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
Sign in to follow this  
Jondab_Azdi

Detailed Version Of Hadith Al-kisa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

Text of sermons by Shaykh al-Radhy regarding the authenticity of the detailed version of Hadith al-Kisa attributed to Sayyeda Zahra (sa) found in al-Awalim and in the books of Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi. . .

ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ Èíä ÇáÊæÇÊÑ æÇáæÖÚ

ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ ÇáãæÖæÚ

http://www.alradhy.com/hadeth/alahadeth31/4-3.htm

http://www.alradhy.com/hadeth/alahadeth31/4-4.htm

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Basically in essence he is saying the detailed version of hadeeth al-kisaa that is pages long and can be found on various websites like duas.org is الموضوع (Fabricated).

This is what I suspected, when I didn't find it in any of our Books. I searched very extensively for hours to try to find this specific du'aa in our books, but was disheartened to find out it was not in any of our books. We stick to this du'aa so much to the point that we can't start a majlis until this du'aa has been recited.

I searched through all these books

  1. Al-Kaafi
  2. Man Laa YaHDuruh Al-Faqeeh
  3. Al-IstibSaar
  4. Tahdheeb Al-AHkaam
  5. Bihaar Al-Anwaar
  6. Wasaa-il Shee'ah
  7. Mustadark Al-Wasaa-il
  8. Al-Waafee
  9. MiSbaaH Al-Kaf'amee
  10. MiSbaaH Al-Mutahajid
  11. MiftaaH Al-FalaaH
  12. Iqbaal Al-a'maal
    as well as many many others...

So as you can see, after doing through that search my concern was weather it was even narrated in our books or not, let alone if it was SaHeeH. I saw it was narrated in that book (Al-Awalim), but I had a feeling it was fabricated.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Text of sermons by Shaykh al-Radhy regarding the authenticity of the detailed version of Hadith al-Kisa attributed to Sayyeda Zahra (sa) found in al-Awalim and in the books of Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi. . .

ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ Èíä ÇáÊæÇÊÑ æÇáæÖÚ

ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ ÇáãæÖæÚ

http://www.alradhy.com/hadeth/alahadeth31/4-3.htm

http://www.alradhy.com/hadeth/alahadeth31/4-4.htm

w/s

So We Are Going To Hear of Your Shaykh, Who Is Not Even A Mujtahid Apparently ! (and being refuted many times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, Look and read his argument carefully. Like I said it earlier, I never found this specific hadeeth in any one of our major works, and it is in Al-Awalim, so he was refuting it from there.

I would like to see a counter-argument (if there is one) that says this specific hadeeth that is pages long is SaHeeH.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the beginning of this video, Ayatollah Taqi Bahjat gives his opinion of the Hadith ul Kisa:

http://www.zainab.tv/videos/32/hadith-ul-kisa-by-samavati-arabic-sub-english-ÍÏíË-ÇáßÓÇÁ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, it works.

Doesn't prove anything really, because there are so many other miracles associated with other practices/prayers from other faiths.

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, Look and read his argument carefully. Like I said it earlier, I never found this specific hadeeth in any one of our major works, and it is in Al-Awalim, so he was refuting it from there.

I would like to see a counter-argument (if there is one) that says this specific hadeeth that is pages long is SaHeeH.

(salam)

what of the shorter version, or the version Sunnis accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what of the shorter version, or the version Sunnis accept?

Yeah I heard Bahjat's response, and with all due respect it is a weak argument. You cannot accept something because it "sounds" right. Which is essentially what he says.

That is his argument, and a weak one at that. Not a very "scholarly" approach, you'd expect him breaking down the sanad and etc of this, but he doesn't.

The "shorter" version, which just narrates the event is SaHeeH. The event happened 100%, no doubt. We have reports that say "aShaab Al-Kisaa", that are SaHeeH'ed by our scholars. The issue is not the event, the issue at hand is the "detailed" version of this event, which is pages long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is no sanad. Straight to Bibi Faatimah (SA). Therefore, this hadeeth can not be taken.

(salam)

At the beginning of this video, Ayatollah Taqi Bahjat gives his opinion of the Hadith ul Kisa:

http://www.zainab.tv/videos/32/hadith-ul-kisa-by-samavati-arabic-sub-english-حديث-الكساء

(bismillah)

(salam)

He is giving his opinion. I have seen this video before. He doesn't talk about the authenticity but merely is trying to say "How can this not be authentic?"

Let me ask you a question... Why is is that he is trying to defend its authenticity if is is already authenticated? Wouldn't something that is authenticated not need defending because all the shee'ah 'ulamaa would know this as being SaHeeH?

That in itself seems fishy. Meaning that he had to come out and specifically speak about THIS specific du'aa just because he knows that people are questioning its authenticity.

(salam)

Doesn't prove anything really, because there are so many other miracles associated with other practices/prayers from other faiths.

what of the shorter version, or the version Sunnis accept?

(bismillah)

(salam)

Yes, our Prophet (SAWAS) and Imaams (as) have done miracles and they have been narrated in the books. We need to make sure that we are not committing ghulla (exaggeration) of their life. People will do that. What I mean by this is that we need to stick to what has been narrated as SaHeeH.

The event of the cloak can be found in various places of the Sunnee books. I will just give you one example from their big book: SaHeeH Muslim, book 31, hadeeth 5955 under the:

Chapter 9: THE MERITS OF THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM)

Book 031, Number 5955:

'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying) (33:33)

So this event has also been narrated by over 20 SaHaba according to Abu 'Eesa Tirmidhi (the author of Sunan at-tirmidhi). This means that this event occurring is a mutawaatir SaHeeH hadeeth. Meaning that this event is 100% undoubtedly the Prophet (SAWAS) doing it, saying it or affirming it. This type of hadeeth is at the same level as the Qur'aan because it is the word of Allaah (SWT) and also there is no doubt in its authenticity, as there is no doubt in the Quraan's authenticity. Everything that the Prophet (SAWAS) does, says and affirms is revelation from Allaah (SWT).

Those who reject this hadeeth are clearly out of the fold of Islaam. But this is not the argument of course. The argument is that... has this specific du'aa (hadeeth al kisaa) been narrated? And if so, then is it SaHeeh? As we have seen from the vast amount of ahaadeeth literature not having this specific du'aa mentioned or no sanad (chain), then yes it has been fabricated.

I hope that helped you in understanding the topic at hand.

(salam)

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

There is no sanad. Straight to Bibi Faatimah (SA). Therefore, this hadeeth can not be taken.

(salam)

There is a sanad that is found in Al-'Awaalim.

Here it is.

ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÌáíá ÇáÓíÏ åÇÔã¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáÓíÏ ãÇÌÏ ÇáÈÍÑÇäí¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä Òíä ÇáÏíä ÇáÔåíÏ ÇáËÇäí¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáãÞÏÓ ÇáÃÑÏÈíáí¡ Úä ÔíÎå Úáí Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÚÇáí ÇáßÑßí¡ Úä ÇáÔíÎ Úáí Èä åáÇá ÇáÌÒÇÆÑí¡ Úä ÇáÔíÎ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÝåÏ ÇáÍáí¡ Úä ÇáÔíÎ Úáí Èä ÇáÎÇÒä ÇáÍÇÆÑí¡ Úä ÇáÔíÎ ÖíÇÁ ÇáÏíä Úáí Èä ÇáÔåíÏ ÇáÃæá¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÝÎÑ ÇáãÍÞÞíä¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáÚáÇãÉ ÇáÍáí¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáãÍÞÞ¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇÈä äãÇ ÇáÍáí¡ Úä ÔíÎå ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÏÑíÓ ÇáÍáí¡ Úä ÇÈä ÍãÒÉ ÇáØæÓí ÕÇÍÈ ËÇÞÈ ÇáãäÇÞÈ¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáÌáíá ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáØæÓí¡ Úä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÌáíá ãÍãÏ Èä ÔåÑ ÇÔæÈ¡ Úä ÇáØÈÑÓí Ü ÕÇÍÈ ÇáÅÍÊÌÇÌ Ü ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ÔíÎ ÇáØÇÆÝÉ¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇáãÝíÏ¡ Úä ÔíÎå ÇÈä Þæáæíå ÇáÞãí¡ Úä ÔíÎå Çáßáíäí¡ Úä Úáí ÇÈä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ [Úä ÃÈíå ÅÈÑÇåíã] Èä åÇÔã¡ Úä ÇÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí äÕÑ ÇáÈÒäØí¡ Úä ÞÇÓã ÇÈä íÍíì ÇáÌáÇÁ ÇáßæÝí¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ¡ Úä ÃÈÇä Èä ÊÛáÈ ÇáÈßÑí¡ Úä ÌÇÈÑ Èä íÒíÏ ÇáÌÚÝí¡ Úä ÌÇÈÑ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÃäÕÇÑí¡ Úä ÝÇØãÉ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ (ÚáíåÇ ÇáÓáÇã

I find it funny and hilarious...IF this hadeeth al-kisaa has been narrated all the way from jaabir to Shaykh Jaleel Al-Sayyid al Haashim, then why haven't the other scholars narrated this hadeeth or made reference to it? That is a little too fishy for me.

I mean look at the people that are mentioned, these are our best narrators and scholars of all time basically. Let me let you know a few names...

  • 'Alee ibn Ibraahim
  • Shaykh Kulaynee
  • Shaykh Mufeed
  • Shaykh Taa'ifah (aka Shaykh Toosee)
  • Shaykh Tabarasi (SaaHib al-iHtijaaj)
  • Shaykh Muhammad ibn Shahraashoob
  • Muhammad ibn Idrees Al-Hillee
  • Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hillee (author of Shara'i Al-Islaam, the fundamental book of shee'ahs for becoming an 'aalim)
  • 'Allaamah Al-Hillee
  • Shaheed Al-Awal (Makki)
  • Ahmad ibn Fahd Al-Hillee
  • Jazaa-iree
  • Ardabilee
  • Shaheed Al-Thaanee (Zayn Al-Deen)

Look at all those names...one question may arise...If all these people have had this specific narration with them and they've somehow passed it down, then how come no one has recorded it in their books?!

And if they have, please provide us with the book to where they have narrated this specific hadeeth.

To me, that is mind blowing! As it should be mind blowing to you.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I just wanted to say that I am glad that we have brothers like Jondab and Nader, who thoroughly examine the hadiths and let us know about the examinations.

I would hate to believe in something or accept something just because "it sounds right."

The difference is almost always in the details.

That is all,

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I heard Bahjat's response, and with all due respect it is a weak argument. You cannot accept something because it "sounds" right. Which is essentially what he says.

Of course you can. As long as it does not contradict the principles of the religion of Islam, there's nothing wrong with accepting it. Though obviously those who worship rijalism (which in itself is an imprecise science) will never be able to understand that.

That is his argument, and a weak one at that. Not a very "scholarly" approach, you'd expect him breaking down the sanad and etc of this, but he doesn't.

So are you claiming that your knowledge and understanding is better than his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

He is giving his opinion. I have seen this video before. He doesn't talk about the authenticity but merely is trying to say "How can this not be authentic?"

Let me ask you a question... Why is is that he is trying to defend its authenticity if is is already authenticated? Wouldn't something that is authenticated not need defending because all the shee'ah 'ulamaa would know this as being SaHeeH?

That in itself seems fishy. Meaning that he had to come out and specifically speak about THIS specific du'aa just because he knows that people are questioning its authenticity.

In short, you're trying to say he's trying to authenticate something fabricated. Therefore, he's lying.

So he should let people talk about it how much ever they want, and when he wants to clear it up, it makes the issue 'fishy'. Moreover, if an a'alim picks up a random hadith and talks about it, we won't give him a chance, and listen to what he has to say, and just say, 'Oh because he's speaking about it, it is weak!' and expect the discussion to finish. Splendid! :dry:

wa (salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can. As long as it does not contradict the principles of the religion of Islam, there's nothing wrong with accepting it. Though obviously those who worship rijalism (which in itself is an imprecise science) will never be able to understand that.

See, thats the thing, do you know ALL the principles of Islaam? What about if something "sounds right" to you, but to another person it doesn't "sound right"? What are you going to do then? As you can see how flawed that mentality is from the start.

You have to realize. We must follow whatever Allaah (SWT), the Prophet (SAWAS) and the Imaams (as) have said. If we try to use "your logic" to grade the authenticity, then the whole Shee'ah Islaam is ruined. Your logic should be based off of whatever Allaah (SWT), the Prophet (SAWAS) and the Imaams (as) have said. And what has Allaah (SWT) said about looking into the matter of a story/hadeeth? Look at where it is coming from aka sanad.

So this is the reason why we are doing this. Sometimes people have to take a stance on things that the norm 'aam (common) person isn't willing to take. That is the whole basis of Islaam.

(salam),

Moreover, if an a'alim picks up a random hadith and talks about it, we won't give him a chance, and listen to what he has to say, and just say, 'Oh because he's speaking about it, it is weak!' and expect the discussion to finish. Splendid! :dry:

No, you didn't get what he was trying to imply. I don't mind a scholar coming out and going against something that is common amongst our Shee'ahs. I actually respect that scholar a lot more, because then I know his intentions aren't to try to be "liked" by everyone. He is willing to take a stand, and he doesn't care about the repercussions, such as being vilified by his own shee'ahs.

Last time I checked, in hadeeth, isn't it the job of the scholar to REMOVE the bid'ah within our religion?

And I sure don't mind a scholar defending a specific hadeeth/story, as long as his defense is good. As long as he is breaking down the sciences of how this cannot be false/fabricated. But he didn't and that is the issue.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what has Allaah (SWT) said about looking into the matter of a story/hadeeth? Look at where it is coming from aka sanad.

(wasalam)

Where? (Yes, I have an idea what ayat you're referring to, but take a closer look at it first)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if they have, please provide us with the book to where they have narrated this specific hadeeth.

You are assuming we have all the books they wrote with us today. We only have a very small, the minutest of fragments of their works, and of the original ahadeeth..

Yeah I heard Bahjat's response, and with all due respect it is a weak argument. You cannot accept something because it "sounds" right. Which is essentially what he says.

That's not what he says at all. He says there are many miracles in it. Something which has miracles in it, is clearly authentic. Tell me, how does the Qur`an verify itself? Does it say look at my sanad? Or does it claim miracles for itself? Don't worship rijalism (i.e. treating it as if you can uncover every truth on the basis of isnaad).

Secondly, Marja Taqleed Ayatullah `udhma Taqi Behjat, also recognised as one of the `urafa, may his soul rest in peace, is not some random superstitious folk trying to stir up emotions either by saying this, so his words should not be brushed aside lightly as you have done..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Where? (Yes, I have an idea what ayat you're referring to, but take a closer look at it first)

(salam)

(bismillah)

The Qur'aan has commanded us to look at the narrators right away.

[surah Al-Hujuraat (49) : Verse 6] O you who believe! if an evil-doer (faasiq) comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.

And the Qur'aan does not only say to do this for a faasiq (evil-doer), but it tell us to do it even to our trusted people. We must always double and triple check our sources to see if it is credible.

Look at what Sulaymaan said to his Hoopoe bird (Hudhud) when he came to him with the news of the Queen of Sheeba. (We must remember this is a trusted bird and messenger of Prophet Sulaymaan(AS)). But look at the language at which he addresses his trusted bird / messenger.

[surah Al-Naml (27) : Verse 27] He said: We will see whether you have told the truth or whether you are of the liars (al-kaadhibeen)

Looking at the chain is a must, and double and triple checking our sources is a must, just to make sure whatever we believe and do is not wrong.

That's not what he says at all. He says there are many miracles in it. Something which has miracles in it, is clearly authentic. Tell me, how does the Qur`an verify itself? Does it say look at my sanad? Or does it claim miracles for itself? Don't worship rijalism (i.e. treating it as if you can uncover every truth on the basis of isnaad).

Weak Argument. There are so many miracles that happen to non muslims, does that make the path they are on "right"? I doubt it. I can show you thousands of miracles that people have said and others have given their testimony that it has happened, and they were calling upon the "trinity" and calling up Jesus to help them. So does that make what they've done right?

Like I've said, weak argument.

And I hate when we use the excuse, "we don't have all the books". Well, I have said this before, sunnees do not have all their books, they never complain about it. They make due with whatever they have.

Allaah (SWT) will not punish us for taking a stance on something even though MAYBE just MAYBE we were wrong because we didn't have all the information. That'll make Allaah (SWT) unjust, and we all know that is not the case.

That is a weak argument as well. Because As you go through those names there are 100s of books that we have in our possession, including books that are dedicated to just "du'aas and ziyaaraat", but this hadeeth al-kisaa isn't mentioned in it at all.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

The Qur'aan has commanded us to look at the narrators right away.

[surah Al-Hujuraat (49) : Verse 6] O you who believe! if an evil-doer (faasiq) comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.

And the Qur'aan does not only say to do this for a faasiq (evil-doer), but it tell us to do it even to our trusted people. We must always double and triple check our sources to see if it is credible.

Look at what Sulaymaan said to his Hoopoe bird (Hudhud) when he came to him with the news of the Queen of Sheeba. (We must remember this is a trusted bird and messenger of Prophet Sulaymaan(AS)). But look at the language at which he addresses his trusted bird / messenger.

[surah Al-Naml (27) : Verse 27] He said: We will see whether you have told the truth or whether you are of the liars (al-kaadhibeen)

Looking at the chain is a must, and double and triple checking our sources is a must, just to make sure whatever we believe and do is not wrong.

(wasalam)

Yes, I was also thinking of the first verse. However, note what it says. If a fasiq comes to you with report, look into it. It does not say to reject it out of hand. This is completely different from what you are suggesting with regards to isnads wherein the report of a fasiq (or not even a fasiq, even just someone who doesn't have praise or criticism recorded of them in very specific books) is rejected out of hand regardless of its contents. Also, have you actually seen any authentic tafsir from the Imams (as) wherein they explained that this verse was meant to be understood in the context you are applying it to? Are you familiar with the sabab an-nuzul in regards to this ayat?

In fact, can you point me to _any_ authentic hadiths wherein the Imams (as) themselves instruct us to follow this system you (and so many others) are advocating? If you can't find any, doesn't it seem strange to you that our faith would somehow be hinging on something they didn't leave us clear instructions on? Isn't it odd that it took centuries after the ghayba (i.e. around the time of Ibn Tawus and `Allama Hilli) for this developed system of diraya to even make an appearance in our madhhab? What does that say about its validity to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a strict system of scrutiny which makes sense is better than not having a system and blindly accepting reports from liars or unknown people which will obviously turn one into semi-ghulat or take one to such an extent that he starts believing in the tahrif of Qur'an. Nauzubillah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a strict system of scrutiny which makes sense is better than not having a system and blindly accepting reports from liars or unknown people which will obviously turn one into semi-ghulat or take one to such an extent that he starts believing in the tahrif of Qur'an. Nauzubillah.

I didn't ask if it "makes sense" to you or others. And if you think that following this particular system gets you out of all possible quagmires, you're very mistaken in your assumption. I asked, show me where in the ahadith themselves such a system being taught? Isn't the very nature of bid`a to be adding to our religion something that doesn't come from the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Yes, I was also thinking of the first verse. However, note what it says. If a fasiq comes to you with report, look into it. It does not say to reject it out of hand. This is completely different from what you are suggesting with regards to isnads wherein the report of a fasiq (or not even a fasiq, even just someone who doesn't have praise or criticism recorded of them in very specific books) is rejected out of hand regardless of its contents. Also, have you actually seen any authentic tafsir from the Imams (as) wherein they explained that this verse was meant to be understood in the context you are applying it to? Are you familiar with the sabab an-nuzul in regards to this ayat?

In fact, can you point me to _any_ authentic hadiths wherein the Imams (as) themselves instruct us to follow this system you (and so many others) are advocating? If you can't find any, doesn't it seem strange to you that our faith would somehow be hinging on something they didn't leave us clear instructions on? Isn't it odd that it took centuries after the ghayba (i.e. around the time of Ibn Tawus and `Allama Hilli) for this developed system of diraya to even make an appearance in our madhhab? What does that say about its validity to you?

Sciences develop over time. They get better and more precise over time. So I don't find it "odd" why it took centuries to develop and perfect the science. Anatomy in the beginning was very weak, but it has progressed over time, just like the Science of Hadeeth.

What was the use of a system back in the day, in which the narrator would've straight asked the Imaam? For example, Kitaab Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilaalee, It has been narrated (I have already discussed this in great detail with sources) that Abaan ibn Abee 'Ayyaash read the book to Imaam Zayn Al-'Aabideen, and he (as) praised Sulaym and he said "indeed we have heard such narrations". (Source: Kashi, Rijaal) If the contents of the book were false, the Imaam would've rejected it outright, but he didn't. So there were no need to go through a "scientific process".

Also major SaHaabas of the Imaams (as) would warn us from ever narrating hadeeth from such and such person. For example, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn 'Eesa Al-'Asharee (one of our greatest SaHaabas) exiled Sahl ibn Ziyaad Al-Aadamee from Qumm, and he told people not to narrate from him. Check all the major works, and you'll know what I am talking about.

So last time I checked, this system of checking the narrators has been in place for a long time, not some made up thing or just something that "appeared" in our madhhab.

I find it funny Mr. MacIsaac, when you quote Rijaal books about certain issues such as Kitaab Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilaalee being fabricated, you reject the WHOLE book, doesn't matter the content (and I am fine with that as long as your argument is legitimate and strong). But when someone comes around and says relatively the same thing, plus more sources, you say as well as everyone else, that we "worshiping the rijaal system"? I smell a double standard.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask if it "makes sense" to you or others. And if you think that following this particular system gets you out of all possible quagmires, you're very mistaken in your assumption. I asked, show me where in the ahadith themselves such a system being taught? Isn't the very nature of bid`a to be adding to our religion something that doesn't come from the source?

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, lets not get on the topic of "if this is bid'ah", because I can give you a LAUNDRY LIST of things in which Shee'ahs do or approve of that is considered bid'ah. Don't stray the topic.

But anyways, this isn't considered bid'ah, the roots of this science was there, as I have discussed, it has just progressed over time. And trust me, if this was considered bid'ah, the first people yelling it would've been salafees / wahhabees. And they are the one who use this system the most and using it the best if I may add.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Sciences develop over time. They get better and more precise over time. So I don't find it "odd" why it took centuries to develop and perfect the science.

Sorry bro but it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about on this one. Really, is it that hard to find me _one_ authentic hadith wherein the Imams (as) instructed their Shi`as to do isnad criticism as such? Isn't it strange to you that you won't find any such "science" in the works of our madhhab's greatest scholars, e.g. as-Saduq, al-Mufid, at-Tusi, etc? You don't find it questionable that while three out of four of the core source books of rijal are from Tusi (ar-rijal, al-fihrist, and his talkhis of Kashshi's book), so many of the hadiths he uses as proof in at-Tahdhheeb and al-Istibsar wouldn't themselves pass this same isnad test? Was he just completely ignorant of his own books, entirely inconsistent, or do you think maybe it's because the early Shi`as, even after the ghayba, did not use such a system of authentication but used other means? And do you think it's completely coincidental that the development of Shi`i diraya came right around the same time Shi`a scholars started accepting the legitimacy of ijtihad, which previously had been condemned as a Sunni innovation?

Also major SaHaabas of the Imaams (as) would warn us from ever narrating hadeeth from such and such person.

Sure, you read about that, but then guess what? You'll find such major sahaba narrating hadiths from people that this science would reject. Take a look for instance at the narrations of Fadl b. Shadhan in Kitab al-Ghayba and who he was reporting from.

For example, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn 'Eesa Al-'Asharee (one of our greatest SaHaabas) exiled Sahl ibn Ziyaad Al-Aadamee from Qumm, and he told people not to narrate from him.

Yet Thiqqat al-Islam al-Kulayni narrated a huge amount of ahadith from him anyway... What does that tell you? And how about the fact that there are many sahih hadiths out there with two or more chains attached to them wherein he'll be one of the narrators in it? Doesn't that demonstrate that the man would in fact narrate correct ahadith? And as to al-Ash`ari having exiled him, we also know that al-Barqi had been exiled from Qum as well, but then invited back in with al-Ash`ari repenting of having done so, personally leading his funeral when he died.

Check all the major works, and you'll know what I am talking about.So last time I checked, this system of checking the narrators has been in place for a long time, not some made up thing or just something that "appeared" in our madhhab.I find it funny Mr. MacIsaac, when you quote Rijaal books about certain issues such as Kitaab Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilaalee being fabricated, you reject the WHOLE book, doesn't matter the content (and I am fine with that as long as your argument is legitimate and strong). But when someone comes around and says relatively the same thing, plus more sources, you say as well as everyone else, that we "worshiping the rijaal system"? I smell a double standard.(salam)

No, what you're finding is old posts reflecting an attitude which I've since moved on from, thank God. I used to be perhaps even more hardcore into this rijali system than yourself, ask others here, but I came to see how weak and contradictory the foundations of this are. Our deen cannot be so dependent on something so utterly fallible.

(salam)(bismillah)Brother, lets not get on the topic of "if this is bid'ah", because I can give you a LAUNDRY LIST of things in which Shee'ahs do or approve of that is considered bid'ah. Don't stray the topic.But anyways, this isn't considered bid'ah, the roots of this science was there, as I have discussed, it has just progressed over time. And trust me, if this was considered bid'ah, the first people yelling it would've been salafees / wahhabees. And they are the one who use this system the most and using it the best if I may add.(salam)

One, I'm not sure how listing a laundry list of bid`at that contemporary Shi`as do when somehow be proving your reliance on this later system, doesn't that just show how we've been susceptible to such things over time? Two, I don't give a damn what Nasibi mushriks consider to be bid`at. The fact they are so attached to this system would, if anything, only make me more questioning as to its origins.

Again, if this is not bid`at, can you please provide me where the Imams (as) instructed this? Isn't it a double standard to be rejecting practices that do have clear and explicit instruction in the ahadith calling them to be bid`at because you don't trust the isnad, but to be building your entire religion around this "science" that you can't provide me _one_ clear hadith instructing us to do this? You don't think the Shi`as had to deal with forged hadiths back then during the time of the Imams (as)? Of course they did, and no, they were not able to always go directly to the Imams (as) to ask them if they were authentic or not (for instance when the Imam would have been imprisoned, or when their followers where at great distances from them). The Imams (as) did in fact give them instructions as to what to do with them. Also, even apart from that, don't you think that the Imams (as) would have known that after the ghayba, their Shi`a would have need of such a system were that case? Wouldn't have the instructions been provided at least for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mac, so what's your final verdict now? Most sensible people are forced to turn to ilm ar-rijal out of no other option to distinguish between which narrations to accept and which to reject - as you originally, only a tool out of many though. It's sounds as if now though you've lost your last link with usooli-ism and been captured by full blown akhbari-ism..

Weak Argument.

Ok, in that case, the Qur`an is also a weak argument (your logic). So are the Prophets [AS] for claiming miracles. Anyone can claim a miracle so it devalues it..

macissac has answered all the points better than I ever could, so I'm saving my effort.

:!!!:

lol, make me laugh in every thread..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee in his book on Diraayat-al-Hadeeth says, "Da'eef is a report that does not fulfill any of the conditions from the above three categories (meaning SaHeeH, Hasan, Muwaththaq), because its chain comprises A REPORTER who has been defamed because of his immorality, etc. or because he is unknown or because he is a fabricator."

"There are varying degrees of weakness according to how far the report is from fulfilling the prerequisites of authenticity; the further the report is from attaining that level, the weaker it is, and similarly the more weak and defamed reporters there are in the chain, the weaker it is."

"In the same way, the degrees of 'authentic', 'good', and 'dependable' also vary according to the predominant characteristics of their reporters. So, the report narrated by a reliable pious and accurate imaami jurist such as ibn abee 'umayr is more authentic than the report of one who lacks some of these qualities, and so on down to the lowest degree of authenticity."

"Similarly, the narration of a reporter who has been much commended, such as Ibraaheem bin haashim, is better (more 'good') than the report of someone who has not been so highly commended."

"The same goes for the 'dependable' report, for reports whose chains of narration include reporters such as 'Alee bin Fadaal and Abaan bin Uthmaan are stronger than other dependable reports, etc."

"The strength or weakness of reports is especially significant when reports contradict each other, in which case the stronger of two disparate traditions would be implemented. Most scholars hold that it is absolutely IMPERMISSIBLE to implement a 'weak' report, although others have allowed it if it has been reinforced by its own renown, that is, that it has been recorded and narrated numerous times in the same wording or in different wordings implying the same meaning - or by previous scholars' legal verdicts in accordance with it is their books of jurisprudence."

My question is: Why the heck would we take any hadeeth from a faasiq? That makes NO sense (to me). How do you know when he is telling the truth or he is not telling the truth? When can you make that distinction or judgement for that? It is not a clear cut situation. So the easiest way, logically in my opinion, to grade the hadeeth would be to consider it da'eef as based off the specific narrator.

We won't be held accountable for going by a rigid system of grading, so that there can be no bid'ah or anything coming in to our religion because there could be a faasiq or liar involved.

Now, you are right about the verse saying, "look into it"... So it is up to the scholars (and inshaaAllaah even us) to look into it and some scholars say outright to reject a faasiq, even if he is majhool. (such as what Ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee is saying)

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is: Why the heck would we take any hadeeth from a faasiq? That makes NO sense (to me). How do you know when he is telling the truth or he is not telling the truth? When can you make that distinction or judgement for that? It is not a clear cut situation. So the easiest way, logically in my opinion, to grade the hadeeth would be to consider it da'eef as based off the specific narrator.

We won't be held accountable for going by a rigid system of grading, so that there can be no bid'ah or anything coming in to our religion because there could be a faasiq or liar involved.

Now, you are right about the verse saying, "look into it"... So it is up to the scholars (and inshaaAllaah even us) to look into it and some scholars say outright to reject a faasiq, even if he is majhool. (such as what Ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee is saying)

(salam)

You (or anyone else) have yet to demonstrate that a reporter was fasiq. All you have been able to establish is that he is an unknown person. Just because he is unknown doesn't make him a fasiq. In fact to claim that it was would be going against the very verse that was being mentioned earlier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You (or anyone else) have yet to demonstrate that a reporter was fasiq. All you have been able to establish is that he is an unknown person. Just because he is unknown doesn't make him a fasiq. In fact to claim that it was would be going against the very verse that was being mentioned earlier!

(bismillah)

(salam)

Yeah even unknown narrators are considered weak according to ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee. Did you not read what he said from his book that I quoted?

"Da'eef is a report that does not fulfill any of the conditions from the above three categories (meaning SaHeeH, Hasan, Muwaththaq), because its chain comprises A REPORTER who has been defamed because of his immorality, etc. or because he is unknown or because he is a fabricator."

As you see he is saying BECAUSE its chain... not also, the chain. This means that the way how you grade ahaadeeth especially da'eef ones is the isnaad.

InshaaAllaah I hope this was helpful for any of those who need more evidence of why it is important to da'eef any hadeeth if there are liars, unknown narrators, bad characters, etc...

(salam)

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random observations, for what it's worth.

قالَ مُصَنِّفُ هذا الْكِتاب رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ: كانَ شيخُنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الحَسَن بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ الوَلِيد رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ سَيِّئ الرَّأْي فِي مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه المِسمَعيِّ راوِي هذا الْحَدِيثِ، وَإِنَّما أخرَجتُ هذا الخَبَرَ فِي الْكِتابِ، لانَّه كانَ فِي كِتابِ الرَّحْمَة وَقَدْ قَرَأتُهُ عَلَيْهِ فَلَمْ يُنكِرُهُ وَرَواهُ لي.

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/hadith/uyun_akhbar_al_reza_1/35.htm

‎حدثنا شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد ـ رضي الله عنه ـ قال : سمعت سعد بن عبد الله يقول : ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن التشيع إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال ، وكانوا يقولون : إن ما تفرد بروايته أحمد بن هلال فلا يجوز استعماله ، وقد علمنا أن النبي والائمة صلوات الله عليهم لا يشفعون إلا لمن ارتضى الله دينه . والشاك في الامام على غير دين الله ، وقد ذكر موسى جعفر عليهما السلام أنه سيستوهبه من ربه يوم القيامة .

http://holynajaf.org/arb/html/islamic%20library/hadith/kamal/mtn.php?file=06.html

وقال الصدوق في كتاب كمال الدين: في البحث عن اعتراض الزيديّة، وجوابهم ما نصّه:

حدّثنا شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد (رضي اللّه عنه) قال: سمعت سعد بن عبداللّه، يقول: ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيّع رجع عن تشيّعه إلى النصب، إلاّ أحمد بن هلال، وكانوا يقولون: إنّ ما تفرّد بروايته أحمد بن هلال، فلا يجوز استعماله، (إنتهى».

أقول: لا ينبغي الإشكال في فساد الرجل من جهة عقيدته، بل لا يبعد استفادة أنّه لم يكن يتديّن بشيء، ومن ثمّ كان يظهر الغلوّ مرّة، والنصب أخرى، ومع ذلك لايهمّنا إثبات ذلك، إذ لا أثر لفساد العقيدة، أو العمل في سقوط الرواية عن الحجيّة، بعد وثاقة الراوىّ، والذي يظهر من كلام النجاشي: (صالح الرواية) أنّه في نفسه ثقة، ولا ينافيه قوله: يعرف منها وينكر، إذ لا تنافي بين وثاقة الروايّ وروايته أموراً منكرة من جهة كذب من حدّثه بها بل إن وقوعه في إسناد تفسير القمّي.

فالمتحصّل: أنّ الظاهر أنّ أحمد بن هلال ثقة، غاية الامر أنّه كان فاسد العقيدة، وفساد العقيدة لا يضرّ بصحّة رواياته، على ما نراه من حجيّة خبر الثقة مطلقاً.

http://www.alkhoei.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bcc=1145&itg=21&bi=187&s=ct&sw=&ww=1

http://www.alkhoei.com/arabic/pages/book.php?bcc=1143&itg=21&bi=187&s=ct&sw=&ww=1

Edited by avjar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Yeah even unknown narrators are considered weak according to ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee. Did you not read what he said from his book that I quoted?

"Da'eef is a report that does not fulfill any of the conditions from the above three categories (meaning SaHeeH, Hasan, Muwaththaq), because its chain comprises A REPORTER who has been defamed because of his immorality, etc. or because he is unknown or because he is a fabricator."

As you see he is saying BECAUSE its chain... not also, the chain. This means that the way how you grade ahaadeeth especially da'eef ones is the isnaad.

InshaaAllaah I hope this was helpful for any of those who need more evidence of why it is important to da'eef any hadeeth if there are liars, unknown narrators, bad characters, etc...

(salam)

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

"Unknown" does not equal "fasiq" is what I'm pretty sure he was trying to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Yeah even unknown narrators are considered weak according to ash-Shaheed ath-Thaanee. Did you not read what he said from his book that I quoted?

You were asking why we would take a hadith from a fasiq. I was just responding that we don't.

Funny though in the school of thought that you follow (i.e. not Shia) even praying behind a fasiq is ok. Just stop the acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...