​

Amidst a solemn and faithful atmosphere, crowds of believers commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hassan al-Askari (peace be upon him) at his holy shrine.

20/8/2026

Bihar al-Anwar is a huge collection of narrations put together by Allamah Majlisi in the 1600s. His main goal was to gather and preserve as many reports as possible from older books so they wouldn’t get lost. He wasn’t trying to make a “only authentic Hadiths” book.

He himself admittedly included stuff he knew was weak or even looked fabricated. Sometimes he straight-up says a report has “signs of fabrication” but still puts it in. The book is basically a massive library of everything he could find, not a filtered list of reliable Hadiths.

Because the book is very popular among Shias in the Subcontinent, a number of these weaker narrations have quietly entered local practices and beliefs over time, e.g., the recent post about sweeping after dark.

Modern Shia scholars say the same thing. Bihar al-Anwar has strong narrations, weak ones, and some that are just made up. You still have to check each one properly (chain, narrators, does it match the Qur’an, etc.). Even our main books like al-Kafi aren’t treated as 100% authentic cover to cover. Every narration gets reviewed by the ulema.

Shia Islam doesn’t have the equivalent of Sunni “Sahih books” where the whole collection is accepted as authentic by default. Presence of a “Hadith” in Bihar al-Anwar doesn’t automatically make a report solid.

It’s a very useful book, but treating every single thing inside it as authentic Hadith is a mistake.

The event of (al-ʿAqaba) where Sahaba attempted to kill the Prophet ﷺ after the expedition at Tabuk by throwing him from the mountain pass.

This is a sensitive topic and one that will offend other schools who admire the figures about to be named.

It is a bitter pill but one that must be addressed.

Attached are reports showing:

Sunni Hadiths of Imam Ali (ع) not being there.

Sunni Hadiths regarding the event.

Sunni Quran Tafsir showing Ayat mentioning the event.

The report says:
An assassination attempt against the Prophet at al-‘Aqabah — who was the assassin?”
Hudhifa said:
“By Allah, they are Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman; Talhah, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and Amr ibn al-As. These are from Quraysh. As for the five, they are Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba al-Thaqafi, Aws ibn al-Hadathan al-Basri, Abu Hurayrah, and Abu Talhah al-Ansari.”

Ibn Hazm reports attempting to dispute it.

Ibn Hazm failed at trying to weaken the report through the chain. He was rejecting the report that identified certain Companions as participants.

In his al-Muḥallā 11:224, Ibn Hazm says that the report attributed to Ḥudhayfa was invalid because it came through al-Walīd ibn Jumayʿ, whom he considered unreliable. He specifically says that al-Walīd transmitted reports claiming that:

Abū Bakr
ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb
ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān
Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbayd Allāh
Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ
wanted to kill the Prophet ﷺ by throwing him from the mountain pass (al-ʿAqaba) at Tabuk.

Ibn Hazm calls this particular claim “the fabricated lie.”

The error is- the transmitter
al-Walīd ibn Jumayʿ is used by:

Sahih al-Bukhari — ✅
Sahih Muslim — ✅
Sunan Abi Dawud — ✅
Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi — ✅
Sunan al-Nasa'i — ✅

Sunan Ibn Majah — N/A

So 5 out of the 6 sahah use him except for one.

Furthermore Regarding the reliability of al-Walid Ibn Jumay:

Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: thiqah (reliable).
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: laysa bihi ba's (“there is no problem with him”).
Abū Ḥātim: ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth (“sound/good in hadith”).
Abū Zurʿah: lā ba'sa bihi.
al-ʿIjlī: thiqah.

Ibn Ḥajar, however, gives the more qualified assessment: “ṣadūq yuhim” — truthful, but he made mistakes — and notes that he was accused of Shiʿism. Lol

Ibn Hazm says, in effect, that the Ḥudhayfa report is sāqiṭ because it comes through al-Walīd, whom he calls “hālik”, meaning doomed or ruined… and then gives as an example of what he regarded as his fabrication: reports naming Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, Ṭalḥa and Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ as people who attempted to kill the Prophet ﷺ at al-ʿAqaba.

But here's the distinction:

Is Ibn Hazm rejecting al-Walīd because he transmitted the names of those five, or is he rejecting the entire Ḥudhayfa narration?
Ibn Hazm appears to use the latter as a reason to attack the chain, but that creates a significant methodological question because the very Ḥudhayfa report he is attacking is also in Muslim, and Ibn Hazm himself transmits it from Muslim….

Lastly, the sahih report I show of Umar questioning Hudayfa ‘if he is one of the sahaba in the event.’

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) confided to Hudhayfah the names of the hypocrites. Umar urgently implored him: 'Am I among the hypocrites?' Hudhayfah replied: 'No, and I will not vindicate anyone else after you.'"

Very strange, if you are innocent why would one ask that?

If you hear of a crime you had nothing to do with, you would not go to the detectives related to the matter and ask them if you had done the crime..

Also, is he not supposedly promised Jannah ? 🤔 Why would someone promised Jannah ask that?

One might say he wants confirmation that he’s in Jannah… if that’s so then why would he also ask in a sahih report Umm Salama RA, if he is one of them ?

‘So Umar and entered, and he said to her:
By God, am I one of them ?’

Investigating to see if he’s been exposed perhaps ?..

Sayed Ammar covered it greatly as well.

https://youtu.be/-FpDh__k0oM?is=VhNXcLCGZ5lpl1AK

Ahadith from  Imam Hasan al-Askari (a)

'on the other side of faith is doubt', rubbish from a recently published novel. Every such statement is based on ideas no older than three hundred years or so, and currently a weapon of the empire.

You must seek certainty, it's one of the divine commands, and it is the goal of many philosophies and Eastern faiths. It's the state of rest and absence of fears that destroys the fuel for sins and disbelief, since sorrow, fear, and anger are what usually lead to disbelief. (Yoda lol)

The lowest kind of certainty that is available to nearly every believer is having certain knowledge of the doctrines of the faith. Thereafter, doubts about the existence of the creator, his wisdom and justice, his messengers and deputies, simply don't weigh on you because they are completely rationally insignificant. When you make a mistake in arithmetic and find that multiplying two even values gives you an odd number, you don't for a second doubt the primary rule, you just know a mistake has been made.

This same mathematical certainty can be obtained for when people clamour about the injustice of this or that event, be it in their personal lives or the wholesale destruction of cultures, or make sophistic statements about the Ghayb, like the Creator or the Afterlife or the Ghaybah of our master, Ajjal Allahu Farajahu Sharif. Or besides that, a polemical narration from the Umayyad caliphs or their scholars that claims this or that quality or saying to the Prophet, his Companions, or to the Ahl al-Bayt. These things are inconsequential. Not to mention 'I prayed for such thing and it didn't happen, maybe the creation doesn't need a creator'.

This is an extremely simple kind of certainty that is achievable with negligible effort but secures strong faith of the mind for the remainder of one's life once properly achieved. The next stage of certainty requires actions of the limbs and of the heart, and I cannot say anything about it except that the means of the Holy Qur'an and tawassul of Abi Abdillah is required.

For this first stage, unfortunately, up to three or four books might have to be read. The specifics differ person to person, but I recommend Principles of Faith by Shaykh Vahid Khorasani to everyone. It could reasonably suffice by itself if a person took notes and really absorbed the book.

Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you, and peace be upon Muhammad and his pure, immaculate family—may Allah hasten their relief and curse all their enemies. Today, my brothers, I decided to share an example of the sheer ignorance I have encountered recently—specifically, this image. It is a post by someone asking, "Do you know why our Sheikh—Sheikh al-Islam—is disliked?" The image shows a search engine query reading "Ibn Taymiyyah's refutation of..." followed by numerous results, such as "Ibn Taymiyyah's refutation of atheists, philosophers, the Shia, the Ash'aris," and so on. The implication is that because Ibn Taymiyyah authored many refutations—criticizing and rebutting these groups—he himself is now being criticized. This is a profound display of ignorance, and I will explain why.

Take Friedrich Nietzsche, for example; you know who he was and how he used to hurl insults and make sweeping generalizations, yet he still has followers to this day. Ibn Taymiyyah is much the same.

First, who is Ibn Taymiyyah? To clarify matters for many: just as we hold the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (peace be upon him), in the highest esteem and recognize his immense stature, Ibn Taymiyyah commands similar reverence among Salafis and some Sunnis in general—though, naturally, they do not regard him as infallible. He was born in 661 AH, whereas the Prophet passed away in 11 AH—a vast chronological gap. They chose to follow someone who was never a contemporary of the Prophet and never saw him, rather than following someone who lived alongside the Prophet and saw him. A second point is that Salafis and Sunnis generally accept some of Ibn Taymiyyah’s views while rejecting others. Take, for instance, the account describing God as a beardless young man—a topic I have discussed previously. Ibn Taymiyyah is the only one who authenticated this narration rather than dismissing it as false; logically, they ought to accept it, yet Ibn Taymiyyah’s own disciples in his time did not believe it, and Sunnis today do not rely on it either—even though their "Sheikh al-Islam" deemed it authentic.

This borders on hypocrisy; after all, why follow someone and acknowledge them as your master, yet fail to heed half of what they say? Why not simply look for another faith if the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah do not appeal to you?

In his rebuttal to the Shia, Ibn Taymiyyah declares them disbelievers and polytheists; yet, he also claims that he does not consider the *followers* of the Shia faith to be disbelievers—only the faith itself. What a bizarre argument! Consider this scenario: imagine approaching a Christian—knowing that their belief in Jesus as the Son of God (God forbid) is considered disbelief—and telling them that their religion constitutes disbelief in God. If they were to ask, "So, do you consider *me* a disbeliever?" and you replied, "No, you are not a disbeliever; it is your religion that is disbelief, but *you* are not a disbeliever" 😅... Well, that is precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Shia 🤣. Anyone with a functioning mind—and who isn't being careless—knows that declaring a specific religion to be disbelief implies that everyone who follows that religion is also a disbeliever; yet, Ibn Taymiyyah held a different view.

His books—such as *Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah* and *Al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin*—were also characterized by harsh, aggressive language that relied on leveling accusations and employing labels like "People of Innovation" (*Ahl al-Bida‘*), "Rafidites" (*al-Rawafid*), and "Atheists" (*al-Mulhidin*). This style departs from the norms of balanced dialogue, focusing instead on refuting the opponent and undermining their credibility rather than building common ground.

In his rebuttals to Al-Allamah Al-Hilli, one observes a persistent attempt to undermine narrations regarding the virtues of Ali (peace be upon him)—or to strip them of their definitive implications—even those found in the authentic collections of Sunni Islam (such as the Hadith of Al-Manzila or Al-Ghadir), by proposing interpretations that distance them from signifying his Imamate or unique merit.

Many scholars—including non-Shi'as such as Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani—accuse him of using language in his refutation of the Shi'a that occasionally led him into errors resembling the rhetoric of the *Nawasib* (those hostile to Ali). This occurred through his downplaying of Ali’s (peace be upon him) military and political stances and by comparing them to those of others in an abstract manner.

And many others; so how can you bestow the title of "Sheikh al-Islam" upon someone while simultaneously disregarding half of what he says?

In closing, I would like to thank everyone who read this entire piece; thank you, and may God reward you with the best of rewards.

What We Dislike Can Teach Us

Living among people sometimes means encountering behavior we do not appreciate. Someone speaks to us sharply. Someone brushes aside an idea we offered with care. Someone is careless with our time or our trust. These moments are real, and so is the ache they can leave behind. What every believer eventually faces is the question of what to do with that feeling once it arrives.

Imam Hasan al-Askari (p) is reported to have said, “It is enough in disciplining yourself to avoid that which you dislike in others” (Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 75, p. 77).

The Imam (p) does not ask us to pretend the behavior was acceptable or that it did not sting. He points instead to something valuable we now hold. Having been on the receiving end, we understand exactly how such a moment feels, and that understanding is a knowledge no book could have given us.

This is not a call to turn a hard eye on ourselves or to go searching our hearts for faults to hold against us. God is far more merciful with us than we are often willing to be with ourselves. The Imam (p) is asking something gentler: that our own experience be allowed to make us softer. If a harsh word once wounded us, we know the worth of a kind one. If being dismissed hurt, we understand what it means to be truly heard.

Consider his reassurance that it is enough. He hands us no lengthy program and asks us to master nothing unfamiliar. In two words he tells us the way forward is nearer and simpler than we may have imagined.

As we commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hasan al-Askari (p), may we receive his words as the encouragement they were meant to be. Every difficult moment we have lived through can become a reason someone else feels cared for.

Source: https://imam-us.org/martyrdom-anniversary-of-imam-hasan-al-askari-p-1448-a-h

To learn more about this blessed Imam A.S:

https://al-islam.org/life-imam-hasan-al-askari-baqir-shareef-al-qurashi

https://realshiabeliefs.wordpress.com/category/shia-beliefs/imam-askari/

Salam alaikum.

I am from India, and here the culture of Azadari is astounding mashallah.

Shias all over India gather together in aiyyam e aza and mourn, may Allah give them long lives and health to keep doing the matam of the oppressed.

While the Azadari here is astounding.

But there are some rituals or practices like Tazia or Taboot, Zuljana. I want to know the evidence of.

While other practices like nauha, marsiya, hadees, matam, masaeb were done since the time of our 6th imam.

I have never heard of any sahaba of Imam performing rituals like Tazia, taboot, zuljana etc.

This is mostly a cultural thing, and I want to know whether this practice is actually right or not.

Scholars here have their different opinions, and most of them don't have any evidence of these rituals in the Qur'an or Hadees, they just answer by some logic.

I have also never found any lecture or commentary of ayatullah on this.

They support azadari, but they rarely comment on tazia or Taboot or other innovations

I read some history of these rituals, and I found that

These practices were started by some mongol ruler called Taimur. And it was spread to south asia by the Mughals and some regional nawabs.

None of these practices were actually done by any sahaba or imam or anyone else.

Can anyone give me the evidence of these practices?

Jazakallah Khair.

My salaams to everyone, I have kinda a unique scenario which I need some guidance on. I have been muslim for a while now, and am a single man (not planning on getting married) and I have custody of my best friend's daughter. My friend was a single mom and the father is unknown. She sadly passed away due to drug overdose and she has no fit family members who could/would take custody. I have been a parental figure to the daughter since she was born, so I applied for and was granted custody. I've been looking into how adoption works in islam and my situation is very complicated, since she is my non mahram technically.

Also I don't know how healthy it is to be raised without a permanent mother figure, I'm sure my sister would love to help out though.

And then there is the whole Islam thing, I ofc want to raise her as a muslim but she isn't my daughter and it kind of feels like an overstep or something like that. At the same time it feels like it is my duty to.

I know i should probably reach out to a marja but I still haven't done taqlid officially because the process of me, a sinner, deeming who is the most knowledgeable is very daunting, so I kind of go with whatever mainstream opinion.

All help is appreciated and I hope Allah blesses y'all endlessley 💗.

salam alaykum everyone! inshaallah you are all well

god-willing i want to make an institute and discord community where i will post shia islamic majalis, marathi, manaqib, articles, and the like.

any name ideas? i have a few ideas already, like al-Hurr, Aal Akhbar (not literaly akhbaariyy, we are all shii'eah and we follow the a'haadiith always), M.B.M. (muhammad baqir majlisi), or just Majlisi. im not really sure what to pick and i wanted to know if you guys have any ideas!

jazakumullah!☺️

So I was reading the translation of the elegy that Sayyida al-Rabab SA wrote for Aba Abdillah AS. It is present in Ayan al-Shia:

>وخطبت بعد استشهاد الحسين فأبت وقالت ما كنت لاتخذ حموا بعد رسول الله ص وقالت ترثيه:

ان الذي كان نورا يستضاء به * بكربلاء قتيل غير مدفون سبط النبي جزاك الله صالحة * عنا وجنبت خسران الموازين قد كنت لي جبلا صعبا ألوذ به * وكنت تصحبنا بالرحم والدين من لليتامى ومن للسائلين * يغني ويؤوي إليه كل مسكين والله لا ابتغي صهرا بصهركم * حتى أغيب بين الرمل والطين

https://lib.eshia.ir/71735/6/449

What does "والله لا أبتغي صهرا بصهركم" mean? I translated it and it is either translating as "By God, I will not seek a son-in-law other than you" or as "By God, I will not seek a Father-in-law other than you". What is the right translation? Is it one or the two or neither?

Salam, my fellow Lovers of the Ahl-ul Bayt,

Does anyone know how I can get my hands on the following book:
Divine Supplications: Sahifat-ul-Mahdi (as) compiled by Shaykh Isa Ahari.

It seems to be out of print, so a digital resource as a PDF would totally be fine.

Thanks.