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 'dirayah'.
Found 2 results
(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
(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
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.