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

Yasoob Al Deen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Yasoob Al Deen

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,434 profile views
  1. Pretty much every singe source, if I remember correctly, that Amir-Moezzi gave was dha`eef or came through a dha`eef tareeq. Its author Ahmad bin Muhammed bin Sayyari was heavily condemned in the rijaal books. For example, ( 11 ) - 11 - أَحْمَدُ بنُ مُحَمَّد بن سَيّار، يُكنّى‏ أبا عَبْداللَّه، القُمّيّ، المعروف بالسَيّاريّ. ضَعِيْفٌ، مُتهالِكٌ، غالٍ، مُنْحَرِفٌ. اسْتَثْنى‏ شُيُوخُ القُمّيّين رِوايَتَهُ من كتاب «نَوادِرِ الحِكْمةِ». وحَكى عليُّ بنُ مُحَمَّد بن مَحْبُوب عنه في كتاب «النَوَادِرِ» المُصَنَّف‏ أنّهُ قالَ بِالتَناسُخِ. 11 – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sayyar. Known by the kunya Abu `Abdillah. Al-Qummi. Known as as-Sayyari. Weak. Careless. Ghal. Deviated. The Shaykhs of Qum excluded his narrations in the book “Nawadir al-Hikma”. In the book which was compiled, “An-Nawadir”, `Ali b. Muhammad b. Mahbub spoke about him and said that he was a proponent of reincarnation. (http://www.*******.org/rijal/kitab-ad-duafa-of-ibn-al-ghadairi) Were you there at this lecture? Are you going to the next CISS lecture? (wasalam)
  2. Oh wow! Youtube! It MUST be 100% real! Certainly those actual researchers and experts in this field of study need to see this youtube video even though they've considered many cases already. http://en.wikipedia....der#Controversy
  3. Yasoob Al Deen


    In your opinion. Actually the ahadeeth collectively are much more reliable than you think. There's no doubt that after the Prophet's death, we are to hold onto the Quran and also to hold onto his teachings. But who is the best source of his teachings? For the Shia, it is the Ahlulbayt. Of course, our own ahadeeth confirm this. Such as: 24 – Ahmad b. Muhammad (thiqa) from al-Hasan b. `Ali [al-Washsha] from Abu Ishaq Tha`laba (thiqa) from Abu Maryam (thiqa). He said: Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said to Salama b. Kuhayl and al-Hakam b. `Utayba: (You two) go East or West, you will never find sound knowledge but something that comes out from us, the People of the House. (sahih) (http://www.tashayyu....sair-ad-darajat) However there are even traces of evidence confirming the position of Ahlulbayt in Sunni books too: “I am about to answer the call (of death). Verily, I leave behind two precious things (thaqalayn) amongst you: the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.” (Muslim, al-Sahih, (English translation), book 031, numbers 5920-3, see: http://www.al-islam....iles/family.pdf) (this hadeeth is much more authentic than the "quran and sunnah" hadeeth) These are merely a selection by our classical scholars of important points of our belief. The word "Imam" does not "divinely appointed successor to the Prophet". It means a leader, and in specific to Shia Islam, a leader appointed by Allah (azza wa jalla) to rule over a group. It is a position that is different to prophethood and messengership, as can be seen by the verse of the Quran 2:124: And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." This verse (and others) imply that an Imam must be a just person, not a sinner. There are other verses that point to other qualities of an Imam. However one of the best in my opinion is 4:59. See what I wrote on this here: http://www.shiachat....quran-evidence/ This verse is strong evidence for the concept of Imamate. See post #1 and #5. Don't bother with the rest of the topic as it has been filled with rubbish by people who cannot actually respond to my posts but simply deny it. For example, lotfilms (and everyone else) could not answer my post, so he did the typical lame tactic of claiming victory without even responding to my lecture. (He attempted to cover this up by deleting his posts, but he was quoted by others lol). The reason for the belief in "someone who does not believe i he will die the death of jahilliyah" is because there are numerous ahadeeth which say this. In-fact, this hadeeth is also found in Sunni books. There are also similar versions to this hadeeth such as: Sahih Muslim , Hadith 1850: ãä ãÇÊ æáíÓ Ýí ÚäÞå ÈíÚÉ ãÇÊ ãíÊÉ ÌÇåáíÉ Whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah. The question is then logically raised for all Muslims, Shia and Sunni,...who do we have to pledge allegiance to, as the Quran and the ahadeeth say and imply? Who is the Imam of our time (before al-Mahdi comes)? There are two possibilities : either an earthly ruler, perhaps someone who seized power like some caliphs did, or someone appointed by the people, such as the second caliph Umar. But then Allah (azza wa jalla) would not be just for making obey this Imam who is not always just, and history is filled with unjust caliphs who ruled. Or the other possibility is the divinely-appointed ruler. Just like Allah knows who best to choose for prophethood, He knows who best to choose for imamate. Hopefully that should give you enough food for thought... (wasalam)
  4. Perhaps I am mistaken, but when I read up on this topic, the existence of multiple personality disorder was disputed. In any case, insane people are not entirely responsible for their actions
  5. Or I just have a life and I can't be bothered to be respond to every single comment which was also pre-answered I think.
  6. (wasalam) The parts of the encyclopedia that I have consulted in the past have been mostly reliable, so you can use it. Be warned though that the references are not always up-to-update. E.g. if I remember correctly, the references to ahadeeth Saheeh Muslim are referring to an older english version which differs in numbering to the version online. Another site you may also like to consult is:http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/articles.html
  7. It seems that the tawtheeq of Abaan rests on the concept of ashab al-ijma'. Aboo Abdullaah has pointed out another interesting case on HCY ([url Edited]/index.php?showtopic=14851&view=findpost&p=98942): The lack of mention of Ma`roof in the books of Tusi and Najashi is strange. Do these two cases (help) weaken the concept of ashaab al-ijmaa?
  8. Assalamu alaykum. The curious case of أبان بن عثمان الأحمر (Abaan bin `Uthmaan al-Ahmar) which a friend brought to my attention. al-Kashshi says (pالجزءالخامس/375) that Abaan is of the ashab al-ijma. أجمعت العصابة على تصحيح ما يصح من هؤلاء و تصديقهم لما يقولون و أقروا لهم بالفقه من دون أولئك الستة الذين عددناهم و سميناهم ستة نفر: جميل بن دراج و عبد الله بن مسكان و عبد الله بن بكير و حماد بن عيسى و حماد بن عثمان و أبان بن عثمان قالوا و زعم أبو إسحاق الفقيه يعني ثعلبة بن ميمون: أن أفقه هؤلاء جميل بن دراج و هم أحداث أصحاب أبي عبد الله (ع). Rough translation: The body of Shi'i scholars (`isaabah) have reached a consensus (ijma') authenticating the soundness (saheeh) of whatever is narrated on their authority and attesting the truth in their statements. They have confirmed the jusitic capacity of six more companions in addition to those six companions previously listed and named, who are: Jameel bin Daraaj, `Abdillah bin Miskaan, `Abdillah bin Bakayr, Hammaad bin `Esa, Hammaad bin `Uthmaan, Abaan bin `Uthmaan. They have said that the jurisprudent Abu Ishaaq - i.e. Tha'labah bin Maymoon - asserted that the most skilled at jurisprudence out of this six was Jameel bin Darraaj, and that they have all narrated the most ahadeeth from Imam Ja`far al-Sadiq (aleyhis salam). and al-Kashshi says (pالجزءالخامس/411) that someone who is not part of the ashaab al-ijma is better than Aban: 773 - أبو عمرو: قال حدثني محمد بن مسعود قال سألت علي بن الحسن عن بشار بن بشار الذي يروي عنه أبان بن عثمان؟ قال هو خير من أبان و ليس به بأس. Rough translation: Abu Amr (al-Kashshi) said: Muhammed bin Mas`ood narrated to me. He said: I asked Ali bin al-Hussein about Bashaar bin Bashaar who narrated from Abaan bin `Uthmaan? He (Ali bin al-Hussain) said: He (Bashaar) is better than Abaan and there is nothing wrong with him. and al-Kashshi says (pالجزءالرابع/352) that Abaan is from the Nawusiyya which is a sect: 660 - محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني علي بن الحسن قال كان أبان من أهل البصرة و كان مولى بجيلة و كان يسكن الكوفة و كان من الناووسية. Rough translation: Muhammed bin Mas`ood said: Ali bin al-Hussain narrated to me. He said: Abaan was from the people of Basrah. He was the client of Bajeelah. He lived in Kufa. He was from the Nawusiyya. (They are a sect who denied the death of Imam as-Sadiq (aleyhi salam) and that he was the Qa'im and in ghaybah.) and al-Kashshi says (الجزءالرابع/p352): محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني محمد بن نصير و حمدويه قالا حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن الحسن بن علي بن يقطين عن إبراهيم بن أبي البلاد قال كنت أقود أبي و قد كان كف بصره حتى صرنا إلى حلقة فيها أبان الأحمر فقال لي عمن تحدث؟ قلت عن أبي عبد الله (ع) فقال ويحه سمعت أبا عبد الله (ع) يقول: أما إن منكم الكذابين و من غيركم المكذبين. [no translation] Other "classical" scholars of rijaal on Abaan: at-Tusi in kitab ar-rijaal and his fihrist does not comment on Abaan's reliability. (The lack of tawtheeq on Tusi's part means nothing as Tusi did not even give tawtheeq to Ali bin Ibraheem). an-Najashi does not comment on his reliability. (The lack of tawtheeq on Najashi's part may mean nothing as Najashi does not strengthen Ibraheem bin Hashim). Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri does not include him in his book of weak narrators. Later scholars of rijaal on Abaan: Ibn Dawood says (pالجزءالأول‏من.../باب‏الهمزة/11) لم [كش‏] من الستة الذين أجمعت العصابة على تقديمهم و هم: جميل بن دراج عبد الله بن مسكان عبد الله بن بكير حماد بن عيسى حماد بن عثمان أبان بن عثمان. و جميل بن دراج أفقههم و قد ذكر أصحابنا أنه كان ناووسيا فهو بالضعفاء أجدر لكن ذكرته هنا لثناء الكشي [عليه‏] و أحالته على الإجماع المذكور. Rough translation: One of the six that are agreed upon by the body of Shi'i scholars (`isaabah): Jameel bin Daraaj, Abdillah bin Muskaan, Abdillah bin Bakeer, Hammaad bin `Esa, Hammaad bin `Uthmaan, Abaan bin `Uthmaan. And Jameel bin Daraaj is the best jurisprudent of them. Our companions said that he of the nawusiyya [sect] and so he is amongst the weak (dhaa`eef) narrators. However, i have mentioned him here because of al-Kashshi's place for him, and because of his claim that there is a consensus regarding that. al-Hilli says in al-Khulasah (pالفصل‏الأول‏في‏الهمزة/الباب‏الثامن‏أبان/21): قال الكشي (ره): قال محمد بن مسعود حدثني ابن الحسن بن فضال قال: كان أبان من الناووسية و كان مولى لبجيلة و كان يسكن الكوفة. ثم قال أبو عمرو الكشي: إن العصابة أجمعت على تصحيح ما يصح عن أبان بن عثمان و الإقرار له بالفقه فالأقرب عندي قبول روايته و إن كان فاسد المذهب للإجماع المذكور. Translation: Aban b. `Uthman al-Ahmar. Al-Kashshi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal narrated to me, he said: Aban b. `Uthman was from the Nawusiyya (sect), he was a client of Bajila and he resided in Kufa. Then Abu `Amr al-Kashshi said: The `isaba (the sect) has concurred upon the tashih of what is sahih from Aban b. `Uthman and the affirmation of (the knowledge of) fiqh to him. What is closest to me is acceptance of his riwaya (i.e. maqbool), even though he was corrupt in madhhab, due to the aforementioned ijma`. (translation from http://www.tashayyu....part-one/alif-3) al-Khui says in his Mu`jam (volume 1, page 158): قال النجاشي: أبان بن عثمان الأحمر البجلي مولاهم، أصله كوفي كان يسكنها تارة و البصرة تارة. و قد أخذ عنه أهلها: أبو عبيدة معمر بن المثنى و أبو عبد الله محمد بن سلام، و أكثروا الحكاية عنه في أخبار الشعراء، و النسب، و الأيام. روى عن أبي عبد الله و أبي الحسن ع، له كتاب حسن كبير، يجمع المبتدأ، و المغازي، و الوفاة، و الردة، أخبرنا بها أبو الحسن التميمي، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد، قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن فضال، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر عن أبان بها. و أخبرنا أحمد بن عبد الواحد، قال: حدثنا علي بن محمد Main points: Khui rejects that Abaan is of the Nawusiyya. He says that those who weakened him did so because of his aqeedah, but that one should not weaken due to aqeedah. Other ulema: Mar'ashee al-Najafee in his al-QiSaaS 'alaa Doo` al-Qur'aan wa al-Sunnah also considers Abaan bin 'Uthmaan da'eef (و راويها ابان بن عثمان و هو ضعيف) pg.... 485 Muhaqqiq al-Hillee in his al-mu'tabar fee sharH al-mukhtasar says : أبان بن عثمان و هو ضعيف غير أنها مقبولة بين الأصحا 'Allaamah Hillee said this in his book muntaha al-muTallab fee taHqeeq al-madhhab و أبان بن عثمان، و هو ضعيف ذكره الكشّ Fahd al-Hillee said al-madhhab al-baari' fee sharH al-mukhtaSar says: أبان بن عثمان و هو ضعيف Ardabeelee says in his majma' al faa'idah و في الطريق محمّد بن موسى الهمداني، قيل ضعيف، و قيل يضح الحديث، و ابان بن عثمان أيضا كذلك So despite Kashshi personally telling us that there is a concensus from the `isaabah that Abaan bin `Uthmaan is trustworthy and that we should accept whatever he narrates, we also find statements that Abaan had corrupt beliefs, being part of the Nawusiyya. This has resulted in Ibn Dawood rejecting him and calling him weak. However perhaps the accusation of his corrupt beliefs can be dismissed as irrelevant to his trustworthiness. Such a position can be advocated in a hadeeth such as: ـ محمد بن الحسن في كتاب ( الغيبة ) عن أبي الحسين بن تمام ، عن عبدالله الكوفي ـ خادم الشيخ الحسين بن روح ـ عن الحسين بن روح ، عن أبي محمد الحسن بن علي ( عليهما السلام ) أنه سئل عن كتب بني فضال ، فقال : خذوا بما رووا ، وذروا مارأوا . Translation: Muhammad b. al-Hasan [at-Tusi] in the book al-Ghayba from Abu ‘l-Husayn b. Tammam from `Abdullah al-Kufi – the servant of Shaykh al-Husayn b. Ruh – from al-Husayn b. Ruh from Abu Muhammad al-Hasan b. `Ali عليهما السلام that he asked him about the books of the Banu Faddal. So he said: Take what they narrated, and leave what they thought. (translation from http://www.tashayyu....ment/chapter-11) Furthermore, the concensus of scholars on the trustworthiness on Abaan should surely overrule his corrupt beliefs, because these scholars strengthened him unanimously despite his beliefs. What do you think? Is Abaan bin `Uthmaan thiqa or dha`eef? Have any other Ulema of rijaal written something interesting on this?
  9. Alot of people think that hadeeths > reasoning. Alternative methods: Or refer to each other's hadeeths to prove your own position. Something that many Imamis do. E.g. look at how Umar said in the two Saheehs that Ali bin Abi Talib (aleyhis salam) thought that Abu Bakr as a liar and sinful when he denied Fadak to the daughter of the Prophet. Or refer to incidents found in both books. (wasalam)
  10. Quite possibly true. Although perhaps Najashi shared the modern view to some extent since he says whether many rijaal are thiqa or dha`eef. Perhaps the reason why Najashi does not strengthen Ibraheem is that Najashi had not received explicit or strong enough implicit tawtheeq for Ibraheem hence his honest lack of tawtheeq for him.
  11. The point about 9 being few is only in relation to the point that "the Qummis would have defamed Ibraheem if he was weak because they are strict". 8 actually, since one isn't a Qummi. This is arguably important in the absence of tawtheeq. Or the absence of tawtheeq might just be an accident. This isn't a flaw with the system. It's a sign of how the expectations of what the system should do have changed and how the system lacks a sufficient type of information.
  12. Saved, I am entitled to point out that the majority of people made unhelpful attacks and comments that don't contribute to a productive discussion. Your personal attacks on me and my beliefs means I won't be replying to the rest of your post. BTW, I should point out that just because I'm discussing a few points, it doesn't mean I am a follower of Farid or that I actually think Ibraheem bin Hashim. Ibraheem bin Hashim is thiqa in my belief. I just believe in fairly testing out ideas which sometimes I do by debating them. Thiqa according to which mutaqadim other than Najashi? Shaykh at-Taa'ifa relied on ahadeeth with weak ahadeeth as hujjah because ilm ar-rijaal was not that important to him. Ilm ar-rijaal has no way near the importance in Shia Islam, like it does in Sunni Islam. However if we are arguing whether Ibraheem is thiqa, there is no explicit statement for this. I do think however that it is possible to infer tawtheeq by considering various evidences. The best of which is Ali bin Ibraheem's heavy reliance on his father's narrations. Ali was thiqa, `ayn, jaleel, and he was also the son of Ibraheem; a son usually knows their father very well. Would Ali have relied on Ibraheem this heavily (most of his ahadeeth are through his father) if the latter was weak? I think not. Hmm, I guess the Qummis would have weakened Ali bin Ibraheem if they had suspected the muttoon of his narrations? Only 9 have passed on his ahadeeth may mean that only these 9 had the chance to examine Ibraheem? Although pretty much all of 9 were thiqaat, and big narrators. However they didn't narrate much from Ibraheem, so one can still use this argument? I was saying that the ulema and great ruwaat relied on dhu'ufa' like Sahl. It is an interesting point. Perhaps the following narration shows that people were aware of Ibraheem despite the few who are recorded as narrating from him (and Ahmed bin Muhammed bin Isa is recorded as having suspected quite a few people): [3480] æó Ýöí ËóæóÇÈö ÇáúÃóÚúãóÇáö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÇáúÍóÓóäö Úóäö ÇáÕóøÝóøÇÑö Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò ÞóÇáó ßõäúÊõ ÃóäóÇ æó ÅöÈúÑóÇåöíãõ Èúäõ åóÇÔöãò Ýöí ÈóÚúÖö ÇáúãóÞóÇÈöÑö ÅöÐú ÌóÇÁó Åöáóì ÞóÈúÑò ÝóÌóáóÓó ãõÓúÊóÞúÈöáó ÇáúÞöÈúáóÉö Ëõãóø æóÖóÚó íóÏóåõ Úóáóì ÇáúÞóÈúÑö ÝóÞóÑóÃó ÓóÈúÚó ãóÑóøÇÊò ÅöäóøÇ ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇåõ Ëõãóø ÞóÇáó ÍóÏóøËóäöí ÕóÇÍöÈõ åóÐóÇ ÇáúÞóÈúÑö æó åõæó ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ ÅöÓúãóÇÚöíáó Èúäö ÈóÒöíÚò Ãóäóøåõ ãóäú ÒóÇÑó ÞóÈúÑó ãõÄúãöäò ÝóÞóÑóÃó ÚöäúÏóåõ ÓóÈúÚó ãóÑóøÇÊò ÅöäóøÇ ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇåõ ÛóÝóÑó Çááóøåõ áóåõ æó áöÕóÇÍöÈö ÇáúÞóÈúÑö (wasaa'il ash-shia, volume 3, page 277-8) (wasalam)
  13. You're missing the point. You can't make the argument that the Qummis would have defamed Ibraheem if Ibraheem was weak because to quote Farid: Personally, I don’t believe that this specific point means much, especially once one realizes how few the actual students of Ibrahim bin Hashim are. Al-Khoei lists a total of nine students. Out of that group, it seems that the only real major student was Ibrahim bin Hashim’s son Ali, who narrated the vast majority of his father’s hadith. I believe the next couple of important students were Sa’ad bin Abdullah and Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya, assuming that most of his hadiths are actually connected to Ibrahim. Yet, even their quantities of hadiths aren’t high enough for one to assume that they were dedicated students. I believe those two don’t even hit the seventy hadith mark, and one can easily hear that much during a single hadith sitting or two. The rest of his nine students seem to have narrated a lot less. I honestly don’t think that your argument regarding the criticism of the Qummis stands if we are talking about nine people. That's clearly not what I said. This is what I said: They also narrated alot from Muhammed bin Sinan and Sahl bin Ziyad. I could add what Farid has said: not all Qummis were sensitive and strict. Ironically, the bunch that narrated the hadiths of Ibrahim bin Hashim are the same that narrated the hadiths of Sahl bin Ziyad, Ahmad bin Hilal, and Al-Sayyari, who are all completely rejected by Shia hadithists. So, yes, these narrators, which apparently make up the population of Qom, did narrate the hadiths of liars and weak narrators.
  14. Wow. 7 pages of lame comments. We have people saying that the rijal system is entirely worthless. These are the same people who have never displayed any knowledge in or about this field when a discussion on ilm ar-rijaal or ilm ad-dirayah has occurred on SC. We have people saying that Farid is a liar and other insults. Farid actually has very great akhlaaq; far better than the people who are insulting him and do not even know him. We have people doubting people's tashayyu'. Lord Botta is an intelligent, knowledgable, well-behaved Muslim. He easily outshines most of the Imamis on SC in akhlaaq, `ilm of tashayyu', and `aql. The Quran DOES have asaneed (Chains). That doesn't mean he doubts the Quran. Why don't you make the same accusation against Khui who tried to weaken all 10 famous qiraa'aat and then couldn't prove the Quran was preserved beyond "but it must be!" If you could avoid speaking on behalf of Farid when you don't even know him or what he's thinking, I'd appreciate it. The mutaakhireen's tawtheeq in this case has little eight as it based on little more than speculation. Rubbish. So everyone who wasn't criticised has suddenly become thiqa? It is possible to argue that this methodology is the correct for the Imamis and that this is why Ibraheem is thiqa. It doesn't however prove his tawtheeq. Qiyas is acceptable justification? Ibn Tawoos' statement invokes our curiosity. For he said that there was acceptance of Ibraheem, but to whom was Ibn Tawoos referring to? Was he saying that his contemporaries accepted Ibraheem or was he alluding to a lost earlier rijaal book with tawtheeq for Ibraheem? They also narrated alot from Muhammed bin Sinan and Sahl bin Ziyad. Shaheed was interpreting the statements about Ibraheem in the rijaal books as praise. Farid is arguing they are not statements of praise. This may be worth looking into. (wasalam)
  15. Almost a month on and no changes. Many things are still broken with this thread, such as missing button images. Just change the horrid theme already. I thought Zareen said the admins were deciding on which theme to pick.
  • Create New...