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.
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:
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 íÈÏÃ ÈÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå Ëã ÈÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ëã ÈæÇÍÏ ÈÚÏ æÇÍÏ¡ áßíáÇ íßæä ÂÎÑäÇ ÃÚáã ãä ÃæáäÇ.
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.
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
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
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.