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

Imam Hussain (as) will return?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

This hadith was brought into my attention.

Could someone confirm or reject its authenticity?

Al-Sadiq, in explaining the passage of the Qur'an which says "Then returned We unto you the turn [to prevail] against them and aided you . . ." (17:6) says that by "returned" is meant the return of al-Husayn, who will be accompanied by his seventy-two companions who were killed with him on the battlefield of Karbala'. The companions will announce the return of alhusayn to the people. At the same time, the Imam says, the believers should not doubt him, since he is neither Antichrist (al-dajjal) nor the devil. The Qa'im will be among the people. When the people have gained certainty about his being al-Husayn, the Qai'm will die, and al-Husayn will perform his funeral rites and bury him.

[source: Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, pp. 168-69, citing Majlisi's Bihar al-anwar. Of this collection, Vol. 13, containing the bulk of Shi'i eschatological hadith, has been printed separately as Mahdiy-i rnaw'ud. For reference, see Sachedina, p. 221.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The narration is weak. Mentioned in Tafsir al-Ayyashi as mursal from Salih b. Sahl. . .

عن صالح بن سهل، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام في قوله: (وَقَضَيْنَا إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي الْكِتَابِ لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الأرض مَرَّتَيْنِ): قتل علي وطعن الحسن. (وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا): قتل الحسين. (فَإِذَا جَـاءَ وَعْـدُ أُولاهُمَا): إذا جاء نصر دم الحسين. (بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَنَا أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ فَجَاسُوا خِلالَ الدِّيَارِ): قوم يبعثهم الله قبل خروج القائم لايدعون وتراً لآل محمد إلا حرقوه. (وَكَانَ وَعْدًا مَفْعُولاً): قبل قيام القائم. (ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَا لَكُمُ الْكَرَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَمْدَدْنَاكُمْ بِأَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِينَ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ أَكْثَرَ نَفِيرًا): خروج الحسين في الكرة في سبعين رجلاً من أصحابه الذين قتلوا معه عليهم البيض المذهب لكل بيضة وجهان، يؤدون إلى الناس أن الحسين قد خرج في أصحابه حتى لايشك فيه المؤمنون وأنه ليس بدجال ولا شيطان، الإمام الذي بين أظهر الناس يومئذ. فإذا استقر عند المؤمن أنه الحسين لا يشكون فيه، وبلغ عن الحسين الحجة القائم بين أظهر الناس، وصدقه المؤمنون بذلك، جاء الحجة الموت فيكون الذي يلي غسله، وكفنه وحنوطه وإيلاجه في حفرته الحسين، ولا يلي الوصي إلا الوصي،

^Its mursal and also Salih b. Sahl was ghal, liar and fabricator.

صالِحُ بنُ سَهْل، الهَمْدانيُّ، كُوْفيٌّ. غالٍ، كذّابٌ، وضّاعٌ للحديثِ. روى‏ عن أبي عَبْدِاللَّه (ع). لا خَيْرَ فيهِ‏(31)، ولا في سائِرِ ما رَواهُ.(32)

1 – Salih b. Sahl, al-Hamdani, Kufan. Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith. He narrated from Abu `Abdillah (as). There is no good in him, and not in the rest of what he narrated.

See: http://www.*******.org/rijal/kitab-ad-duafa-of-ibn-al-ghadairi

Similar narration is mentioned in al-Kafi Vol. 8

عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن محمد بن الحسن بن شمون، عن عبدالله بن عبدالرحمن الاصم، عن عبدالله بن القاسم البطل، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) في قوله تعالى: " وقضينا إلى بني إسرائيل في الكتاب لتفسدن في الارض مرتين (2) " قال: قتل علي بن أبي طالب (ع) وطعن الحسن (ع) " ولتعلن علوا كبيرا " قال: قتل الحسين (ع)

" فإذا جاء وعد أوليهما " فإذا جاء نصر دم الحسين (ع): بعثنا عليكم عبادا لنا أولي باس شديد فجاسوا خلال الديار " قوم يبعثهم الله قبل خروج القائم (ع) فلا يدعون وترا لآل محمد (3) إلا قتلوه " وكان وعدا مفعولا " خروج القائم (ع) " ثم رددنا لكم الكرة عليهم " خروج الحسين (ع) في سبعين من أصحابه عليهم البيض المذهب لكل بيضة وجهان (4) المؤدون إلي الناس أن هذا الحسين قد خرج حتى لا يشك المؤمنون فيه وإنه ليس بدجال ولا شيطان والحجة القائم بين أظهرهم فإذا استقرت المعرفة في قلوب المؤمنين أنه الحسين (ع) جاء الحجة الموت فيكون الذي يغسله ويكفنه و يحنطه ويلحده في حفرته الحسين بن علي (ع) (5) ولا يلي الوصي إلا الوصي.

^Weak narrators in the sanad and graded as 'daif' by Allama Majlisi in Mirat al-Uqul.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam) brother

Thank you so much

Can you tell me whether the following site says anything important about this topic?

http://www.dalilulhaq.com/ahlulbait/books/behar53/a7.html

Allama Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar Vol. 53 has mentioned many ahadith about the details of raj'a but they are all weak in sanad therefore it can't be said for sure that who will return and who will not. Also, a/c to Shaykh Mufeed (ar), all Imamis accept the concept of raj'a but there is ikhtilaf regarding its meanings and details.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salams

What is the ikhtilaf (difference of opinion amongst Imamis) regarding the meaning and details of raja'at ?

Fi-Amanillah

Qa'im mentioned one difference. Another is:

Truly the Qur'an came to proclaim raj'ah in this world, as did many traditions from the house of Infallibility, and all the Imamites believe this, except a few .who have interpreted the pronouncement on raj'ah as meaning that the government will return to the Household of the Prophet together with the power to forbid and command, and that this will be when the Awaited One reappears, without involving the return of people or the giving of life to the dead.

http://www.hawzah.net/Eng/A/do.asp?a=AIH1.htm

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

The narration is weak. Mentioned in Tafsir al-Ayyashi as mursal from Salih b. Sahl. . .

^Its mursal and also Salih b. Sahl was ghal, liar and fabricator.

Salih b. Sahl, al-Hamdani, Kufan. Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith.

If the same concept is found in other narrations then Being mursal doesn't automatically make a narration weak. In this case most of the mentioned things in the narration can be found elsewhere.

About salih ibn sahl:

Ibn davood says he is mamdooh (praised). Rijal ibn davood p. 186.

AL-Behabahani in Ta'lighato ala minhaj ul-maqal p.204 has disputed the claims of al-ghadha'eri which said he is a: "Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith".

He finally says:

æíÑæì Úäå ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ æåæ íÄíÏ ÇáÇÚÊãÇÏ Úáíå

Al-Hassan ibn Mahboob has narrated from him and this confirms that he can be trusted.

Al-Khui in Mojam rijal al-hadith vol. 10 p.78 also disputes the claims of al-ghadha'eri which said he is a: "Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith". He says:

ÃÞæá : ÇáÙÇåÑ æËÇÞÉ ÇáÑÌá ¡ æáÇ ÚÈÑÉ ÈÊÖÚíÝ ÇÈä ÇáÛÖÇÆÑí ¡ áãÇ ÚÑÝÊ ãä ÚÏã ËÈæÊ äÓÈÉ ÇáßÊÇÈ Åáíå ¡ ÝíÈÞì ÊæËíÞ Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ÈáÇ ãÚÇÑÖ ¡ Èá Åä Ûáæå ÃíÖÇ áã íËÈÊ ¡ ÝÅä ãÇ ÐßÑ Úä ÇÈä ÇáÛÖÇÆÑí áÇ ÇÚÊÈÇÑ Èå .

consice translation: From what is apparent (Salih ibn Sahl) is trusted and and what al-ghaza'eri said can not be trusted.

He narrated from Abu `Abdillah as.gif. There is no good in him, and not in the rest of what he narrated.

Isn't it strange. You trust and use a completely weak narration which simply doesn't have a chain of narrators to discredit Salih ibn Sahl. WOW.

^Weak narrators in the sanad and graded as 'daif' by Allama Majlisi in Mirat al-Uqul.

'Dhaif' has different degrees. It has a range from "being a complete lie" to "we can't be completely sure". Just because it has been labeled as dhaif it doesn't mean its a lie or it won't happen.

Allama Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar Vol. 53 has mentioned many ahadith about the details of raj'a but they are all weak in sanad therefore it can't be said for sure that who will return and who will not. Also, a/c to Shaykh Mufeed (ar), all Imamis accept the concept of raj'a but there is ikhtilaf regarding its meanings and details.

That's not the first time I've seen you completely discrediting numerous hadiths all at the same time without bringing forward any proof. You can't just go about claiming this, You have to prove they are ALL WEAK in sanad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

If the same concept is found in other narrations then Being mursal doesn't automatically make a narration weak. In this case most of the mentioned things in the narration can be found elsewhere.

So why don't you post a hadith with same or similar matn and authentic and muttasil sanad ? AFAIK, there isn't any.

About salih ibn sahl:

Ibn davood says he is mamdooh (praised). Rijal ibn davood p. 186.

AL-Behabahani in Ta'lighato ala minhaj ul-maqal p.204 has disputed the claims of al-ghadha'eri which said he is a: "Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith".

He finally says:

æíÑæì Úäå ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ æåæ íÄíÏ ÇáÇÚÊãÇÏ Úáíå

Al-Hassan ibn Mahboob has narrated from him and this confirms that he can be trusted.

Al-Khui in Mojam rijal al-hadith vol. 10 p.78 also disputes the claims of al-ghadha'eri which said he is a: "Ghal, liar, fabricator of hadith". He says:

ÃÞæá : ÇáÙÇåÑ æËÇÞÉ ÇáÑÌá ¡ æáÇ ÚÈÑÉ ÈÊÖÚíÝ ÇÈä ÇáÛÖÇÆÑí ¡ áãÇ ÚÑÝÊ ãä ÚÏã ËÈæÊ äÓÈÉ ÇáßÊÇÈ Åáíå ¡ ÝíÈÞì ÊæËíÞ Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã ÈáÇ ãÚÇÑÖ ¡ Èá Åä Ûáæå ÃíÖÇ áã íËÈÊ ¡ ÝÅä ãÇ ÐßÑ Úä ÇÈä ÇáÛÖÇÆÑí áÇ ÇÚÊÈÇÑ Èå .

consice translation: From what is apparent (Salih ibn Sahl) is trusted and and what al-ghaza'eri said can not be trusted.

^ Allama Hilli (ar) has trusted Ibn al-Ghadeiri and placed Salih among daif narrators. Anyway, above doesn't really matters because the sanad is mursal and this itself is enough to grade it as daif. The only way to trust this narration is to get the same/similar matn with reliable narrators and AFAIK, it doesn't exist.

'Dhaif' has different degrees. It has a range from "being a complete lie" to "we can't be completely sure". Just because it has been labeled as dhaif it doesn't mean its a lie or it won't happen.

Did you even care to check the individual narrators of that narration? They are all ghulats or extremely daif.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
So why don't you post a hadith with same or similar matn and authentic and muttasil sanad ? AFAIK, there isn't any.

I'll start from hadith NO.1 that al-Majlesi has mentioned then we will see if there isn't any! See below.

^ Allama Hilli (ar) has trusted Ibn al-Ghadeiri and placed Salih among daif narrators. Anyway, above doesn't really matters because the sanad is mursal and this itself is enough to grade it as daif. The only way to trust this narration is to get the same/similar matn with reliable narrators and AFAIK, it doesn't exist.

I'm not going to write everything al-Khui has said, but for your information he has a point their proving that Allama Hilli has made a mistake their and has counted two people with same name as one. The one who is dhaif isn't this guy!

Did you even care to check the individual narrators of that narration? They are all ghulats or extremely daif.

The only person that didn't care to check this was you! Or else you would have given a shred of proof before blinldy labelling them ALL as ghulats or extremely dhaif.

I'll start with first narration: Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol.53, p.39, The chapter on Ra'ja, hadith NO. 1:

ÈÍÇÑÇáÃäæÇÑ 53 39 ÈÇÈ 29- ÇáÑÌÚÉ ..... Õ : 39

ÓóÚúÏñ Úóäö ÇÈúäö ÚöíÓóì æó ÇÈúäö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö Úóäö ÇáúÈóÒóäúØöíøö Úóäú ÍóãøóÇÏö Èúäö ÚõËúãóÇäó Úóäú ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ãõÓúáöãò ÞóÇáó ÓóãöÚúÊõ ÍõãúÑóÇäó Èúäó ÃóÚúíóäó æó ÃóÈóÇ ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö íõÍóÏøöËóÇäö ÌóãöíÚÇð ÞóÈúáó Ãóäú íõÍúÏöËó ÃóÈõæ ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö ãóÇ ÃóÍúÏóËó ÃóäøóåõãóÇ ÓóãöÚóÇ ÃóÈóÇ ÚóÈúÏö Çááøóåö Ú íóÞõæáõ Ãóæøóáõ ãóäú ÊóäúÔóÞøõ ÇáúÃóÑúÖõ Úóäúåõ æó íóÑúÌöÚõ Åöáóì ÇáÏøõäúíóÇ ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ Úóáöíøò Ú æó Åöäøó ÇáÑøóÌúÚóÉó áóíúÓóÊú ÈöÚóÇãøóÉò æó åöíó ÎóÇÕøóÉñ áóÇ íóÑúÌöÚõ ÅöáøóÇ ãóäú ãóÍóÖó ÇáúÅöíãóÇäó ãóÍúÖÇð Ãóæú ãóÍóÖó ÇáÔøöÑúßó ãóÍúÖÇð

Translation: said from ibn isa from ibn abilkhatab from al-bazanti from hammad ibn uthman from muhammad ibn muslim he said I heard BOTH hamran ibn a'yon and abi al-khatab saying and this was before abilkhtab said what he said (i.e he went astray) that they heard Imam Sadiq (as) saying: "The first person that will crack the soil and return to this world will be Hussain ibn ALi (as) and Ra'ja' is not for all people, only those who are purely faithful or those who are purely mushrik."

Here is the exact same narration from Al-burhan fi tafsir ul-quran, vol. 3, P.507:

ÇáÈÑåÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä¡ Ìþ3¡ Õ: 507

Úä ÓÚÏ Èä ÚیÓی Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì æ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÃÈí ÇáÎØÇÈ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí äÕÑ¡ Úä ÍãÇÏ Èä ÚËãÇä¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáã¡ ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊ ÍãÑÇä Èä ÃÚíä æ ÃÈÇ ÇáÎØÇÈþ

íÍÏËÇä ÌãíÚÇ- ÞÈá Ãä íÍÏË ÃÈæ ÇáÎØÇÈ ãÇ ÃÍÏË- ÃäåãÇ ÓãÚÇ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) íÞæá: «Ãæá ãä ÊäÔÞ ÇáÃÑÖ Úäå æ íÑÌÚ Åáì ÇáÏäíÇ¡ ÇáÍÓíä Èä Úáí (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã)¡ æ Åä ÇáÑÌÚÉ áíÓÊ ÈÚÇãÉ æ åí ÎÇÕÉ¡ áÇ íÑÌÚ ÅáÇ ãä ãÍÖ ÇáÅíãÇä ãÍÖÇ Ãæ ãÍÖ ÇáÔÑß ãÍÖÇ».

By comparing the chain of narrators from these two narrations it can be easily confirmed that the first four people in the chain are:

1-Sa'd = sa'd ibn Abdullah

2-ibn eisa = ahmad ibn mohammad ibn eisa

3-ibn abi al-khatab = Mohammad ibn Hussein ibn abi al-khattab

4-al-bazanti = ahmad ibn muhhamad ibn abi nasr = ahmad ibn muhhamad ibn abi nasr albazanti

These are all trusted (theqah) and famous and can be checked from al-Khui. In fact It is much probable that Al-majlesi didn't mention their whole name because of their fame. See al-Khui for more details.

Now four others remain:

hamad ibn uthman (Al-nab): Al-najashi says he is trusted (theqah), Sheikh al-toosi says he is trusted and has a high stature (theqah jalil al-ghadr)

Muhammad ibn Muslim (ibn riah): He is also very famous. According to najashi he is "of the most trusted people"(min othaq al-nas)

Hamran ibn a'yon: He is also greatly trusted. Ibn davood says he is praised and great (mamdoohon moazzam), Al-toosi has mentioned many narrations from Imam Sadiq praising him. Things like: He is their Shia in this worl and the hereafter and He will be in Heaven...

Abi al-lkhatab: The only problematic person in the chain of narrators is this guy. Well he can completly be ignored. Why? Because Muhammad ibn Muslim said: "I heard BOTH hamran ibn a'yon and abi al-khatab saying (this narration) and this was before abilkhtab said what he said (i.e he went astray)". So we simply delete him from the list and we still have a narration with a connected chain of trusted narrators reaching Imam Sadiq (as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The only person that didn't care to check this was you! Or else you would have given a shred of proof before blinldy labelling them ALL as ghulats or extremely dhaif.

From rijal Najashi. . .

Úä Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä Ôãæä¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä ÇáÇÕã¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÈØá

Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ ÃÈæ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÇÏãí ÇáÑÇÒí ßÇä ÖÚíÝÇ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË¡ ÛíÑ ãÚÊãÏ Ýíå. æßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì íÔåÏ Úáíå ÈÇáÛáæ æÇáßÐÈ æÃÎÑÌå ãä Þã Åáì ÇáÑí æßÇä íÓßäåÇ

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä Ôãæä ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ¡ ÈÛÏÇÏí¡ æÇÞÝ¡ Ëã ÛáÇ¡ æßÇä ÖÚíÝÇ ÌÏÇ¡ ÝÇÓÏ ÇáãÐåÈ

ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÇÕã ÇáãÓãÚí ÈÕÑí¡ ÖÚíÝ ÛÇá

ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÍÖÑãí ÇáãÚÑæÝ ÈÇáÈØá¡ ßÐÇÈ¡ ÛÇá¡ íÑæì Úä ÇáÛáÇÉ¡ áÇ ÎíÑ Ýíå¡ æáÇ íÚÊÏ ÈÑæÇíÊå.

I'll start with first narration: Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol.53, p.39, The chapter on Ra'ja, hadith NO. 1:

ÈÍÇÑÇáÃäæÇÑ 53 39 ÈÇÈ 29- ÇáÑÌÚÉ ..... Õ : 39

ÓóÚúÏñ Úóäö ÇÈúäö ÚöíÓóì æó ÇÈúäö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö Úóäö ÇáúÈóÒóäúØöíøö Úóäú ÍóãøóÇÏö Èúäö ÚõËúãóÇäó Úóäú ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ãõÓúáöãò ÞóÇáó ÓóãöÚúÊõ ÍõãúÑóÇäó Èúäó ÃóÚúíóäó æó ÃóÈóÇ ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö íõÍóÏøöËóÇäö ÌóãöíÚÇð ÞóÈúáó Ãóäú íõÍúÏöËó ÃóÈõæ ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö ãóÇ ÃóÍúÏóËó ÃóäøóåõãóÇ ÓóãöÚóÇ ÃóÈóÇ ÚóÈúÏö Çááøóåö Ú íóÞõæáõ Ãóæøóáõ ãóäú ÊóäúÔóÞøõ ÇáúÃóÑúÖõ Úóäúåõ æó íóÑúÌöÚõ Åöáóì ÇáÏøõäúíóÇ ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ Úóáöíøò Ú æó Åöäøó ÇáÑøóÌúÚóÉó áóíúÓóÊú ÈöÚóÇãøóÉò æó åöíó ÎóÇÕøóÉñ áóÇ íóÑúÌöÚõ ÅöáøóÇ ãóäú ãóÍóÖó ÇáúÅöíãóÇäó ãóÍúÖÇð Ãóæú ãóÍóÖó ÇáÔøöÑúßó ãóÍúÖÇð

Translation: said from ibn isa from ibn abilkhatab from al-bazanti from hammad ibn uthman from muhammad ibn muslim he said I heard BOTH hamran ibn a'yon and abi al-khatab saying and this was before abilkhtab said what he said (i.e he went astray) that they heard Imam Sadiq (as) saying: "The first person that will crack the soil and return to this world will be Hussain ibn ALi (as) and Ra'ja' is not for all people, only those who are purely faithful or those who are purely mushrik."

Here is the exact same narration from Al-burhan fi tafsir ul-quran, vol. 3, P.507:

ÇáÈÑåÇä Ýí ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÞÑÂä¡ Ìþ3¡ Õ: 507

Úä ÓÚÏ Èä ÚیÓی Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì æ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÃÈí ÇáÎØÇÈ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí äÕÑ¡ Úä ÍãÇÏ Èä ÚËãÇä¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáã¡ ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊ ÍãÑÇä Èä ÃÚíä æ ÃÈÇ ÇáÎØÇÈþ

íÍÏËÇä ÌãíÚÇ- ÞÈá Ãä íÍÏË ÃÈæ ÇáÎØÇÈ ãÇ ÃÍÏË- ÃäåãÇ ÓãÚÇ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) íÞæá: «Ãæá ãä ÊäÔÞ ÇáÃÑÖ Úäå æ íÑÌÚ Åáì ÇáÏäíÇ¡ ÇáÍÓíä Èä Úáí (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã)¡ æ Åä ÇáÑÌÚÉ áíÓÊ ÈÚÇãÉ æ åí ÎÇÕÉ¡ áÇ íÑÌÚ ÅáÇ ãä ãÍÖ ÇáÅíãÇä ãÍÖÇ Ãæ ãÍÖ ÇáÔÑß ãÍÖÇ».

By comparing the chain of narrators from these two narrations it can be easily confirmed that the first four people in the chain are:

1-Sa'd = sa'd ibn Abdullah

2-ibn eisa = ahmad ibn mohammad ibn eisa

3-ibn abi al-khatab = Mohammad ibn Hussein ibn abi al-khattab

4-al-bazanti = ahmad ibn muhhamad ibn abi nasr = ahmad ibn muhhamad ibn abi nasr albazanti

These are all trusted (theqah) and famous and can be checked from al-Khui. In fact It is much probable that Al-majlesi didn't mention their whole name because of their fame. See al-Khui for more details.

Now four others remain:

hamad ibn uthman (Al-nab): Al-najashi says he is trusted (theqah), Sheikh al-toosi says he is trusted and has a high stature (theqah jalil al-ghadr)

Muhammad ibn Muslim (ibn riah): He is also very famous. According to najashi he is "of the most trusted people"(min othaq al-nas)

Hamran ibn a'yon: He is also greatly trusted. Ibn davood says he is praised and great (mamdoohon moazzam), Al-toosi has mentioned many narrations from Imam Sadiq praising him. Things like: He is their Shia in this worl and the hereafter and He will be in Heaven...

Abi al-lkhatab: The only problematic person in the chain of narrators is this guy. Well he can completly be ignored. Why? Because Muhammad ibn Muslim said: "I heard BOTH hamran ibn a'yon and abi al-khatab saying (this narration) and this was before abilkhtab said what he said (i.e he went astray)". So we simply delete him from the list and we still have a narration with a connected chain of trusted narrators reaching Imam Sadiq (as).

Allama Majlisi has taken this narration from Mukhtasar al-Basair of Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli. A/c to Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli, this narration is from kitab Basair ad-Darajaat of Sa'd b. Abdullah (ra). Even though narrators are reliable, but since the tareeq from Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli to the kitab Basair ad-Darajat of Sa'd is not established as sahih, therefore this narration can't be considered sahih.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

The only person that didn't care to check this was you! Or else you would have given a shred of proof before blinldy labelling them ALL as ghulats or extremely dhaif.

From rijal Najashi. . .

Úä Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä Ôãæä¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä ÇáÇÕã¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÈØá

Óåá Èä ÒíÇÏ ÃÈæ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÇÏãí ÇáÑÇÒí ßÇä ÖÚíÝÇ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË¡ ÛíÑ ãÚÊãÏ Ýíå. æßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì íÔåÏ Úáíå ÈÇáÛáæ æÇáßÐÈ æÃÎÑÌå ãä Þã Åáì ÇáÑí æßÇä íÓßäåÇ

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä Ôãæä ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ¡ ÈÛÏÇÏí¡ æÇÞÝ¡ Ëã ÛáÇ¡ æßÇä ÖÚíÝÇ ÌÏÇ¡ ÝÇÓÏ ÇáãÐåÈ

ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÇÕã ÇáãÓãÚí ÈÕÑí¡ ÖÚíÝ ÛÇá

ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÍÖÑãí ÇáãÚÑæÝ ÈÇáÈØá¡ ßÐÇÈ¡ ÛÇá¡ íÑæì Úä ÇáÛáÇÉ¡ áÇ ÎíÑ Ýíå¡ æáÇ íÚÊÏ ÈÑæÇíÊå.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to ALL the narrations in Bihar ul-Anwar, thats why I started with the first one in the previous post.

Allama Majlisi has taken this narration from Mukhtasar al-Basair of Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli. A/c to Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli, this narration is from kitab Basair ad-Darajaat of Sa'd b. Abdullah . Even though narrators are reliable, but since the tareeq from Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli to the kitab Basair ad-Darajat of Sa'd is not established as sahih, therefore this narration can't be considered sahih.

It's not that easy to discredit this person or his book because as far as I checked this person and his book were trusted by many many scholars some of the more famous being Sheikh hur Al-Ameli, AL-majlesi, Al-Bahrani, Al-nuri,...

He was a disciple of Shahid al-avval and has an Ijazah from him. Al-Amin in a'yan al-shia has narrated words showing his high stature from other scholars:

ÃÚíÇä ÇáÔíÚÉ - ÇáÓíÏ ãÍÓä ÇáÃãíä - Ì 5 - Õ 106

Ýí Ããá ÇáÂãá : ÇáÍÓä Èä ÓáíãÇä Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÍáí ÝÇÖá ÝÞíå áå ãÎÊÕÑ ÈÕÇÆÑ ÇáÏÑÌÇÊ áÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå íÑæí Úä ÇáÔåíÏ Çå . ÝÍÐÝ ãä ÃÌÏÇÏå ãÍãÏÇ . æÝí ÑíÇÖ ÇáÚáãÇÁ ÇáÔíÎ ÚÒ ÇáÏíä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÓáíãÇä Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÍáí ãä ÃÌáÉ ÊáÇãÐÉ ÔíÎäÇ ÇáÔåíÏ

Neither have discredited him or his book!

If you don't want to accept the direct narrations which speak about Imam Hussein's (as) raja I'm not going to force you. But there are also indirect ways to show this:

a-Ziarat Jamia al-kabeera:

va yakerro fi rajatekom

æ ی˜Ñ Ýی ÑÌÚʘã

(And will God make me one of those) Who come back in your raj'a. The word Raj'a is in plural form and is referred to all the Imams Including Imam Hussein.

P.S. Please Don't tell me that this ziarat is Dhaif. Except for Ayatullah Fadhlulah nearly every other Ayatullah or prominent shia scholar I know has no problem with this ziarat.

b-Ziarat of óale yasin which starts with:

ÓáÇã Úáی Âá یÓ. ÇáÓáÇã Úáی˜ یÇ ..

Salamun ala ale yasin...

This ziarat has a section which says:

æ Çä ÑÌÚʘã ÍÞÇ áÇ ÑیÈ ÝیåÇ

va anna rajatakom haghon la raiba fiha

(And i swear) that your raj'a is true and there is no doubt in it

Raja is used in plural form here as well so it includes all the Imams including Imam Hussain.

c-Ziarat of Arbain of Imam Hussein: ÒیÇÑÊ ÇáÇÑÈÚیä

æ ÈÇیÇȘã ãæÞä

va biabikom mooqen

I am sure that you will return

There are many more ziarats which refer to Raj'a like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Sorry, I thought you were referring to ALL the narrations in Bihar ul-Anwar, thats why I started with the first one in the previous post.

It's not that easy to discredit this person or his book because as far as I checked this person and his book were trusted by many many scholars some of the more famous being Sheikh hur Al-Ameli, AL-majlesi, Al-Bahrani, Al-nuri,...

He was a disciple of Shahid al-avval and has an Ijazah from him. Al-Amin in a'yan al-shia has narrated words showing his high stature from other scholars:

أعيان الشيعة - السيد محسن الأمين - ج 5 - ص 106

في أمل الآمل : الحسن بن سليمان بن خالد الحلي فاضل فقيه له مختصر بصائر الدرجات لسعد بن عبد الله يروي عن الشهيد اه . فحذف من أجداده محمدا . وفي رياض العلماء الشيخ عز الدين الحسن بن سليمان بن محمد بن خالد الحلي من أجلة تلامذة شيخنا الشهيد

It's not about the person i.e. Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli who obviously was a famous scholar. Just because scholars you mentioned above relied or quoted it in their books doesn't makes the narration sahih. We need to have a sahih and muttasil tareeq from the author to the original book of Sa'd (ra). The same reason we don't consider even the reliable isnad narrations in Tafsir al-Qummi as 'sahih' because the tafsir has not reached us through sahih tareeq. Hope you are getting my point now.

If you don't want to accept the direct narrations which speak about Imam Hussein's (as) raja I'm not going to force you. But there are also indirect ways to show this:

a-Ziarat Jamia al-kabeera:

va yakerro fi rajatekom

و یکر فی رجعتکم

(And will God make me one of those) Who come back in your raj'a. The word Raj'a is in plural form and is referred to all the Imams Including Imam Hussein.

P.S. Please Don't tell me that this ziarat is Dhaif. Except for Ayatullah Fadhlulah nearly every other Ayatullah or prominent shia scholar I know has no problem with this ziarat.

b-Ziarat of َale yasin which starts with:

سلام علی آل یس. السلام علیک یا ..

Salamun ala ale yasin...

This ziarat has a section which says:

و ان رجعتکم حقا لا ریب فیها

va anna rajatakom haghon la raiba fiha

(And i swear) that your raj'a is true and there is no doubt in it

Raja is used in plural form here as well so it includes all the Imams including Imam Hussain.

c-Ziarat of Arbain of Imam Hussein: زیارت الاربعین

و بایابکم موقن

va biabikom mooqen

I am sure that you will return

^None of these are sahih in isnad. Check the sanad of Ziyarat Jamiah, then you will know why Syed Fadhlallah consider it weak in sanad.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about the person i.e. Shaykh Hasan al-Hilli who obviously was a famous scholar. Just because scholars you mentioned above relied or quoted it in their books doesn't makes the narration sahih. We need to have a sahih and muttasil tareeq from the author to the original book of Sa'd (ra). The same reason we don't consider even the reliable isnad narrations in Tafsir al-Qummi as 'sahih' because the tafsir has not reached us through sahih tareeq. Hope you are getting my point now.

As I've mentioned before, if you're going to apply that degree of strictness in saying that unless we know a specific tariqa to a medieval scholar to known book from before his time we reject all of its contents as ghayr sahih, you would also have to throw out any reliance on Ibn al-Ghada'iri's rijal book as well since we don't know the path between him and Ibn Tawus. Would you be willing to do that? Or is it more reasonable to assume that by the time of scholars such as Ibn Tawus, Hasan al-Hilli, and so forth, that such books would have been known amongst the Shi`a, collected in their libraries, possibly in multiple copies, and so on, and that there isn't a need to have a pinpointed X from Y from Z going from them to the author as such. To do so and end up rejecting outright such works is to give technicalities in a man made system way too much authority.

In terms of the raj`a of Imam al-Husayn (as), I really don't see what the problem is here. Raj`a is doctrine that's clearly associated with Shi`ism from it's early days, something we have a ton of evidence for, and I just don't see why one should be making a fuss in arguing about it. What principle or doctrine is being violated by saying that the Imam (as) will return? Other people in the past have been raised from the dead, so why is this one so hard to accept?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In terms of the raj`a of Imam al-Husayn (as), I really don't see what the problem is here. Raj`a is doctrine that's clearly associated with Shi`ism from it's early days, something we have a ton of evidence for, and I just don't see why one should be making a fuss in arguing about it. What principle or doctrine is being violated by saying that the Imam (as) will return? Other people in the past have been raised from the dead, so why is this one so hard to accept?

I personally have never rejected the possibility of raj'a of Imams (as). My point is only that those scholars who don't interpret the raj'a as 'return of people' have a strong point too as we don't have anything clearly or undoubtedly sahih about it in our books of hadith.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have never rejected the possibility of raj'a of Imams (as). My point is only that those scholars who don't interpret the raj'a as 'return of people' have a strong point too as we don't have anything clearly or undoubtedly sahih about it in our books of hadith.

w/s

Akhi, sahih proof has been provided above. You rejected it though because of a technicality where we don't have a tariqa between Shaykh al-Hasan al-Hilli and Sa`d b. `Abdulllah's Basa'ir. Again, will you thus also reject Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book? If not, why the double standard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Akhi, sahih proof has been provided above. You rejected it though because of a technicality where we don't have a tariqa between Shaykh al-Hasan al-Hilli and Sa`d b. `Abdulllah's Basa'ir. Again, will you thus also reject Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book? If not, why the double standard?

Bro, the above proof is not undoubtedly sahih. Actually, double standard is being used by those who rejects Ibn al-Ghadairi book but rely on hadith books with weak tareeq.

And when it comes to rijaal, we are anyway accepting tawtheeq / tadheef without proofs such as Rijal Najashi doesn't mentions its proofs of tawthiq / tadheef. So it doesn't makes any difference whether the book was from Ibn al-Ghadairi or not. The best and safest approach when it comes to rijaal is to consider all major rijal books and apply the principle of 'Defamation over rules the Justification or the testimony of trust'. This approach is being used by scholars such as Shaykh al-Radhy.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites

ÓóÚúÏñ Úóäö ÇÈúäö ÚöíÓóì æó ÇÈúäö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö Úóäö ÇáúÈóÒóäúØöíøö Úóäú ÍóãøóÇÏö Èúäö ÚõËúãóÇäó Úóäú ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ãõÓúáöãò

Where's the weakness in this chain? The only argument you're bringing is that we don't have a tariqa between al-Hilli who is quoting from Sa`d's book to that book. But again, that's the same argument used to reject the authority of Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book, that is, that Ibn Tawus quotes it (which is our source of it) but we don't have a tariqa between him and the author. I know that you nonetheless still accept Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book as authentic (and I largely agree), so why then reject al-Hilli's quoting of Sa`d's book on the very basis you don't accept for rejecting Ibn al-Ghada'iri's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

سَعْدٌ عَنِ ابْنِ عِيسَى وَ ابْنِ أَبِي الْخَطَّابِ عَنِ الْبَزَنْطِيِّ عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ

Where's the weakness in this chain? The only argument you're bringing is that we don't have a tariqa between al-Hilli who is quoting from Sa`d's book to that book.

^Yes and this argument is enough to grade it as daif. I can show you examples of scholars who graded ahadith daif b/c of weak tareeq.

But again, that's the same argument used to reject the authority of Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book, that is, that Ibn Tawus quotes it (which is our source of it) but we don't have a tariqa between him and the author. I know that you nonetheless still accept Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book as authentic (and I largely agree), so why then reject al-Hilli's quoting of Sa`d's book on the very basis you don't accept for rejecting Ibn al-Ghada'iri's?

Did you read my last post? When it comes to rijal the tariq doesn't matters because we are anyway accepting tadheef / tawthiq without hadith proofs such as in case of Rijal Najashi.

The best and safest approach when it comes to rijaal is to consider all major rijal books and apply the principle of 'Defamation over rules the Justification or the testimony of trust'. This approach is being used by scholars such as Shaykh al-Radhy.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read Ziyaratal Auli-Yasin is Mutamid in Isnaad.. Can anyone verify?

I also have read the same about Ziyaratal Jamial Al-Kabeer (that's is by a short mutamid chain to Imam Hadi (as)).

ÓóÚúÏñ Úóäö ÇÈúäö ÚöíÓóì æó ÇÈúäö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÎóØøóÇÈö Úóäö ÇáúÈóÒóäúØöíøö Úóäú ÍóãøóÇÏö Èúäö ÚõËúãóÇäó Úóäú ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ãõÓúáöãò

Where's the weakness in this chain? The only argument you're bringing is that we don't have a tariqa between al-Hilli who is quoting from Sa`d's book to that book. But again, that's the same argument used to reject the authority of Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book, that is, that Ibn Tawus quotes it (which is our source of it) but we don't have a tariqa between him and the author. I know that you nonetheless still accept Ibn al-Ghada'iri's book as authentic (and I largely agree), so why then reject al-Hilli's quoting of Sa`d's book on the very basis you don't accept for rejecting Ibn al-Ghada'iri's?

I have a question, why is Misbahal shariah questioned(or rejected) by (you?) some, applying the same principles?.

Edited by Awakened
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have read Ziyaratal Auli-Yasin is Mutamid in Isnaad.. Can anyone verify?

There are majaheel in its sanad. . .

ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÝÞíå ÃÈæ ãÍãÏ ÚÑÈí Èä ãÓÇÝÑ ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÏÇÑå ÈÇáÍáÉ Ýí ÔåÑ ÑÈíÚ ÇáÇæá ÓäÉ ËáÇË æÓÈÚíä æÎãÓãÇÆÉ¡ æÍÏËäí ÇáÔíÎ ÃÈæ ÇáÈÞÇÁ åÈÉ Çááå Èä äãÇÁ Èä Úáí Èä ÍãÏæä ÞÇáÇ ÌãíÚÇ: ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÇãíä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ØÍÇá ÇáÈÛÏÇÏí ÑÍãå Çááå ÈãÔåÏ ãæáÇäÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáãÝíÏ ÃÈæ Úáí ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÇáãÔåÏ ÇáãÐßæÑ Úä æÇáÏå ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÔäÇÓ ÇáÈÒÇÒ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ÇáÞãí¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÒäÌæíå ÇáÞãí¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÍãíÑí ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí ÇáÍÓä Èä ÃÔäÇÓ: æÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæ ÇáãÝÖá ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈíÏ Çááå ÇáÔíÈÇäí

. . .

I also have read the same about Ziyaratal Jamial Al-Kabeer (that's is by a short mutamid chain to Imam Hadi (as)).

^It's also weak in sanad. . .

Ó: åá ÇáÒíÇÑÉ ÇáÌÇãÚÉ ãä ÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáÇÍÇÏ æ ØÑÞ ÇáÇÝÑÇÏ¿

Ì: åí ßÐáß ãÚ ÚÏã ËÈæÊ ÕÍÉ ÓäÏåÇ

Ó: ãÇ åæ Ïáíáßã ÇáÑÌÇáí Úáì ÚÏã ËÈæÊ ÕÍÉ ÓäÏ ÇáÒíÇÑÉ ÇáÌÇãÚÉ ¡ áÇä ÇáÑÌÇá Çí ÇáÑæÇÉ ßáåã ãä ÇáÇÓÇÊÐÉ áÇÈä ÈÇÈæíå ÇáÞãí æ ÇáÏí áã íØÚä Ýíåã Èá ãÏÍåã Ýí ÕÏÑ ßÊÇÈ ßÇãá ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ ¿

Ì: áã íËÈÊ ÕÍÉ ÇÓÇäíÏ ßÊÇÈ ßÇãá ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ ÍíË áÇ íßÝí ãÏÍ ÇÈä ÈÇÈæíå Ýí ÅËÈÇÊ Ðáß æåÐÇ ãÇ ÐåÈ Çáíå ÇíÖÇ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí (Ñå

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Imam Husain (A) (and all the Imams actually) is supported by a number of hadith. However most of the hadth about these types of details (such as battles, revenge for Karbala, or using tafsir to explain it) are weak. So the idea that he will return seems like it has merit in hadith, but the details are not really clear.

I personally have never rejected the possibility of raj'a of Imams (as). My point is only that those scholars who don't interpret the raj'a as 'return of people' have a strong point too as we don't have anything clearly or undoubtedly sahih about it in our books of hadith.

w/s

Nothing in life is "clearly or undoubtedly Sahih" except for maybe the sun... however the first few ahadith in Bihar al-Anwar vol 53 in the book of raj'ah are pretty strong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

however the first few ahadith in Bihar al-Anwar vol 53 in the book of raj'ah are pretty strong.

^Only if you ignore the fact that they have reached us through weak/unknown tareeq. The tareeq of the book is as important as the isnad, in fact, part of the isnad. There is no point in checking the isnad too if you have to ignore the tareeq to the original book.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

^Only if you ignore the fact that they have reached us through weak/unknown tareeq. The tareeq of the book is as important as the isnad, in fact, part of the isnad. There is no point in checking the isnad too if you have to ignore the tareeq to the original book.

w/s

Consider this hypothetical scenario. It's the town of Hilla, about 200 years into the ghayba. The Shi`as have a school there attached to their masjid wherein their scholars will study the books that have been passed down for generations, including a number of books which we no longer have today. Some of the volumes in the library may be quite old, having found their home in the library of collected volumes. Amongst those volumes of books is one by a famous and highly respected Qummi from the earlier generation of shuyukh. Then one day, one of the scholars of Hilla decides he's going to write a new book, extracting the contents from a number of these existing volumes. He cites his sources (for example from the Qummi's book) and includes the isnad that the Qummi himself included in his book. This scholar compiling the new collection is himself a respected shaykh, and his peers and later scholars pass on his collection according it a respectful place in our literature of scholarship. Since the original book of the Qummi is still available in this time, perhaps in multiple copies, of course other scholars could have verified his quoting of it from the original volume where there any suspicions he'd been misquoting it. No reports of such a thing reach us though.

Now, going by the method you're arguing for, we would reject the whole book without a second regard, irrespective of whether it's contents accord with the famous teachings of our madhhab or not, irrespective of the general accord granted to the book and irrespective of the strength of the individual isnads he cites in it. Why? Because the compiling scholar didn't list out a chain of generations between him and the book. But, wait a minute, how could he have? He was quoting straight from the book before him.

Does this really strike you as a sound method? It's one thing to be critically minded, but then there's a hyper-criticism which one can fall into with the results that you end up rejecting and losing a lot of our religious texts and sources. What if the hadiths here for instance are in fact the authentic words of our Imams (as), would you feel comfortable about having disputed and cast doubt about them? There's also the problem of according way too much authority to these later systems of isnad verification where we know for a fact that while they might be a useful indicator, it's also a heavily flawed system with some pretty shaky foundations. You yourself cited one of its flaws which is that it accords automatic authority and trust to the tawthiqat and tad`ifat of the rijal authors like Najashi and Tusi, while the fact is we actually don't even really know where they got these from themselves, and at times will even give opposite reports of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

"Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only." (6:116)

"Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned." (17:36)

"They follow but conjecture and that which themselves desire." (53:23)

Given that the Quran demands proofs and accuracy, in my opinion, Brother Jondab's perspective, and his strict filtration is very valuable.

Instead of relying on hypothetical scenarios to support our biases, we need to have clear evidence.

In this present case, it seems clear evidence is missing, and therefore, the acceptance of such belief isn't based on certainty and seems to be based on conjectures.

Allah knows best

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

"Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only." (6:116)

"Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned." (17:36)

"They follow but conjecture and that which themselves desire." (53:23)

Given that the Quran demands proofs and accuracy, in my opinion, Brother Jondab's perspective, and his strict filtration is very valuable.

Instead of relying on hypothetical scenarios to support our biases, we need to have clear evidence.

In this present case, it seems clear evidence is missing, and therefore, the acceptance of such belief isn't based on certainty and seems to be based on conjectures.

Allah knows best

(wasalam)

The scholar in question, Shaykh al-Hasan al-Hilli (ar) says at the beginning of his book:

äÞáÊ ãä ßÊÇÈ ãÎÊÕÑ ÇáÈÕÇÆÑ ÊÃáíÝ ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÃÈí ÎáÝ ÇáÞãøí ( ÑÍãå Çááå

I have transmitted (naqaltu transcribed, transfered) from the book Mukhtasar al-Basa'ir of Sa`d b. `Abdullah b. Abi Khalf al-Qummi, may Allah have mercy on him.

And then he starts quoting the narrations going from Sa`d and then listing the isnads that latter cited in his book along with the hadiths.

al-Hilli was a respected scholar, a student of Shaheed al-Awwal (ar), and Sa`d one of our major narrators of hadith, highly respected in our school. So why is the above statement not sufficient evidence that he did exactly what he is saying he did, transmitting from a book he obviously had access to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(wasalam)

The scholar in question, Shaykh al-Hasan al-Hilli (ar) says at the beginning of his book:

äÞáÊ ãä ßÊÇÈ ãÎÊÕÑ ÇáÈÕÇÆÑ ÊÃáíÝ ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÃÈí ÎáÝ ÇáÞãøí ( ÑÍãå Çááå

I have transmitted (naqaltu transcribed, transfered) from the book Mukhtasar al-Basa'ir of Sa`d b. `Abdullah b. Abi Khalf al-Qummi, may Allah have mercy on him.

And then he starts quoting the narrations going from Sa`d and then listing the isnads that latter cited in his book along with the hadiths.

al-Hilli was a respected scholar, a student of Shaheed al-Awwal (ar), and Sa`d one of our major narrators of hadith, highly respected in our school. So why is the above statement not sufficient evidence that he did exactly what he is saying he did, transmitting from a book he obviously had access to?

That is a good question.

I would like to hear brother Jondab's reply to this, before I respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(wasalam)

The scholar in question, Shaykh al-Hasan al-Hilli (ar) says at the beginning of his book:

نقلت من كتاب مختصر البصائر تأليف سعد بن عبدالله بن أبي خلف القمّي ( رحمه الله

I have transmitted (naqaltu transcribed, transfered) from the book Mukhtasar al-Basa'ir of Sa`d b. `Abdullah b. Abi Khalf al-Qummi, may Allah have mercy on him.

And then he starts quoting the narrations going from Sa`d and then listing the isnads that latter cited in his book along with the hadiths.

al-Hilli was a respected scholar, a student of Shaheed al-Awwal (ar), and Sa`d one of our major narrators of hadith, highly respected in our school. So why is the above statement not sufficient evidence that he did exactly what he is saying he did, transmitting from a book he obviously had access to?

Consider this example. . .

From Wasail ash-Shi'a

محمّد بن الحسن الصفار في ( بصائر الدرجات ): عن محمّد بن إسماعيل ـ يعني البرمكي ـ عن علي بن الحكم، عن شهاب بن عبد ربه قال: أتيت أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) أسأله، فابتدأني فقال: إن شئت فسل يا شهاب، وإن شئت أخبرناك بما جئت له، قلت: أخبرني، قال: جئت تسألني عن الغدير يكون في جانبه الجيفة، أتوضأ منه أو لا؟ قال: نعم، قال: توضأ من الجانب الآخر، إلا أن يغلب ( الماء الريح فينتن ) (1).

Here, Shaykh Hurr al-Amili is quoting the narration from the book Basair ad-Darajaat of al-Saffar (ra). Shaykh Hurr al-Amili obviously had access to the book. But still Syed Baqir as-Sadr consider it weak because the tareeq from Shaykh Hurr al-Amili to the book Basair ad-Darajaat is not established as sahih.

لانها يرويها صاحب الوسائل عن كتاب بصائر الدرجات وطريق صاحب الوسائل إلى بصائر الدرجات إنما هو بتوسط الشيخ، والشيخ طريقه إلى الصفار - وان كان صحيحا - ولكن طريقه الصحيح إليل الصفار لا يشمل بصائر الدرجات، وطريقه إلى بصائر الدرجات ليس صحيحا، فالرواية غير تامة سندا.

وأما رواية بصائر الدرجات (3) فهي ساقطة سندا، لان الشيخ الحر ينقلها في الوسائل عن كتاب بصائر الدرجات، وهو يروي هذا الكتاب بطريقه إلى الشيخ الطوسي، وبطريق الشيخ الطوسي إلى الكتاب، والشيخ الطوسي له طريقان إلى الصغار: أحدهما صحيح ويروي به سائر روايات الصفار، ولكن استثنى من ذلك كتاب بصائر الدرجات. فهو غير مروي بذلك الطريق الصحيح. والآخر طريق يروي به الشيخ كتاب بصائر الدرجات ولكنه غير صحيح

So, is Baqir as-Sadr wrong by considering it weak b/c of the weak tareeq from Sahib al-Wasail to the book Basair ad-Darajaat ?

I have used the same method.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is Baqir as-Sadr wrong by considering it weak b/c of the weak tareeq from Sahib al-Wasail to the book Basair ad-Darajaat ?

I have used the same method.

w/s

I'm amazed he'd have used such an argument. For those who don't understand the Arabic, he's saying the hadith (which has a sahih isnad) is not sahih because Shaykh Hurr al-`Amuli is quoting it from Basa'ir ad-Darajat (a very early (older than Kafi) well-known hadith collection of Shaykh Saffar al-Qummi) and his tariq to the book goes back to Shaykh Tusi. That tariq is considered sahih. Shaykh Tusi has two tariqs to Shaykh Saffar. One is sahih, the other though is not (according to the citation), and that is tariqa through which he had received Basa'ir ad-Darajat. Now to explain what's meant by this, it's not that Tusi is narrating the hadith himself, the hadith's narration is in a written book, Basa'ir ad-Darajat, of an earlier scholar, that would have been known to his contemporaries. The tariq is simply listing through whom he personally had it handed to him as listed in his fihrist. Does this mean it's the only tariq to the book that existed back then amongst the scholars of that time, no, not necessarily. It's just that's what Tusi recorded in his book of bibliography that he _personally_ had. Here Baqir as-Sadr is effectively rejecting the whole book because of this technicality. I will point out that evidently other scholars haven't agreed to this, for instance from Sayyid Rohani's Fiqh as-Sadiq:

وما في صحيحة شهاب المتقدمة : إلا ان يغلب الماء الريح فينتن

And Shaykh Najafi's Jawahir al-Kalam:

ومنها صحيح شهاب بن عبد

Anyhow, about the weakness of the tariq that is supposedly weak, Sayyid Rohani (quoting from Sayyid al-Khoe'i) answers that here:

س: كيف يعتمد الشيعة على كتاب بصائر الدرجات للشيخ الصفار و الحال ان هذا الكتاب ينقل بسند واحد فقط و هو احمد بن محمد بن يحيى و السيد الخوئي يصرح بان هذا الشخص مجهول؟ و هل على فرض شهرة الكتاب او ان فيه تواتر، فهل يكفي في قبول هذه النسخة و ان كان يروي عن شخص مجهول؟ فقد يكون هذا الشخص قد اضاف روايات من عنده او قد اضاف سندا للروايات لم تكن موجودة اصلا في النسخة الاصلية؟

باسمه جلت اسمائه

ج: قال الشيخ محمد بن الحسن الصفا و قمي له كتب ... كتاب بصائر الدرجات و غيره - اخبرنا بجميع كتبه و رواياته ابن ابي جيد عن ابي الوليد عنه و طريق الشيخ اليه في غير كتاب بصائر الدرجات صحيح - و قال السيد الخوئي رحمه الله بل فيه ايضا علي الاظهر فان في طريقه ابن ابي جيد فانه ثقة لانه من مشايخ النجاشي.

I know this probably won't convince you. But really, putting _this_ much emphasis on man made technicalities of a flawed system is really losing sight of the big picture. Look hard enough, you can likely find some argument or other to reject just about any hadith. I didn't say a good argument, just an argument.

wa salaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ Is there also a sahih hadith that says that Jesus (as) will be forbidden to resurrect people when he re-appears? Or perhaps a hadith that he (as) wasn't fond of it?

Btw, the hadiths must be "sahih" with complete chains and isnad, otherwise they'll be considered untrue and ignored as a lie. ^

w/s

Edited by Ibrahim Nakhaee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Given that the Quran emphasizes that we do not rely on conjectures, and given that hadiths form an integral part of our faith, after reading the posts and the replies, the "safer" choice would be brother Jondab's explanation and views.

It involves the least (if any) amount of assumptions and wishful thinking.

The more filtration, the safer, hence the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

BTW, Syed Baqir as-Sadr isn't the only one who used this argument. There are others like Shaykh al-Radhy. . .

الكتب غير المعتبرة أو عليها علامة استفهام :

قال حول هذا الموضوع :

( الروايات غير المعتبرة , إما غير معتبرة مصدراً وسنداً , وإما سنداً فقط , وإما مصدراً فقط بأن كان السند من صاحب الكتاب إلى الإمام عليه السلام معتبراً لكن المؤلف نفسه كان مجهول الحال أو كان ثقة لكن نسبة الكتاب إليه غير ثابتة وأن نسخة الكتاب لم تصل إلى اصحاب الجوامع الموجودة كالوسائل و الوافي وبحار الأنوار و مستدرك الوسائل مثلاً بالمناوبة والعنعنة المعتبرة المتصلة , بل وصلت إليهم بالوجادة .

وإليك قائمة ناقصة من هذه الكتب من مصادر بحار الأنوار .

1- كتاب علي بن جعفر عليه السلام .

2- محاسن البرقي .

3- تفسير علي بن إبراهيم .

4- بصائر الدرجات للصفار

. . .

http://www.alradhy.com/hadeth/alahadeth26/4-1.htm

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...