Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Rijal'.
Found 28 results
(bismillah) Nawadir al-Hikmah was a mashhoor and reliable book compiled by the esteemed Qummi Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari. This is his tarjima in Najashi’s Fihirist: محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران بن عبد الله بن سعد بن مالك الاشعري القمي أبو جعفر، كان ثقة في الحديث. إلا أن أصحابنا قالوا: كان يروي عن الضعفاء ويعتمد المراسيل ولا يبالى عمن أخذ وما عليه في نفسه مطعن في شئ وكان محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد يستثنى من رواية محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى ما رواه عن Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. Imra b. Abdullah b. Sa`d b. Maalik al-Ash`ari al-Qummi, Abu Ja`far, He was reliable in hadith except that our companions said: He was narrating from dhu`afaa’ (weak narrators) and he was depending on maraseel and he did not care from whom he took from and there no accusations against him personally in anything. And Ibn al-Waleed excised from Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya’s narrations that which he narrated from… Then Najashi proceeds to give the list of persons that Ibn al-Waleed removed from Nawadir al-Hikmah, here is the list: Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani “A man” “Some of our Companions” Muhamamd b. Yahya al-Mu`aadhi Abi `Abdillah al-Razi al-Jaamoorani Abi `Abdillah al-Sayyari Yusuf b. al-Sakht Wahb b. Manbah Abi `Ali al-Nishaburi Abi Yahya al-Wasiti Muhammad b. Abi `Ali, Abu Sameena “In a hadith” “A book” and he didn’t bring it forward Sahl b. Ziyad al-Aadami Muhammad b. Isa b. Ubayd through a broken chain Ahmad b. Hilal Musa b. Ali al-Hamadani `Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Shami `Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Razi Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. Sa`eed Ahmad b. Basheer al-Raqqi Muhammad b. Harun Mamuwayh b. Ma`roof Muhammad b. `Abdullah b. Mahraan al-Hasan b. a-Husayn al-Lu’lui’s lone narrations Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Malik Yusuf b. al-Haarith `Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Dimishqi al-Tusi pretty much says the same thing in the tarjima, quotes Saduq [ra], he has 1 extra name on that list: al-Haytham b. `Addi Najashi goes on to say that Abul `Abbas b. Nuh – one of his big Mashayikh – and Saduq agreed with Ibn al-Waleed in this and follow him on it, except Ibn Nuh disputed Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd and “does not know what he [ibn al-Waleed] saw in him” because according to Ibn Nuh is upon “clear `adalah and withaqah.” The mashhoor opinion is that everyone who was removed from Nawadir by Ibn al-Waleed [ra] is weak, arguments say that due to what Ibn Nuh [ra] is disputing about al-`Ubaydi and that they mention this removal in the taraajim of weakened narrators, it shows that they were weak in the eyes of Ibn al-Waleed. However, it is arguable to say that this isn't necessarily true and that some of these people are just majhool. Firstly, al-`Ubaydi’s removal and weakening is found in other places in Saduq’s works, quoting Ibn al-Waleed as well, so his tadheef is not solely relied upon here. They explicitly call him weak, also. Some of the Excised individuals, who are indeed weakened, have no mention of this excision as part of that weakening, for example: Najashi on Ahmad b. Hilal: أحمد بن هلال أبو جعفر العبرتائي صالح الرواية، يعرف منها وينكر، وقد روى فيه ذموم من سيدنا أبى محمد العسكري عليه السلام. ولا أعرف له إلا كتاب يوم وليلة، وكتاب نوادر ... قال أبو علي بن همام: ولد أحمد بن هلال سنة ثمانين ومائة ومات سنة سبع و ستين ومائتين Ahmad b. Hilal, Abu Jafar al-`Ibartaa’I, Righteous narration, some from them are recognized and some rejected and it is narrated regarding him defaming from Our Master Abi Muhammad al-`Askari [ra] and I do not know of his except the Book of A Day and a Night and a Book of Nawadir…[chains to books]… Abu `Ali b. Hamaam said: Ahmad b. Hilal was born in the year 186 and died in the year 267. أحمد بن محمد بن سيار أبو عبد الله الكاتب، بصري، كان من كتاب ال طاهر في زمن أبي محمد عليه السلام. ويعرف بالسياري، ضعيف الحديث، فاسد المذهب، ذكر ذلك لنا الحسين بن عبيدالله. مجفو الرواية، كثير المراسيل... إلا ما كان من غلو وتخليط. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sayyaar, Abu `Abdullah, the Correspondent, Basran, He was from the book of Aali Taahir in the time of Abi Muhammad [as] and he is known by al-Sayyari, weak hadith, deviant sect, al-Husayn b. Ubaydallah mentioned to us rough narration(?) and many maraseel… [chains to books]…[receiving them] except what was from exaggerations and confusion. These are the two examples I’m showing for brevity. Tusi mentions Ibn Hilal as well (nothing in Fihirist, as a ghali in his Rijal) but no reference to Nawadir. He makes comment elsewhere about not taking his infiraad, but that’s what the Qudama did regarding people of non-Imami mathhab. He says almost verbatim the same thing about al-Sayyari in his fihirist, nothing about him in Rijal. Some people, they actually strengthen, aside from those Tusi references himself as a disagreement. Najashi محمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني روى عن أبيه عن جده عن الرضا عليه السلام. وروى إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمذاني، عن الرضا عليه السلام... وكيل الناحية، و أبوه وكيل الناحية، وجده علي وكيل الناحية، وجد أبيه إبراهيم بن محمد وكيل [ الناحية] Muhammad b. Ali b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Hamadani, narrated fromhis father from his grandfather from al-Rida [as]. And narrated Ibrahim b. Hashim from Ibrahim . Muhammad al-Hamadani from Rida [as]… Wakeel of the locality [for the Imam], his father was a wakeel and his gradfather, and his father’s grandfather was a wakeel. So Najashi makes no reference to this narrator's removal from Nawadir as any form of weakening and instead mention his Wukalah from the Imam. Najash is either strengthening him due to his wukalah or just mention random facts and leaving him majhool (depends on your imaraat). Tusi just weakens him with no commentary, Ghada’iri say he is “yu`raf wa yunkar” and narrates from Dhu`afaa and relied on Maraseel - no reference to Nawadir. الحسن بن الحسين اللؤلؤي كوفي ثقة كثير الرواية له كتاب مجموع نوادر. al-Hasan b. al-Husayn al-Lu’lu’i, Kufi, Thiqah, many narrations, he has a book of compiled Nawadir So Najashi gives him tawtheeq, explicitly! No mention of disagreement here, as would be possible given the tarjima of al-`Ubaydi. Tusi mentions this person, says Saduq [ra] weakened him, though no reference to Nawadir like he does for al-`Ubaydi. The Majaheel Yusuf b. al-Sakht – no mention in both Fihirist, mentioned in Rijal Tusi only commenting on who he narrated from/to Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Shami – only mentioned in Rijal as narrating by al-Ash`ari Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Razi – muhmal Yusuf b. al-Harith – mentioned in Rijal as a butri Haytham b. `Addi – just mentioned in rijal as narrated by al-Ash`ari There are many examples of where one of the two leaves them without commentary, but the other says something. This is also indicative that removal from the Nawadir was not always seen as a sign of weakening. According to some `ulemaa, the non-excision and removal from Nawadir al-Hikmah is a sign of withaqah upon the opinion of Ibn al-Waleed. Sh. Muslim al-Daawiri [ha] has a good bahth on this subject. The first few things people say in response to this imarah are: - He removed Dhu`afaa, he may have left majaheel - The Qudamaa’ believed in Asaalat al-`Adaalah - Tasheeh of books by the Qudama is upon qara’in The first point I addressed above, some of the people removed from Nawadir are majhool, not everyone removed has been marked as weak, some even strengthened. Also, in the case of being majhool, Ibn al-Waleed also removed forms of irsal and ibhaam (things like “a man” or “from some of our companions”) – which in principle is the same as jahaalah, although viewed as irsal. The information about Ibn al-Waleed removing these doesn’t even specify them all as weak people, and al-Ash`ari not caring from who he took from implies jahalaat and dh`if. It is not established that the Qudamaa’ believed in asaalat al-`adaalah. Khui [ra], and his students who followed him on this, are working off a “possibility.” Many scholars put aside this accusation as untrue for many reasons, such as the known and recorded legacy of the Qudamaa’ and the extremeness of the Qummis in rijal and finding `adalah of narrators, etc. (Dawiri [ha] also has a good bahth on this when discussing Saduq’s al-Faqeeh). Another point that was brought forward by someone is when the chain would narrate from “a group of our companions.” This is a wording indicative of the unnamed person(s) to be Imami/Shi`i – if they believed in the asaalat, why excise them and remove their narrations? The Qudamaa' also labeled riwayah from Majaheel has a type of discrediting - so how would they all just depend on them themselves? A few taraajim regarding this for example: جعفر بن محمد بن مالك: قال النجاشي: «كوفي، أبو عبد الله، كان ضعيفاً في الحديث. قال أحمد بن الحسين: كان يضع الحديث وضعاً ويروي عن المجاهيل Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Malik: Najashi said: Kufi, Abu Abdullah, he is weak in hadith, Ahmad b. al-Husayn said: He was fabricating hadith a fabricating (emphatic grammar) and narrating from majaheel. Bakr b. Ahmad b. Ibrahim b. Ziyad وقال ابن الغَضائري: «يروي الغَرائب، ويعتمد المجاهيل، وأمره مُظْلَم» and Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri said: He narrates strange narrations and he depended on Majaheel, his affair is dark. قال ابن الغضائري: (كان ضعيفاً جداً، فاسد الرواية والمذهب، وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى الأشعري أخرجه من قم، وأظهر البراءة منه، ونهى الناس عن السماع منه والرواية، ويروي عن المراسيل، ويعتمد المجاهيل) (2). Sahl b. Ziyad Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri said: He was very weak, fasid narration and madthhab and Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa al-Ash`ari expelled him from Qum and made clear his baraa'ah from him and he forbad the people form hearing and narrating from him, he narrated maraseel and depended on majaheel The final point is about the Qudamaa’ using the external evidences (al-qara’in al-khaarijiyya) to accept narrations. Saduq [ra] made tasheeh of the book. It is far to say the tasheeh was based upon Qara’in as the book was already going through rijal filtering by Ibn al-Waleed. Also, if the contents of these narrations were the point of tasheeh for this book, why remove all these majaheel and dhu`afaa WITH their narrations absolutely? Tasheeh can be made and narrations filtered without necessitating rijal by the Qudamaa, as is witnessed with Saduq’s al-Faqih – he leaves a lot of famous weak people but accepts their narrations as supporting qara’in, like Sahl b. Ziyad. Actually, you can open up Tahtheeb al-Ahkam and find some of the narrations that Ibn al-Waleed [ra] has removed with those same narrators. This is because Tusi [ra] received the book from different turuq apart from passing through Ibn al-Waleed. In these narrations you can find things that are 100% unproblematic and there would be no reason to remove such a narration from Nawadir, even if dhi`f of a Rawi was one qareena to the Qudamaa, as exampled from the inclusion of dhu`afaa narrations in their other filtered works. Here is an example: وعنه عن محمد بن عبد الله ابن أحمد عن الحسن بن علي ابن أبي عثمان - وأبو عثمان اسمه عبد الواحد بن حبيب - قال: زعم لنا محمد بن أبي حمزة الثمالي عن معاوية بن عمار الدهني عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: صلاة الليل تحسن الوجه وتذهب الهم وتجلو البصر. …. From Abi `Abdillah (as) he said: The prayer of the night beautifies the face, drives away worries, and sharpens vision Even if dhu`afaa is just one qareena for the Qudamaa, it is strange that they would even remove such unproblematic narrations as the above HERE but not in other works (like al-Faqeeh) that are unproblematic, but still narrated by dhu`afaa or majaheel – unless this book was authenticated on the basis of rijal only and putting aside Qara’in in this instance. So these are some insights and reason why some `ulemaa accept those not removed from Nawadir as a imarah of tawtheeq and I think it is a logical and reliable argument, putting aside extreme cynicism. والله أعلم All correct and good things here are from Allah, and all mistakes are my own. Allah [swt] have mercy and forgive us, especially our `ulemaa who give their lives in His cause. في امان الله
(bismillah) الحمد لله رب العالمين الذي ارسل النبي محمدا (ص) بالهدى وهدانا به وآله (ص) اللهم صل وسلّم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وآل محمد كثيرا دائما I have gone through the following books of al-Shaykh al-Saduq [ra] and counted all of his Mashayikh – making note of how many times he gives taraddi and tarahham as well as the total number of times he narrates from that particular person: al-Khisal `Uyun al-Akhbar al-Rida (as) al-Tawheed Thawab al-A’maal Ma`aani al-Akhbar Ikmal al-Deen `Ilal al-Shara’i` Mashaykha of al-Faqeeh If you want this file, send me a message with your email and I will send away inshaa'Allah. Essentially, I went through each narration and looked at who he narrated directly from and then marked it down as a mentioning with taraddi, tarahham, or without any praise. I did not count instances of group taraddi or tarahham where a narrator did not ever get these praises individually or in dual form with only one other person. This is because in Arabic group talking does not mean absolutely everyone in that group, but is just general. However, if there was a “جميعا” or “اجمعين” after the group praise, I took it to mean everyone absolutely. This did not really add to anything at all in the end. Also, I did not count al-Shaykh al-Saduq [ra]’s father, Ibn al-Waleed [ra], or Ahmad b. Ziyad al-Hamdani [ra] as they have explicit tawtheeq by scholars of rijal and so it would not have been fruitful for this project. It also made it a lot easier. الحمد لله [Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Haytham al-`Ijli also has explicit tawtheeq]. On a side note, I’d like to point out that al-Saduq [ra]’s Thawab al-A`maal is an anomaly compared to his other works that he wrote himself regarding this issue. He barely gives anything to anyone aside from his father – maybe like 5 total. He doesn’t even give it to Ibn al-Waleed [ra] who he almost always praises in his other works. Most of his main Mashayikh’s mentions without taraddi or tarahham from there. I believe, similarly to Ayatullah Muhammad Asif Muhsini (ha), that repeated رضي الله عنه and رحمه الله – and all other variations of these appendages is a sign of tawtheeq or tamdeeh. According to me, taraddi is more weighty than tarahham, the latter by itself is not strong enough for tawtheeq or tamdeeh but can support the taraddis. Aside from the well understood `urf in this matter, I believe this for the following reasons/evidences: In the the explicit tawtheeq that al-Shaykh al-Saduq [ra] gives to Ahmad b. Ziyad al-Hamdani he says the following: " وكان رجلا ، ثقة ، دينا ، فاضلا ، رحمة الله عليه ورضوانه " “He is a trustworthy, religious [and] virtuous/praiseworthy man. May the Mercy and Pleasure of Allah be upon him” This shows a relationship between the reliability and trustworthiness according to al-Saduq [rh] and him giving a person taraddi and tarahham. Also the fact that this shaykh of his is barely mentioned without some sort of praise – and he narrates from him a lot. Also, al-Saduq [rh] has gone out of his way to specifically criticize and disrepute a shaykh if there’s something wrong with them: ابو نصر احمد بن الحسين بن احمد بن عبيد الضبي المرواني قال الصدوق في <عيون> " وبلغ من نصبه انه كان يقول اللهم صلي على محمد فردا ويمتنع من الصلاة على آله " Ibn Babawayh [ra] narrates from him a total of 6 times and each time he mentions him he always makes clear that this guy was a nasibi. He never gives him any praise – no taraddi, no tarahham. Some people allege that al-Saduq just hands out these praises to anyone and like all his Mashayikh or just because he’s narrated from them a lot. This is untrue, rather unsupported, with the fact that he has narrated from many people he never gives praise to and he narrates from them quite a bit, many times more than people he gives praise to repeatedly. الحاكم ابو علي الحسين بن احمد البيهقي - 48 الخليل بن احمد القاضي السجزي - 42 ابو الحسن محمد بن علي بن شاه الفقيه - 42 ابو الحسن محمد بن عمرو بن علي (بن عبدالله) البصري - 34 ابو احمد الحسن بن عبدالله بن سعد (سعيد) العسكري - 31 ابو محمد محمد بن جعفر البندار الفرغاني - 30 محمد بن عمر بن محمد بن سالم بن براء الحافظ البغدادي القاضي - 30 علي بن محمد بن الحسن القزويني (ابن مقبرة) – 21 These are a few of the narrators that he narrates from and never gave them any praise and he narrates from them more than some narrators he gives praise to more often than not like Muhammd b. Muhammad b. `Asim al-Kulayni [ra] who he narrates from a total of 29 times – 22 with taraddi and 5 with tarahham. The largest example is Ahmad b. al-Hasan b. `Ali b. `Abdus al-Qatan who Saduq narrates from 144 times – never giving him any individual taraddi (he mentions him only 8 times in group) and only 1 tarahham, the remaining 135 times without anything. It’s clear that al-Saduq [ra] was not handing out taraddi like it was something meaningless and gave it repeatedly to people he thought trustworthy and reliable. It would be a serious flaw in al-Saduq [ra] if he were to just hand these things out to liars and fabricators or people he didn’t trust. He knew these people personally and met, narrating from them a large number of times and constantly praising them with taraddi and then tarahham. If any sort of jarh or ta`deel isn’t mursil, it’s this. al-Saduq [ra] was himself a rijal scholar and I think many people forget this. We categorize al-Najashi and al-Tusi as “rijal scholars” because what we have from them are biographical books on narrators. Perhaps we forget this about al-Saduq [rh] and in our minds we don’t categorize him as a “rijal” scholar because the works of his that survive are not full-on books of rijal and dirayah – maybe just categorizing him as a muhaddith and faqeeh. But he did have rijal books, quite a few actually. al-Najashi and al-Tusi [rah] make mention of them in their works. They also describe him [ra] as عارفا بالرجال and عالما بالرجال. Many will try and argue that other scholars of rijal have explicitly weakened some of his mashayikh – those he gives these praises to repeatedly thus making his taraddi and tarahham meaningless/useless. This is not exactly problematic as this would not be the first time scholars differed on the status of a narrator and we should not jump to that conclusion. Of the weakened ones, the one that comes from a mu`tabar book of rijal, al-Najashi’s [ra], is Abu Muhammad; al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. Yayha al-`Alawi. However, al-Saduq [ra] does not give him often or repeated praise. He narrates from him a total of 19 times – only 7 times with taraddi and 6 times with tarahham. So I would consider him (if al-Najashi [ra]’s jarh did not exist) as majhul. The other issue is the book of Ibn al-Ghadha’iri [ra]. If you are like al-Shaykh Muhsini [ha] or al-Khu’i [ra] then you can just set this book aside as its tareeq is weak (majhul). I personally rely on this book generally, but not in totality as it is not mu`tabar in its tareeq. To me, al-Saduq’s praise is stronger than the jarh of a majhul source. Also because Ibn al-Ghada’iri is known to weaken and strengthen narrators based on things other than observation or narrated observation – like weakening due to his unrecognized narrations or his narrating from weak people or relying upon maraseel narrations. The rest of his work does not contradict the 2 main sources of rijal (al-Najashi and al-Tusi [rah]). Specifically for Muhammad b. al-Qasim al-Astarabadi [ra], the information he mentions about the Tafsir he narrates that he calls a fabrication (Tafseer al-`Askari) is not accurate and al-Khu’i [ra] discusses this in his Mu`jam. In my conclusions, so far (Allahu `aalim), these are the narrators I strengthen due to repeated and excessive taraddi and tarahham : Thiqah محمد بن موسى بن المتوكل محمد بن علي ماجيلويه علي بن احمد بن (بن موسى) بن محمد بن عمران الدقاق محمد بن ابراهيم بن اسحاق المؤدب المكتب الطالقاني احمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار Mamdooh الحسين بن احمد بن ادريس علي بن عبدالله الرازي الوراق المظفر بن جعفر بن المظفر العلوي السمرقندي محمد بن احمد السناني المكتب الشيباني جعفر بن محمد بن مسرور عبدالواحد بن محمد بن عبدوس النيسابوري العطار حمزة بن محمد بن احمد العلوي الحسين بن ابراهيم بن احمد بن هشام المكتب المدؤب محمد بن القاسم الاسترابادي المفسر المعروف الجرجاني تميم بن عبدالله بن تميم القرشي محمد بن محمد بن عاصم الكليني احمد بن (ابراهيم بن) هارون الفامي القاضي احمد بن علي بن ابراهيم بن هاشم الحسين بن ابراهيم تاتانة Dha`eef ابو محمد الحسن بن محمد بن يحيى العلوي الحسيني ابو نصر احمد بن الحسين بن احمد بن عبيد الضبي المرواني All correct things and of truth here are from Allah [swt] only, and flaws, errors, and mistakes are my own. والله عالم في امان الله
(bismillah) (salam) There seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter of a major narrator: Muhammad b. Khalid b. `Abdi'l-Rahmaan al-Barqi (محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمن الرقي). He is the father of the famous Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi ®. There's no controversy over the son, he is thiqah without disagreement. The following are what the source books of Rijal say regarding both of them: The father: http://gadir.free.fr...am/17/00071.htm قال النجاشي : " محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمن بن محمد بن علي البرقي ، أبو عبدالله : مولى أبي موسى الاشعري ، ينسب إلى برقرود ، قرية من سواد قم على واد هناك ، وله اخوة يعرفون بأبي علي الحسن بن خالد ، وأبي القاسم الفضل ابن خالد ، ولابن الفضل ابن يعرف بعلي بن العلاء ، بن الفضل بن خالد ، فقيه ، وكان محمد ضعيفا في الحديث وكان أديبا ، حسن المعرفة بالاخبار ، وعلوم العرب ، وله كتب منها : كتاب التنزيل والتعبير ، كتاب يوم وليلة ، كتاب التفسير ، كتاب مكة والمدينة ، كتاب حروب الاوس والخزرج ، كتاب العلل ، كتاب في علم الباري ، كتاب الخطب . أخبرنا أحمد بن علي بن نوح ، قال : حدثنا الحسن بن حمزة الطبري ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن عبدالله بن أحمد بن أبي عبدالله محمد بن خالد البرقي ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن أبي عبدالله ، عن أبيه ، بجميع كتبه " . وقال الشيخ(639): " محمد بن خالد البرقي : له كتاب النوادر ، رويناه بالاسناد الاول ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن أبي عبدالله جميعا ، عن محمد بن خالد ، وكنيته أبوعبدالله " . وأراد بالاسناد الاول : جماعة ، عن أبي المفضل ، عن ابن بطة ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن أبي عبدالله . وعده في رجاله(تارة)من أصحاب الرضا عليه السلام(4)، قائلا : " محمد ابن خالد البرقي ، ثقة ، هؤلاء(محمد بن علي بن موسى بن جعفر ، ومحمد بن سليمان الديلمي ، ومحمد بن الفضل الازدي)ومحمد بن خالد البرقي من أصحاب أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام " . و(أخرى)من أصحاب الجواد عليه السلام (1)، قائلا : " محمد بن خالد البرقي من أصحاب موسى بن جعفر والرضا عليهما السلام " . وعده البرقي من أصحاب الكاظم والرضا والجواد عليهم السلام ، وكناه في الاخيرين بأبي عبدالله ، ووصفه بالقمي . وقال ابن الغضائري : " محمد بن خالد البرقي بن عبدالرحمن بن محمد بن علي : أبوعبدالله ، مولى جرير بن عبدالله ، حديثه يعرف وينكر ، ويروي عن الضعفاء كثيرا ويعتمد المراسيل " . وقال الكشي(420)أبوعبدالله محمد بن خالد البرقي : " قال نصر بن الصباح : لم يلق البرقي أبا بصير ، بينهما القاسم بن حمزة ، ولا إسحاق بن عمار ، وينبغي أن يكون صفوان قد لقيه " . The Son: http://gadir.free.fr...am/03/00049.htm قال النجاشي : " أحمد بن محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمان بن محمد بن علي البرقي أبوجعفر ، أصله كوفي ، وكان جده محمد بن علي حبسه يوسف بن عمر بعد قتل زيد عليه السلام ، وكان خالد صغير السن فهرب مع أبيه عبدالرحمان إلى برق رود ، وكان ثقة في نفسه ، يروي عن الضعفاء ، واعتمد المراسيل ، وصنف كتبا وقال الشيخ(65): " أحمد بن محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمان بن محمد بن علي البرقي أبوجعفر ، أصله كوفي ، وكان جده محمد بن علي ، حبسه يوسف بن عمر والي العراق ، بعد قتل زيد بن علي بن الحسين عليهم السلام ، ثم قتله ، وكان خالد صغير السن ، فهرب مع أبيه عبدالرحمان إلى برقة قم ، فأقاموا بها ، وكان ثقة في نفسه غير أنه أكثر الرواية عن الضعفاء ، واعتمد المراسيل . وصنف كتبا كثيرة . وقال العلامة في الخلاصة ، القسم الاول ، الباب 7 ، من فصل الهمزة(7): " قال ابن الغضائري : طعن عليه القميون ، وليس الطعن فيه ، إنما الطعن في من يروي عنه ، فإنه كان لا يبالي عمن يأخذ ، على طريقة أهل الاخبار ، وكان أحمد ابن عيسى أبعده عن قم ، ثم أعاده إليها واعتذر إليه ، وقال : وجدت كتابا في وساطة بين أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن محمد بن خالد ، لما توفي مشى أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى في جنازته حافيا ، حاسرا ، ليبرئ نفسه مما قذفه به " I would like to know what the different Muhaddithoon of the Imamiya have opined about him. I know al-Khu'i and `Allamah al-Hilli have given him tawtheeq. Also what members here interested in rijal say about him and why. جزـىكم الله خيرا كثيرا والله عالم في امان الله
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.