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

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rijal'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Religion Forums
    • General Islamic Discussion
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Atheism/Other Religions
    • Minor Islamic Sects
    • Jurisprudence/Laws
  • Other Forums
    • Politics/Current Events
    • Social/Family/Personal
    • Science/Health/Economics
    • Education/Careers
    • Travel/Local Community
    • Off-Topic
    • Poetry and Art
  • Language Specific
    • Arabic / العَرَبِية
    • Farsi / فارسی
    • Urdu / اُردُو‎
    • Other languages [French / français, Spanish / español, Chinese / 汉语, Hindi / हिन्दी, etc.. ]
  • Site Support
    • Site Support/Feedback
    • Site FAQs
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • Food Club's Topics
  • Sports Club's Topics
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Travel Club's Topics
  • Mental Health/Psych Club's Topics
  • Arts, Crafts, DIY Club's Topics
  • The Premier League Club's Topics
  • Quit Smoking's Topics
  • Horses and Horse Riding's Topics


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Website URL






Favorite Subjects

Found 28 results

  1. Assalamu A'laykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu, I have been wondering, how did our scholars like Sheikh Al Tusi (ra) know if person x is reliable or not?? And the same thing goes for the Sunni scholars, but I'd rather know how our scholars knew it first. I have been searching and searching, but I haven't found any luck, but that's probably because most of the stuff we have in our text is in Arabic, so its quite hard for a person like me who isn't that great at Arabic to understand what I am reading. Jazakullahu feekum
  2. I remember reading a thread with all the conditions about when to accept a muwathaq hadith from a non-imami. Unfortunately i cannot find it anymore. Can someone please post the link if they find it or if you know the conditions, please post them.
  3. Salam brothers. The hadith we bring up in sunni books- "ali, you are the wali of every believer after me" is a strong proof to use to show that 'wali' does not mean friend and it has to mean leader because of the usage if 'after me'. However, after looking at the debate on this hadith, i have found that there are 3 chains. 2 of them contain shiees so they reject them but one of them contains no shia, the narration of abu balji. Although, I have seen some try and weaken this hadith because they say abu balj made a mistake and instead of narrating to amr bin maymoon, he meant to say mayoom abu abdillah who is weak and would make the hadith weak. thoughts?
  4. اكتب وبث علمك في إخوانك، فإن مت فأورث كتبك بنيك Write down and spread your knowledge among your brothers. And if you are about to die then will your books to your children [What the Imam al-Sadiq is supposed to have said to al-Mufadhal] فلما انصرفت إلى الكوفة أقبلت علي الشيعة فمزقوني كل ممزق، يأكلون لحمي ويشتمون عرضي، حتى أن بعضهم استقبلني فوثب في وجهي، وبعضهم قعد لي في سكك الكوفة يريد ضربي، ورموني بكل بهتان When I reached Kufa and met the Shia, they tore me to shreds, eating my flesh and disparaging my honour, such that one of them faced me and punched me in the face, and one of them lay in ambush for me in the markets of Kufa wishing to beat me up, and they made false accusations against me [Mufadhal in his Last Will and Testimony] ما يقولون في المفضل بن عمر؟ قلت: يقولون فيه: هيئة يهوديا أو نصرانيا What do they say about al-Mufadhal b. Umar? They say: He has the appearance and manner of a Jew or a Christian [The General Populace of Kufa was not impressed by Mufadhal] Who was He? Abu Abdallah Mufadhal b. Umar al-Ju’fi (d. before 179), a money-changer by profession, was a Kufan companion of the two Imams, al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim. He was charged with performing certain tasks for them. al-Tusi sees no problem in him. He includes him among the praiseworthy ‘intimate ones’ and ‘managers of the Imam’s affairs’ citing the following report as evidence: علي بن محمد، قال: حدثني سلمة بن الخطاب، عن علي بن حسان، عن موسى بن بكير قال: كنت في خدمة أبي الحسن عليه السلام ولم أكن أرى شيئا يصل إلى إلا من ناحية المفضل بن عمر، ولربما رأيت الرجل يجئ بالشئ فلا يقبله منه ويقول: أوصله إلى المفضل Ali b. Muhammad – Salama b. al-Khattab – Ali b. Hassan – Musa b. Bukayr: I was in the service of Abi al-Hasan عليه السلام. Nothing [of the monetary dues] used to reach him [from any other route] except through Mufadhal b. Umar. I would sometimes see a man bringing something to the Imam directly and he [the Imam] would refuse to accept it and say: take it to Mufadhal. That he was an important figure who exerted considerable influence on the Shi’ite community is undeniable. This can be glimpsed from the number of narrations under his name and the books attributed to him. A Controversial Narrator However, there is a controversy about his status. A controversy which probably began in his own lifetime. Some saw him as the bearer of the ‘secrets’ of the Imams who was understandably misunderstood by the laymen who could not bear them, while others saw him as a crypto-syncretist who distorted the teachings of the Imam. There exists both praise and censure of him attributed to the Imams. Most of the narrations which extol him are narrated by the Ghulat who glorify him as one of their pillars. The books ascribed to him include partially surviving esoteric manuals like Kitab al-Sirat (‘The Book of the Way’) and Kitab al-Haft wa al-Azilla (‘The Book of the Seven and the Phantoms’) among others. These are treasured by contemporary Nusayri-Alawis but would be considered heretical in the Twelver Madhhab. It is unclear whether this attribution is historical or merely based on the communal memory of his significance for their teachings. Modern academic research sees these books as consisting of many layers, with unidentified authors adding material to the oldest core. al-Ayyashi encountered some of this suspect literature as he retells below: وأمّا أبو يعقوب إسحاق بن محمد البصري، فإنّه كان غالياً، وسرت إليه إلى بغداد لاكتب عنه وسألته كتاباً أنسخه، فأخرج إليّ من أحاديث المفضّل بن عمر في التفويض ، فلم أرغب فيه فأخرج إليّ من أحاديث مشيخته من الثقات As for Abu Ya’qub Ishaq b. Muhammad al-Basri then he was a Ghali. I went to him in Baghdad to write from him. I asked him a book to copy so he took out for me a collection of narrations from Mufadhal b. Umar regarding Tafwidh [that the ‘Aimma are independent beings who run the world after its initial creation] but I did not express any interest in that, then he produced narrations relayed by the trustworthy ones among his teachers … Traditionalist scholars like al-Najashi and Ibn al-Ghadhairi had a negative assessment of him for this very reason. They went through the works ascribed to him and found them to be unpalatable. Ibn al-Ghadhairi is scathing when he says: خطابي، وقد زيد عليه شئ كثير، وحمل الغلاة في حديثه حملا عظيما ‘A Khattabi. A lot of fabricated material has been attributed to him. The Ghulat have launched a full-scale attack on his narrations (i.e. they have invaded his original corpus infiltrating it with their own ideas)’ al-Najashi warns: وقد ذكرت له مصنفات لا يعول عليها، وإنما ذكرنا للشرط الذي قدمناه ‘A number of books are listed as authored by him but they are not to be depended upon. I only include their names because of the condition which we have mentioned before [i.e. to list the titles of all Shi’i authors]’ Even if he is not responsible for what circulates under his name, the fact that the Ghulat considered him one of their own should be reason enough for caution. Anonymous writers are known to have penned material using his name seeking to enhance the authority of their works. It is an arduous task to sift the historical from the forged. A Khattabi? What can be asserted without doubt is that the historical Mufadhal was at one point in time connected to Abu al-Khattab and the Khatabiyya [there is even a splinter-sect of the Khatabiyya which was named after Mufadhal i.e. the Mufadhaliyya]. They are accused of deifying al-Sadiq in some way and of believing in continuation of prophecy. We have some narrations which indicate Mufadhal’s links with such beliefs: حدثني الحسين بن الحسن بن بندار القمي، قال حدثني سعد بن عبد الله بن أبي خلف القمي، قال حدثني محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب و الحسن بن موسى، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن عبد الله بن مسكان قال: دخل حجر بن زائدة و عامر بن جذاعة الأزدي على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فقالا: جعلنا فداك، إن المفضل بن عمر يقول إنكم تقدرون أرزاق العباد ... al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Bundar al-Qummi – Sa’d b. Abdallah b. Abi Khalaf al-Qummi – Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi al-Khattab and al-Hasan b. Musa from Safwan b. Yahya from Abdallah b. Muskan who said: Hujr b. Zaida and A’mir b. Judha’a al-Azdi entered upon Abi Abdillah عليه السلام and said to him: May we be made your ransom, Mufadhal b. Umar says that you are the ones who allot the Rizq of the slaves … علي بن محمد، عن صالح بن أبي حماد، عن محمد بن أورمة، عن ابن سنان، عن المفضل بن عمر قال: كنت أنا والقاسم شريكي ونجم بن حطيم وصالح بن سهل بالمدينة فتناظرنا في الربوبية، قال: فقال بعضنا لبعض: ما تصنعون بهذا نحن بالقرب منه وليس منا في تقية قوموا بنا إليه، قال: فقمنا فوالله ما بلغنا الباب إلا وقد خرج علينا بلا حذاء ولا رداء قد قام كل شعرة من رأسه منه وهو يقول: لا لا يا مفضل ويا قاسم ويا نجم، لا لا بل عباد مكرمون لا يسبقونه بالقول وهم بأمره يعملون Ali b. Muhammad – Salih b. Abi Hammad – Muhammad b. Awrama – Ibn Sinan – al-Mufadhal b. Umar who said: I, al-Qasim al-Shariki, Najm b. Hutaym and Salih b. Sahl were in Madina when we disputed each other over the divinity [of the ‘Aimma]. He [Mufadhal] said: We said to each other - why are we speculating on this when we are nearby to him [the Imam] and he is not in Taqiyya with us [does not answer us in dissimulation], let’s go meet him. He [Mufadhal] said: We headed towards him - by Allah we had not reached the door before he came out bare-footed, without a cloak and all the hair on his head stood on end [in apprehension] saying: No - O Mufadhal, Qasim and Najm, No! “rather mere honored slaves, never preceding Him (Allah) in word, and they always follow His orders” (21:26-27) حدثني حمدويه وإبراهيم ابنا نصير، قالا: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى، عن علي ابن الحكم، عن المفضل بن عمر أنه كان يبشر أبا الخطاب وفلان أنكما لمن المرسلين Hamduwayh b. Nusayr and Ibrahim b. Nusayr – Muhammad b. Isa – Ali b. al-Hakam: That he [Mufadhal b. Umar] used to give glad tidings to Aba al-Khattab and one other saying: ‘verily you are messengers’ قال الكشى: وذكرت الطيارة الغالية في بعض كتبها عن المفضل: أنه قال لقد قتل مع أبي اسماعيل يعني أبا الخطاب سبعون نبيا ... وأن المفضل قال: أدخلنا على أبي عبد الله عليه‌ السلام ونحن اثنى عشر رجلا، قال: فجعل أبو عبد الله عليه‌ السلام يسلم على رجل رجل منا ويسمي كل رجل منا باسم نبي، وقال لبعضنا: السلام عليك يا نوح، وقال لبعضنا: السلام عليك يا ابراهيم، وكان آخر من سلم عليه وقال: السلام عليك يا يونس، ثم قال: لا تخاير بين الانبياء al-Kashshi said: The Tayyara Ghulat say in one of their books that al-Mufadhal said: Seventy prophets were killed with Aba al-Khattab … Mufadhal is also supposed to have said: Twelve of us entered in to see Abi Abdillah عليه‌ السلام. He [the Imam] began greeting each one of us individually and calling each one of us by the name of a prophet, saying to one of us ‘peace be upon you O Noah’ to another ‘peace be upon you O Ibrahim’, he greeted the last one of us saying: ‘peace be upon you O Yunus’. Then he [the Imam] said: do not distinguish between the prophets! Mufadhal, The Khattabiyya and Ismail The Khatabbiya seem to have taken Ismail the son of al-Sadiq as their figure-head and pinned their hopes on him as the next Imam. It is hard to discern from the meager sources available whether Ismail’s participation in this was of his own volition or not. رجال الكشي: حمدويه بن نصير، عن يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن الحكم وحماد بن عثمان، عن إسماعيل بن جابر قال: قال أبو عبد الله: ايت المفضل قل له: يا كافر يا مشرك ما تريد إلى ابني تريد أن تقتله Hamduwayh b. Nusayr – Ya’qub b. Yazid – Ibn Abi Umayr – Hisham b. al-Hakam and Hammad b. Uthman – Ismail b. Jabir who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: Go to Mufadhal and say to him - O Kafir, O Mushrik, what do you want for my son Ismail? Do you want to kill him!? The narration above has the Imam using very harsh language with Mufadhal in the context of the latter’s ‘grooming’ of Ismail which al-Sadiq felt was dangerous. On the other hand, there also exists a countervailing narration as below: الكافي: محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن يونس بن يعقوب قال: أمرني أبو عبد الله عليه السلام أن آتي المفضل واعزيه باسماعيل وقال: اقرأ المفضل السلام وقل له: إنا قد اصبنا بإسماعيل فصبرنا، فاصبر كما صبرنا، إنا أردنا أمرا وأراد الله عزوجل أمرا، فسلمنا لامر الله عزوجل Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa – Ali b. al-Hakam – Yunus b. Ya’qub who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السلام ordered me to go to Mufadhal and condole him for [the death of] Ismail. He [the Imam] said: Convey my greetings of peace to Mufadhal and say to him: We have been tried through Ismail and have remained patient, so be patient the way we have been patient. We wanted something but Allah Mighty and Majestic wanted something else so we have submitted to the command of Allah Mighty and Majestic. This one is much more warm. The Imam condoles Mufadhal on the occasion of Ismail’s death - the two must have been especially close - and commends him to be patient in emulation of the Imam’s own patience. How can we explain this difference in tone? A Rapprochement? It seems that one way to reconcile between them is to posit that Mufadhal had a period of estrangement from the Imam - because of his involvement with the Khattabis and their intentions for Ismail, however, he later repented from this and broke away with Abu al-Khattab, consequently the relation with the Imam improved. Evidence for this can be found in the narration below: جبرئيل بن أحمد قال: حدّثني محمّد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن حماد بن عثمان قال: سمعت أبا عبداللّه عليه السلام يقول للمفضّل بن عمر الجعفي: يا كافر يا مشرك ما لك ولابني، يعني إسماعيل بن جعفر، وكان منقطعا إليه، يقول فيه مع الخطابية، ثم رجع بعد Jibrail b. Ahmad – Muhammad b. Isa – Yunus – Hammad b. Uthman who said: I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying to al-Mufadhal b. Umar al-Ju’fi: O Kafir, O Mushrik, what do you have to do with my son - meaning Ismail b. Ja’far? - and he [Mufadhal] was loyal to him [Ismail], believing about him [that he is the Imam and much more] together with the Khatabiyya, then he returned afterwards. That Mufadhal returned back to the truth after deviation can be proved also by the fact that he was not among those followers of Abu al-Khattab who died with their leader when they were attacked by the men of Isa b. Musa [the Abbasid governor of Kufa] after barricading themselves in the central mosque as part of an aborted revolt. Another piece of evidence for this view is that Mufadhal seems to have a more cordial relation with al-Kadhim after the death of al-Sadiq [indeed there are no censures against him quoted from this Imam, which would tally with his reform in his later years]. محمد بن مسعود، قال: حدثني عبد الله بن خلف، قال: حدثنا علي بن حسان الواسطي، قال: حدثني موسى بن بكير قال: سمعت أبا الحسن يقول لما أتاه موت المفضل بن عمر، قال: رحمه الله، كان الوالد بعد الوالد، أما انه قد استراح Muhammad b. Masud – Abdallah b. Khalaf – Ali b. Hassan al-Wasiti – Musa b. Bukayr who said: I heard Aba al-Hasan saying when he was informed of the death of al-Mufadhal b. Umar - May Allah have mercy on him, he was a father after the father [al-Sadiq i.e. a second father to him]. Verily he is now resting in peace. Summary The case of al-Mufadhal is a complicated one. More needs to be done to collect all the relevant evidence and formulate a coherent position, if at all possible. This is obviously not the place for an in-depth study. Such research should also consider the provenance of famous books attributed to him like Tawhid al-Mufadhal, al-Ihlilaja etc. Having said all this, caution must be exercised as regards narrations attributed to him, specifically if the contents have to do with Imamology.
  5. I am new to shiachat and wanted to start this topic. Unfortunately, the rijal books we have are not in english and many of us do cannot access to valuable information about rijal. The aim of this topic is to provide brothers/sisters with a place where if we have doubt about a hadith or a narrator, we can bring the chain and knowledgeable brother of sisters can inform us of the authenticity of the narration or narrator. It would be better if brothers or sisters would also provide the sources in which they got the information. this site has many narrators and their authenticity - http://corpus.purifiedhousehold.com/muʿjam-al-aḥadith-al-muʿtabara/ ok here is my first chains. Ali ibn Muhammad and others have narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Ayyub ibn Nuh from Safwan ibn Yahya from ibn Muskan from Badr ibn al-Walid from abu al-Rabi‘ al-Shami from abu ‘Abdallah Abu Ali al-Ash‘ari has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar from Safwan from ibn Muskan from Badr ibn al-Walid from Abu al-Rabi‘ from abu ‘Abdallah Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from ‘Umrah ibn Musa from Musa ibn Ja‘far from ‘Amr ibn Sa‘id al-Mada’ini from abu ‘Ubayda al-Mada’ini from abu ‘Abdallah
  6. قال أبو عمرو الكشي: قال يحيى بن عبد الحميد الحماني في كتابه المؤلف في إثبات إمامة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: قلت لشريك: إن أقواما يزعمون أن جعفر بن محمد ضعيف في الحديث! فقال: أخبرك القصة كان جعفر بن محمد رجلا صالحا مسلما ورعا، فاكتنفه قوم جهال يدخلون عليه، ويخرجون من عنده، ويقولون: حدثنا جعفر بن محمد، ويحدثون بأحاديث كلها منكرات كذب موضوعة على جعفر، يستأكلون الناس بذلك، ويأخذون منهم الدراهم، فكانوا يأتون من ذلك بكل منكر، وسمعت العوام بذلك منهم، فمنهم من هلك ومنهم من أنكر، وهؤلاء مثل المفضل بن عمر، وبنان، وعمرو النبطي وغيرهم، ذكروا أن جعفرا حدثهم أن معرفة الامام تكفي من الصوم والصلاة، وحدثهم عن أبيه عن جده، وأنه حدثهم قبل يوم القيامة، وأن عليا عليه السلام في السحاب يطير مع الريح، وأنه كان يتكلم بعد الموت، وأنه كان يتحرك على المغتسل، وأن إله السماء وإله الأرض الامام، فجعلوا لله شريكا، جهال، ضلال، والله ما قال جعفر شيئا من هذا قط، كان جعفر أتقى لله، وأورع من ذلك، فسمع الناس ذلك فضعفوه، ولو رأيت جعفرا لعلمت أنه واحد الناس Abu Amr al-Kashshi said: Yahya b. Abd al-Hamid al-Himani said in his book written with the purpose of proving the Imama of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام : I asked Sharīk: “(Why is it that) groups of people maintain Ja‘far b. Muḥammad is weak in ḥadīth ?” Sharīk replied: “I will tell you the situation. Ja‘far b. Muḥammad was a righteous man and a GOD fearing Muslim. Then a group of foolish-ignorant persons [qawm juhhāl] surrounded him frequenting his home and leaving his presence, and saying “Ja‘far b. Muḥammad narrated to us.” They narrated traditions all of them objectionable [munkarāt]—lies, forgeries imputed to Ja‘far!—in order to exploit people for their own advantage and take their dirhams, and to this end they brought forth all kinds of objectionable traditions. Thereupon the public [al-‘awāmm] heard these from them, and some were brought to ruin (by accepting them), while others disclaimed them. These (ignorami) were the likes of al-Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar and Bunān [b. Sam‘ān] and ‘Amr al-Nabaṭī [‘Ammār al-Sābāṭī ?] and others. They stated that Ja‘far narrated to them that recognition of the imām suffices to spare one from fasting and prayer; and that he narrated to them from his father [Bāqir], from his grandfather [i.e. ‘Alī] who informed them about (events that will occur) before the Resurrection; and that ‘Alī is in the clouds flying with the wind, and that he used to speak after death, and moved as he was being washed (for burial); and that god in heaven while god on earth is the imām—so these errant/misguided fools appointed a partner for GOD! By GOD, Ja‘far never said anything like this at all! Ja‘far was more GOD mindful and GOD revering than that. So when the people (narrating traditions) heard these things, they deemed him ‘weak’ (and forsook transmitting his narrations). If you had seen Ja‘far, you would have known that he was truly unparalleled among his peers [wāḥid al-nās].” NOTES: There is no doubt that this business of ascribing falsities to the Aimma (esp. by Kufan Ghulat vis-a-vis al-Sadiq) occurred, and this is well documented in our sources, but Sharik’s analysis is peurile in that it does not account for the authentic strand of the Imamiyya (the legalistic school that we would consider the forebears of the later Ithna-Ashariyya) which has not only preserved al-Sadiq’s defense against the Ghulat but also his dis-association from them. Figures like Bunan are censured as accursed in our Rijal works for claiming divinity for the Aimma, and other objectionable beliefs like incarnation and transmigration of souls. Sharik seems not to be able to account for what we would consider the true torch-bearers of the al-Sadiq school, people like Zurara and Muhammad b. Muslim and others. The Sunni scholars have a real blind-spot about who the real players in the Imami movement of the time were, they rather concentrate on the more controversial figures who have been rightfully sidelined – more about this later. Looking at the kinds of false beliefs that Sharik mentions, none of these are held by contemporary Imamis, showing that the authentic strand was successful in preserving the true message for the most part.
  7. This is taken from Shaykh al-Subhani's - Mawsua Tabaqat al-Fuqaha: http://imamsadeq.com/ar/index/book?bookID=136&page=4#55 Burayda b. al-Husayb [d. 62/63][1] Ibn Abdallah b. al-Harith al-Aslami, about his Kuniyya there are different opinions: some said Abu Abdallah, Abu Sasan, Abu Sahl and Abu al-Husayb. It is said that he converted in the year of the Hijra – when the prophet passed by him – whilst making the Hijra - near Ghamiym, then he came to the messenger of Allah after Uhud, so he witnessed with him the battle of Khaybar and the conquest of Mecca, and with him was the banner (the banner of his people - the Aslam), and the prophet put him in charge of the Sadaqat of his tribe, and the messenger of Allah sent him – when he (i.e. the messenger) wanted to head out to Tabuk so that he (Burayda) could summon (exert) them to face their enemies. He remained in Madina after the death of the messenger of Allah until Basra was conquered and it was inhabited, so he moved to it, then he came out of it – as it has been said – in the expedition to Khurasan in the time of Uthman, so he resided in Marw and he spread knowledge in it until he died. As for Ibn al-Athir then he mentioned that Ziyad made governor of Khurasan – al-Rabi b. Ziyad al-Harithi in the beginning of the year fifty one, and he made move out with him fifty thousand men with their families from the people of Kufa and Basra, among them: Burayda b. al-Husayb and Abu Barza, and both had companionship, so they resided in Khurasan[2]. And in al-Isaba: al-Bawari – enumerated him i.e. Burayda al-Aslami - with a weak chain on the authority of Ubaydallah b. Abi Rafi - from among the companions who fought on the side of Ali in Siffin and died in it. And because of this Ali said (in a poetic verse): May Allah reward with goodness an Aslamiya group – having good countenances they were felled around Hashim[3] Burayda[4] and Abdallah among them and Munqidh too – and Urwa and the two sons of Malik among the gracious ones. He (Ibn Hajar) said: And this, if it is correct, then it is someone else apart from Burayda b. al-Husayb al-Aslami for he remained alive after that for a long period. Burayda narrated reports from the prophet and he is counted from among the companions who had few number of juridicial rulings. Narrated from him: his two sons Sulayman and Abdallah, and Abu Nadhra al-Abdi, and al-Sha’bi and others. He is listed among the companions of Imam ali and he is one of the narrators of the Ghadir narration from among the companions[5]. Al-Nasai narrated by his chain from Burayda who said: the messenger of Allah sent us to the Yaman together with (under) Khalid b. al-Walid, and he sent Ali presiding over another unit, and he said: if the two armies come together (join up) then Ali is over the people (is the overall commander), and if each of you goes his separate way then each one of you is over his men, so we encountered the Bani Zabiyd from the people of Yaman, so the Muslims were victorious over the polytheists, so we killed the fighting men, and captured the progeny, so Ali chose a young girl for himself from among the captives, and Khalid b. al-Walid wrote to the prophet a letter of complaint because of that, and he ordered me to malign him (i.e. Ali – to the prophet), he (Burayda) said: so I handed the letter to the prophet and spoke negatively against Ali, so the face of the prophet changed, and he said: do not be made to hold a grudge towards Ali O Burayda, for Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is your Wali after me[6]. And Al-Hakim narrated with his chain from him (i.e. Burayda) that: the most beloved of women to the messenger of Allah was Fatima and from the men Ali[7]. And Burayda said: when it was the day of Khaybar, Abu Bakr took the banner but he returned and he was not given victory (the fort remained unconquered), so when it was the next day Umar took it (the banner) but he returned without being given victory (by Allah), and Mahmud b. Maslama was killed (in this encounter), and the people returned, so the messenger of Allah said: I am going to give my banner to a man who loves Allah and his messenger and who is loved by Allah and his messenger, he will never retreat until it is opened for him (he is granted victory), so we spent the night having unworried minds knowing that the victory was tomorrow, so the messenger of Allah prayed the morning prayer, then he called for the banner and stood up, so there was not a man from among us who had some position (a close station) with the messenger of Allah except that he hoped that he would be that man (to whom the banner is given), and even I stretched myself to achieve it (dared to hope by elongating my neck making myself conspicuous), and I presented my head because of the position that I had with him (i.e. the messenger), but he called for Ali b. Abi Talib and he was complaining of an ailment in his eye, he said: so he (i.e. the messenger) wiped over it, then he gave the banner to him, and Burayda said: he (Ali) was the man of Marhab (i.e. his killer)[8]. Burayda died in Marw in the year sixty two, and it is said: sixty three. And it is narrated that he willed that two palm branches should be placed in his grave. [1] Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d 4|241, al-Tarikh al-Kabir 2|141, al-Ma’arif 170, al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil 2|424, Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al-Rijal 38 and 94, Mashahir Ulama al-Amsar 100 No. 414, al-Thiqat of Ibn Habban 3|29, Ashab al-Futya min al-Sahaba wa al-Tabi’in 91 No. 91, al-Mustadrak al-Hakim 3|110, al-Sunan al-Kubra ofal-Bayhaqi 3|283, al-Khilaf of al-Tusi 1|656, Rijal al-Tusi 10 and 35, al-Isti’ab 1|177 (in the margins of al-Isaba), Tabaqat al-Fuqaha of al-Shirazi 52, al-Mughni wa al-Sharh al-Kabir 2|226, al-Rijal of Ibn Dawud 55, Rijal al-Allamah al-Hilli 27, Siyar Alam al-Nubala 2|469, al-Jawahir 2|417, al-Isaba 1|150, al-Darajat al-Rafi’a 400, Shadharat al-Dhahab 1|70, Tanqih al-Maqal 1|166 No. 1261, A’yan al-Shia 3|559. [2] al-Kamil Fi al-Ta’rikh 3|489, the events of the year 51 [3] He is Hashim b. Utba b. Abi Waqqas, famously known as Mirqal, the son of the brother of Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas, a companion, an eloquent speaker, horseman, brave, he participated in the battle of Qadisiyya with Sa’d and one of his eyes was blinded in the battle of Yarmuk so he was called al-A’war (the one-eyed), and he conquered Jalula, and he was from the closest of the companions of Ali, and he was the holder of his (Ali’s) banner at Siffin, and he used to attack the people of Sham repeatedly, and fight a very intensive fight, until he was martyred – may Allah have mercy on him – towards the last days of Siffin [al-Kamil Fi al-Ta’rikh of Ibn al-Athir – the year 37, al-A’lam 8|66] [4] The name Yazid occurs instead of Burayd in the transmission of Nasr b. Muzahim in the book Waq’at Siffin Pg. 356, and likewise Ibn Abi al-Hadid in Sharh Nahj al-Balagha 9|35. [5] al-Ghadir of al-Amini 1|20 No. 19. [6] Khasais Amir al-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib Pg. 23 [7] Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn 3|155. Al-Hakim said: this Hadith is Sahih in Isnad but they (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it, and al-Dhahabi agreed in his Talkhis. [8] Mukhtasar Tarikh Madinat Dimashq of Ibn al-Mandhur 5|180 No. 85, and Marhab was the Jewish knight who was killed by the commander of the faithful ref. al-Tabari 2|300 events of the year 7.
  8. The First Discussion These are the rules which are required to be understood and followed by the one who wants to investigate the condition of the narrators, so that if even one of them is ignored, the truth will not be reached to, and these rules with their description are given below: 1. The Wathaqa of the one giving the Tawthiq or Tadhif This rule is inferred by the the necessity of not depending (following) the words of a Kadhab or a Majhul person in the Ta’dil or Tadhif of somebody else. And it is because of this rule that we do not accept the Tawthiqat and Tadhifat of a number of scholars, among them: Nasr b. Sabah, al-Uqayqi – both father and son – Ibn Nadim; for the lack of the establishment of their own Tawthiq [thus they are Majhul]. Similarly, we do not accept the witness of someone upon/about himself, for it results in circularity of logic. So if a Majhul narrator narrates his own praise from the Imam, we do not rule upon his Tawthiq using his own narration, what we need to do is - first prove his Wathaqa (apriori) before we can accept any of his narrations, so how can we prove his Tawthiq using his own narration? Would this not constitute a clear infinite regression? 2. Similarity in meaning of Adalah Know that Tawthiq is given to a narrator if he posesses Adalah, but the meaning of Adalah to the Muta’akhir scholar may be different than to the Mutaqadim scholar. If we assume that Adalah to the one giving the Tawthiq simply requires him - being a Muslim and not exposing (or having apparent) Fisq [Asl al-Adalah] like it has been attributed to some of the past scholars, but to us it means a state/condition requiring much more than that, then the Tawthiq given by those who hold the former meaning of Adalah will not be beneficial to us, in fact, it will not even reveal the truthfulness of the narrator in question, and this is a rule whose ignorance cannot be tolerated. [in other words – the meaning of Adalah must be the same between how we understand it today and how it was understood by the one giving the Tawthiq, for the Tawthiq to be relevant and useful to us, meaning - the Tawthiq given by the Mutaqadim who gives it due to his belief in Asl al-Adalah will not benefit us presently, since we do not consider Asl al-Adalah to be a valid principle] Adalah is defined by most modernist scholars as the performance of all the Wajibat and the protection of oneself against the all the Haramat, it is proactive not reactive as Asl al-Adalah was. 3. Hujiyyah of Hiss and Ibtal of Hadas in Ilm ar-Rijal The one giving the Tawthiq must be contemporary to the narrator he is giving Tawthiq to, so that we are assured that his evaluation is based on his Hiss [sensory observation] and that he witnessed the signs of Adalah or the signs of Sidq from the subject of the Tawthiq OR We must have (I) certain knowledge or (II) justifiable possibility - that - the one giving the Tawthiq has obtained it (i.e. the Tawthiq) from a connected chain of predecessors, and that it was reported to him the signs of Adalah or Sidq through individual from individual (going upwards) until it reached to the contemporary of the subject of the Tawthiq. And if we are to assume that both these options are not present, the words of the one giving the Tawthiq are not a Hujjah unto us, for he is deriving the Tawthiq from far-away (generational gap) Hadas (cognitive function), and Hadas is not a Mu’tabar Khabar Wahid. One may say: Adalah as you define it is a condition which someone posesses, so it cannot be observed by the senses. It is Answered: Yes, it is true that Adalah is a condition that someone posesses and therefore not tangible, but its signs can be observed, and this is enough. So, in conslusion, there is no dependence upon the Tawthiq or Tahsin if we do not have certain knowledge or justifiable possibility that it is based (originates) from a connected chain to the contemporary of the subject of the Tawthiq who based it on his Hiss [sensory observation]. And it is because of this rule that we do not accept the independent Tawthiq and Tahsin of our Muta’akhir scholars - like the Allamah, and the Shahidayn, and al-Majlisi and their like, when they give it to the companions of the Sadiqayn, for they could not have witnessed the signs of Adalah and Sidq of these companions by observation, and also, we cannot possibly justify that their Tawthiqat and Tadhifat are coming through a connected chain from their predecessors and reaching to the contemporaries of these companions, except that any such chain if it exists would certainly have passed through the Shaykh and an-Najashi and their like, and if so – they do not have anything new to add which we cannot obtain from the Shaykh or an-Najashi and their like directly. Using this rule, one can argue against the words of the Shaykh and an-Najashi in strengthening and weakening the companions of Amir al-Mu’mineen and al-Hasanayn, due to the lengthy gap in-between and the unjustifiability of even the possibility that these information coming down to them in a connected chain [since they have not mentioned the Turuq]. 4. The Tawthiq should not be Mursal [When we look at the Tawthiqat availabe to us from the three main sources of the accepted Tawthiqat, that is the Shaykh, an-Najashi and al-Kashi, and how they fulfill the previous rule, in the case of al-Kashi we have certain knowledge that the Tawthiqat of the companions of the Sadiqayn and others were obtained via a connected chain reaching to the contemporaries of the subjects of Tawthiq (since he recorded the Turuq in his book), and in the case of the Shaykh and an-Najashi we have justifiable possibility that they were basing the majority of their Tawthiqat on Naql that is via a connected chain - this judgement is due to the Indicators present in their own works [like their obvious dependence on their Shuyukh and the past books, and the words in their Muqadimma – Introductory prefaces]. But this fourth rule requires of them to mention the Wasita – intermediaries – between them and the original (principal) giver of the Tawthiq or Tahsin who is a contemporary of the subject of the Tawthiq or Tahsin (i.e. the narrator in question). And this is what is not available, and more about this rule and what it means to Ilm ar-Rijal will follow in the Fourth Discussion in detail, and it is this that will decide whether Ilm ar-Rijal is more beneficial or less. 5. The Tawthiq or Tadhif should reach US via a Mu’tabar chain And it is because of this rule that we do not accept what has been attributed to Ibn Uqdah, Ibn al- Ghadhairi and al-Barqi about the Tawthiq and Tadhif of narrators, for their books have not reached us through a Mu’tabar chain. 6. The Reasons for the Tawthiq and Tadhif mentioned by the scholars of Jarh and Ta’dil should be acceptable based on Shariah, Aql and Urf (customary usage) And more detail about this rule, and what has happened in contravention to it - due to the misunderstandings of most scholars will follow in the Second Discussion. And you will come to know there, that some have understood Adalah or Sidq due to matters that do not allow such an understanding at all. [Example: some have based the word of the Shaykh about Ali b. Muhammad b. Qutayba, wherein he said about him 'Fadhil' to be revealing his Tawthiq or Tahsin, and this is not acceptable to al-Muhsini] [For the Madh/Husn (praise) that al-Mushini accepts to give Tahsin is the one that reveals the Sidq of the narrator in question, so what is the relation between being Fadhil and being Sadiq he asks?] 7. The words of the one giving the Tawthiq or Tahsin should be clear – based on the rules of the language and not general or given to contradiction And due to the contravening of this rule, there has occurred Ikhtilaf over the Tawthiq of al-Husayn b. Ulwan, this is due to the difficulty in understanding the apparent words of an-Najashi – on whether the Tawthiq refers back to al-Husyan (the subject of the Tarjama) or his brother al-Hasan. 8. The Tawthiq or Tadhif should not have a contradicting Mu’tabar opponent When there is a Mu’tabar Tawthiq and a Mu’tabar Tadhif about the same narrator, they clash and both are dropped (none is followed) except if one is closer/more in accordance – like the words of the Shaykh and an-Najashi in the case of the narrator Salim b. Mukrim, where the scholars have found an opening in not following this rule, by ruling that an-Najashi is more aware in this field, and so his decision takes precedence. These, then are the important rules for Ta’dil and Tajrih and Tahsin and Tadhif, which we repeat once more, are necessary to keep in mind and follow, and there is no dependence on the words of the Rijaliyun in proving Madh and Dhamm that are outside (do not follow) these rules.
  9. Reflections from someone who hasn't thought or read about Ilm alRijal for a long time... When it comes to narrating from the Prophet, a Shia doesn't seem any more reliable than the Sunni. If I have reason to believe that a Sunni is reliable, and the same reason to believe that a Shia is reliable, then any narrations these two narrate would be of equal weight in terms of reliability. Not so when it comes to narrating from Ahlul Bayt. If the same Shia narrates a hadith that contradicts one from the same Sunni, the Shia hadith ought to be accepted over the Sunni hadith. This is for two related reasons: 1. The Shia believes that knowingly attributing a falsehood to Ahlul Bayt is akin to attributing a falsehood to the Prophet. In other words, it is a grave crime. The Sunni doesn't believe this. For him the Ahlul bayt are just pious people, and whilst it is haraam to lie about them, it's not the same as lying about the Prophet. 2. For the same reason, the Shia would be more careful when narrating from the Ahlul bayt compared to the Sunni. Therefore, the Shia would be less likely to make honest mistakes when narrating from them. He would take more care to remember and narrate as reliably as possible because he doesn't want to attribute a false utterance to the representatives of God on Earth. One conclusion to be drawn from the above is that Shia narrators are more trustworthy when it comes to narrating from the Ahlul Bayt, as their Aqeedah acts as a kind of barrier that helps prevent the attribution of falsehoods. This is a conclusion that both Shia and Sunnis ought to draw.
  10. SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) – The year 260 AH was the start of the occultation of Imam Mahdi (AJ) and a new chapter of relation between Imam (as) and Shia Muslims. At the time of minor occultation 4 special deputies were designated to facilitate contacts between Shia Muslims of the world and Imam Mahdi (AJ). The third of these deputies known as Hossain ibn Rouh Nobakhti was chosen by Imam (as) himself. About the year 305 AH in the month of Jamadul Oula and after the passing away of the second deputy, Mohammad bin Othman, Hossain ibn Rouh Nobakhti started his deputyship which lasted for 21 years and after passing away he was buried in Baghdad. On Sunday 6th of Shawwal of the year 305 Imam Mahdi (AJ) wrote a letter to Hossain ibn Rouh and a part of it is outlined below. “We know him, may God make him known and help him with divine blessings. I received his letter and I am aware of his trustworthiness and am sure of his steadfastness in his belief. Verily he has such a lofty position with us and knowing that will make him very happy. May Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì add to his blessings, truly the Almighty is the only owner of all the blessings and is dominant over all affairs, truly the Almighty is worthy of all worship and thanksgiving, the one who has no partner, greetings and Salawat to the Prophet (pbuh) and his family [1].” [1] Beharul Anwaar, Vol.51, Page 356. www.shafaqna.com/english Mohammad bin Ali bin Hosein bin Babvieh Qomi, renowned as "Sheikh Sadough" was born in 917 in a pious, scientist family from Qom. (Some had also reported 918 or 919 for his birth year.) His father Ali bin Babvieh first married his cousin, but she was unable of getting pregnant. Thus in a letter he asked Hosein bin Rouh, Imam Mahdi's representative, to contact Imam and plead for a pray so may God bless him pious, righteous children. After a time he received a letter from Imam: "You won't have any child from your wife, but it's soon that you'll bye a bondmaid from Daylam. Marry her and she will deliver two pious sons for you." http://english.tebyan.net/newindex.aspx?pid=27056 My name is Jafar bin Mohamad. I am known as bin Qulowiah. I was born in Qom in the minor occultation. I grew up and learnt Islamic sciences until I became a famous Islamic scientist. I learnt the narration science and listened to its scientists, therefore I became a famous narrator. I wrote many books which the most famous one is (Kamel al-Ziarat) about the wellness of visiting the prophet (p.b) and Ahlulbayt (p.b). When I was young, exactly in the age of the third deputy al-Hosain bin Rouh al-Nobakty, a dangerous trouble happened that in the year 317 A.H, the Qaramedah attacked Mecca in the pilgrimage season and killed the pilgrims. And they cut out the black stone from its place and brought it to their position in al-Ehsa. http://www.m-mahdi.net/english/children/stories/005/index.htm
  11. This is an on-going project to translate the whole Introductory part of Ma'rifat al-Hadith by Shaykh Muhammad Baqir al-Bahbudi (of Sahih al-Kafi fame). This is a very good primer on the Sciences of Hadith - having a unique approach and arrangement. It is hoped that the novel methodology and views of the author will become clear as the translation proceeds. The Arabic book used in the translation can be downloaded here: https://archive.org/download/almoamltv_gmail_20140210/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB.pdf Any and all questions arising from this are welcome. The History of Hadith and its Scholarship And Only a Few of My Slaves are Grateful <<All mankind were a single community; then Allah sent the Prophets as bearers of good news and warnings, and sent down with them the Book in truth, so that it may judge between the people concerning that about which they differed, and none differed in it except those who had been given it, after the manifest proofs had come to them, out of envy among themselves. So Allah guided those who had faith to the truth of what they differed in, by His will, and Allah guides whomever He wishes to the straight path>> [1]. In spite of the words of Allah <<And do not be like those who became divided and differed after manifest proofs had come to them, for such there will be a great punishment>>[2] - the Islamic community differed after its prophet despite what was in their hands of the manifest proofs and guidance, out of envy among themselves, and returned back on their tracks, fighting each other, what ruled over them was their opinions and their desires, and they have not ceased being divided, except the one upon whom the Lord has had mercy, and for this did He create them, and the words of your Lord have been fulfilled - 'I will fill Hell up with the Jinn and the men - both' After Guidance had Become Manifest to Them Muslim narrates in his Sahih Vol. 4 Pg. 1873 by his chain to Zayd b. al-Arqam who said: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم stood in our midst one day to speak - by the waters (pond) known as Khumm between Makka and Madina - so he praised Allah, and extolled his greatness, and counselled, and reminded, then he said: After this (introduction), O people, I am merely a mortal, it is feared that the messenger of my Lord (i.e. the angel of death) may come (to me) and I respond (to his call), I am leaving in your midst two weighty things, the first of them is the book of Allah, in it is guidance and light, so take by the book of Allah, and hold on to it, then he said: and the people of my house, I remind you of Allah about (your obligations to) the people of my house. And Ahmad b. Hanbal narrated in his Musnad Vol. 3 Pg. 14, he said: Narrated to us Aswad b. Amir reported to us Abu Israil from Atiyya from Abi Said who said: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: I leave in your midst two weighty things, one of them is greater than the other, the book of Allah, a stretched rope between the heaven and earth, and my descendants - the people of my house, for they will never separate until they return to me at the pond[3]. Out of Envy Among Themselves And the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said in his speech on the day of Nahr [sacrifice] in his farewell pilgrimage: <<... and do not oppress one another, and do not revert after me to being disbelievers, some of you striking the backs of others (in oppression), I have left in your midst that by which you will never be misguided - the book of Allah ...>>[4] And Ahmad b. Hanbal narrated in his Musnad Vol. 2 Pg. 104, he said: narrated to us Muhammad b. Ja'far narrated to us Shu'ba from Waqid from Muhammad b. Zayd that he heard his father narrating from Abdallah b. Umar from the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - that he said in the farewell pilgrimage: <<Woe upon you! do not revert after me to being disbelievers, some of you striking the backs of others'[5] Have You Turned Back on Your Heels? Muslim narrated in his Sahih Vol. 4 Pg. 2194 from Ibn Abbas who said: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم stood in our midst to speak - aiming to give a counsel, so he said: <<O people, you will be raised to Allah barefooted, naked and uncircumcised <<As We have initiated the creation so will We renew it, a promise on Us, verily We are the doers (capable of it)>>[6], surely, the first of all creation to be cloaked (with clothes) on the day of Judgement will be Ibrahim. Surely, some of the men of my community will be brought forth - so they will be taken towards the left hand-side, so I will say: O Lord - my companions! so it will be said: you do not know what they innovated after you, so I will say as the righteous servant: <<And I was a witness over them as long as I was with them, so when you caused me to die - you were the One who was a watcher over them, and you are a witness over all things, if you punish them then they are your slaves, and if you forgive them then you are the strong the wise>>[7], he said: so it was said to me: they did not cease turning back on their heels (re-tracing their foot steps back-wards) since you left them'[8] And Do Not Corrupt the Land After its Reconciliation In Sahih al-Kafi no. 4354 from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja'far عليه السلام about the words of Allah <<corruption has appeared in the land and the sea - due to what the hands of men have wrought>>[9] he said: that is by Allah when the Ansar said: from us will be a ruler and from you a ruler! (i.e. at Saqifa) There is Nothing after Truth except Misguidance Abu Amr al-Kashshi narrated - based on what is present in the selection of his Rijal (i.e. by al-Tusi) Pg. 7 - from the book of al-Ayyashi Muhammad b. Mas'ud who said: narrated to me Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhal narrated to me al-Abbas b. Amir and Ja'far b. Muhammad b. Hakiym from Aban b. Uthman from al-Harith b. Mughira al-Nasri who said: I heard Abd al-Malik b. A'yan asking Aba Abdillah عليه السلام - so he did not cease asking him (the same question - due to his amazement at it) - until he said to him (out of exasperation): so the people were destroyed then (after the messenger of Allah)? so he said: yes, by Allah, O the son of A'yan, all the people were destroyed, I (Abd al-Malik) said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance, yes, by Allah, they were all destroyed, except three, then joined Abu Sa'san, and Ammara, and Shatira and Abu Umara, so they became seven. All the People Returned Back except Three? Abu Amr al-Kashshi narrated in his Rijal Pg. 7 from the book of al-Naysaburi Muhammad b. Ismail Bandafar who said: narrated to me al-Fadhl b. Shadhan from Ibn Abi Umayr from Ibrahim b. Abd al-Hamid from Abi Basir who said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: all the people returned back (apostatized) except three - Abu Dhar and Salman and Miqdad? so Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: so whereat is Abu Sasan and Abu Umara al-Ansari (in your list)? True Selflessness And in Sahih al-Kafi no. 4407 from Abi Ja'far عليه السلام who said: the people - when they did what they did, that is pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented Amir al-Mu'minin عليه السلام to call to himself (seek support as a rival to them), except looking at (the condition of) the people, and fearing for them, that they will return back on Islam (apostatize), and begin worshiping the idols (anew), and they will not testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, so it was more preferable to him to agree to what they had done over them leaving Islam totally ... (until the end of) the Hadith. Back to the Age of Ignorance And in Sahih al-Kafi no. 4408 from Abd al-Rahim al-Qasiyr who said: I said to Abi Ja'far عليه السلام: the people are astonished when we say: the people as a whole turned back (apostatized), so he said: O Abd al-Rahim, the people reverted - after the messenger of Allah was taken - to being the people of Jahiliyya (Ignorance), the Ansar withdrew (from Abu Bakr) but they did not withdraw for something good (i.e. to favor the rightful person – rather it was to feed their tribal inclinations), they began pledging the allegiance to Sa'd while chanting the chants of Jahiliyya: 'O Sa'd, you are - the hoped in (our hope to reach the objectives), and your hair is - the finely styled, and your competitor (challenger) is - the pelted upon (repelled by stones)' And Ibn Abi al-Hadid narrated in his commentary on the Nahj, Vol. 2 Pg. 3, published in Lebanon, from the book of Saqifa by Abi Bakr Ahmad b. Abd al-Aziz al-Jawhari, and in it - it is recorded that - Ma'n b. Adi said to Umar b. al-Khattab, this grouping from the Ansar have gathered in the Saqifa of Bani Saida and with them is Sa'd b. Ubada - they revolve around him and say: 'you are - the inspirer of hope, and your scion (son) is - the inspirer of hope'. And they Drunk in their Hearts the Love of the Calf And in Sahih al-Kafi no. 4409 from Abi Ja'far عليه السلام who said: the people became after the messenger of Allah unto the likeness of those who followed Harun and those who followed the calf ... (until the end of) the Hadith. The Mighty Ones (Leaders) of Bani Hashim? In Sahih al-Kafi no. 4380 from Sadir who said: we were with Abu Ja'far عليه السلام - so we recalled what the people had done after their prophet, and their subjugation of Amir al-Mu'minin عليه السلام, so a man from the group (present) said: may Allah set aright your affairs, where were the leaders of Banu Hashim? and what was their number (how many were they?) so Abu Ja'far عليه السلام said: and who was left of the Bani Hashim? verily it was Hamza and Ja'far, and they had both passed on, and were left with him two weak and insignificant individuals, new comers to Islam, Abbas and Aqil, and they were from the freed slaves (after the conquest of Makka). And al-Kashshi mentioned in his Rijal Pg. 6 quoting from the book of Hisham from Abi Khalid al-Kabuli from Abu Ja'far عليه السلام who said: Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام was among you in Iraq, fighting his enemies, and with him were his companions, and there was not within them fifty men who recognized him with the true recognition (as he should be recognized), and his true recognition is acknowledging his Imamah. to be continued ... Footnotes [1] Surat Baqara, Vs. 213. [2] Surat Al Imran, Vs. 105. [3] Refer to Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, pg. 328, published in Madina; Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol. 3, Pg. 148; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, Pg. 194, published in Egypt, and, Vol. 2, Part 2, Pg. 2, published in Leiden. [4] Maghazi al-Waqidi, Vol. 3, Pg, 1113. [5] Refer to Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 81, and, Vol. 3, pg. 1307; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, Part 1, Pg. 132, Sahih al-Bukhari, The Book of Knowledge, Hadith No. 43. [6] Surat al-Anbiya, Vs. 104. [7] Surat al-Maida, Vs. 117 and 118. [8] Refer to Sahih al-Bukhari, Tafsir Surat al-Anbiya, Hadith Nos. 2, 5 and 14; Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Tahara, Hadith No. 37, Kitab al-Salat, Hadith No. 53, Kitab al-Fadhail, Hadith No. 29; Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Qiyama, Chapter No. 3, Tafsir Surat al-Anbiya, Hadith No. 4; Sunan al-Nisai, Kitab al-Iftitah, Hadith No. 21; Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Manasik, Chapter Nos. 40 and 76. [9] Surat al-Rum, Vs. 41.
  12. This is an interesting article I found. I thought you e-rijalists might be interested :P http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/en21823# Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim Qummi is one of the great Shiite scholars. As per Najashi's and Sheikh Tusi's reports, he has a book titled "Tafsir Qummi". The book is available to all for the time being and some of its narrations are mentioned in some reliable books like Al-Kafi. As for the authenticity of the content of this book, there is a doubt as to whether or not all the contents can be ascribed to Ali bin Ibrahim. In addition, assuming that this book has been authored by Ali bin Ibrahim, the authenticity and reliability of all the narrators of this commentary book is not substantiated and established. In the commentary ascribed to Ali bin Ibrahim, the author of the book have authenticated all the masters from whom narrations have been reported. In other words, he considers all of them reliable and trustworthy. Detailed AnswerAli bin Ibrahim bin Hashim Qummi is one of the great Shiite scholars. He was one of the masters (mashayikh) of late Ya'qub Kulayni who has reported a lot of narrations from him in his Al-Kafi.[1] Concerning Ali bin Ibrahim Qummi, Najashi writes: "Ali bin Ibrahim, Abul Hasan Qummi is a narrator who recorded traditions; he is reliable and of a correct religion; he has heard a lot of narrations and written different books including a commentary book and ...". [2] Sheikh Tusi also writes in his Al-Fehres: "Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashem Qummi has written many books including the book of Tafsir and al-Nasikh (abrogator) and al-Mansookh (abrogated)".[3] Based on the above, he has written many books including a commentary book. The book which is now known as Tafsir al-Qummi is attributed to Ali bin Ibrahim and its narrations are mentioned in Behar al-Anwar, Wasail al-Shi'ah and other hadith books. Tafsir Qummi Perhaps the first person who conducted a comprehensive and detailed research into what is known allegedly as Ali bin Ibrahim's commentary book was Aqa Buzurg Tehrani. We will quote him here due to the importance and precision of his utterances: "In this commentary, Qummi reports most of the narrations on the authority of his father and from Imam Sadiq (A.S). In fact, he also narrates from the rest of his masters and from Imam Sadiq (A.S) on their authority. The narrator of this book, as pointed out in the beginning of this Tafsir, is "Abulfazl Al-Abbas bin Muhammad bin Qasim bin Hamzah bin Musa bin Ja'far".[4] Since he had seen that this Tafsir had quoted narrations only from Imam Sadiq (A.S), he has narrated in his book some of Abil Jarud's narrations from Imam Baqir (A.S). That is why the context of interpretation and chain of transmission of narrations are identical and alike until the beginning of the interpretation of Surah Aal-e Imran. As of this point, Ali bin Ibrahim narrates from his father but when it reaches the verse 49 of Surah Aal-e Imran (and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses)[5] the style of the interpretation of the narrations changes because the chain of transmission of the narrations reads as such:«حدثنا أحمد بن محمد الهمدانی قال حدثنی جعفر بن عبد الله قال حدثنا کثیر بن عیاش عن زیاد بن المنذر أبی الجارود عن أبی جعفر محمد بن علی (ع)..»As we know, this chain of transmitters is the very famous chain of scholars to Abil Jarud's Tafsir. Najashi's chain of transmission [6] to this Tafsir and also Sheikh Tusi's chain of transmission[7] to it are also the same chain of transmission. Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Hamedani, better known as Ibn Uqdah, is in the category of Sheikh Kulayni's students whereas Ali bin Ibrahim is Kulayni's teacher and master. How is it possible and rational on the part of Ali bin Ibrahim to report traditions from the student of his students? Hence, it is the first hadith which Abul Fazl has reported in this book from his teacher, Ibn Uqdah."[8] Based on the above, this is not Ali bin Ibrahim's book; rather he who has compiled it has made profuse use of Ali bin Ibrahim's narrations. Authentication of the Narrators of Tafsir Qummi In the preface to Tafsir Qummi, the author writes: "What we mention in this book are all from the masters and trustworthy scholars who also narrate from others whose obedience God has made obligatory upon all…"[9] Based on this claim in the beginning of this book, some have commented that all those who are in the chain of the transmission of Ali bin Ibrahim's narrations up until those who are connected to Infallible Imams are trustworthy because the author of the Tafsir has testified to their being trustworthy. Sheikh Hur Amili says: "Ali bin Ibrahim has testified to the effect that the traditions used in his Tafsir are true and that he has reported the entire narrations from trustworthy Shia narrators."[10] Confirming what Sheikh Hur Amili has said, the author of Mu'ajam Rijal al-Hadith says: "Ali bin Ibrahim means to say that his Tafsir is authentic and that he has reported the narrations from the Infallibles (A.S) on the authority of prominent masters and trustworthy Shiite narrators. Hence, his testimony and authentication are general encompassing all his masters and the narrators from whom he has directly or indirectly reported traditions. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that his testimony includes only the masters whom he has reported from directly."[11] In short, there is a book titled "Tafsir Qummi" which is available to all for the time being and some of its narrations are mentioned in some reliable books like Al-Kafi. As for the authenticity of the content of this book, there is a doubt as to whether or not all the contents can be ascribed to Ali bin Ibrahim. In addition, assuming that this book has been authored by Ali bin Ibrahim, the authenticity and reliability of all the narrators of this commentary book is not proven. [1] Aqa Buzurg Tehrani, Al-Zari'ah Ila Tasanif al-Shi'ah, vol.4, p. 302, Ismailiyan, Qom, 1408 A.H.[2] Najashi, Ahmad bin Ali, Fehres Asmaa Musannefi al-Shi'ah (Rijal of Najashi), p. 260, Islamic Publications Office, Qom, sixth edition, 1365 (1986).[3] Sheikh Tusi, Al-Fehres, researched and edited by Aal-e Bahrul Ulum, Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq, p. 266, al-Maktabat al-Murtazawiyah, Najaf, first edition (date not known).[4] Qummi, Ali bin Ibrahim, Tafsir al-Qummi, researched and edited by Musavi Jazaeri, Sayyid Tayyib, vol.1, p. 27, Dar al-Kitab, Qom, third edition, 1404 A.H.[5] «و أنبئکم بما تأکلون و ما تدخرون فی بیوتکم‏»[6] Rijal Najashi, p. 170[7] Al-Fehres, p. 204.[8] Al-Zari'ah, vol.4, p. 303.[9] Tafsir Qummi, vol.1, p. 4.[10] Wasail al-Shi'ah, vol.30, p. 202.[11] Indeed, based on his opinion, wherever there is a contradicting report which is stronger and more concrete, that is preferred over the claim of the author of the book. Vide: Al-Khoei, Abul Qasim, Mu'ajam Rijal al-Hadith, vol.1, p. 49, Center for Publication of Shiite Works, Qom, 1410 A.H.
  13. This is a translation of the first chapter (more chapters to hopefully follow) of Durus al-Tamhidiyya Fi Qawaid al-Rijaliyya, which is an introductory primer on Ilm al-Rijal, authored by Shaykh Baqir al-Irwani, who was a foremost student of Sayyid al-Sistani, and who currently teaches Dars al-Kharij in the Hawza at Najaf. More advanced students of Ilm al-Rijal will realize that it generally falls within the bounds of the school of Sayyid al-Khoei [and the Modern Usulists] in accepting as default the foundations of Hiss [as a requirement for the bindingness of the rulings of Tawthiq and Tadh'if from the Qudama] and restricting the provenance of Qarain-based Ijtihad from the Muta'akhirin. Thus, any comments that contend or argue against these two principles of this school are outside the scope of the treatment presented here, which is rudimentary by admission. Arabic words used throughout include - Shahada which can be translated as testimony, Wathaqa which can be translated as moral probity [and integrity in relay], A'lam which can be translated as learned scholars, Tawthiq [ruling someone as Thiqah], Tadhi'f [ruling someone as Dhaif]. Questions are welcome. Chapter One The Methods Through Which the Wathaqa of a Narrator Can be Established Their are a number of methods through which the Wathaqa of a narrator can be established, we will mention the following among these: A. The Shahada of the Ma’sum If a Ma’sum gives a Shahada of Wathaqa for a given individual then their is no doubt that this will be a valid method to establish the Wathaqa of said individual. An example of this is what has been narrated about Zurara (in Rijal al-Kashshi) via a Sahih chain that ends up with Jamil bin Darraj from Imam al-Sadiq who said: ‘Give glad tidings of paradise to the humble ones – Burayd bin Muawiya al-Ijli and Aba Basir Layth bin al-Bukhturi al-Muradiy and Muhammad bin Muslim and Zurara – four chiefs and trustees of Allah upon his Halal and Haram. If it were not for these then the traces of prophethood would have disappeared and been destroyed’[1]. Obviously, it is necessary that the one who narrates the Shahada from the Imam (that is to be used to establish Wathaqa) not be the same individual whose Tawthiq is sought for by the same said Shahada. Otherwise it will be akin to circular logic[2]. B. The Shahada of one of the A’lam Shaykh Abu al-Abbas Ahmad bin Ali bin al-Abbas famously known as al-Najashi – a contemporary of Shaykh al-Tusi and his colleague in some of their common classes (under the same tutors) – wrote his famous book ‘Fihrist Musannifi al-Shia’ in which he gathered the names of those who had authored books (Shia authors prior to him), while also indicating, in most cases, whether these authors were Thiqah or Dhaif. Similarly, Shaykh al-Tusi wrote two books in this regard, one titled Fihrist and the second known as Rijal Shaykh al-Tusi, and he sometimes mentions Tawthiq and Tadh’if of some narrators in them (i.e. his two books). Likewise, Shaykh Abu ‘Amr Muhammad bin Umar bin Abd al-Aziz famously known as al-Kashshi – who is considered to have lived in the same generation as al-Kulayni – also authored his book famously known as Rijal al-Kashshi. He aimed to collect the narrations which talk about (pertain to) different narrators, he predominantly does this without directly commenting upon the Tawthiq or Tadh’if of the narrators (just quoting narrations that impinge on a narrator’s credibility in some way, mainly from the Aimmah). The Shahada of one of these three A’lam with regards the Wathaqa of a specific narrator is a certain method to establish his Wathaqa, this is justified by the practice of the intelligent ones (Seerah al-Uqala) who do demonstratedly act upon the reports of a Thiqah in all spheres of life – among them – evaluations of people[3]. And since these three A’lam are Thiqah, then their reports in regards the Wathaqa of various narrators can be justifiably acted upon based upon the aforementioned principle of compliance with the practice of the intelligent ones. And the Shahada of just a single one of these A’lam is enough and it does not require multiplicity (more than one A’lam giving Shahada), since the aforementioned practice of the intelligent ones is seen as confirming the act of granting of utility to such reports even when the reporter is one (solitary). Is the Shahada of some of our Ulama from the Muta’akhirin like Ibn Tawus and the Allamah and Ibn Dawud and the Shahid al-Thani - a method to establish Wathaqa? In this is there is disagreement which we shall broach in the second section – if Allah wills[4]. C. Ijma’a Upon the Wathaqa Their are some narrators for whom the A’lam like al-Najashi and the others - have not given a Shahada to effect their Wathaqa, but they are individuals about whom al-Kashshi has claimed Ijma’a (unanimity) of the Shia over the acceptance of their Riwayat. So, for example, Aban bin Uthman who is famously known as Aban al-Ahmar[5]; al-Najashi or someone other than him (from the A’lam) have not given a Shahada in regards his Wathaqa, but he is one of the six companions of al-Sadiq about whom al-Kashshi claimed the Ijma’a of the Isaba (unanimity of the community) in considering them truthful, this is when he (al-Kashshi) said – ‘the community is united in considering authentic what is authentically narrated from these, and in considering them truthful in what they say, and they have all acknowledged their priority in Fiqh (these are) – Jamil bin Darraj and Abdallah bin Bukayr and Hammad bin Uthman and Hammad bin Isa and Aban bin Uthman’. And the secret behind giving credence to the Ijma’a mentioned above in proving Wathaqa is as follows: If al-Kashshi is correct in his claim of the existence of an Ijma’a over these narrators, and if the Ijma’a actually existed, then this is what we want (i.e. it is enough to prove the Wathaqa of these individuals and more, since it is based on the unanimity of the community, among whom would necessarily be a large number of A'lam), and if he was not correct (mistaken) in his stating of the existence of an Ijma’a over this, and if the Ijma’a did not exist in reality, then it is sufficient for us in establishing the Wathaqa of these - the implicit Shahada of al-Kashshi himself in this regard, since his claim of an Ijma’a reveals that he too was agreed with the implication of the Ijma’a (i.e. Wathaqa of these narrators) as one of the members of the community forming the Ijma’a (i.e. since he did not go on to criticize the Ijma’a which he claims to have existed), and since he is one of the A’lam, then, his Shahada alone is enough to establish Wathaqa (falling under method B above). D. Wakala for the Imam Wakala (deputyship) can be a general one where one deputises for the Imam in all his affairs, or it can be an agency for a specific outlined purpose. As for the first type of Wakala (i.e. the general one) then this is what is termed al-Safara, and their is no debate in regards the fact that it (someone being appointed as a Safir by the Ma’sum) establishes the Wathaqa of the one appointed, rather it points to a greater position for the appointed one beyond mere Wathaqa. On the other hand, their is debate in regards whether the other type of Wakala (one appointed for a specific mission) establishes Wathaqa or not, a number have rejected its utility in establishing Wathaqa, for example, Sayyid al-Khoei has rejected that it does point to Wathaqa, he does so by arguing that we find a lot of the Wukala who were censured by the Aimmah and from whom the Aimmah disassociated themselves. As an example, Shaykh al-Tusi included a whole chapter in his Kitab al-Ghyaba wherein he enumerates the blameworthy Wukala who were criticized by the Aimmah for their activities as Wakils. And the correct opinion is that any form of Wakala for the Imam is enough to establish Wathaqa due to the practice of the intelligent ones not to deputize those who are not Thiqah over any part of their affairs, and this is more so for the Imam, because the non-Thiqah individual they deputize could attribute to the office of the Imamate something which is anathema to the Imam, which could effect the Madhhab and the role of the Imam in a negative way. And if it is said: How can we reconcile this with the censure and disassociation that originated from the Aimmah for some of their Wakils? The answer will be: this [censure and disassociation] arose after their appointment as Wakils and not before it (i.e. they were Thiqah when appointed and changed after becoming Wakils as the Thiqah’s condition can change from that of Wathaqa to Dhi’f). And it is not hidden that if we accept the principle that Wakala for the Imam indicates Wathaqa we will have the advantage of ruling as Thiqah a number of narrators previously considered among the Majahil and the Dhuafa, we will mention one among them as Ali bin Abi Hamza al-Bataini – for he was a Wakil for Imam al-Kadhim, and the one who oversaw his properties for him. And the scholars differ among themselves over his status, so if we agree that Wakala indicates Wathaqa, then, we are able to rule for his Wathaqa based upon that [for a period in his life], and use this fact to rule as Sahih a large number of narrations that al-Bataini occurs in its chains, since he is someone who has occurred in a large number of chains. E. The Narration of the Thiqat from someone Mirza Husayn al-Nuri – the author of al-Mustadrak - ruled that the narration of a Thiqah from someone proves the Wathaqa of that person (the one the Thiqah narrated from). While, we maintain that the correct opinion is that the narration of a Thiqah from someone does not indicate his Wathaqa, for how many narrations are their in our books where we observe the Thiqat narrating from those who are non-Thiqah. And if the narration of a Thiqah on someone’s authority was an indication of that person’s Wathaqa then the Wathaqa of most of the narrators would be established thereby, since, for example, Shaykh al-Tusi is Thiqah, so if he narrates in his books from someone it would mean that that person is Thiqah, and if that person [from whom Shaykh al-Tusi narrates who we have established is Thiqah through this principle] narrates from a third person - he too becomes Thiqah [because a Thiqah has narrated from him], and so on. Yes, if the Ajilla [meritious] ones from the Thiqat and the Kibar [great] ones from the Thiqat increase in narrating [narrate a lot] from someone, then it is not farfetched to conclude that person’s Wathaqa (who is narrated from alot by the Ajilla and the Kibar), because of the improbability of an intelligent person to narrate a lot from someone whose Wathaqa he is not sure of, it would be a wastage of time on his part without any advantage, since there is no benefit in collecting a lot of narrations from the weak ones. And if we accept this opinion, we will obtain important results, we will mention among these, as a case in point, Muhammad bin Ismail; for al-Kulayni has narrated a lot in al-Kafi from Muhammad bin Ismail from al-Fadhl bin Shadhan. And it has been said that he [Muhammad bin Ismail] is Majhul, so all these multitude of narrations will drop from the level of I’tibar (if we insist on ruling that he is Majhul), while, based upon this aforementioned principle, it is possible to rule his Wathaqa, and through this step, a large number of narrations will attain Hujiyya [probative force to effect legalities]. F. Being a Shaykh of Ijaza Bearing (taking or receiving) a Riwaya from someone has a number of formal forms, so sometimes, a student hears the Riwaya from his teacher, and in other cases, the student reads over the Riwaya to his teacher, and in a third case, the teacher permits [licences] his student to narrate a specific work that he has authored or has authority over (without the student neccesarily hearing or reading over the Riwayat to the teacher). And this third form of bearing is what is known as the method of reception by Ijaza, similarly, the one who gave the Ijaza is known as Shaykh al-Ijaza. And there is a difference of opinion whether being Shaykh al-Ijaza [having handed out Ijazat] is enough for establishing the Shaykh al-Ijaza’s Wathaqa or not. And the discussion over this point is an important one - because - many of the primary works (Usul) of Hadith that were authored and which were incorporated into the major compilations such as al-Tahdhib and al-Istibsar and Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih reached Shaykh al-Saduq and Shaykh al-Tusi through the intermediary of personages who do not have explicit Tawthiq in their own right, the most that can be said about them is that they were Shuyukh al-Ijaza who licensed al-Saduq and al-Tusi these primary works (Usul) of Hadith which they had authority over - to allow these two (i.e. al-Saduq and al-Tusi) to use these works in their compilations. Examples of these Shuyukh al-Ijaza include Ahmad bin Abdun, and Ahmad bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin al-Walid and Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar … And perhaps it can be affirmed that the famous opinion among the Qudama was that - simply being a Shaykh al-Ijaza was enough to establish that Shaykh al-Ijaza’s Wathaqa, in opposition to modern scholars such as Sayyid al-Khoei who consider being a Shaykh al-Ijaza as not having any relation to Wathaqa. And one can argue against this principle by noting that the impetus behind Ijaza is not anything else but that someone like Shaykh al-Mufid, for example, will be granted the right due to an Ijaza he receives, to say ‘reported to me Ahmad bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin al-Walid[4] these reports which were found in the book which he gave me an Ijaza to narrate on his authority’ and he (al-Mufid) becomes as someone who heard these Riwayat from him (since hearing was the strongest form of reception). And since we have already pointed out that just the mere act of a Thiqah hearing a narration from someone does not establish the Wathaqa of the one who is heared from, in the same way, a Thiqah obtaining an Ijaza from someone should not be used to establish the Wathaqa of the one who handed out the Ijaza (i.e. the Shaykh al-Ijaza). NOTES: [1] The Shahada from the Ma’sum should meet two other conditions to be accepted: It should be clear (Imam’s words should infer Tawthiq) and It should be through a Mu’tabar chain. [2] Someone narrating the Shahada of the Imam for himself is taken to be giving a self-testimony in his favour - something which cannot be accepted rationally. [3] Practice of the intelligent ones is a Hujjah, since the Aimmah are considered members of the assembly of the intelligent ones, and a Dalil al-Aql is by necessity supported by the Shar even if not explicitly stated in the revelatory texts. [4] As will be seen later, it is the Ihtimal that the Wathaqa (as preserved in the Shahada) is based upon Hiss (observation by a contemporary) that allows the acceptance of the Qudama’s Shahada in matters of Tawthiq and Tadh’if as opposed to the Muta’akhirin for whom there is no Ihtimal of Hiss. [5] Emphasis here is on Aban al-Ahmar since he does not have independent Tawthiq [from the other methods] as the rest of Ashab al-Ijma'a have. [6] Ahmad bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin al-Walid was a Shaykh al-Ijaza to his students (eg. al-Mufid) for the works of his father, the famous Ibn al-Walid, since he inherited these works from his father. Shuyukh al-Ijaza, in most cases, did not author works of their own (thus they did not merit a place in the Fihrist works being non-authors - where they could potentially be given Tawthiq), rather, they had the authority to license people to quote from books they had received via the formal means of reception.
  14. (salam) I want to check the authenticity of some hadiths. I want to read some books on Ilm e Rijal al Hadith. There are books like those of Ibn Hajar, al Suyuti, al Dhahabi, Ali ibn Athir, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Asakar etc. Can you show me where to read some of these books online. Is there a website that has published the whole book in Urdu, Arabic or English online for free. Thanks!
  15. (bismillah) This is a section from Āyatullāh al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Sanad حفظه الله’s second volume in his rijāl series (pages 105 - 111) where he criticizes and refutes the methods of the Sunni Rijāl Scholars - exploiting their Nasb and utterly unacademic method of filtration. I pray the people find this discussion beneficial, inshā’Allah. I translated this myself, I put the arabic in on places I was little more unsure. Some parts of more word for word, others are less. It is extremely important to look into and investigate the Jarh and Ta`dīl of the different schools of the Sunnis where they continued in weakening narrators who would narrate the fadā’il of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and their status or those who would narrate the defects of the opponents of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام or those would narrate prophetic narrations in agreement with the ahkām practiced by the school of Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام especially after the formed the principles [of their Mazhzhhab] in their hands today which they have made very clear that the Sunna with them is in opposing the Ahl al-Bayt [as] and exiling them and those obstinately with them. But every that narrator increases in this [opposing them and their followers] then it is said that he is firm in the Sunna, while everything coming from those narrating in their favor is passion (hawā), affection, love (muwadda) for the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and inclining towards them, they criticized attributing to them weakness, innovation, and attacks. According to them there is no obstruction or over-stepping [the bounds] in the sayings of their masters of Jarh and Ta`dīl being nothing other than the their rijālī fatāwā concluded from their conjectural ijtihād and they are not bound to anything like their sayings being necessarily based on observation testimony. We have mentioned many examples of this that the criticisms they have applied and ruled for a narrator are based on their principles of theology and the Rijālī scholar used them in giving opinions on a narrator by investigating their narrations or the teachers of the narrator that they would seek out to study and narrate from. We will provide a few example in their Jarh and Ta`dīl showing their partisanship or nasb opposing the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. 1 - `Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa (trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام 2 - Ziyād b. Abīh : A man of severe calamities, excessive crimes, and mortal sins. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt : He was included amongst the very ascetic ones. Ahmad b. Sālih said: He was not accused of lying. 3 - `Imrān b. Hattān : leader of the Khawārij. He wrote well-known poetry regarding Ibn Muljam al-Murādī praising him. al-`Ijlī authenticated him. al-Bukhārī included him amongst the narrators of his Sahīh and selected his narrations. 4 - Harīz b. `Uthmān : The one would who would pray in the masjid and would not leave until he had cursed (yal`an) `Alī seventy times every single day. al-Bukhārī, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmizhī, and others presented his narrations as proof [as a matter of dalīl]. In al-Riyād al-Nadra : Thiqa, except he hates `Alī, Allah hates him. 5 - al-`Abbās b. Bakkār al-Dabbī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān al-I`tidāl : He is accused by his hadith from Khālid b. `Abd Allah from Bayān from al-Sha`bī from Abī Juhayfa from `Alī عليه السلام marfū`an (meaning it originates from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله): On the Day of Resurrection a Caller will call: O People of the Gathering! Lower your gazes from Fātima until she passes the path (al-Sirāt) to Paradise. He [al-Zhahabī] also said: And from among his many false sayings: from Khālid b. `Amr al-Azdī from al-Kalbī from Abī Sālih from Abī Hurayra. He said: It is written upon the throne (al-`Arsh): There is no god except Allah Myself Only, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله is My slave and My messenger, I supported him with `Alī. 6 - `Ubayd Allah b. Mūsā al-`Abasī : from al-Khatīb that Ahmad b. Hanbal abandoned narrations from him when he heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān, so he went his messenger to Yahyā b. Ma`iīn so he said to him : Your brother Abū `Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal sends you salām and he says : Behold you increase in narrating the narrations from `Ubayd Allah and you and I both heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān and I surely have abandoned narrations from him. So Yahyā b. Ma`īn said to the messenger : I return the salām to Abī `Abd Allah. Say to him : Yahyā b. Ma`īn sends you salām, he said to you : You and I both heard `Abd al-Razzāq presenting [defamation] in `Uthmān b. `Affān so then abandon narrations from him! For verily `Uthmān is more virtuous than Mu`āwiya. 7 - Zakariyyā b. Yahyā al-Kasā’ī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān : `Abd Allah b. Ahmad [b. Hanbal] said: I asked Ibn Ma`īn about him so he said : a vile man that narrates vile narrations. He also said : He deserves that a well be built for him and then he is thrown in it. Abū Yu`lā al-Mūsalī narrated: Zakariyyā al-Kasā’ī narrated to me: Zakariyyā b. al-Qāsim narrated to me from Mu`allā b. `Irfān from Shaqīq from `Abd Allah. He said: I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله take the hand of `Alī عليه السلام while he saying: Allah is my walī and I am your walī and the enemy whoever makes you their enemy and peacemaker with whoever makes with with you. 8 - Talīd b. Sulaymān al-Kūfī al-A`raj al-Muhārabī : In al-Tahzhīb : Abū Dawūd said : a rāfidī that villifies Abā Bakr and `Uthmān, a vile man malignant, rāfidī. Ibn Mu`ayd said: A liar, he vilifies `Uthmān and any person who villifies `Uthmān or Talha or anyone from the companions of Rasulullah صلى الله عليه وآله is a dajjāl (anti-christ, super-evil-liar) his narrations are not written down! So anyone who vilifies anyone from the Sahaba is proven to be a dajjāl according to Ibn Ma`īn and it is not permissible to write his hadith. al-Muzaffar after he narrates this principle from Ibn Hajr, he said : So why is it that Mu`āwiya and his ilk and the renegade Khawārij are not liars and dajjāls according to Ibn Ma`īn? Yes, their honesty is proven according to him [along with] their status as enemies with the Imam of the Pious (al-muttaqīn) and their abusing of the one whom abusing is abusing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. I digress(? ليت شعري), is abusing a Companion greater or going to war with the Imam of the time and killing thousands of Muslims? How is it that the likes of Talha not a dajjāl while he went to war with him, the one with whom going to war with is going to war with Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله? And while the one who abuses Talha is a dajjāl? This is nothing but `ajīb (amazing - in this context meaning hypocrisy)! 10 - Lamāza b. Zabbār al-Azdī al-Jahdamī : [al-Zhahabi] said in Mīzā al-I`tidāl : He was present at the incident of Jamal and he was a Nāsibī. He would defame `Alī عليه السلام and praise Yazīd لعنه الله. And in al-Tahzhīb : Ibn Ma`īn said: He would vilify `Alī. Abū Lubayd said : I said to him [Limāza] : Why do you abuse `Alī? He said : That I abuse a man that kills 2500 from us while the Sun is as here!? The man is authenticated, Ibn Sa`d gives him authentication (tawthīq). Harb said from his father : He was righteous in narrations and he praised him good praises. Then after this Ibn Hajr said: I had disputed their majority tawthīq for the Nāsibī and their absolute weakening for the Shī`ah. Especially that the narration “No one shall love him except a believer and none shall hate him except a hypocrite” has come down in `Alī’s right. Then the response regarding that was clarified to me that the enmity here-there is clarified by a reason and that is because he was the supporter of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله because it is human nature to hate the one who brings harm for the hater and love for its opposite and that what generally returns to the affairs of this world. The report regarding the love of `Alī and hating him is not general...for the majority of those described as Nāsibī are also described as being honest and people who hold on to the affairs of the religion; while in opposition to that, the majority of those described as rawāfid are liars and are not upright in reporting. The origin regarding it is that the Nāsiba believed that `Alī killed `Uthmān or aided in it so their hate for him was religiously inspired (!) according to their claim. Then, in addition to that, is that there are those from them and their family that were killed in the wars of `Alī عليه السلام (لا حول ولا قوّة إلا بالله العلي العظيم) I [Āyatullāh Muhammad al-Sanad حفظه الله تعالى] say: There are several points here that need to be turned to: The First: Ibn Hajr makes it very clear in this discussion that the practice of the master of Jarh and Ta`dīl of the Sunnis was that they would mostly give tawthīq to the Nāsibī and weaken the Shī`ah absolutely and this reporting from him about methodology of the people in Jarh and Ta`dīl and that it is explicitly being in opposition to the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام not regarding honesty of tongue or the lack of it. Second: From that which indicates the nasb of Ibn Hajr is that he weakened some thuqāt because they would abuse some of the Companions like Talha and `Uthmān without it being clarified for a reason - like what has passed in the entry of Talīd - meanwhile he has given tawthīq to those who vilify Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه السلام; rather he says that most of the Nāsiba were described with honesty of the speech and upholders of religion so what is concluded from his words is the following: Everyone who abuses a single one from the Companions is a dajjāl, it is not permissible to take narrations from him except the insulters/abusers of Amīr al-Mūminīn `Alī عليه أفضل الصلاة والسلام for verily they are generally the masters of religious affairs and described as honest in speech! So welcome to this type of religiosity! Congratulations to these religious ones the most daring [in challenging] Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله! How joyous for these pens that seek reward in supporting Banī Umayya in assaulting the law of Islam and the sanctity of the Master of Risālah al-Mudriyya (?) with wickedness and fasād and hating the purified progeny and aiding the Tulaqā’* and the sons of Tulaqā’! The opposers of the Imam of Truth! The drinkers of wine! The creators of calamities and pages of darkness, the likes of Talha, `Uthmān, and Mu`āwiya لعنه الله. “A grievous word comes from the mouths! The speak nothing but lies!” [al-Kahf 18:5] *Tulaqā’ refers to those people who remain kuffār until the Fath of Makka, like Abī Sufyān The Third: As for his words that enmity for him is many times clarified for a reason and that is because he is the supporter of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. So to that: Surely that necessitates from the language of the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله in revealing the virtue of `Alī عليه السلام as anyone one who despises the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله supporter is a hypocrite without specificity to `Alī عليه السلام. In addition to that is that Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه السلام is the scale of truth! The entirety of his demeanor, actions, and sayings are the fountain of truth and honesty. He is the dīn and none is the dīn but him. For verily `Alī is with the truth and the truth is with `Alī, it turns wherever he turns - and whenever. So anyone who hates `Alī then surely he has hated him because he was the one who held up the dīn and the truth and helped the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله as he does not have separate administration/control outside of that limit (إذ ليس له تصرّف خارج عن ذلك النطاق). As you know that anyone who hates the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله is a kāfir without being clarified for a reason because he “does not speak out of passion/desire. It is only a revelation revealed” [al-Najm 53: 3-4]. So if Ibn Hajr has mentioned that for the Nawāsib as an excuse then surely the polytheists are more excused than them! They only had hated the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله due to their disagreement in their worldly affairs (فلو كان ما ذكره ابن حجر عذراً للناصبة لكان المشركين أعذر لأنهم إنما كانوا يبغضون النبيّ صلى الله عليه وآله لمعارضتهم في دنياهم). The Conclusion: The matter of Jarh and Ta`dīl is subjected to the ijtihād of the rijāli according it was grounded in from inquiries of belief so his conclusions that he put out were nothing but his fatāwā, meaning his ijtihād and the majority of the matter is not grounded in assessing the moral behavior of the narrator. In light of that, then it is possible to judge these criticisms and refute them by raising the point of action on ijtihād in those instances that are built [supposedly] on observational reports that are existent in the books with them that is determined by the methodologies we have indicated towards. This opens the grounds of ijtihād in rijāl amongst them and remedies the way regarding the tampering (tahrīf) in weakening narrations and authenticating them that they have and the toying with the inherited sunna and parallel to this invitation is another invitation stating: Not to accept their criticism unless it is reasoned with what is correct and necessitates criticism. This opens the doors in front of the authoring researchers amongst them who want to pursue the truth and reality. ---------- If you have corrections to the translation and stuff, please post them here or PM them to me. في أمان الله
  16. Studying Shaykh Muhammad Sanad's views on Ilm al-Rijal in his Vol. 1 of the series - Mabani Fi Ilm al-Rijal - is interesting, the Shaykh leads a new and novel camp in Rijal studies that is opposed to the traditionalist camp of Sayyid al-Khoei by raising the flag of so-called 'Qarainism'. The main difference is that Shaykh Sanad allows for Ijtihad in Rijal in modern times, although there are many other differences that stem from this cardinal divergence. This thread is there to translate some of his views due to the importance that they have been attracting in the current times from different quarters, and also to garner discussion. I have started translating from the second Fasl which is titled: How is Wathaqa or Husn proved? (The methods of making Tawthiq). Note that the translation is not word to word, rather I have used liberty in reconstruction, but all the ideas are faithfuly reproduced. Also, Qarain for the purpose of this thread will mean indicators, Ex. having a big-name narrator who is definitely Thiqah narrate from X, can be used as a Qarina for the Tawthiq of X, due to the constructed under-lying argument that this big-name narrator would not have narrated from someone who is weak. Pgs. 123-124 Introduction 1: My ingenious method in giving Tawthiqat and Tadhifat to the Rijal is to use the ‘Qarain stack-up’ method. This method allows for the transformation of a mere possibility (Ihtimal) that a Rajul is Thiqah or Dhaif to a level where we can have trust (Wathaqa) or satisfactory conventional knowledge (Ilm al-A’diy al-Itmi’naniy) that he is Thiqah or Dhaif, and the latter two are all we need to form the basis for a valid ruling, since they have Hujiyyah (probative force) according to all modern scholars. The Qarain that I speak of and that are to be used in the aforementioned stack-up are not limited to those Qarain that are standalone in their Dalalah (i.e. self-sufficient in their implications of a Rajul being Thiqah or Dhaif), rather, I consider as a Qarina anything that may provide the slightest of a hint (point in a direction) or a clue (revealing new info.) regarding a Rajul, and I collect and admit both types of Qarain into the body of the stack-up. The procces applied on the ‘Qarain stack-up’ is one of analysis through a weighted scoring model based on the respective importance of each Qarina, we have realized that many a times these Qarain do strengthen and support one another (though they can also contradict in other cases), as a result, and when viewed collectively, what one non-standalone Qarina could not accomplish on its own (since it only provided mere possibility or Ihtimal), the stack of Qarain does i.e. the stack considered together provides Wathaqa or Ilm al-A’diy al-Itmi’naniy - both of which have Hujiyyah and form a valid basis for ruling one way or the other. Having read this, you have probably understood what is in my view one of the greatest flaws that is being perpetuated in modern Rijalism (i.e. there are others), I mean by this the practice of criticizing an individual Qarina of Tawthiq for not being self-sufficient in its implications of a Rajul being Thiqah or Dhaif and then consequently going on to reject it, all of this is fair enough, but the part that I am firmly against is when they then go on to ignore that Qarina thereon and do not make an attempt to use it in any way whatsoever after their brief and conclusive rejection of it. This is what I call a ‘discrete look at the Qarain’, in other words, they do not acknowledge any utility for the non-standalone Qarina even when used in the framework of a stack-up. This is not a call for Tasamuh (loosening standards) in Tawthiq, nor is it applying the principle of charity for our Rijal, rather, it is a call to use the incremental principle of evidence building relative to each case on the basis of its contextual merits, individually non self-sufficient Qarain (when looked at singularly) provide mere possibility (Ihtimal) but when they help each other in terms of corraboration they provide so much more. Obviously, the quality and the quantity of the Qarain have to be studied. This is similar to the conceptions of Tawatur in Hadith, every single Khabar in the Tawatur bundle does not lead to Ilm and consequently Hujiyyah, but when we look at it as a uniform, self-consistent and integral bundle, we mark its report as definitely historical. My views are unique because they do not see Rijal as a mathematical point-to-point function theory, nor as a dictionary based science, It is not enough that when you have an Isnad, you pop out your Mu’jam, and look up all the Rijal in the Isnad and have your ruling in a matter of seconds, with a self confidence of a master, such a shallow view does not require effort, Rijal is not black and white, it is a study that owes much to sociology and other social sciences, it has a grey area. I dare say that this is similar to the practice of the Uqala (intelligent ones) who deal with historical investigation, these researchers collect all possible evidence related to a historical incident, and sift through them all with an aim of building a unified picture, the analysis process goes on until they can claim that they are confident about the details of an occurrence in the past. In conclusion, any and every Qarina that provides the slightest level of mere possibility about the condition of a narrator even though its implications are classified as Dhann (supposition) at this microcosmic stage (when viewed in solitary fashion) is an important source that can be used in the process (or creative exercise) of the method of ‘Qarain stack-up’, they can, when viewed collectively, transform Ihtimal to provide Wuthuq or Ilm al-A’diy al-Itmi’naniy.
  17. (bismillah) صلى الله على محمد وآله Recently, I came across a fascinating article regarding the hypocrites at Uqba that attempted to kill the Holy Prophet [sawa] after Tabuk. The full article can be read here (click!). I will here, however, provide a summarized version of its points with some extra points here. The great companion Huthayfa b. al-Yaman (d. 37 AH), who accompanied the Prophet [sawa] when he was attacked by these people at Uqba, was informed by the Prophet [sawa] of who these hypocrites were and then announced to everyone else that there were a number (12 ~ 14) hypocrites amongst them. This narration is saheeh and included in Sahih Muslim. This incident is famous and well accepted by everyone. Now, Ibn Hazim – an Andalusian Sunni hadith scholar of the 5th century H – comments on the incident and calls it a fabricated lie. He points to the one of the narrators – Walid b. Abdullah b. Jumay` - and accuses him of fabricating this hadith because he narrates reports accusing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, and Sa`d b. Abi Waqas of wanting to kill the Prophet [sawa] at Uqba after Tabuk. So the events are one and the same and he is solely accusing this narrator of fabricating because of the content of what he is narrating and it is completely irreconcilable with their doctrine and historical point of view. Also note that Ibn Hazim specifying fabrication to this particular narrator – on a content basis (istiqraa’) – means that the remainder of the chain and its narrators is correct. Ibn Hazim is in fact very late compared to many other narrator critics. In fact, most of the scholars of narrator praise and criticism give this narrator Walid b. Abdullah b. Jumay` strong authentication: Yaha b. Mu`ayn (d. 233 AH) – reliable, trustworthy Abu Hatim al-Razi (d. 277 AH) – righteous hadith Abu Dawud (d. 275) & Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 AH) – there are no problems with him I think the problem presented to the opponents here is clear. It would give legitimacy to the narration as previously existing with the names of companions who according to them were the best of the best and the heavy weights. The narration in the books today does not include the names. This is not surprising as the narrators after Walid b. Jumay` and/or the compilers themselves would have censored the names and the content – a well known and apparent habit of theirs. It is also good to note that the person Walid b. Jumay` is narrating from the last companion to die, Abu al-Tufayl [ra], a hardcore shi’i rafidhi (you can see his article here (click!) Ibn Hajr tries to rescue the situation (and this narrator) by saying, he’s not thiqa (having good memory AND honesty), rather he was just sadooq (honest) and had awhaam (an imagination) and then goes to accuse him of tashayyu`. He then brings forward a narration where Umar asks Huthayfa if he is from the munafiqeen and Huthayfa replies in the negative. The article writer presents two points here. First, Umar asking such a thing is strange and suspicious. He himself should be aware if he was from the assailants at Uqba or not. So this is not some sort of moment of grand taqwa for Ibn al-Khattab. The second point, the article writing claims, is that Huthayfa did taqiyya – he hid the truth from Umar to spare himself. Now, at first glance, this argument seems extremely farfetched. But it in fact seems be on spot especially given what is presented following this argument: He presents a narration where Uthman summons Huthayfa, while Ibn Mas`ud is with him, interrogating Huthayfa about the rumors of him accusing him (Uthman) about “such and such” [there we go again with the censoring]. Huthayfa denies it and then leaves. Ibn Mas`ud then asks him “Why did you deny saying that when I heard you saying these myself!?” Huthayfa replies saying, essentially, I hid the truth to spare myself and my deen (taqiyya). All of the narrations about these incidents and events are saheeh by their isnad. Refer back to the original article and their scans to see it. You can also check each narrator yourself. Finally, another event brought forward is an incident where an early tabi` (possibly young companion, Shurayq) is sitting with Huthayfa in the masjid when Abdullah b. Mas`ud and Abu Musa al-Ash`ari walks in and he says “one of these two is a hypocrite.” Then Huthayfa goes on to praise Ibn Mas`ud very highly. Essentially clarifying – Abu Musa al-Ash`ari is the munafiq [hypocrite]. Sunni scholars tried to “save” the situation here by saying things like “Oh Huthayfa was just mad when he said this” – which is a saying without proof and is far from what is apparent. al-Thahabi, who is someone known to be extremely hostile to Shias and Shiism, tries to accuse al-A`mash in the chain because he has some tashayyu` in him and that Shias tend to dislike Abu Musa. Problem is that al-A`mash is EXTREMELY thiqa and relied upon by the Sunnis. He narrates about 370 times in Bukhari and Muslim’s saheeh. And they’ve never really made a fuss about his slight tashayyu` (khafeef tashayyu`) ever before and in fact most ignored it as anything of any real mention. Next, tadlees/irsal can’t be used as the excuse here either. The narrator al-A`mash is narrating from (Shurayq/Abu Waa’il) is from among his main teachers and al-A`mash `an Shurayq appears many times in the saheehayn AND several times with explicit hearing (simaa`) where he says “I heard Shurayq say” and the like. Shurayq is himself a giant thiqa narrator who was born during the Prophet [sawa]’s life (1 AH). Conclusion: No matter how you look at it, the probability of this hadith being reliable is very high, as Walid b. `Abdullah b. Jumay` was considered thiqa by the earliest rijal scholars, and was only weakened by Ibn Hazim for narrating this hadith. We cannot establish someone's weakness for the sole reason that he narrates a hadith some don't like. The hadith does not contradict the Qur'an or the Sunna in any way, and no doubts were placed on the transmitters' honesty and character. The hadith merely identifies the previously anonymous hypocrites that attacked the Prophet. Through this charge, and through other evidences that we have used to expose the malicious intentions of the 3 Caliphs, we can make a good case against Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. If they indeed tried to kill the Prophet, then this is the worst of their sins, and no Muslims from any sect should try to exonerate them. Put this beside the many other crimes they have committed against the Ahl al-Bayt and the sahaba, and you'll find that these guys were all bad apples. All deficiencies are mine and all truth is from Allah. May He [awj] forgive us and accept efforts for His cause. Ameen. في أمان الله
  18. I have previously alluded to the existence of different view points among the Fuqaha in regards the level of use of Ilm al-Rijal in the Istinbat (derivation of Ahkam from the Adilla) process, the view point that has found itself in the forefront in recent years - thanks to the efforts of Sayyid al-Khoei has been the so-called 'Isnad-first Analysis', whereby, any Hadith whose Isnad does not meet Dirayah standards is cast off. Seeking to demonstrate alternative views, this is a short essay that attempts to describe Sayyid al-Burujerdi's Manhaj in Istinbat, and the role he gives to Ilm al-Rijal within it. Any questions and analysis is welcome. THE MANHAJ OF SAYYID AL-BURUJERDI IN ISTINBAT AND THE ROLE OF ILM AL-RIJAL WITHIN IT Based on what the Sayyid has written in relation to the utility of the solitary report (Khabar al-Wahid) for deriving Ahkam in his discussions concerning the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), we discover that he propagates resorting to Isnad criticism [i.e. using Ilm al-Rijal] exclusively for cases where a real contradiction among the Akhbar has been identified and not otherwise. In other words, and if the point is to be reformulated, the use of Ilm al-Rijal is limited only to those cases where the harmonization of a seeming contradiction between the Akhbar by various legitimate means has failed [i.e. a real contradiction has been identified], even then, Ilm al-Rijal is just one tool to be used in a descending tiered process to overcome the quagmire and select the preferred set of Akhbar (i.e. to obtain the ruling from). Beyond theoretical espousal, we find that this methodology has been rigorously followed by the Sayyid throughout his derivation processes in practical jurisprudence, and that it can be characterized as going through four main stages: (i) The collection of relevant Akhbar on a problem, (ii) Identifying a seeming contradiction among them, (iii) Harmonization process, (iv) A descending tiered resolution process [i.e. only if the harmonization is unsuccessful]. A breakdown of these stages is as provided below: Initially, he collects all the Akhbar from the authoritative collections that relate in any way to the problem, thereafter, he identifies the presence of a seeming contradiction, after which, a harmonization process is carried out so as to resolve this seeming contradiction and unify the subject matter, if the harmonization process is unsuccessful - a real contradiction has been identified, as a consequence of which - resolution (Tarjih) [i.e. preferring one set of Akhbar, thereby, rejecting the other] due to the presence of a real contradiction becomes necessary. The Sayyid concentrates more of his effort in the harmonization process of the seeming contradiction since he believes that if this process is successful - it will mean that no Khabar has to be rejected (which is an inescapable outcome of the consequent resolution stage), thus he always prefers harmonization over resolution. Some concepts used in the harmonization process include: indicators of Taqiyyah usage, indicators from rules of Arabic itself, indicators from Urf (conventional usage), Khass specifying A’mm, Nasikh overruling Mansukh, Takhsis within a Mutlaq Hukm, presence of Qayd within an overall Hukm, etc. Assuming that the harmonization process is unsuccessful in untying the seeming contradiction, there is no option but to acknowledge it as a real contradiction, and the rules of Tarjih are applied to select the preferred opinion. Below are the descending tiers in making Tarjih: I. Shuhra (popularity) of the prior Fatawa The set of Akhbar whose purport aligns with the Fatawa of the majority (especially of the Qudama) is preferred to the Akhbar that find no support or trace in their Fatawa. The assumption is that since the Qudama had access to more material than us, and that too in its primary form, their Fatawa in these cases have weight, and the Akhbar used by them to arrive at their Fatawa will definitely have more I’tibar than the conflicting set. This is without considering the Asanid of both sets of Akhbar and without comparing the respective conditions of the narrators of the two conflicting set of Akhbar i.e. it may turn out that most Fatawa were based on Dhaif Isnad Akhbar, but according to the Sayyid they are preferred over the conflicting Mu’tabar Isnad Akhbar, which are treated as Shadh. If there are enough Fatawa supporting both sets of Akhbar, and one cannot be held up as being Mashhur in terms of prior Fatawa, the next step is to compare the conflicting Akhbar in terms of their number and quality. II. Contextual superiority of one set of Akhbar over the other There are two ways in which one set of Akhbar can have contextual superiority over the other contradicting sets. First, in terms of a greater number of strands within that set, this numerical advantage points to a greater diffusion which could reflect a greater dependence. The set that is not supported by as many strands is considered a case of Tafarrud. Second, the set of Akhbar whose narrations have a better Matn preservation and are more elaborative in preserving the kernel of the matter (reflect historicity) is preferred to the Akhbar that indicate Idhtirab within their Mutun. If both sets have equivalent supporting strands and a relatively similar Matn quality, only then is last option for Tarjih [i.e. Ilm al-Rijal] used. III. Evaluations of the authors of Rijal books. It is only after the above two steps have not provided a resolution when Ilm al-Rijal is put into use, whereby, the Akhbar that have weaker Asanid in terms of the Rijal within them are rejected. The Sayyid maintains that there are degrees of weakness: 1. Tadhif by Ghulu of one or some of its narrators 2. Tadhif by Irsal [disconnection in the Sanad] 3. Tadhif by Jahalat al-Hal [narration of a Majhul – unknown] 4. Tadhif by Madhhab of the Ruwat. SOURCES: 1. al-Manhaj al-Rijaliy – Sayyid Muhammad Ridha al-Husayni al-Jalali 2. Nihaya al-Taqrir – Sayyid al-Burujerdi 3. al-Badr al-Zahir – Sayyid al-Burujerdi
  19. al-Qasim bin Ismail is an integral Waqifi narrator for some Usuls of the Ashab [notebooks of Ahadith from the Imams], these he narrated to his formemost student - the famous Waqifi Shaykh of al-Kulayni - Humayd bin Ziyad, and secondarily to another Waqifi Ali bin Muhammad bin Rabah and his brother Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Rabah. I first ran across him when I say this Riwayah in the Ghaybah of al-Tusi which paints him as a liar. وروى أبو علي محمد بن همام، عن علي بن رباح، قال: سألت القاسم بن إسماعيل القرشي وكان ممطورا: أي شئ سمعت من محمد بن أبي حمزة؟ قال: ما سمعت منه إلا حديثا واحدا، قال ابن رباح: ثم أخرج بعد ذلك حديثا كثيرا، فرواه عن محمد ابن أبي حمزة، قال ابن رباح: وسألت القاسم هذا: كم سمعت من حنان؟ قال: أربعة أحاديث أو خمسة، قال: ثم أخرج بعد ذلك حديثا كثيرا فرواه عنه And narrated Abu Ali Muhammad bin Hammam from Ali bin Rabah who said: I asked al-Qasim bin Ismail al-Qarashiy and he was a Mamtura - what did you hear from Muhammad bin Abi Hamza? he (al-Qasim) said: I did not hear from him except a single Hadith, and Ibn Rabah said: then after that he came out with many Ahadith which he narrated from Muhammad bin Abi Hamza, and Ibn Rabah said: and I asked this al-Qasim: how much did you hear from Hannan? he (al-Qasim) said: four Ahadith or five, he (Ibn Rabah) said: then he came out with many Ahadith narrated on his (Hanan's) authority. In the above Riwayah, Ibn Rabah claims that al-Qasim bin Ismail would fabricate narrations on the authority of Muhammad bin Abi Hamza and Hannan - from whom he did not hear alot of narrations. The only brief and terse entry about al-Qasim in our works is found in Rijal Tusi, who says about him يكنى أبا محمد المنذر، روى عنه حميد بن زياد أصولا كثيرة al-Qasim bin Ismail al-Qarashiy: his Kuniyyah is Abu Muhammad al-Mundhir, Humayd bin Ziyad narrated alot of Usul from him. Willing to investigate further, I turned to the two Fihrists of al-Najashi and al-Tusi to see whether there are any peculiarities in the Usul transmission chains which he partakes in which can come to the fore to support this claim. It is important to mention at this junction, and as an introductory point that Humayd is in Tabaqah 8 [for those Rijalists who start with al-Kulayni at Tabaqah no. 9], this being the case al-Qasim should be in Tabaqah 7. Anyone who has studied our main Asanid works knows that the younger Ashab of Aba Abdillah al-Sadiq are in Tabaqah 5. Now to begin from Najashi's Fihrist [i will not include the lower chain] 1. The book of Aban bin Umar al-Asadiy [from the Ashab al-Sadiq] قال حدثنا حميد بن زياد قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل، عن عبيس بن هشام بكتاب أبان بن عمر الأسدي Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Ubays bin Hisham > Aban bin Umar al-Asadiy. [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Ubays who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq [Aban] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 2. The book of Ibrahim bin Nasr bin al-Qa'qa [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim] قال حدثنا حميد بن زياد، قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل، قال حدثنا جعفر بن بشير عن إبراهيم بن نصر بن القعقاع به Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Ja'far bin Bashir > Ibrahim bin Nasr bin al-Qa'qa. [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Ja'far bin Bashir who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim [ibrahim] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 3. The book of al-Husayn bin Ahmad al-Minqari [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq] قال حدثنا حميد بن زياد، قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل، قال حدثنا عبيس بن هشام، عن الحسين بن أحمد بكتابه Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Ubays bin Hisham > al-Husayn bin Ahmad al-Minqari [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Ubays who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq [al-Husayn] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 4. The book of Ayyub bin Atiyyah [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq] قال حدثنا حميد قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل قال حدثنا صفوان بن يحيى قال حدثنا أبو عبد الرحمن بن عطية بكتابه Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Safwan bin Yahya > Ayyub bin Atiyyah [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Safwan who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq [Ayyub] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 5. The book of Hamza bin Humran al-Shaybani [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq] قال حدثنا حميد بن زياد قراءة قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل قال حدثنا صفوان بن يحيى عن حمزة بكتابه Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Safwan bin Yahya > Hamza bin Humran al-Shaybani [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Safwan who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq [Hamza] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 6. The book of Hassan bin Mihran al-Jammal [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim] قال حدثنا حميد قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل قال حدثنا علي بن النعمان عن حسان بكتابه Humayd bin Ziyad > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Ali bin Nu'man > Hassan bin Mihran al-Jammal [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Ali bin Nu'man who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim [Hassan] who is in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 7. The book of Zakariyya bin Abdallah [from the Ashab of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim] قال حدثنا علي بن محمد بن رباح قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل قال حدثنا صفوان بن يحيى عن عمرو بن خالد عنه بكتابه Ali bin Muhammad bin Rabah > al-Qasim bin Ismail > Safwan bin Yahya > Amru bin Khalid > Zakariyya [As we can see Ali who is in Tabaqah 8 is narrating from al-Qasim who is in Tabaqah 7 who is narrating from Safwan bin Yahya who is in Tabaqah 6 who is narrating from Amru bin Khalid who is in Tabaqah number 5 narrating the book of the companion of al-Sadiq and al-Kadhim [Zakariyya] who is also in Tabaqah number 5. Verdict: Everything looks fine] 8. The book of Zahr bin Abdallah al-Asadiy [from the Ashab of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq] قال حدثنا حميد قال حدثنا القاسم بن إسماعيل Humayd > al-Qasim bin Ismail [As we can see Humayd who is in Tabaqa 8 is narrating from al-Qasim bin Ismail, and this is the end of the chain] NOTES: There is no way al-Qasim bin Ismail who is in Tabaqah 7 can narrate from someone who is from the Ashab of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq. There just has to be at least one intermediary between them. This being the case, this is one instance of suspicion where al-Qasim bin Ismail claims to narrate a book of someone who he could not have met. There are only a few options here, either Najashi has not recorded the whole chain, or al-Qasim is practising Tadlis by not mentioning his intermediaries, or he has fabricated the book and attributed it to Zahr. To be continued ...
  20. (bismillah) (salam) Did Ibn Hajar ever say the whole of Muwatta Malik was authentic? Im asking this because if he did, this would cast serious doubts on sunni ilm ur rijal since ibn hajar seems to be one of the greatest and most relied upon muhadditheen. And we know all the mursal and maqtu hadiths of Imam Malik. Any references from Ibn Hajar's works would be appreciated.
  21. (bismillah) Abu Jafar Muhammad b. Sinan al-Zuhri is one of the most disputed narrators in Shi’i Rijal where many people say “he’s clearly weak” or “he’s clearly reliabile” or they just give up and take no opinion – treating him majhool. And I think it is rather silly to say that he, nor any companion or narrator, was just always 100% and we can see that there ups and downs for even some of our biggest companions like Yunus b. Abd al-Rahman and Zurara b. A`yun [ra], but they still come out on top. So I’m going put forward here most of the information regarding his weakening and authentication, then briefly discuss what I think about Muhammad b. Sinan. Indications of Weakening: Shaykh Mufid in Risalat al-Adadiyya said after he presented a narration with Muhammad b. Sinan in it: In this narration is Muhammad b. Sinan and he is accused, the sect has does differ in his being accused and weakness and that which is of his path is not acted upon in the religion. ومحمد بن سنان مطعون فيه ، لا تختلف العصابة في تهمته وضعفه ، وما كان هذا سبيله لايعمل عليه في الدين Najashi mentions in his entry: Ibn Uqda said : He narrates from al-Rida [as]…he has a well known Masa’il from him, and he is a very weak man, not relied upon, not turned to what he narrates singly. وقال أبوالعباس أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد ، إنه روى عن الرضا عليه السلام ، قال : وله مسائل عنه معروفة ، وهو رجل ضعيف جدا لا يعول عليه ، ولا يلتفت إلى ما تفرد به Najashi continues: …Safwan [b. Yahya] said: Verily this is Ibn Sinan he surely had in mind that he would fly* more than once so we cut him [down] until he was firmly with us. And this indicates his confusion that was and passed. ، وهذا يدل على اضطراب كان وزال فقال صفوان : إن هذا ابن سنان ، لقد هم أن يطير غير مرة ، فقصصناه حتى ثبت معنا *fly here is from يطير which was a metaphor for the Tayyara, a group of ghulaat. Najashi says in the entry of Miyaah al-Mada’ini: …and its path is the weakest from them and he is Muhammad b. Sinan وطريقها أضعف منها ، وهو محمد بن سنان Tusi in al-Fihirist: He was has been attacked/accused and weakened وقد طعن عليه وضعف Tusi in his Rijal mentioned him among the companions of al-Kazhim [as] and al-Rida [as] and weakened من أصحاب الرضا عليه السلام(7)، قائلا : " محمد بن سنان ، ضعيف " . Tusi in al-Istibsaar brining forward a narration with Muhammad b. Sinan in the chain, he said: In the path of this narration is Muhammad b. Sinan…and Muhammad b. Sinan is accused, very weak, and he is not proceeded independently by his narration and and not joined with him in it other than him not acting upon it. محمد بن سنان : مطعون عليه ، ضعيف جدا ، وما يستبد بروايته ولا يشركه فيه غيره لايعمل عليه Kashi: Hamduway: I wrote the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan from Ayub b. Nuh and he said: I do not deem it permissible that I narrate the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan. وقال الكشي(245): " قال حمدويه : كتبت أحاديث محمد بن سنان ، عن أيوب بن نوح ، وقال : لاأستحل أن أروي أحاديث محمد بن سنان " . Kashi: A notebook was presented to Ayub b. Nuh – in it the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan – he said to us: If you wish to write that, then do so. For verily I wrote from Muhammad b. Sinan. However, I do not narrate a thing from it for you for he said before his death: Everything I have said to you was not with me by hearing, nor reporting, it was only that I found it. ذكر حمدويه بن نصير ، أن أيوب بن نوح دفع إليه دفترا فيه أحاديث محمد بن سنان ، فقال لنا : إن شئتم أن تكتبوا ذلك فافعلوا ، فإني كتبت عن محمد بن سنان ، ولا أروي لكم أنا عنه شيئا ، فإنه قال له محمد قبل موته : كلما أحدثكم به لم يكن لي سماعة ولا رواية ، إنما وجدته " . Kashi: Muhammad b. Masud [from] Abdullah b. Hamduwayh said: I heard al-Fadhl b. Shathan saying: I do not permit that I narrate the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan. al-Fadhl mentioned in some of his books: From the famous liars is Ibn Sinan, and he is not Abdullah. [Abdullah b. Hamduwayh is Majhool] قال محمد بن مسعود : قال عبدالله بن حمدويه : سمعت الفضل بن شاذان يقول : لا أستحل أن أروي أحاديث محمد بن سنان ، وذكر الفضل في بعض كتبه ، أن من الكاذبين المشهورين ، ابن سنان ، وليس بعبد الله " . Kashi: Abu al-Hasan Ali b. Muhammad b. Qutayba al-Nisaburi said: Abu Muhammad al-Fadhl b. Shathan said: Remove from the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan. And he said: I do not love (OR “I do not permit”) that you narrate the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan from me while I am still alive. He permitted his narrations after his death. أبوالحسن علي بن محمد بن قتيبة النيسابوري ، قال : قال أبومحمد الفضل بن شاذان : ارووا(ردوا)أحاديث محمد بن سنان عني ، وقال : لا أحب (أحل)لكم أن ترووا أحاديث محمد بن سنان عني مادمت حيا ، وأذن في الرواية بعد موته " . Kashi mentions in the entry of al-Mufadhal b. Umar after mentioning a group of the Ghulat, he said: Muhammad b. Sinan is like that. Kashi: al-Fadhl b. Shathan mentioned in some of his books from the famous liars is Abu al-Khattab, Yunus b. Zhabyan, Yazid al-Sa’igh, Muhammad b. Sinan, and Abu Sameena is the most famous of them. وذكر فضل في بعض كتبه من الكذابين المشهورين ، أبوالخطاب ، ويونس بن ظبيان ، ويزيد الصائغ ، ومحمد بن سنان ، وأبوسمينة أشهرهم Ibn al-Ghada’iri said: Weak, exaggerator, he fabricates, he is not turned to. ضعيف غال ، يضع ، لايلتفت إليه Ibn al-Ghada’iri said in the entry of Tharih: Verily his path is weak because the owner of the book said: Muhammad b. Sinan narrated from Abdullah b. Jabalah al-Kanani from Tharih. He weakened this path due to Muhammad b. Sinan. قال في ترجمة ذريح : إن طريقه ضعيف ، لان صاحب الكتاب ، قال : وروى محمد بن سنان Ibn al-Ghada’iri said in the entry of Ziyad b. al-Munthir [Abu al-Jarud]: Our companions hate what Muhammad b. Sinan narrated from him. وأصحابنا يكرهون ما رواه محمد بن سنان عنه Indication of Strengthening: al-Mufid included him in al-Irshad from those who report the appointment of Abu al-Hasan al-Rida [as] from his father and that he is from his special ones and reliable ones, the people of godliness, knowledge, and jurisprudence his Shi`ah. عده ممن روى النص على الرضا عليه السلام من أبيه من خاصته وثقاته وأهل الورع ، والعلم والفقه من شيعته . Tusi in al-Ghayba includes him amongst the Praised Representatives and he presents in his favor a narration from Abu Jafar the Second [al-Jawad] (as). He is from the narrators of Tafseer al-Qummi (both sections of Tafseer Jarudi and Qummi] The most esteemed narrators narrate from him, like Ayub b. Nuh, al-Fadhl b. Shathan, Muhammad b. Isa b. Ubayd, Yunus b. Abu al-Rahman, Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi al-Khattab, al-Hasan b. Said, al-Husayn b. Said, Safwan b. Yahya, Ibn Abi Najran, Ibrahim b. Hashim, Ahmad b. Idris, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa, al-Hasan b. Ali b. Yaqteen, al-Hasan b. Mahbub, Ibn Fadhal, Hamza b. Yalaa, Salih b. Abi Hamad, Abdullah b. Salt, Ali b. Asbat, Ali b. al-Hakam, Ali b. Numan, Amr b. Uthman, Muhammad b. Abi al-Sahban, Muhammad b. Abd al-Jabbar, Yaqub b. Yazid, al-Wasaha’, and many more. Kashi: Muhammad b. Quluwayh said: Sad b. Abdullah said to me saying: Abu Jafar Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa reported to me from a man from Ali b. al-Husayn b. Dawud al-Qummi, he said: I heard Abu Jafar the Second (as) mention Safwa b. Yahya and Muhammad b. Sinan by the best. He said: Allah be pleased pleased with them by my pleasure with them. They never opposed me ever. This was after what came from him in them two of what I heard of him from our companions. وقال في(360): 1 " حدثني محمد بن قولويه ، قال : حدثني سعد بن عبدالله ، قال : حدثني أبوجعفر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، عن رجل ، عن علي بن الحسين بن داود القمي ، قال : سمعت أبا جعفر الثاني عليه السلام يذكر صفوان بن يحيى ، ومحمد ابن سنان بخير ، وقال : رضي الله عنهما برضائي عنهما ، لا(فما)خالفاني قط ، هذا بعد ما جاء عنه فيهما ما قد سمعته من أصحابنا " Kashi narrates a hadith from Abi Talib Abdullah b. al-Salt al-Qummi, he said: I entered upon Abi Jafar the Second [al-Jawad] (as) during the last of his life then I heard him saying: May Allah reward Safwan b. Yahya, Muhammad b. Sinan, and Zakariyya b. Adam from me the best, for they surely were faithful to me. He didn’t mention Sad b. Sad. He said: So I exited then I met a gathering, so I said to them: Verily our Master mentioned Safwan, Muhammad b. Sinan, and Zakariyya b. Adam and they be rewarded the best, but he didn’t mentioned Sad b. Sad. He said: So I returned to him then he [al-Jawad (as)] said: May Allah reward Safwan b. Yahya, Muhammad b. Sinan, Zakariyya b. Adam, and Sad b. Sad for they surely were faithful to me. 2 " عن أبي طالب عبدالله بن الصلت القمي ، قال : دخلت على أبي جعفر الثاني عليه السلام في آخر عمره ، فسمعته يقول : جزى الله صفوان بن يحيى ، ومحمد بن سنان ، وزكريا بن آدم عني خيرا ، فقد وفوا لي ، ولم يذكر سعد بن سعد ، قال : فخرجت فلقيت موفقا ، فقلت له : إن مولاي ذكر صفوان ، ومحمد بن سنان وزكريا بن آدم ، وجزاهم خيرا ولم يذكر سعد بن سعد ، قال : فعدت إليه ، فقال : جزى الله صفوان بن يحيى ، ومحمد بن سنان ، وزكريا بن آدم ، وسعد بن سعد عني خيرا ، فقد وفوا لي " *It is apparent that al-Kashi is not narrating this by Wijada (he indicates when he does that) and that this narration is connected to the chain before and it is from the previous chain up to Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa [ra]. Saduq [ra] notes that Abdullah b. al-Salt al-Qummis came and met Ibn Isa narrating to him prolifically, and his narrations for him are known. It is on this basis ulemaa, such as al-Khui and others, have authenticated it. Muhammad b. Sinan was not removed from Nawadir al-Hikma, and he narrates in it repeatedly. He is from the Ma`arif – his narrations top a thousand times. This is indicative of his reliability, especially amongst the Qummis. Many narrations come from Muhammad b. Sinan himself that indicate his praise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The objective of my post is not to sit here and nullify all of Muhammad b. Sinan’s indications of weakening or authentication and then say that the other remains so he’s therefore X. That is false way to understand this narrator and is highly simplistic – including playing the “weak sanad” game for these narrations. One will notice that there are very strong criticisms against Muhammad b. Sinan, but there is also very strong praises in his favor. What is most apparent from al-Najashi is that he is weakening him for his confusion in his beliefs and doctrine, as is evidenced from what is quoted above from Safwan. He also pulls forward what Ibn Uqda says about his weakness but he specifies his tafarrud (what comes from him alone). This point of tafarrud from the Qudama is common in their methodology regarding people of incorrect doctrine. Ibn al-Ghada’iri is also of similar case. Similarly with that al-Mufid brings forward about the sect not differing about him [except that they did] with him being “muttaham.” Muhammad b. Sinan is from among the close companions of giants of the Mathhab like Safwan b. Yahya and Ibn Abi Umayr, and his students are among them like Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa al-Ashari, his brother, and others from the giant list above. Yes, it is interesting to note that Ayub b. Nuh and al-Fadhl b. Shathan criticize him, even call him a liar, but then go on their merry way narrating his ahadeeth. Why is this happening? It is known that our Ancient scholars had many more books and resources of information than we do, even having the Source (Usool) books in their original forms and even their authors’ own handwriting to identify it. What has happened is that Muhammad b. Sinan was an Imami who became associated with the ghulaat, and was even drawn to them at some point in his life. Kashi and others mention that his narrations are found in the books of the ghulaat and that they ascribed many narrations with his name. Safwan [ra] recounts, as quoted Najashi above from Kashi’s Rijal, that Ibn Sinan had come near the ghulaat a few times, but he prevented this and that he was solidly with them upon correct doctrine and narrator status. Even then al-Najashi says that this phase of his passed and was no more. So when people like al-Najashi and Ibn al-Ghada’iri inspected all that was attributed to him, they had found things that were, according them, very incorrect and lies upon the Imams [as] from his association with the ghulaat, and they just went off on him due to this. If you’ll notice, all the criticism comes from Baghdadis and those famous for grading via narration inspection. The Qummis have never made a peep about him and they were extremists in dropping anyone who even had a whiff of Ghuluw in them. Saduq, Ibn al-Walid, AND Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa al-Ashari who was also the student of Safwan, Ibn Abi Umayr, and al-Bazanti [ra], took his narrations and continued to take from him and al-Ashari is even the one who is narrating the ahadeeth from the Imam [a] in his praise. But if these praises are coming from the Imam, why are people weakening him so much? Because the Qudama prioritized correct hadith over all else – so when they see someone with what they deem ghuluw and manakeer [denied things], that person is a weak liar. But for Muhammad b. Sinan, this was not the case across the board. We can see in Nawadir al-Hikma that they trusted Muhammad b. Sinan and his narrations due to repeated occurrence there (meaning this was not some sort of one-time he’s narrating a Sahih hadith – in terms of meaning – nor that he was some accident they forgot to remove). Keep in mind that Ibn al-Walid [ra] removed ghulaat from there even if he was narrating a sahih narration such as al-Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Uthman. Ibn Sinan is all over their books – in al-Kafi and al-Faqih which were given authentication by their authors. Someone narrating that much in all sorts of sections and places shows his being trusted by them. So Muhammad b. Sinan was criticized heavily due to his closeness to ghuluw at a time in his life and even being students of people who also were accused with ghuluw (like Mufadhl b. Umar and Dawud b. Kathir al-Riqqi) but they, too, have been trusted been praised by the Imam [as] directly and, again, the Qummis trusted and praised. These different camps of scholars all had varying methodologies in Ilm al-Rijal. For example, Ibn al-Ghada’iri mentions the hatred of Ibn Sinan’s narrations from Abu al-Jarud, but that chain is all over the 4 books and occurs many times in Nawadir al-Hikma. So Muhammad b. Sinan [ra] is thiqa and from those who are very close to the Imams [as], but he had entertained ideas of the ghulaat at some point and they had began to attribute things to him even after Safwan and the rest of the core companions of the Ta’ifa [ra] prevented him from deviating and going astray. And the icing on the cake to all this is what Allamah Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari [rh] says in Ibn Sinan’s entry in his Qamus al-Rijal: And [even] if you refuse his goodness in his self then his reports are established/reliable where verily al-Shaykh [al-Tusi] narrates his reports except that which is in it of exaggeration and confusion and similarly a congregation of the just and reliable from the people of knowledge…as has been mentioned from al-Kashi so there is no doubt that they narrated from him the sound without the wicked for they surely were extremely critical of reports. و إن أبيت عن حسنه في نفسه فأخباره معتبرة، حيث إن الشيخ في الفهرست روى أخباره إلّا ما كان فيها غلوّ أو تخليط و كذا روى عنه جمع من العدول و الثقات من أهل العلم، كيونس بن عبد الرحمن، و الحسين بن سعيد الأهوازي و أخيه، و الفضل بن شاذان و أبيه، و أيّوب بن نوح، و محمّد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطّاب و غيرهم كما مرّ عن الكشّي فلابدّ أنّهم رووا عنه السليم دون السقيم، فإنّهم كانوا نقّاد الآثار . al-Kulayni, al-Saduq, al-Tusi who compiled books of Mu`tabar ahadeeth, gave them their authentication, are full of his narrations that are correct, even if one wants to deny Muhammad b. Sinan’s reliability. All of what we have has come through al-Shaykh al-Tusi [ra], also. Allah knows best. في امان الله
  22. Salam Alaikum. I'm aware that saduq never mentions the isnads for the hadiths in one of his books for brevity. But doesn't this pose a problem? How can we verify every narrator saduq relied upon was trustworthy or even existed? Is there no way to find the isnads in another compilation of his?
  23. (bismillah) One the various compilation that our Qudamaa’ [ra] put to gether, one of the most interesting ones, to me, is Qurb al-Isnad by `Abdullah b. Jafar al-Himyari [ra]. A famous thiqa scholar who’s trustworthiness and knowledge is undoubted. His book is narrated from by the 3 Muhammads [as] in their large compilations. However, upon the majority, the book form that has reached us is not reliable in its tareeq or it’s contents Majalisi included in Bihar. However, the tareeq of Sh. Hurr al-Amili to the book is reliable and he has included many narrations from the book in Wasaa’il al-Shi`ah. Therefore, the `ulemaa’ take into consideration the book’s narrations as found in Wasaa’il. One of the usool books that Himyari [ra] relies on heavily in his book is the Masaa’il of `Ali b. Jafar b. Muhammad al-`Alawi al-Uraydi [ra], the son of al-Sadiq [as] and brother al-Kathim [as] – he is thiqa as mentioned by Tusi in his Fihirist. His book is where he asks his brother [as] questions and he answers them. This masaa’il is also no reliable in its sanad as it is found in Bihar. But Himyari has a different tareeq and it is not related to what Majalisi compiled. This is the only one book he had and that was narrated from. The tareeq of al-Himyari [ra] as found in Qurb is the following, always: حدثنا عبد الله بن الحسن العلوي، عن جده علي بن جعفر قال: سألت أخي موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام `Abdullah b. al-Hasan al-`Alawi narrated to us from his grandfather `Ali b. Ja`far, he said: I asked my brother Musa b. Ja`far [as]… Unfortunately, this tareeq is weak because the intermediary between al-Himyari [as] and the Masaa’il, Abdullah b. al-Hasan, is majhool – very majhool. So it unfortunately would make everything al-Himyari [ra] takes from this Masaa’il as unreliable (this is if we put aside ideas like shuhra of the book and other reasons to accept it). However, if we examine al-Tusi’s [ra] turuq to the Masaa’il of `Ali b. Jafar in his Fihrist, we discover that al-Himyari [ra] received the book from another tareeq: ورواه أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بابويه، عن ابيه، عن سعد والحميري واحمد بن ادريس وعلي بن موسى، عن احمد بن محمد، عن موسى بن القاسم البجلي، عنه. And Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babuwayh [al-Saduq] narrated it from his father from Sa`d & al-Himyari & Ahmad b. Idris & Ali b. Musa from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Musa b. al-Qasim al-Bijli from him. This tareeq is saheeh. So we see that al-Himyari [ra] has a parallel chain running along with whatever he narrates through Abduallah b. al-Hasan, he also has from this tareeq which is saheeh. Why would he list this tareeq instead of the Saheeh one? Well, putting aside that rijal/dirayah was not always their goal, the point of Qurb al-Isnad (as evidence from his title, “Nearness of the Chain”) is to have the shortest chains possible. So the chain with the majhool grandson is shorter because then al-Himyari [ra] has one intermediary between him and the Masaa’il rather than 2. Therefore, everything al-Himyari [ra] narrates from the Masaa’il in Qurb al-Isnad, upon accepting this argument, is saheeh. والله أعلم All mistakes are my own and all guidance and correct information is from Allah [swt]. في امان الله
  24. (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
  25. (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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...