Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Tufayl

Tragedy Of Zahra [as]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

ÇáÍãÏ ááå ÇáÐí åÏÇäÇ áåÐÇ æãÇ ßäøÇ áäåÊÏí áæáÇ Çä åÏÇäÇ Çááå

Çááåã Õá Úáì ÝÇØãÉ æÃÈíåÇ æÈÚáåÇ æÈäíåÇ

æÇÛÝÑ áäÇ Çáãæãäíä æÇáãæãäÇÊ æÇÑÍãäÇ ÈÍÞåÇ æÈÍÞåã

æÇáÚä ÃÚÏÇÁåã ÃÌãÚíä ßËíÑÇ ÇÈÏÇ

The tragedy and oppression of Sayyidat al-Zahra [as] has come under doubt, for some even outright disbelief, these past few years and I have put together a few evidences to show the correctness of this historical incident amongst the Imami Shi`a. Inshaa’Allah it is to our benefit.

ÍÏËäí ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä ÇáÊáÚßÈÑí ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈæ Úáí ãÍãÏ Èä åãÇã Èä Óåíá ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá Ñæì ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÈÑÞí Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÃÔÚÑí ÇáÞãí Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Èä ÈÍÑ [*ÇÈä ÇÈí äÌÑÇä] Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá : æáÏÊ ÝÇØãÉ (ÚáíåÇ ÇáÓáÇã) Ýí ÌãÇÏì ÇáÂÎÑÉ Ýí ÇáÚÔÑíä ãäå ÓäÉ ÎãÓ æ ÃÑÈÚíä ãä ãæáÏ ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã) æ ÃÞÇãÊ ÈãßÉ ËãÇä Óäíä æ ÈÇáãÏíäÉ ÚÔÑ Óäíä æ ÈÚÏ æÝÇÉ ÃÈíåÇ ÎãÓÉ æ ÓÈÚíä íæãÇ æ ÞÈÖÊ Ýí ÌãÇÏì ÇáÂÎÑÉ íæã ÇáËáÇËÇÁ áËáÇË Îáæä ãäå ÓäÉ ÅÍÏì ÚÔÑÉ ãä ÇáåÌÑÉ æ ßÇä ÓÈÈ æÝÇÊåÇ Ãä ÞäÝÐÇ ãæáì ÇáÑÌá áßÒåÇ ÈäÚá ÇáÓíÝ ÈÃãÑå ÝÃÓÞØÊ ãÍÓäÇ æ ãÑÖÊ ãä Ðáß ãÑÖÇ ÔÏíÏÇ æ áã ÊÏÚ ÃÍÏÇ ããä ÂÐÇåÇ íÏÎá ÚáíåÇ æ ßÇä ÑÌáÇä ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáäÈí ÓÃáÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Ãä íÔÝÚ áåãÇ ÝÓÃáåÇ ÝÃÌÇÈÊ æ áãÇ ÏÎáÇ ÚáíåÇ ÞÇáÇ áåÇ ßíÝ ÃäÊ íÇ ÈäÊ ÑÓæá Çááå ÝÞÇáÊ ÈÎíÑ ÈÍãÏ Çááå Ëã ÞÇáÊ áåãÇ Ã ãÇ ÓãÚÊãÇ ãä ÇáäÈí íÞæá ÝÇØãÉ ÈÖÚÉ ãäí Ýãä ÂÐÇåÇ ÝÞÏ ÂÐÇäí æ ãä ÂÐÇäí ÝÞÏ ÂÐì Çááå ÞÇáÇ Èáì ÞÇáÊ æ Çááå áÞÏ ÂÐíÊãÇäí ÝÎÑÌÇ ãä ÚäÏåÇ æ åí ÓÇÎØÉ ÚáíåãÇ .

Abu ‘l-Husayn Muhammad b. Harun at-Talla`ukbari said: My father narrated to me. He said: Abu `Ali b. Muhammad b. Hamam b. Suhayl ÑÖí Çááå Úäå narrated to me. He said: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Barqi narrated from Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ash`ari al-Qummi from `Abd ar-Rahman b. Bahr [*Ibn Ibi Najran] from `Abdullah b. Sinan from Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir from Abu `Abdillah Ja`far b. Muhammad Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: Fatima ÚáíåÇ ÇáÓáÇã was born on the twentieth of Jumada ‘l-Akhira in the forty fifth year from the birth of the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã. And she resided in Mecca for eight years and in Medina for ten years. And seventy five days after the death of her father she passed away on the Tuesday of the third of Jumada ‘l-Akhira in the eleventh year from the Hijra. And the cause of her death was that Qunfudh, the client of the man, pounded her with the na`l (the silver or iron thing at the lower end of a scabbard) of the sword by his command. So she miscarried Muhsin and became sick from that with a severe illness. And she did not let anyone from those who had hurt her to enter upon her. And two men from the companions of the Prophet asked Amir al-Mu’mineen to intercede for them. So she responded, and when they entered upon her they said to her: How are you, O daughter of the Messenger of Allah. So she said: Good, praise be to Allah. Then she said to them: Have you not heard the Prophet saying: Fatima is a piece of my flesh, so whoever has hurt her has hurt me and whoever has hurt me has hurt Allah. They said: Yea. She said: By Allah, you have hurt me. So they went out from her while she was displeased with them.

Original Arabic Source: Dalaa’il al-Imamah by al-Tabarai pg. 131; http://www.aqaed.com...1-08.html#tb033

Translation: http://www.tashayyu....1/her-martyrdom

*There is dispute in naskh on the narrator being Ibn Bahr or Ibn Abi Najran. al-Majalisi in Bihar, and in another work called al-`Awalim, it narrates it as Ibn Abi Najran and we can see this as most likely as al-Ash`ari [ra] narrates from him repeatedly and Ibn Abi Najran [ra] narrates from Ibn Sinan [ra] like that as well. Wallahu-a`lam.

There is one person in this chain who is technically majhul and without tawtheeq, the primary narrator to al-Tabarai [ra] : Abu’l-Husayn Muhamamd b. Harun b. Musa al-Tall`ukbari. Thus, this isnad is only considered qawwi (Þæøí) – all others are thiqat and our core narrators [ra]. However, there some information about this particular narration that can help us have some more confidence in his riwayah:

1 – He is the primary narrator from the author of the book, who is thiqa jaleel and from the companions of al-Najashi [ra]; the authors other Mashayikh include the famous Ibn al-Ghada’iri [ra] – who is one of the a`alaam in jarh and ta`deel.

2 – He is the son of the famous thiqa narrator al-Tall`ukbari [ra]

3 – al-Najashi narrates quotes him in the tarjimah of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Rabi` and give him tarahhum

So the isnad is something like qawwi kal-hasan (Þæøí ßÇáÍÓä) – “strong as if good”

There are further external evidences (al-qaraa’in al-khaaraijiyya) that point to the authenticity (sihha) of this narration’s contents:

Narrates Thiqat al-Islam al-Kulayni [ra] in al-Kafi (Vol. 1, Kitab al-Hujja, Chapter on the Birth of al-Zahra Fatima Ú, Hadith #2)

ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÇáÚãÑßí Èä Úáí¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÃÎíå¡ ÃÈí ÇáÍÓä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: Åä ÝÇØãÉ ÚáíåÇ ÇáÓáÇã ÕÏíÞÉ ÔåíÏÉ æÅä ÈäÇÊ ÇáÇäÈíÇÁ áÇ íØãËä.

Muhammad b. Yahya from al-`Amraki b. `Ali from `Ali b. Ja`far [ra] from his brother Abi’l-Hasan [al-Kazim] Úáíå ÇáÓáÇãwho said: Verily Fatima [as] is [emphatically] truthful [and] a martyr (shaheeda) and the daughters of prophets do not menstruate.

The sanad is saheeh, al-Majalisi records it as saheeh in Mir’aat al-`Uqool.

The great Shaykh al-Ta’ifa al-Tusi [ra] in Talkhees al-Shaafi [Vol 5, Pg 156] states that there is an ijma` of the Shi`a upon this incident:

"æÞÏ Ñæí Ãäåã ÖÑÈæåÇ ÈÇáÓíÇØ . æÇáãÔåæÑ ÇáÐí áÇ ÎáÇÝ Ýíå Èíä ÇáÔíÚÉ : Ãä ÚãÑ ÖÑÈ Úáì ÈØäåÇ ÍÊì ÃÓÞØÊ ¡ ÝÓãí ÇáÓÞØ " ãÍÓäÇ " ¡ æÇáÑæÇíÉ ÈÐáß ãÔåæÑÉ ÚäÏåã . æãÇ ÃÑÇÏæÇ ãä ÅÍÑÇÞ ÇáÈíÊ ÚáíåÇ ¡ Ííä ÇáÊÌà ÅáíåÇ Þæã ¡ æÇãÊäÚæÇ ãä ÈíÚÊå . æáíÓ áÃÍÏ Ãä íäßÑ ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÈÐáß ¡ áÃäÇ ÞÏ ÈíäÇ ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ ãä ÌåÉ ÇáÚÇãÉ ¡ ãä ØÑíÞ ÇáÈáÇÐÑí ¡ æÛíÑå . æÑæÇíÉ ÇáÔíÚÉ ãÓÊÝíÖÉ Èå ¡ áÇ íÎÊáÝæä Ýí Ðáß "

“And it is narrated that they struck her [Fatima (s)] with whips. It is the very well-known (mashhoor) [incident] in which there is no disagreement (laa khilaaf) amongst the Shi`a – that `Umar struck her stomach until she miscarried, so she named the married [baby] “Muhsin” [ra]. The narrations about that are well-known amongst them. They wanted [threatened?] the burning of the house upon her - where the people took refuge – seeking the pledge of allegiance (bay`a). There [surely] can be no one who denies this narrative for I have explained the narrative from the side of the common people [non-Shi`a] from the path of al-Baladthuri and other than him, and the narrative of the Shi`a [which are] are extensive in this [incident]. There is no disagreement in it.”

The agreement of the Qudama [ra] is hujja.

The above is sufficient for the Imami as proof of the Musibat al-Zahra’ – there are other well known facts that further support and give weight to this incident, here’s a small list:

1 – The historians (non-Shi`a) narrate this incident in various places & this is a public event, difficult to fabricate about in comparison to closed-door conversations

2 – Her [as] grave is unknown and it is undeniable that she died angry with the Shaykhayn

3 – No reason is posited for her death aside from this and she died at a very young age

4 – The non-Shi`a have accused the Shi`a of this belief and idea from long time coming

5 - `Umar’s personality & lack of restraint is well known

…list goes on

I’d like to point out that I am not here to prove or explain details to the incident – neither is this topic. Whether it was Qunfudh or `Umar himself or what Imam `Ali [as] was or wasn’t doing in the mean time and why – irrelevant to this discussion. What is established is the basic narrative of her [as] miscarriage and injuries and subsequent martyrdom.

Inshaa’Allah, if new information comes forward I will add it to this post.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

Mashallah. For me personally this was a timely post.

I like your diraya approach too. I am happy you use the term "qawi", since I have read that this term did not gain wide currency amongst the fuqaha (apparently introduced by Shaykh Bahai), but I do see basis for using it. The move from "qawi" to "qawi kal hasan" was neat.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also scholars who accept this Riwayah, among them:

al-Imam al-Khumayni, al-Allamah al-Mamaqani, ash-Shaykh al-Khawjawiy, as-Sayyid al-Burujirdiy, al-Muhaqiq ad-Damad and Mirza Tabrizi among others.

Another point is that Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr has no existence in our books, except for a single narration in at-Tahdhib, which as-Sayyid al-Khui rules as a case of Tashif [manuscriptal error] [the actual name in that Hadith's Isnad should be Abdur-Rahman b. Yahya].

Also, there are multiple instances where Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran [who is in the Sixth Tabaqa] narrates from Abdallah b. Sinan [who is in the Fifth Tabaqa], and the one who narrates from him is Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ash'ariy al-Qummiy [who is in the seventh Tabaqa], so the Tabaqa consideration also agrees.

Furthermore, al-Majlisi in Bihar quotes the narration with its Isnad having Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran and not Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr, thus in his Nuskha of Dalail it is Ibn Abi Najran who is present.

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

There are also scholars who accept this Riwayah, among them:

al-Imam al-Khumayni, al-Allamah al-Mamaqani, ash-Shaykh al-Khawjawiy, as-Sayyid al-Burujirdiy, al-Muhaqiq ad-Damad and Mirza Tabrizi among others.

Another point is that Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr has no existence in our books, except for a single narration in at-Tahdhib, which as-Sayyid al-Khui rules as a case of Tashif [manuscriptal error] [the actual name in that Hadith's Isnad should be Abdur-Rahman b. Yahya].

Also, there are multiple instances where Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran [who is in the Sixth Tabaqa] narrates from Abdallah b. Sinan [who is in the Fifth Tabaqa], and the one who narrates from him is Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ash'ariy al-Qummiy [who is in the seventh Tabaqa], so the Tabaqa consideration also agrees.

Furthermore, al-Majlisi in Bihar quotes the narration with its Isnad having Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran and not Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr, thus in his Nuskha of Dalail it is Ibn Abi Najran who is present.

Thanks bro. It has been recently put to my attention that Ibn Tawwus and Bahr al-`Ulum named that majhul narrator as from the Mashayikh of Mufid [ra] and Najashi [ra]. More weight to his tahseen, and if the later then thiqa.

But it's also been put to my attention that this chain is odd and there's another problem with it. That it's always Ibn Miskan narrating from `Abdullah b. Sinan, not verse. And because this is a naskh issue, it may actually be Muhammad b. Sinan in this chain who's narrating form Ibn Miskan, which is a very common chain, also some going from Ibn Abi Najran >> Muhammad b. Sinan >> Ibn Miskan

Care to comment on that irregularity?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

The two hadeeth above are weak and I can get into a dars on this but I won't for the readers. (I will one day make an article or something weakening the chain of `Amrikee from `Alee bin Ja`far inshaa' Allaah with the tawfeeq of Allaah (SWT))

First and foremost, the naskh issue is a problem. Let's just assume for now it isn't bin baHr because of the tabaqah of ibn abee najraan is the same. So good job for the person who fabricated this chain.

Secondly, `Abd Allaah bin Sinaan NEVER narrates from `Abd Allaah bin Miskaan! Muhammad bin Sinaan narrates from `Abd Allaah bin Miskaan. Check all chains of all books. I haven't seen it. This is a completely a fabricated chain. But please see examples below:

Úóäúåõ Úóäú íóÚúÞõæÈó Èúäö íóÒöíÏó Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ãõÓúßóÇäó Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÈóÕöíÑò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Ú ÞóÇáó

:
ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ãõÓúßóÇäó Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÈóÕöíÑò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö ÚI

If I wanted to take out more chains I could probably take out 50 or so more of the same chains. It is impossible for the two narrators to have narrated from each other. There aren't any other ahaadeeth.

(salam)

Wallaahu 'Alam

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for opening this thread brother, and jazakallah to all the brothers who have contributed.

The two hadeeth above are weak and I can get into a dars on this but I won't for the readers. (I will one day make an article or something weakening the chain of `Amrikee from `Alee bin Ja`far inshaa' Allaah with the tawfeeq of Allaah (SWT))

Would it be possible for you to share other ahadith you may have come across on the topic of the tragedy of Sitna Fatimah (as)? It would be a very valuable contribution to this thread. That was, as well the discussion on the ahadith that have already been quoted, other narrations on the subject can continuously be added to the thread for the benefit of the readers inshaAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

But it's also been put to my attention that this chain is odd and there's another problem with it. That it's always Ibn Miskan narrating from `Abdullah b. Sinan, not verse. And because this is a naskh issue, it may actually be Muhammad b. Sinan in this chain who's narrating form Ibn Miskan, which is a very common chain, also some going from Ibn Abi Najran >> Muhammad b. Sinan >> Ibn Miskan

Care to comment on that irregularity?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

We have cases where Ahmad b. Muhammad (al-Ash'ariy al-Qummiy) narrates from Ibn Abi Najran, and this is established.

Similarly we have cases where Ibn Abi Najran narrates from Abdallah b. Sinan, and this too is established.

It has also been recorded Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran narrating from Muhammad b. Sinan.

So since Ibn Abi Najran narrates from both Abdallah and Muhammad (the two Ibn Sinans) both could be the case here,

but since Dalail which is the source is explicit in that it is Abdallah, then I see no reason why we should choose not to go with that.

Of course the question comes as to does Abdallah b. Sinan narrate from Ibn Muskan?

As for Abdallah bin Sinan narrating from Ibn Muskan, then it is true that I have not found a narration where Abdallah b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan, but what I can say is that they were both companions who narrated from as-Sadiq directly, and there is nothing that prevents two people who were clearly contemporaries from narrating from each other.

It is true that we have clear cases where Muhammad b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan, but this does not prevent Abdallah narrating from him too as it appears to have occured here, not having other cases where this happened does not mean that it is impossible for it to have happened, as they were both contemporaries, this could be the one and only case of this happening.

Now if someone is willing to call it a fabrication just because we do not have other cases where Abdallah b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan then that is too harsh a step, and not carefully considered or based on Ilm, as a case where two contemporaries narrate from each other [without there being other cases of such, as it may be the only Hadith they heard from each other] is possible.

Furthermore, why not then say that according to other chains it should be Muhammad b. Sinan who narrates from Ibn Muskan, and Abdallah is a Tashif in it, why say fabrication? is this not exposing some hidden feelings against the Matn, I find calling it a fabrication very simplistic, and having no proof whatsoever, how can some of us who are not able to write three sentences in proper Arabic call something a fabrication that scholars like Mamaqani, Damad, Tabrizi, Allamah Hilli [in one place] call Mu'tabar.

How can you say it cannot happen, were Abdallah b. Sinan and Ibn Muskan not contemporaries?

Note: there is no other cases of such a transmission does not equal it has not happened in this case, how many times do we have narrators narrating from others only one or two Ahadith?

Lastly, Some scholars consider Muhammad b. Sinan Thiqah i.e. al-Khumayni, and for them whichever Ibn Sinan it is, the Hadith is Mu'tabar, after making Tawthiq of the Shaykh of Tabari by other considerations as have been mentioned by brother Dar.

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There are no hidden feelings here but straight logic. Don't say that there is a possibility of this one hadeeth with this specific shaadh chain out of all the aHaadeeth in the world that one can narrate, they narrate on this specific incident? With a Ghaalee in there? I'm sorry but logic doesn't dictate that one shaadh chain magically appeared out of nowhere to speak about the most riveting story in Shee`ah and/or Sunnee Islaam.

This is easily capable of being fabricated.

This is in matters of `aqeedah. Let's not just jump the gun because it's something we have heard our whole lives or because it's in Sunnee books, also.

Disclaimer: I hate to do these things, but I must for the readers out there to not get a bad impression of me. I don't like the Khulafaa' (the first three caliphs). Now, I won't curse them openly or privately because I haven't seen authentic aHaadeeth to curse them. This doesn't mean I like them and what I will say is I will, with all my heart, do tabarra (disassociate) from these individuals. They have done some good in their lives and one shouldn't take that away from them, but nifaaq entered into their hearts and they turned away from Islaam and died on the path of kufr.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam throughout SC history. Readers please see other topics in regards to this.

Wallaahu 'Alam

(salam)

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There are no hidden feelings here but straight logic. Don't say that there is a possibility of this one hadeeth with this specific shaadh chain out of all the aHaadeeth in the world that one can narrate, they narrate on this specific incident? With a Ghaalee in there? I'm sorry but logic doesn't dictate that one shaadh chain magically appeared out of nowhere to speak about the most riveting story in Shee`ah and/or Sunnee Islaam.

Why can it not happen?,

In other words it has happened.

And this is enough for some as Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

Which Ghali?

This is easily capable of being fabricated.

Being easy to fabricate does not mean that it has been fabricated, you are the one who claimed it is fabricated, what is your proof for that, apart from your point that Abdallah b. Sinan has not been shown to have narrated from Ibn Muskan elsewhere, but as has been pointed out to you, they were contemporaries, so there is nothing that prevents them from narrating from each other,

Would you call all other cases where one Thiqah has narrated from another Thiqah once as Shadh and this means the the Matn is by necessity fabricated? what Ilm Hadith is that.

If that is the case, then we have many instances where somebody has narrated just one Hadith from another.

This is in matters of `aqeedah. Let's not just jump the gun because it's something we have heard our whole lives or because it's in Sunnee books, also.

Actually it is in matters of Ta'rikh, there is no Aqeedah here.

And names of scholars of Rijal who consider the Hadith Qawwiy have already been quoted, are you a Hujjah or them?

To be fair I don't consider you calling the Hadith a fabrication as meaning in any way that you support the Khulafa.

As for sending La'an, you do not need any Hadith, Allah [and whose Sunnah to follow better than Him] says that he sends La'nah on those who anger the prophet, is the prophet not angry with those who snatched the Khilafah?

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can it not happen?,

In other words it has happened.

And this is enough for some as Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

Which Ghali?

Muhammad bin Sinaan

Being easy to fabricate does not mean that it has been fabricated, you are the one who claimed it is fabricated, what is your proof for that, apart from your point that Abdallah b. Sinan has not been shown to have narrated from Ibn Muskan elsewhere, but as has been pointed out to you, they were contemporaries, so there is nothing that prevents them from narrating from each other,

Would you call all other cases where one Thiqah has narrated from another Thiqah once as Shadh and this means the the Matn is by necessity fabricated? what Ilm Hadith is that.

If that is the case, then we have many instances where somebody has narrated just one Hadith from another.

And each one would be case by case basis. I would have to see your examples. Show me your examples of thiqaat narrators narrating from thiqaat narrators only once ever. (one matn)

Actually it is in matters of Ta'rikh, there is no Aqeedah here.

And names of scholars of Rijal who consider the Hadith Qawwiy have already been quoted, are you a Hujjah or them?

I am a nobody and Allaah (SWT) is my witness that I mean that. I am simply pointing out the obvious points that if he ('Abd Allaah bin Sinaan) narrated from ibn Miskaan, where is it? Ibn Miskaan isn't a joe schmo. He is one of the aSHaab al-ijma`. If you were with a aSHaab al ijma` level person would you want only one hadeeth? Yes this was made by al-Kashshee the grouping, but their status among the community was known.

To be fair I don't consider you calling the Hadith a fabrication as meaning in any way that you support the Khulafa.

Thank you brother.

Whatever I have said that is correct is from Allaah (SWT) and whatever I have said that is incorrect is from myself and sharr al Shaytaan.

As for sending la`n individually like "Oh Allaah, curse first, second, and third." No I don't do that. As far as saying "La`natullaah `alaa al-qawm al-zaalimeen" I do that. I also do "Rabbanaa aatihim Di`fayni minal `adhaab wal `anhum la`nan kabeera" in my qunoot in salaah.

But I'm not going to be like those people who are doing it are doing bid`ah. I mean it is between them and Allaah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. I preferably want to make sure I follow all SaHeeH hadeeth and go by that philosophy to be consistent with my `aqeedah and `ibaadah. That's why I never hate on Yaasir al-Habeeb. I think he is good. At least he isn't afraid to debate Sunnnes. Big up to him. And I, for one, am more leaning to doing la`n on them than not, but SaHeeH hadeeth is SaHeeH hadeeth. It pains me sometimes not to do it after seeing their garbage. But at the end of the day, I would be a hypocrite if I did la`n and it wasn't SaHeeH.

Wallaahu 'Alam

Fadlallaah answers this hadeeth:

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for sending la`n individually like "Oh Allaah, curse first, second, and third." No I don't do that. As far as saying "La`natullaah `alaa al-qawm al-zaalimeen" I do that. I also do "Rabbanaa aatihim Di`fayni minal `adhaab wal `anhum la`nan kabeera" in my qunoot in salaah.

So u dont take them by name becuase its not in a SaHeeH hadith? This is ur reasoning?

So u have never send lanat by name? except what is in by name in related Hadith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Thanks bro. It has been recently put to my attention that Ibn Tawwus and Bahr al-`Ulum named that majhul narrator as from the Mashayikh of Mufid [ra] and Najashi [ra]. More weight to his tahseen, and if the later then thiqa.

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

But Ayatollah Khoei never rejected burning door incident,if he considered every Hadees of this narrator zaeef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

(wasalam)

I am not saying he is for sure, I am noting that Sayyid Bahr al-`Ulum is including him amongst the Mashayikh of al-Najashi [ra]. Also, I believe in qara'in of tamdeeh and tasheeh for ruwat and riwiayaat as majhul is the weakest and most unrealistic of weaknesses.

Anyway, both hadith are weak as far I am concerned now. The Ibn Sinan in the first narration is Muhammad b. Sinan and he is a weak, ghali liar - this is due to naskh issues and shawahid chains. The second is weak due to tons of irsal/tadlees.

However, the truth of this incident is untouched, the weakness of these two narrations doesn't mean their mutun are untrue - our Qudama [ra] had agreement and ijma`a - rather all the Shi`a did, and this is hujja.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

if im not mistaken, ijma means consensus?

So why is ijma hujja? I mean they can have a consensus and still be wrong?

i think ijma and ijtihad in fiqh is one thing but ijma in aqeedah is also used?

Ijma` of the Qudama' [ra] is hujja for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they had way more hadith than we do (we have lost so much) and they used the loads and apparent (obvious) external evidences to authenticate and weaken hadith - they did not do this one-by-one rijal grading thing. Their nearness to the time of the Imams [as] and the earlier fuqaha allowed them to see and notice the tawatur of ideas/beliefs and practices in order to know something is from the Imam [as] himself.

Our idea of ijma` is not that the ijma` itself is proof, rather that the ijma` is indicative of the Imam [as]'s opinion through his Shi`a, khawas companions and the fuqaha of the Imamia who had hadith we do not have.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Isn't the incident itself mutawatir? I mean four or more different chains, regardless of weakness in sanad?

Two instances have been introduced in this thread, and putting aside those in the works of the `aamma, don't we also have other instances in Shi`i literature?

Dar ul Islam

I've noted you've changed your view. Gleaning from the other posts, I am supposing it is because of the isolated instance where `abdullah b sinan is shown narrating from `abdillah b muskan, which I suggest strengthens the conjecture that it is unreliable.

Could you elaborate on your rejection of the second hadith? I have read that the author of al-Ma`aalim, Shaykh Bahai, Mirdamad and al-Majlisayn found it sahih. Whereas you mention tonnes of irsal and tadlis!

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Dar ul Islam

I've noted you've changed your view. Gleaning from the other posts, I am supposing it is because of the isolated instance where `abdullah b sinan is shown narrating from `abdillah b muskan, which I suggest strengthens the conjecture that it is unreliable.

Yes, and Sayed Fadlallah [rh] explained that the naskh on this issue is just "ibn Sinan" which is vague and can be either `Abdullah or Muhammad. And the shawahid chains show that it can only be Muhamamd and not `Abdullah.

Could you elaborate on your rejection of the second hadith? I have read that the author of al-Ma`aalim, Shaykh Bahai, Mirdamad and al-Majlisayn found it sahih. Whereas you mention tonnes of irsal and tadlis!

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

It's a major case of irsal/tadlees. It's not surprising that past scholars have missed this - ittisal and connection of chains has been pretty ignored by our scholars as compared to Sunnis. You can see that there's problems with who is narrating from who based on shawahid chains and their tabaqaat.

Now, it's not just Muhammad b. Yahya [ra] to al-`Amriki [ra]. Although we know his intermediaries, there is one that's majhool (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-`Alwai). Muhammad b. Yaya [ra] is in Tusi's [ra] isnad to Muhamamd b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari's book. So whenever he's narrating from `Amriki, it's coming from al-`Attar [ra] too.

ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Èúäö Úóáöíòø Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Úóäú ÃóÎöíåö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÍóÓóäö Ú ÞóÇá‏

ÃóÎúÈóÑóäöí Èöåö ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÈöíåö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóÍúÈõæÈò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÃóÍúãóÏó ÇáúÚóáóæöíöø Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Úóäú ÃóÎöíåö ãõæÓóì Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Ú ÞóÇá‏

ó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáÔóøíúÎõ ÈöÅöÓúäóÇÏöåö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóÍúÈõæÈò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÃóÍúãóÏó Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Úóäú ÕóÝúæóÇäó Èúäö íóÍúíóì Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóØóÑò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò

ãÍãøÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÈÅÓäÇÏå Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáÚáæíø (1) ¡ Úä ÇáÚãÑßí ÇáÈæÝßí ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÌÚÝÑ ¡ Úä ÃÎíå ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã )

Also the issue of al-`Amriki. He's from the same tabaqah as like `Abdullah b. Ja`far al-Himyari [ra], he's a companion of al-`Askari [as] and lived during the minor ghayba. There's really no way for him to narrating from Ali b. Jafar [ra] who died in `Urayd during al-Hadi [as]'s imamah. He does a lot of tadlees, you can find him narrating directly from al-Rida [a] and then one time with just a single intermediary between him an al-Baqir [as]...which can't happen.

Khui says he was a servant al-Jawad [as], but where is that coming from? None of the early rijal books [including al-Hilli and friends] mention this, no one includes him amongst the companions of any other Imam except al-`Askari [as].

...That si why the second one is weak. Tadlees and irsal. The chain is disconnected. I believe Bahr al-`Ulum talks about al-`Amriki and weakens this connection as well.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Points to Note:

1. He says the Sanad is Mu'tabar if it is indeed Abdallah b. Sinan.

2. al-Majlisi is the one who in his recording of the Hadith in Bihar says Ibn Sinan [which is his way of shortening the Sanad, be it Abdallah or Muhammad], but the original source Dalail explicitly contains Abdallah b. Sinan, so al-Majlisi saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar [would be him shortening for Abdallah b. Sinan in this case], so there is no issue of Naskh difference, and of it consequently being Mardud between Abdallah and Muhammad for him to drop it due to the possibility of it being the weak Muhammad.

3. There is no confusion in the Mu'tabar Riwayah present about the incident for him to drop this due to those other Riwayah.

I agree that Muhammad b. Sinan is the one who is known for narrating from Ibn Muskan, this does not prevent Abdallah narrating from him, as they were also contemporaries, and the scholars who consider this Mu'tabar indicate this case for the Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

One Hadith you say, well there are many cases of a Thiqah narrating only one Hadith from another Thiqah, examples will follow, Insha Allah.

Yes, and Sayed Fadlallah [rh] explained that the naskh on this issue is just "ibn Sinan" which is vague and can be either `Abdullah or Muhammad. And the shawahid chains show that it can only be Muhamamd and not `Abdullah.

There is no Naskh issue in this, al-Majlisi shortens both Abdallah b. Sinan and Muhammad b. Sinan by saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar, Fadhlallah cannot point this to be a Naskh issue by looking at Bihar, that would be laughable, when we go back to the original source it is unequivocal about it being Abdallah b. Sinan and not Muhammad, so we know what al-Majlisi meant when he says in his chain in Bihar Ibn Sinan, especially as he shortens this for both Abdallah and Muhammad.

The only question is whether Abdallah narrates from Ibn Muskan, we have no Shawahid of this chain in other Hadith, but as has already been said, a Thiqah can narrate just one Hadith from another Thiqah, and that is why there are scholars who agree about I'tibar of the chain.

Edited by Islamic Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Points to Note:

1. He says the Sanad is Mu'tabar if it is indeed Abdallah b. Sinan.

Yes, that is true.

2. al-Majlisi is the one who in his recording of the Hadith in Bihar says Ibn Sinan [which is his way of shortening the Sanad, be it Abdallah or Muhammad], but the original source Dalail explicitly contains Abdallah b. Sinan, so al-Majlisi saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar [would be him shortening for Abdallah b. Sinan in this case], so there is no issue of Naskh differences and of it consequently being Mardud between Abdallah and Muhammad for him to drop it due to the possibility of it being Muhammad.

Hmm can you show me that the original nusukh explicitly refer to it as Abdullah b.Sinan [ra]? The ones I've seen online are already edited to conform with Bihar.

One Hadith you say, well there are many cases of a Thiqah narrating only one Hadith from another Thiqah, examples will follow, Insha Allah.

I agree that this is possible, but examples of this would be nice. Also examples where narrators switch orders in terms of their usually narration order (like with Ibn Muskan and `Abdullah).

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

salvation

Could you please refer to the mu`tabar Shi`i reports of this incident?

Could you also explain why the qarina that, excepting this case, the b sinan who narrates from b muskan is muhammad b sinan does not give us a reason to believe that the copy of the original source - dalail al imama - did not undergo naskh?

Shukran.

Dar ul Islam

Now, it's not just Muhammad b. Yahya [ra] to al-`Amriki [ra]. Although we know his intermediaries, there is one that's majhool (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-`Alwai). Muhammad b. Yaya [ra] is in Tusi's [ra] isnad to Muhamamd b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari's book. So whenever he's narrating from `Amriki, it's coming from al-`Attar [ra] too.

I didn't understand this section. I would be grateful if you re-explained.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

I didn't understand this section. I would be grateful if you re-explained.

(wasalam)

(wasalam) / (wasalam)

I mean further proof of the irsal between al-`Attar [ra] and al-`Amriki [ra] is that Tusi narrates the Book of Muhammad b. Ahman b. Yahya al-Ash`ari [ra] through al-`Attar and you can find a lot of hadith where it's Muhammad al-Ash`ari to al-`Amriki [ra].

Also, we may say that this tadlees is acceptable because know who al-`Attar's intermediaries are (who are thiqat). But there is an instance where it's a majhul, so it still leaves this a problematic.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

Have I rightly understood: that there are many chains from Shaykh Tusi to al-`ash`ari's Book, where one such chain includes a majhul, such that it becomes unclear whether a particular hadith has come through this chain or another?

If so, how many chains are there altogether connecting Shaykh Tusi and the book?

And is there just one majhul in the class of intermediaries?

Shukran.

Just to add: there is a short old thread defending muhammad b sinan - caution needs to be taken not to let the off-topic discussion affect one's appraisal of both views: http://www.shiachat....mmed-bin-sinan/

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm can you show me that the original nusukh explicitly refer to it as Abdullah b.Sinan [ra]? The ones I've seen online are already edited to conform with Bihar.

The only reference that Fadhlullah could give that it could be Muhammad is because the chain in Bihar contains Ibn Sinan, [and we know that al-Majlisi shortens this in Bihar for both Abdallah and Muhammad], as for Dalail itself it contains 'Abdallah'.

And 'Abdallah' is what is present in the edition of Dalail al-Imamah published by Maktaba al-Haydariyya and others citing Nuskha of the book [without going through Bihar].

And note that at-Tabariy narrates it twice in Dalail, each time saying 'Abdallah b. Sinan'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×