Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jondab_Azdi

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jondab_Azdi last won the day on December 2 2009

Jondab_Azdi had the most liked content!

About Jondab_Azdi

  • Rank
    ÌÚÝÑí

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam (Imami Shi'a)

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,357 profile views
  1. Some scholars have argued that usually its Kitab al-Hajj which has the abwaab and riwayaat of Ziyaraat like Shaykh al-Kulayni in al-Kafi, Shaykh Hurr al-Amuli in al-Wasael, but again this would be a big assumption in case of Muhammad b. Ismail, because there is a possibility that Shaykh Tusi got it from a book of some other narrator(ÛíÑ ßÊÇÈ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá). w/s
  2. Shaykh al-Radhy said: ... ÃÏÚí Ãä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáØæÓí äÞáåÇ ãä ßÊÇÈ ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈÒíÚ æåÐÇ æÅä ßÇä áÇ ÔÇåÏ Úáíå Regardless of other weaknesses in the isnad of this ziyarah, how can we be sure that Shaykh Tusi narrated this from the book of Muhammad b. Ismail and not from the book of some other narrator? There is a narration in al-Misbah from Abdullah b. Sinan (ra) and al-Khoei graded it as mursal(daeef). The tareeq (in fihrist) of Shaykh Tusi to the book(s) of Abdullah b. Sinan is sahih and yet al-Khoei graded it as mursal(daeef). His argument is that the tareeq mentioned in al-Fihrist is lim
  3. Looking at the other isnad, it seems very unlikely that al-Kulayni narrated from Abdullah b. Jafar directly without a wasitah. It seems that the isnad you mentioned in your last post are the case of 'wijadah'. I have read that scholars of rijaal don't consider Abdullah b. Jafar and even Sad b. Abdullah as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Syed al-Khoei also believed the same. He does mentions Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Jafar and Muhammad b. Yahya as the mashaykh of al-Kulayni but never said Abdullah b. Jafar as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni. See point 18 and 25 h
  4. Akhi, I didn't comment on the second sentence as its even more weaker usul. Muawiyah b. Hakeem did narrated from other majhool narrators. Syed al-Khoei has discussed this in very much detail and considered ahadith of those majaheel as daeef from whom even Muhammad b. Abi Umayr (ra) narrated. w/s
  5. This would have been a considerable point only if the other narrators from which Humayd took usul were thiqah. Here are some other narrators from whom Humayd took a lot of usul: ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÒíÏ = majhool ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáãÉ = majhool ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇáÞÑÔí = waqifi daeef ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÍÇÒã = majhool So, this actually proves the opposite. w/s
  6. (salam) Do you mean that Abdullah b. Jafar al-Himyari was also from the mashaykh of al-Kulayni? w/s
  7. 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 K
  8. Authentic hadith in our book al-Kafi explicity states Azar as father of Prophet Ibrahim (as). . . علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، عن أبي أيوب الخزاز، عن أبصير، عن أبي عبدالله (ع): أن آزر أبا إبراهيم (ع) كان منجما لنمرود ولم يكن يصدر إلا عن أمره فنظر ليلة في النجوم فاصبح وهويقول لنمرود: لقد رأيت عجبا، قال: وما هو؟ قال: رأيت مولودا يولد في أرضنا يكون هلاكنا على يديه ولا يلبث إلا قليلا حتى يحمل به، . . . w/s
  9. There has never been consensus among shi'a scholars regarding the superiority of Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) over Prophets (as). See: http://www.shiachat....ost__p__1980835 Regarding that hadith you posted, see: http://www.shiachat....ost__p__1981586 w/s
  10. al-Majlisi graded it 'daif / muwaththaq' probably b/c of different opinions regarding Salim b. Mukarram. æÞÏ ÇÎÊáÝ Ýíå¡ ÝÐåÈ ÈÚÖ Åáì æËÇÞÊå¡ æÐåÈ ÂÎÑæä Åáì ÖÚÝå¡ æÊæÞøÝ Ýíå ÇÈä ØÇææÓ(1)¡ æÇáÚáÇøãÉ I read this today... ÈÖÚÝ ÇáÓäÏ ÈÇÈí ÎÏíÌÉ ÓÇáã Èä ãßÑã ÇáÌãÇá¡ ÍíË ÖÚÝå ßá ãä ÇáÔíÎ æÇÈä ÏÇæÏ æÇáÚáÇãÉ ÇáÍáí¡æÈÊÖÚíÝ ÇãËÇá åÄáÇÁ ÊÓÞØ ÇáÑæÇíÉ Úä ÇáÇÚÊÈÇÑ¡ æáÇ íÌÏí ÊæËíÞ ÇáäÌÇÔí Ýí ÇáãÞÇã¡ áãÚÇÑÖÊå ÈÊÖÚíÝþÇáÌãÇÚÉ ÝíÊÚÇÑÖÇä æíÊÓÇÞØÇä¡ æÊÈÞì ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÈáÇ ÊæËíÞ ÝáÇ íãßä ÇáÇÓÊäÇÏ ÇáíåÇ¡ æáÇ íãßä ÍíäÆÐ æÕÝåÇÈÇáÕÍíÍÉ Çæ ÇáãÚÊÈÑÉ ßãÇ ÞÏ íÑì Ýí ÇáÓäÉ ÇáÈÚÖ w/s
  11. No b/c the sanad of this narration from Rijal Kashhi is also weak b/c of majhool narrators. Syed al-Khoei said: وهذا الطريق لم تثبت صحته عندي أما الرواية فقد ذكرها الكشي في ترجمته ( 517 ) كما نقل ، وهي ضعيفة ، فان الفضل بن كثير مهمل ، والحسن بن الحسين بن صالح مجهول ، فلا يمكن الاستدلال بها على المدح ، ولا على القدح . w/s
  12. All three chains are weak. First b/c of Sahl b. Ziyad, second Hamza b. Bazi' (æÇÞÝí áã íæËÞ), third Muhammad b. Mansur b. Nasr (ãÌåæá). Syed al-Khoei says: åÐå ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÑæÇåÇ ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ ÈæÌå ÃæÓÚ æÃÈÓØ ÈÃÓÇäíÏ ãÎÊáÝÉ ãäåÇ: ãÇ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇÈä ÈÒíÚ¡ Úä Úãøå ÍãÒÉ Èä ÈÒíÚ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÓæíÏ¡ æÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÈÃÌãÚåÇ ÖÚíÝÉ w/s
  13. Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ¡ Úä ÓáãÉ Èä ÇáÎØÇÈ ¡ Úä ÓáíãÇä Èä ÓãÇÚÉ Úä Úãå ÚÇÕã ÇáßæÒí ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ãä ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ÞÇá : ãä ÃÕÈÍ áÇ íåÊã ÈÇãæÑ ÇáãÓáãíä ÝáíÓ ãäåã ¡ æãä íÓãÚ ÑÌáÇ íäÇÏí " íÇ ááãÓáãíä " Ýáã íÌÈå ÝáíÓ ÈãÓáã see: http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/behar71/133.htm w/s
  14. Salam alaykom if you have a facebook page brother please feel free to add me here is a link to my page http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1335961975 and how are you? wa alaykom salam

×
×
  • Create New...