40 replies to this topic

[SoRoUsH]

I would like to hear/read your views and opinions regarding محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين

Why is there such a wide difference of opinion regarding this individual?
Why should we accept Najashi's views over others? It seems the majority of Rijal scholars consider him weak, but Najashi considers him Thiqa.
Why is this the case?

If possible, state your views regarding محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين in this thread.

I would like to have as much information as possible regarding him before forming a conclusion.

Thank you very much

Here's what Al-Khoei has found and written about him:

http://www.al-khoei....dex.php?id=7891

Edited by SoRoUsH, 07 April 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Inglip]

If you look at even those that most of those that praise him, you'll notice that there is no proof that they did. It says that Ja'afar bin Ma'rouf praised him, but he is a nobody. It also says that Al-Fadhl bin Shathaan praised him, but the person that narrated this is anonymous.


Refer to post #1 and #17 in this thread for more:

http://www.shiachat....re-than-a-tool/

[abuzahra]

Salaamun 'alaykum

Interesting question. If you dont mind could you share with us which hadith Muhammad ibn Isa narrated that has roused your interest in his reliability or lack of the same?

[SoRoUsH]

Inglip, on 08 April 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

If you look at even those that most of those that praise him, you'll notice that there is no proof that they did. It says that Ja'afar bin Ma'rouf praised him, but he is a nobody. It also says that Al-Fadhl bin Shathaan praised him, but the person that narrated this is anonymous.


Refer to post #1 and #17 in this thread for more:

http://www.shiachat....re-than-a-tool/

Thank You Brother.
I am inclining towards that idea as well.
I feel certain traditions with him in the sanad are not in line or coherent with many other definitely Saheeh or acceptable traditions.

abuzahra, on 08 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Salaamun 'alaykum

Interesting question. If you dont mind could you share with us which hadith Muhammad ibn Isa narrated that has roused your interest in his reliability or lack of the same?

It's been a while that I have had my eyes on him.
I can't think of any specific traditions right now.
Sorry.

Edited by SoRoUsH, 08 April 2012 - 11:20 PM.

[Nader Zaveri]

Don't forget this high praise of Muhammad bin `Eesa by Aboo al-`Abbas bin Nooh

قال أبو العباس بن نوح: و قد أصاب شيخنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد في ذلك كله و تبعه أبو جعفر بن بابويه رحمه الله على ذلك إلا في محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد فلا أدري ما رابه فيه لأنه كان على ظاهر العدالة و الثقة.
Source:
al-Najaashi, al-Rijaal, pg. 248, person # 939 (Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin `Imraan)

People who Strengthen Muhammad bin `Eesa:

• al-Fadl bin Shaadhaan
  
• al-Kashi
  
• Aboo al-`Abbaas bin Nooh
  
• al-Najaashi
  
• `Allaamah al-Hilli
  
• Ibn Dawud
  
• Sayyid Daamaad in his Ta`leeqah of al-Kashi's Rijaal
  
• al-Majlisi (Muhammad Baaqir)
  
• Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi
  
• Aboo `Alee al-Haa'iri (Muntaha al-Maqaal)
  
• al-Khoei

People who have weakened Muhammad bin `Eesa

• Ibn Waleed
  
• al-Sadooq
  
• al-Toosi
  
• Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
  
• Yahya bin Sa`eed al-Hilli
  
• Shaheed al-Thaani
  
• Muhammad `Alee al-Aamuli (known as Saahib al-Madaarik)

Big names on both sides.

Edited by Nader Zaveri, 09 April 2012 - 12:50 AM.

[rotten_coconut]

Nader Zaveri, on 09 April 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Don't forget this high praise of Muhammad bin `Eesa by Aboo al-`Abbas bin Nooh

قال أبو العباس بن نوح: و قد أصاب شيخنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد في ذلك كله و تبعه أبو جعفر بن بابويه رحمه الله على ذلك إلا في محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد فلا أدري ما رابه فيه لأنه كان على ظاهر العدالة و الثقة.
Source:
al-Najaashi, al-Rijaal, pg. 248, person # 939 (Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin `Imraan)

People who Strengthen Muhammad bin `Eesa:

• al-Fadl bin Shaadhaan
  
• al-Kashi
  
• Aboo al-`Abbaas bin Nooh
  
• al-Najaashi
  
• `Allaamah al-Hilli
  
• Ibn Dawud
  
• Sayyid Daamaad in his Ta`leeqah of al-Kashi's Rijaal
  
• al-Majlisi (Muhammad Baaqir)
  
• Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi
  
• Aboo `Alee al-Haa'iri (Muntaha al-Maqaal)
  
• al-Khoei

People who have weakened Muhammad bin `Eesa

• Ibn Waleed
  
• al-Sadooq
  
• al-Toosi
  
• Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
  
• Yahya bin Sa`eed al-Hilli
  
• Shaheed al-Thaani
  
• Muhammad `Alee al-Aamuli (known as Saahib al-Madaarik)

Big names on both sides.

Salam,

I don't understand. How could this happen? (i.e. strengthened & weakened by big names at the same time)

[macisaac]

rotten_coconut, on 09 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Salam,

I don't understand. How could this happen? (i.e. strengthened & weakened by big names at the same time)

Because rijalism, whether Sunni or Shi`i, is highly subjective.

[Abu Hadi]

I wish someone has the time and energy to publish a 'white list' and put it online. The list would be transmitters of ahadith who are considered reliable by many scholars and historians, both contemporary and from the past. Also, a 'black list' of those who are accepted as unreliable by a majority of scholars (Abu Huraira would be at the top of that list). There would be some subjectivity in it, but it would help many of us when looking at ahadith. Also, publishing the list in multiple languages (English, French, Spanish, Urdu, Hindi, and Farsi to start with ). That way, anyone could look at the Isnad and plug the names into the search to see what comes up and get a better idea of the reliability of the hadith.

Edited by Abu Hadi, 09 April 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Abu Hadi, on 09 April 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I wish someone has the time and energy to publish a 'white list' and put it online. The list would be transmitters of ahadith who are considered reliable by many scholars and historians, both contemporary and from the past. Also, a 'black list' of those who are accepted as unreliable by a majority of scholars (Abu Huraira would be at the top of that list). There would be some subjectivity in it, but it would help many of us when looking at ahadith. Also, publishing the list in multiple languages (English, French, Spanish, Urdu, Hindi, and Farsi to start with ). That way, anyone could look at the Isnad and plug the names into the search to see what comes up and get a better idea of the reliability of the hadith.

Any 8 year old who knows Arabic could do it. If you can read names in Arabic and some key words like liar, ghali, thiqah, fadl, etc...you can do this yourself. Very easy and rudimentary system.

في أمانه

[Abu Hadi]

So how come noone has done it, if it's that easy. If they have, please give me the link

Edited by Abu Hadi, 09 April 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[macisaac]

A number of folks don't want laypeople to have access to such tools.  Not to mention even those in howza don't get into this stuff until their kharaj studies, which most will not get to.

[Inglip]

Quote

So how come noone has done it, if it's that easy. If they have, please give me the link

Actually, there are a few books out there in which we have one word views for narrators. These are usually by late scholars though, that come to a conclusion after gathering all that was said about a single narrator, then giving their final verdict.

However, I do not trust these compilations, since they are too simplistic. Getting the full scope regarding a narrator will help you make your own judgement.

[SoRoUsH]

Nader Zaveri, on 09 April 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

Don't forget this high praise of Muhammad bin `Eesa by Aboo al-`Abbas bin Nooh

قال أبو العباس بن نوح: و قد أصاب شيخنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد في ذلك كله و تبعه أبو جعفر بن بابويه رحمه الله على ذلك إلا في محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد فلا أدري ما رابه فيه لأنه كان على ظاهر العدالة و الثقة.
Source:
al-Najaashi, al-Rijaal, pg. 248, person # 939 (Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin `Imraan)

People who Strengthen Muhammad bin `Eesa:

• al-Fadl bin Shaadhaan
  
• al-Kashi
  
• Aboo al-`Abbaas bin Nooh
  
• al-Najaashi
  
• `Allaamah al-Hilli
  
• Ibn Dawud
  
• Sayyid Daamaad in his Ta`leeqah of al-Kashi's Rijaal
  
• al-Majlisi (Muhammad Baaqir)
  
• Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi
  
• Aboo `Alee al-Haa'iri (Muntaha al-Maqaal)
  
• al-Khoei

People who have weakened Muhammad bin `Eesa

• Ibn Waleed
  
• al-Sadooq
  
• al-Toosi
  
• Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
  
• Yahya bin Sa`eed al-Hilli
  
• Shaheed al-Thaani
  
• Muhammad `Alee al-Aamuli (known as Saahib al-Madaarik)

Big names on both sides.

Thank you for your post brother.

Knowing this, we now need to look into the criteria that each of these scholars used in their ranking?

In other words, how did they arrive at their conclusions?

I think once we understand their reasoning better, we could better understand the situation.

Perhaps due to their circumstances they were inclined towards one way or another.

So, it would really help to know how they arrived at their conclusions.

[Inglip]

Soroush, the scholars that did make tawtheeq left no real tangible evidence for their reasons.

The scholars that weakened him, especially Ibn Al-Waleed said that this is specific for his narrations through Yunus bin Abdulrahman. This means that Ibn Al-Waleed caught him narrating things from Yunus that the main students of Yunus didn't narrate. This may not seem like a big deal to you or me now, but this was a big deal to Ibn Al-Waleed, to the extent that he made his ruling against Mohammed bin Eisa's narrations solely based on that. So, his stance is perhaps the most tangible stance from amongst all the scholars that spoke about Mohammed bin Eisa.

Another interesting stance is the one that Ibn Tawus took against Mohammed bin Eisa. He noticed that the vast majority of the narrations that condemn Zurarah were from Mohammed bin Eisa. Surely, condemning this narrator, that has already been weakened by so many other scholars, is more logical than to assume that all those narrations are due to taqiyyah.

[SoRoUsH]

So, it seems, at least a couple of the scholars who have weakened محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد have provided tangible reasons, whereas those who have strengthened him have not provided any tangible reasons.

This fact alone, makes the position of weakening him more favourable than the other position.

[Ugly Jinn]

macisaac, on 09 April 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Because rijalism, whether Sunni or Shi`i, is highly subjective.

Kinda makes the whole religion subjective aye.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Inglip, on 09 April 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Another interesting stance is the one that Ibn Tawus took against Mohammed bin Eisa. He noticed that the vast majority of the narrations that condemn Zurarah were from Mohammed bin Eisa. Surely, condemning this narrator, that has already been weakened by so many other scholars, is more logical than to assume that all those narrations are due to taqiyyah.

No, taqiyya is a far better explanation, and without doubt a reasonable and logical one. Not everything can be explained via rijalism. Also, if that was Ibn al-Waleed reason for condemning him, it is highly subjective, especially if it has anything to do with ghuluw.

في امانه

[Inglip]

Quote

No, taqiyya is a far better explanation, and without doubt a reasonable and logical one.

Seriously? I'm sure you are aware of what I'm about to say, but it may have not sunk in yet.

Taqiyyah is not something that is only said to non-Shias, in order to prevent harm from being inflicted upon the Imams. Taqiyyah is used even towards the good Shias of the Imams, as in the hadith in which the Imam gives three different answers to his followers, because thalika abqa lana wa li shee'atina (we and our Shias will last if we do this). I don't know how spreading contradicting fatwas to people that seek knowledge from you and are your true followers a form to taqiyyah. Similarly, we see the Imams supposedly doing taqiyyah in matters that are so not controversial. Take for example, the narrations that say that Ishaaq was to be the sacrificed son of Ibrahim. Some scholars see this as taqiyyah. I say: How can it be taqiyyah when so many major Sunni scholars held this view?

This is senseless.

My view is that you had thousands of Kufan people that never met the Imams of Madinah attributing things that they never heard from them. Due to this, contradictions occurred. The good narrators that actually met the Imams had their hadiths recorded as well as the bad narrators that never met the Imams. Finally, when returning to these narrations, the narrators noticed a plethora of contradictions. Ironically, they found out that the best way of reconciling this is by saying that these contradictions occurred from the Imam himself, instead of attributing it to the Kufans, because there were just too many contradictions. Hence, the concept of taqiyyah was born.

You do know that if you actually apply ilmul rijal to hadith you can get rid of probably 97% of the contradictions? Doesn't that seem more acceptable to you, rather than accept that Ja'afar Al-Sadiq actually contradicted himself all those times for Allah knows what reason, since we know that it isn't mainly due to fear?! Honestly. Look at how many Sunni scholars in the early generations differed in fatwas. None of them were put to death due to their fiqhi views, and similarly, most of the fatwas of the Imams were completely uncontroversial.

I actually propose a thread. Out of the thousands of taqiyyah narrations. I ask for three views that are not also held by Sunni scholars. Take it as a challenge.

Quote

Also, if that was Ibn al-Waleed reason for condemning him, it is highly subjective, especially if it has anything to do with ghuluw.

It has nothing to do with ghuluu. If it did, he would have people reject Mohammed bin Eisa's narrations from everyone, and not just Yunus. This implies that Mohammed bin Eisa's dhabt is to be questioned when narrating from Yunus.

[Abu Hadi]

I agree with you br. From what I understand, Taqiyya means concealing facts until an appropriate time. It doesn't mean deliberately misguiding people by giving them false information(them meaning those who belive in their Imamate). When there was severe persecution, like during the time of Imam Al Kathim(a.s) and Imam Zain Al Abedeen(a.s), they kept silent and stayed in their houses and only met certain very trusted people and guided thru them.
They didn't openly speak out against the Khalif of their time, but they also didn't praise them as this would have confused people. Also, there are some fatawa that they didn't give at the time, but later Imams gave them.

Edited by Abu Hadi, 10 April 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[Inglip]

^ Indeed. This is a good and moderate stance.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Inglip, on 10 April 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Taqiyyah is not something that is only said to non-Shias, in order to prevent harm from being inflicted upon the Imams. Taqiyyah is used even towards the good Shias of the Imams, as in the hadith in which the Imam gives three different answers to his followers, because thalika abqa lana wa li shee'atina (we and our Shias will last if we do this). I don't know how spreading contradicting fatwas to people that seek knowledge from you and are your true followers a form to taqiyyah. Similarly, we see the Imams supposedly doing taqiyyah in matters that are so not controversial. Take for example, the narrations that say that Ishaaq was to be the sacrificed son of Ibrahim. Some scholars see this as taqiyyah. I say: How can it be taqiyyah when so many major Sunni scholars held this view?

I'm sure you're familiar with the works of our pre-eminant Akhbari scholars, if not, you should see their explanations on this. The idea isn't always to contradict the awam, it's also to conceal identity and make sure the Shi`ah, especially their khawas, are not found to be grouped together and the people cannot identify them by seeing a common and convening practice. Especially if someone were to get their hands on a hadith from the Imam [as].

Quote

This is senseless.

Not really. You just seemed to not like the idea, perhaps because it is too flexible for your comforts.

Quote

My view is that you had thousands of Kufan people that never met the Imams of Madinah attributing things that they never heard from them. Due to this, contradictions occurred. The good narrators that actually met the Imams had their hadiths recorded as well as the bad narrators that never met the Imams. Finally, when returning to these narrations, the narrators noticed a plethora of contradictions. Ironically, they found out that the best way of reconciling this is by saying that these contradictions occurred from the Imam himself, instead of attributing it to the Kufans, because there were just too many contradictions. Hence, the concept of taqiyyah was born.

This is probably true as well to a degree, but not how taqiyya was born.

[Inglip]

Quote

The idea isn't always to contradict the awam, it's also to conceal identity and make sure the Shi`ah, especially their khawas, are not found to be grouped together and the people cannot identify them by seeing a common and convening practice.

Common practices like what?

[Cake]

Salam. My small contribution to this thread. The issue of Muhammed bin Isa bin `Ubayd is an important one as he narrates significantly, with about 490 hadeeths in Tahdheeb and about 756 in Kafi. His name seems to crop up in more important or interesting ahadeeth.

Inglip, on 09 April 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Soroush, the scholars that did make tawtheeq left no real tangible evidence for their reasons.

And yet we find some scholars, such shaykh an-Najashi and shaykh al-Kashshi strengthened him despite the tajreeh of shaykh Ibn al-Waleed. Especially:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÚÈÇÓ Èä äæÍ: æ ÞÏ ÃÕÇÈ ÔíÎäÇ ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÇáæáíÏ Ýí Ðáß ßáå æ ÊÈÚå ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÈÇÈæíå ÑÍãå Çááå Úáì Ðáß ÅáÇ Ýí ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì Èä ÚÈíÏ ÝáÇ ÃÏÑí ãÇ ÑÇÈå Ýíå áÃäå ßÇä Úáì ÙÇåÑ ÇáÚÏÇáÉ æ ÇáËÞÉ.
And Abu al-Abbaas bin Nooh: And indeed our shaykh Abu Jafar Muhammed bin al-Hasan bin al-Waleed was correct in all this - and Abu Jafar bin Baabawayh, mercy of God upon him, followed him in this - except in (removing) Muhammed bin Isa bin Ubayd. So I do not know (?) except that he was, upon the apparent, just and trustworthy.

Quote

The scholars that weakened him, especially Ibn Al-Waleed said that this is specific for his narrations through Yunus bin Abdulrahman. This means that Ibn Al-Waleed caught him narrating things from Yunus that the main students of Yunus didn't narrate. This may not seem like a big deal to you or me now, but this was a big deal to Ibn Al-Waleed, to the extent that he made his ruling against Mohammed bin Eisa's narrations solely based on that. So, his stance is perhaps the most tangible stance from amongst all the scholars that spoke about Mohammed bin Eisa.

Ibn Ubayd's primary shaykh that he narrated from was Yunus bin Abdur-Rahmaan.
In Tahdheeb, Ibn Ubayd narrated from Yunus about 163 times. And the most he narrated from any single other narrator was 28 times from Ibn Abi Umayr. And in al-Kafi, he narrated from Yunus, 479 times, and the most from any other narrator was 23 times.

As for Yunus himself, in Tahdheeb, his main transmittor is Ibn Ubayd 164 times. Ismaa`ee bin Miraar narrates from him an impressive ~75 times, and the rest are below 20 narrations each. In al-Kafi, Ibn Ubayd is again the main transmittor with 480 narrations, and Isma`eel follows with 110, and the rest with 10 or less each

In light of these facts, when you say "This means that Ibn Al-Waleed caught him narrating things from Yunus that the main students of Yunus didn't narrate", then yes, I agree. However, you're wrong to put this in a negative context and impose this as the reason of Ibn al-Waleed; the latter seems like speculation to me, unless you have a report about or from Ibn al-Waleed in which he gives this as a reason. So, yes, Ibn Ubayd narrated what others didn't from Yunus; but this was because he was the main transmittor from Yunus, with only Ismaa`eel appearing as another real student of Yunus. And this also explains:

. æ ÐßÑ ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÈÇÈæíå Úä ÇÈä ÇáæáíÏ Ãäå ÞÇá: ãÇ ÊÝÑÏ Èå ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ãä ßÊÈ íæäÓ æ ÍÏíËå áÇ íÚÊãÏ Úáíå.
And Abu Jafar bin Babawayah mentioned from Ibn al-Waleed who said: What only Muhammed bin Isa narrated from the books of Yunus and his narrations, I do not rely on.

I would argue that the best explanation for why there was tadh`eef of Ibn Ubayd is:

ÝåÑÓÊÇáØæÓí/ÈÇÈÇáãíã/ÈÇÈãÍãÏ/402
612 - ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì Èä ÚÈíÏ
ÇáíÞØíäí ÖÚíÝ ÇÓÊËäÇå ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ ÇÈä ÈÇÈæíå ãä ÑÌÇá äæÇÏÑ ÇáÍßãÉ æ ÞÇá: áÇ ÃÑæí ãÇ íÎÊÕ ÈÑæÇíÊå æ Þíá: Åäå ßÇä íÐåÈ ãÐåÈ ÇáÛáÇÉ áå ßÊÇÈ ÇáæÕÇíÇ æ áå ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä æ áå ßÊÇÈ ÇáÊÌãá æ ÇáãÑæÉ ßÊÇÈ ÇáÃãá æ ÇáÑÌÇÁ. ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÌãÇÚÉ Úä ÇáÊáÚßÈÑí Úä ÇÈä åãÇã Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì.
Al-Yaqtini. Dhaeef. Abu Jafar bin Babawayah from the narrators of Nawadir al-Hikmah and he said: I do not narrate what is solely found in his reports and sayings. And it is said: He believed in ghuluww.

This makes sense as we have surviving ahadeeth that go through Ibn Ubayd that could be seen as ghali. Such as:

Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä íæäÓ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä¡ Úä ÈÚÖ ÃÕÍÇÈå¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: áíÓ íÎÑÌ ÔÆ ãä ÚäÏ Çááå ÚÒ æÌá ÍÊì íÈÏà ÈÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå Ëã ÈÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ëã ÈæÇÍÏ ÈÚÏ æÇÍÏ¡ áßíáÇ íßæä ÂÎÑäÇ ÃÚáã ãä ÃæáäÇ.

and

áí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä ÈÚÖ ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÇáÍÓä ãæÓì Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: Åä Çááå ÚÒ æÌá ÛÖÈ Úáì ÇáÔíÚÉ (1) ÝÎíÑäí äÝÓí Ãæåã¡ ÝæÞíÊåã æÇááå ÈäÝÓí.

and

Qurb al-Isnaad:
46 - ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÍãíÏ¡ Ýí ÓäÉ ËãÇä æÊÓÚíä æãÇÆÉ Ýí ãÓÌÏ ÇáÍÑÇã¡ ÞÇá : ÏÎáÊ Úáì ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÝÃÎÑÌ Åáíø ãÕÍÝÇð. ÞÇá : ÝÊÕÝÍÊå ÝæÞÚ ÈÕÑí Úáì ãæÖÚ ãäå ÝÅÐÇ Ýíå ãßÊæÈ : åÐå Ìåäã ÇáÊí ßäÊãÇ ÈåÇ ÊßÐÈÇä ÝÇÕáíÇ ÝíåÇ áÇ ÊãæÊÇä ÝíåÇ æáÇ ÊÎííÇä . íÚäí ÇáÃæáíä

Quote

Another interesting stance is the one that Ibn Tawus took against Mohammed bin Eisa. He noticed that the vast majority of the narrations that condemn Zurarah were from Mohammed bin Eisa. Surely, condemning this narrator, that has already been weakened by so many other scholars, is more logical than to assume that all those narrations are due to taqiyyah.

It might make your sense to you, but it's not necessarily right. Ibn Isa might just happened to have recieved many akhbaar against Zuraara, rather like Sa`d bin Abdullah recieved many akhbaar about ar-Raj`a.

SoRoUsH, on 07 April 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I would like to have as much information as possible regarding him before forming a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to weaken him. You could personally place him at a rank between thiqa (theoretically perfect) and dha`eef (theoretically very untrustworthy), say at mamdooh (i.e. hasan) or maqbool, which would indicate to you that while you give some weight to his reports, you take them with a pinch of salt and weigh them less than the saheeh reports.

It should come as no surprise that the tawtheeqaat for Ibn Ubayd have no reasons given; this is usually the case for a narrator. And the reverse is true too. The only reason we have for tadh`eef for Ibn Ubayd is an anonymous saying that he was a ghali. And we do possess tawtheeq that specifically acknowledges and rejects Ibn al-Waleed's tadh`eef, whether implied or explicitly stated.

All praise be to God.

[Inglip]

Quote

In light of these facts, when you say "This means that Ibn Al-Waleed caught him narrating things from Yunus that the main students of Yunus didn't narrate", then yes, I agree. However, you're wrong to put this in a negative context and impose this as the reason of Ibn al-Waleed; the latter seems like speculation to me, unless you have a report about or from Ibn al-Waleed in which he gives this as a reason.

So, how I am supposed to take it positively? Am I supposed to assume that Ibn Al-Waleed is praising Mohammed bin Eisa when he says, "I don't take his narrations from Yunus!"

How is this anything but negative?

Quote

I would argue that the best explanation for why there was tadh`eef of Ibn Ubayd is:

فهرستالطوسي/بابالميم/بابمحمد/402
612 - محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد
اليقطيني ضعيف استثناه أبو جعفر ابن بابويه من رجال نوادر الحكمة و قال: لا أروي ما يختص بروايته و قيل: إنه كان يذهب مذهب الغلاة له كتاب الوصايا و له تفسير القرآن و له كتاب التجمل و المروة كتاب الأمل و الرجاء. أخبرنا جماعة عن التلعكبري عن ابن همام عن محمد بن عيسى.
Al-Yaqtini. Dhaeef. Abu Jafar bin Babawayah from the narrators of Nawadir al-Hikmah and he said: I do not narrate what is solely found in his reports and sayings. And it is said: He believed in ghuluww.

We have been through this. He affirms that Mohammed bin Eisa is weak. Then he says, "It is said that he was upon the mathhab of the ghulaat." The term "it is said" doesn't imply certainty from Al-Tusi. What implies certainty is the word, "Da'eef." (Weak)

Quote

This makes sense as we have surviving ahadeeth that go through Ibn Ubayd that could be seen as ghali. Such as:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس بن عبد الرحمن، عن بعض أصحابه، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: ليس يخرج شئ من عند الله عز وجل حتى يبدأ برسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ثم بأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ثم بواحد بعد واحد، لكيلا يكون آخرنا أعلم من أولنا.

and

لي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن بعض أصحابنا، عن أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام قال: إن الله عز وجل غضب على الشيعة (1) فخيرني نفسي أوهم، فوقيتهم والله بنفسي.

and

Qurb al-Isnaad:
46 - محمد بن عيسى قال : حدثنا إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد، في سنة ثمان وتسعين ومائة في مسجد الحرام، قال : دخلت على أبي عبدالله عليه السلام فأخرج إليّ مصحفاً. قال : فتصفحته فوقع بصري على موضع منه فإذا فيه مكتوب : هذه جهنم التي كنتما بها تكذبان فاصليا فيها لا تموتان فيها ولا تخييان . يعني الأولين

I don't see how this is helping you at all. You last example isn't simply a narration with ghuluu, it is a narration of tahreef al-Qura'an. If you are trying to prove that Mohammed bin Eisa is outside the fold of Islam, then keep at it. Of course, that would make him unreliable as a narrator.

Refer to Al-Istibsaar  باب أنه لا يجوز العقد على امرأة عقد عليها الاب أو الابن وإن لم يدخل بها the 4th narration.

Al-Tusi weakens the narration and cites that Mohammed bin Eisa is the reason why he rejects the narration. Ironically, the narration has nothing to do with ghuluu and is purely a fiqhi issue that discusses certain specifics of jima'a and maharim.

[ImamAliLover]

Dar, on 10 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

I'm sure you're familiar with the works of our pre-eminant Akhbari scholars, if not, you should see their explanations on this. The idea isn't always to contradict the awam, it's also to conceal identity and make sure the Shi`ah, especially their khawas, are not found to be grouped together and the people cannot identify them by seeing a common and convening practice. Especially if someone were to get their hands on a hadith from the Imam [as].

Salam brother how can we explain that...
1) Hisham bin al-Hakam used to debate the 'awamm
2) Other Shias used to also debate Sunnis in matters like imamah, etc
3) Shias during the times viewed to be as having the heaviest taqiyyah were more prolific in writing books (esp on subjects like Imamah) than their predecessors when there wasn't as much need for taqiyyah
4) Scholars of different sects wrote books refuting 'the Rafidhah' during the time of the Imams ?
(and if anything here is incorrect, then please correct me)

So how can we say that the Imams were doing taqiyyah to protect the religion and to protect their Shias when these Shias were debating Sunnis, writing books and reading them in Majalis and made Shia Islam apparently known enough for other sects to feel the need to write books refuting them?

These are serious questions that really get to me.  barakallahu feekum

في أمان الله

Edited by ImamAliLover, 10 April 2012 - 07:26 PM.