now.

      Delete
  29. From Jaarood bin Al-Mundhir from Abee `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام), He said: "The women of the Bani Haashim didn't comb and color (their hair) (i.e. beautify themselves) until Al-Mukhtaar came to us with the heads of those (who) killed Al-Hussayn (عليه السلام)"

    Great..

    So as per a Saheeh narration, a person condemned by Imam's (as) took revenge of Imam Husain (as)??? Wonderful..isn't it?

    And am sure When Mukhtar (as) would have send the heads to Imam Sadiq (as), Imam (as) would have rejected that instead of accepting it and there after start leading normal life's.

    Wassalam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good one....

      Delete
    2. Shut up. ... Go to hell. . With your umar. ...hussain A.S par aur unki family par zulim karne walo par lanat. . Be shumar beshumar

      Delete
  30. Salam aleikum brother,

    One Q: How can we rely fully on the content of firaaq al shia? Is there any proof for that brother? Is there other mention of Mukhtaars laqab being Kaysan in any other of our books?

    Wa aleikum salam

    ReplyDelete
  31. The author of this artical is Nasibi and they will do anything to get their point, they went so low and cheap that to save their shahbas thet degrade Propeht (pbuh), I am shocked this Salafis/Wahabis/Nasibi they dont realize what harm they are doing it to ISLAM in order to safeguard those who disobey Prophet (pbuh), ho ran aways in Uhad war...Shame on you #Slafis

    @bandekhuda

    ReplyDelete
  32. Salaam Alaykum

    Really, quoting from an Iranian TV series and a relatively obscure Shi'i book to defame Mukhtar? You can't have it both ways, citing these as reference whilst at the same time rejecting other 'da'eef' sources.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Unfortunately when laymen like Nader Zaveri (who is anti usooli btw) tries to grade his own hadith,many other laymen like him and us are lost and confused.

    The problem arises from your inability to grade hadith,are you a muhaddith? No? Why are you grading hadith?

    How can you possibly say a muhaddith like imam khui is wrong,but you're right?



    Anyways regarding those hadith you say are weak,again those ahadeeth are not weak but rather their sanad indivdually.

    The collective isnaad altogether actually make the hadith sahih,due to the fact that it came down in many chains from the 5th Imam a.s.,even if the chains contains unknowns.

    Basic usul al hadith,if a daeef chain (non-fabricated) comes down in many chains than the hadith is raised up to hasan or sahih.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Regarding the hadith from habib khathami,he said mukhtar r.a. lied due to the fact that mukhtar r.a. was mistaken about muhammad hanafiyya.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mukhtar r.a. was mistaken about the Imamate,but then it was clarified with him and he recognised Imam ali ibn husayn a.s.


    كان المختار يكذب على علي بن الحسين = Mukhtar used to say false things about ali ibn husayn.

    3la isn't "against",it is "upon". Learn arabic before you start acting like a mujtahid.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ....i want to told the admin that the nick name of Hazrat Mukhtar was 'ABU ISHAQ' not kisyan etc. ! Kisyan e abu umra was the nick name of his frnd Qiyan e Irani......as a member of Rizvi Syed family..........i listen this from my father .......and he told me that he was told by his father that............ Our 4th holy Imam (a.s.) and 6th holy Imam (a.s.) prohabited to comment suspeciously on Hazrat Mukhtar al saqafi (r.a.)..........!!!
    Please do not spread tafarraqa between SHIYAN -E- ALI (A.S.).......!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. So I guess to you ibn-al-zoubeir and abed-al-malek-ibn-marwan were mou'2minin
    and taqiyin?

    The author of this site seems to get his sources from the atheists and kufar ban-oumaya and a'l-alzoubeir.They were the ones who started the rumors about
    this brave man. You are on their path and I don't doubt that you will be cramped with them when you meet the Great Creator -Allah Subhanahou Wa Ta'ala, because you seem to be using their side of the stories.


    Here are some of our versions of the story ayouha al-Omawey al-haked:
    http://shiastudies.net/article/english/Article.php?id=706

    http://www.qul.org.au/islamic-occasions/events-of-karbala/1261-mukhtar-al-thaqafi-revenge-of-karbala

    From: Shi3ioyun hata-al-shahada


    ReplyDelete
  38. Assalaamu 'ala man ittaba' al-huda. The author of this site only seems to be addressing controversies to do what? I wish young intelligent Shia'ahs stopped visiting this deviating site. The like Allamah Villi and Ayatullah Khoie have praised Hazrat Mukhtar based on historical facts in their books of Rijaal. We are sure that their are weak and authentic narrations in both praise of Mukhtar (ra) and denouncing him. What we need to find out is that which of the narrations are based on taqiyya (dissimulation): the ones praising him or the ones that dispraise him?

    Our scholars believe that the ahadith that denounce Mukhtar (ra) are based on taqayya, because the fourth Imam (as) praised him after his death as well and there was no taqiyyah then about him. This is the view of both Allamah Hilli and Ayatullah Khoie.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Salam to the wise and logical people who knows falseness and truth.. It is sad that what the zubayri and banu umayya clans failed to do, is being done by shias. The people of Kufa obviously still lives but in different shapes. What do you know about ilm al rijal, and how much thorough research have you done ? Do you realize that many sahih hadiths contradict each other and therefore logic and the context as well as other factors must be included in the analysis of history. Mukhtar may Allah bless his hands was a pious shia, the avenger of karbala. If he wanted.power then the umayyads would have given it to him without all his sacrifice and hardships during the avenging of karbala. You refer to the mukhtar series although mukhtar says there that the term mehdi for muhammad al hanafiyya is a code word between them to make sure the letter is not forged. I seek the protection of Allah from the shaytan and a people with nor reflection or wisdom

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear Mr. Nader

    All Islamic movies and drama serials are created after a lot of research. A lot of feedback is also obtained from marjeh and religious scholars. Knowledge possessed by marjeh and religious scholars is much more than your knowledge.

    If Mukhtar Al Saqafi would have been a liar than marjeh and scholars would have never allowed to make this serial as no one wants people to learn about a liar. Or if there would have been any contradictory comments then marjeh and religious scholars would have asked to change that as their reputation is on stake.

    There is a huge a amount of responsibility on the shoulders of marjeh and religious scholars to impart correct and true information about every topic to the general public. They are much more worried than you as if people act wrongly based upon their information and fatwa then complete GUNAH will on them because they asked people to do so.

    Stop writing from blogs that are dividing shia muslims and show authentic attested proofs from current marjeh.

    Wasalm

    ReplyDelete
  41. Salaam Brother.

    Recently I came across 4 hadeeths which states 12 Mehdis coming after 12 Imams. These 12 Mehdis are not Imams but role of these 12 Mehdis is to call people towards Imam and to establish government according to the way of Prophet (s) and his progeny (as). So, Ameer Mukhtar (ra)calling Hahrat Mohammed al-Hanafiyya as Mehdi could be former's understanding of later not being as Imam but Mehdi who would lead towards Rightful Imam like 12 Mehdis who would come after Imam al-Qaim (as). My point is that a person from Ahlul-Bayt who leads others towards Rightful Imam could be called Mehdi. I am not aalim so my point of view could be wrong. So I would like your view on this point. Thanks and keep up the good work which you are doing.

    Wassalaam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brother, there are more than 4 hadiths talking about 12 Mahdi's AFTER, Imam Muhammad b. al-Hasan عليه السلام, and as for the hadith that says that the 12 Mahdi's are from the Shia', then know that Prophet Ibraheem عليه السلام was also from the Shia' of Imam Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام, and still he was an Imam, if you are a Shia' it doesn't anull the fact that you can still be a leader or an Imam, so the 12 Mahdi's عليهم السلام would also be leaders and Imams.

      Delete
  42. Mukhtar asked permission from Muhammad Hanafiyyah who acted as a liason between him and the Imam. The 4th imam could not be openly seen supporting and heading the revolution as this would endanger his life and end the imamate.

    Nonetheless, all facts considered, assuming Mukhtar was not a noble man and was power hungry as you have pointed out, why did not the Imams more openly condemn him?

    Dont we have enough CONFIRMED dhalims to curse and discuss then to tarnish the reputation of someone based conjecture and weak hadiths? He was not masum but even if the hadith regarding his lying are true, you have to look at the historical context. Zuhayr bin Qayn till Kerbala was was not a follower of Imams. If you take a hadith about him before that would it reflect accurately on his conduct?

    O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, Indeed some suspicions are sins (Sura Hujurat)

    ReplyDelete
  43. حمدويه، قال حدثني عن يعقوب، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن المثنى، عن سدير، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: لا تسبوا المختار فإنه قتل قتلتنا و طلب بثارنا و زوج أراملنا و قسم فينا المال على العسرة
    from Sadir from Abee Ja`far (عليه السلام) said: "Do not insult al-Mukhtar for verily he killed our killers and sought our revenge. And he got our widows married and divided the property amongst us upon destitution."

    al-Kashi, "Rijal al-Kashi", 2/125, hadith 197
    http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-rejal/rejal_kashi2/2.html#ch33

    and this hadith is saheeh.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bar Umar lanat. .... Al Mukhat is Great. ..

    ReplyDelete
  45. Our Ahlulbayt never questioned the personality of a person. Their actions give evidence of their intentions. Mukhtar asks for forgiveness and it is Allah who decides whether to forgive him or not. Why do you concern yourself about his personality? No evil person would have undertaken what he did. So please stop confusing people with your very lame excuses. I support Mukhtar and he is a very brave man to do what he did.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I do know for sure, Mukhtar was very Honest.
    He did what he did for the Ahlul Bait (A.S)
    But the enemies of Ahlul Bait hated him for what he did, and they framed him as a lier, or a none believer.May Allah bless him for what he did.After the killing of Ziad, he sent the head to to Imam Ali ibn Al Hussain (A.S)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Salam bro i cant see or open the link of "how many daughters did the prophet have"

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sallam. Momineen
    Imam Sajjad asws said. If someone speaks ill about us and those lairs are reacted by habshi then you all have to obey him.
    This was one of hadith I mentioned here lets come to the othet hand during prophet PBUH when ppl preaented him datea Prophet PBuH denied bcz he said it is sadqa and its haram on us.
    Imam Sajjad asws accepted Mukhtar act whytt. If he was not right then he should have denied . But he accepted and greeted him.
    Now in the light of above hadith one can easily see that he was lions of battlefield said by Moula Ali asws. Why would Moula Ali asws call some lion when he doesnt obey their commands.

    Bani Zubair and Ummaya waa the worse enemy of Banu Hashim. Thats why imam Sajjad asws didnt come for Jihad openly . Hazrat hanfiya was son of Imam Ali asws. The letter for uprising of Mukhtar was written by Imam Ali asws leader of faithful . Imam presented shias so Quran says that Hujjar has to be there on the Earth otherwise land and Sky would be no longer. Imam Ali asws always praised Mukhtar for his action. Cursing Mukhtar personality showing the result of Hadith of Ameerul Momineen asws said... our followers are always cursed by ppl bcz that cant defeat him so started critising their charactor. IMAM ALI asws was also critisized in charactor by Muhavia and other ppl. This continuoud untill Umer Bin Abdul Azeez time. So not really surprised for Mukhtar.
    MUKHTAR already had power during the time of Hazrat Muslim bin Aqeel asws where he asked Mukhtar to take baayat from other parts of Eraq .ppl who critisize Mukhtar are lairs and group who really are hprocraites munafiq.
    Wsalam.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I oppose Syiah religion and I oppose people who killed Hussain.Some sunni are bad,but all Syiah is infidel.Syiah believe is not islam anymore.They need reform many of their their believe to be Muslim.Politic doctrine corrupted their religion badly.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hazrat Mukhtar was the legend and he was not the imam, dont Mix and confuse other by saying that he was a liar... i think you guys need another mukhtar finally.... time is near my friends another mukhtar is on his way to your neck :) relax
    you guys are creating tafaruqa,, God will never forgive you, your are face and soul are like Shaitan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes you are right they are creating tafaruqa, God will never forgive them. Never-

      Delete
    2. yes you r right they neeed another mukhtar....they are creating tafaruqa...they really need another mukhtaaar..

      Delete
  51. Assalam o Alaikum,
    After reading all the comments in detail, I figured out one thing. We should except that Mukhtar saqafi was a man, who can be judged by Allah Almighty only. Whatever good or bad his deeds were , they have been done. He has gone long ago. We have the responsibility of our acts and we will be accountable for them. He took the revenge of Martyred in Karbala. His niyyat will be judged by Allah, we should think about our responsibilities.

    "Why our Imam is in Ghayyaba and which acts of ours are displeasing Imam Mehdi A.s." discussing past to get some advice is good but wasting time or condemning the acts of dead ones is not good. Please built your character according the wish of Imam e Zaman a.s, so He can come out and fill the world with peace and true Islam.

    Ma Assalama

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. best opinion to follow, The truth will never be burried Al ajal ya Imam

      Delete
  52. After all comment i came to conclusion that we are in same state which was before the standing of mukhtar. he was human may be he lied too. but for me its enough that when he killed hurmala it became the eid for alh e bait. give the imam of that time the first smile ever after karbala. this only act can make him eligible for heaven. May Allah give me courage to make the imam of my time smile just once with any of my act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hazrat e mukhtar was not a liar at all, instead the creator of this page is a a liar and should wait for his punishment,as Allah SWT said in the quran: " wa sa ya'lam o allazeen zalamoo ayya munqalibbin sa yanqaliboon"..do not base your talk on baseless and false things.

      Delete
  53. After reading this blog i would like you to explain that if Mukhtar was such a power hungry person why did Hazrat Mesum tell him that he was assigned for a special task and this was when he was in Zindan. Even After he got released he wanted to take revenge of Hazrat Iman Hussain (A.S) When no one else had the power or will to do so and he didn't just went up against Yazeed he had to work for a long time and in the end in case you haven't noticed that he went to the Same Mimber Where Hazrat Imam Ali (A.S) Died clearly shows his love for Ahle - Baitt and as far as i know it he was the only person who had the will to take revenge why didn't Hazrat Ibrahim Bin Malik Did that in the start?

    ReplyDelete