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

mac, so what's your final verdict now?

I don't have a verdict :dry:

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.

What do you think Shi`as, and particular scholars such as Saduq, Mufid, Murtada, Tusi, Ibn Idris, and others were doing prior to the invention of this system?

It's sounds as if now though you've lost your last link with usooli-ism and been captured by full blown akhbari-ism..

These labels aren't important. What's important is following the teachings of the Ma`sumeen (as) and treading the path they laid out for us.

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.

Again, why would Allah say in the Quran to look into the report a fasiq brings if it was simply a matter of dropping it. Why investigate it all were that the case? And as another brother pointed out, Allah is already telling us the person is a fasiq, so the investigation can't be about whether that's the case or not. Rather, it must be on whether the content of the report their bringing is truthful or not. Even a liar can sometimes tell the truth after all.

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.

Four scenarios:

1 - a report is true, and one accepts it

2 - a report is true, and one rejects it

3 - a report is false, and one accepts it

4 - a report is false, and one rejects it

1 and 4 require no discussion, we all would agree that doing they are both the correct courses of action. The second and third are incorrect, but let's look at the consequence for each. Thankfully, we have hadith that tell us the answer to this question.

As to the second, see these reports in Basa'ir ad-Darajat:

ÈÇÈ Ýíãä áÇ íÚÑÝ ÇáÍÏíË ÝÑÏå

Chapter regarding one who does not recognize the hadith so he rejects it

(1) ÍÏËäÇ ÇÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ Úä Ìãíá Èä ÕÇáÍ Úä ÇÈì ÚÈíÏÉ ÇáÍÐÇÁ Úä ÇÈì ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá ÓãÚÊå íÞæá ÇãÇ æÇááå Çä ÇÍÈ ÇÕÍÇÈí Åáì ÇæÑÚåã æÇÝÞååã æÇßÊãåã ÈÍÏíËäÇ æÇä ÇÓÄÇåã ÚäÏí ÍÇáÇ æ ÇãÞÊåã Åáì ÇáÐì ÅÐÇ ÓãÚ ÇáÍÏíË íäÓÈ ÇáíäÇ æíÑæì ÚäÇ Ýáã íÚÞáå æáã íÞÈáå ÞáÈå ÇÔãÃÒ ãäå æÌÍÏå æßÝÑ Èãä ÏÇä Èå æåæ áÇ íÏÑì áÚá ÇáÍÏíË ãä ÚäÏäÇ ÎÑÌ æÇáíäÇ ÓäÏ Ýíßæä ÈÐáß ÎÇÑÌÇ ãä æáÇíÊäÇ.

1 – Ahmad b. Muhammad narrated to us from al-Hasan b. Mahbub from Jamil b. Salih from Abu `Ubayda the shoemaker from Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: I heard him saying: Indeed, by Allah, verily the most beloved of my companions to me is the most devout of them and the most learned (afqah) of them and the most concealing of them with our hadith. And verily the worst of state of them with me and the most detestable of them to me is the one who when he hears the hadith that is attributed to us and narrated from us, but he does not understand it and his heart does not accept it, he abhors it and denies it, and declares kufr upon the one professes by it, and he does not know whether perhaps the hadith has come out from us and to it rests (?). So he is by that outside of our walaya.

(2) ÍÏËäÇ ÇáåíËã ÇáäåÏí Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚãÑ Èä íÒíÏ Úä íæäÓ Úä ÇÈì íÚÞæÈ Èä ÇÓÍÞ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Úä ÇÈì ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá Çä Çááå ÊÈÇÑß æÊÚÇáì ÍÕÑ ÚÈÇÏå ÈÇíÊíä ãä ßÊÇÈå ÇáÇ íÞæáæÇ ÍÊì íÚáãæÇ æáÇ íÑÏæÇ ãÇ áã íÚáãæÇ Çä Çááå ÊÈÇÑß æÊÚÇáì íÞæá áã íÄÎÐ Úáíåã ãíËÇÞ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáÇ íÞæáæÇ Úáì Çááå ÇáÇ ÇáÍÞ æÞÇá Èá ßÐÈæÇ áãÇ áã íÍíØæÇ ÈÚáãå æáãÇ íÃÊåã ÊÃæíáå.

2 – al-Haytham an-Nahdi narrated from Muhammad b. `Umar b. Yazid from Yunus from Abu Ya`qub b. Ishaq b. Abdullah from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: Verily Allah tabaraka wa ta`ala restricted his servants by two ayat from His book that they not speak until they know and they do not reject what they do not know. Verily Allah tabaraka wa ta`ala says “Was there not taken from them a covenant of the Book, that they should not say about Allah aught but the truth?” (7:169). And he said “Yet they call that a lie, the knowledge of which they have not compassed, while its interpretation has not yet come to them” (10:39).

(3) ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚãÑæ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌäÏÈ Úä ÓÝíÇä Èä ÇáÓíØ ÞÇá ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÌÚáÊ ÝÏÇß Çä ÇáÑÌá áíÃÊíäÇ ãä ÞÈáß ÝíÎÈÑäÇ Úäß ÈÇáÚÙíã ãä ÇáÇãÑ ÝíÖíÞ ÈÐáß ÕÏæÑäÇ ÍÊì äßÐÈå ÞÇá ÝÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÇáíÓ Úäì íÍÏËßã ÞÇá ÞáÊ Èáì ÞÇá ÝíÞæá ááíá Çäå äåÇÑ æááäåÇÑ Çäå áíá ÞÇá ÝÞáÊ áå áÇ ÞÇá ÝÞÇá ÑÏå ÇáíäÇ ÝÇäß Çä ßÐÈÊ ÝÇäãÇ ÊßÐÈäÇ.

3 – Muhammad b. `Isa narrated to us from Muhammad b. `Amr from `Abdullah b. Jundab from Sufyan b. as-Sayt (?). He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã: May I be made your ransom, verily the man comes to us from before you and he informs us from you by (something) mighty of the affair. So our bosoms are constricted by that until we give the lie to him. He said: So Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said: Was it not from me that he narrates to you? He said: I said: Yea. He said: So he says for the night that it is day and for the day that it is night? He said: So I said to him: No. He said: So he said: Return it to us, for verily if you gave the lie (to it, him) then you only gave us the lie.

(4) ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÍãÒÉ Èä ÈÒíÚ Úä Úáì ÇáÓäÇäì Úä ÇÈì ÇáÍÓä Ú Çäå ßÊÈ Åáíå Ýí ÑÓÇáÉ æáÇ ÊÞá áãÇ ÈáÛß ÚäÇ Ãæ äÓÈ ÇáíäÇ åÐÇ ÈÇØá æÇä ßäÊ ÊÚÑÝå ÎáÇÝå ÝÇäß áÇ ÊÏÑí áã ÞáäÇ æÚáì Ãí æÌå æÕÝÉ.

4 – Muhammad b. al-Husayn narrated to us from Muhammad b. Isma`il from Hamza b. Bazi` from `Ali the as-Sinani (the spearhead maker?) from Abu ‘l-Hasan Úáíå ÇáÓáÇãthat he wrote to him in an epistle: And do not say for what reaches you from us and is attributed to us “this is false” even if you have known its opposite, for verily you do not know why we said (it) and upon which aspect and attribute.

(5) ÍÏËäÇ ÇÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÈÔíÑ Úä ÇÈì ÈÕíÑ Úä ÇÈì ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ãæ Úä ÇÈì ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá áÇ ÊßÐÈæÇ ÈÍÏíË ÇÊÇßã ÇÍÏ ÝÇäßã áÇ ÊÏÑæä áÚáå ãä ÇáÍÞ ÝÊßÐÈæÇ Çááå ÝæÞ ÚÑÔå.

5 – Ahmad b. Muhammad narrated to us from Muhammad b. Isma`il from Ja`far b. Bashir from Abu Basir from Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã or from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: Do not to give the lie to a hadith that comes to you, (any) one, for you do not know, perhaps it is from the truth so you would be giving the lie to Allah above His Throne.

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/basair-ad-darajat/part-ten/chapter-22

So we see that rejecting a correct report is utterly condemnable.

Now let's look at what they say in regards to accepting a report and acting on it, but which in reality is not a true one:

18 Ü ÈÇÈ ÇÓÊÍÈÇÈ ÇáÇÊíÇä Èßá Úãá ãÔÑæÚ Ñæí áå ËæÇÈ Úäåã ( Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã )

18 – Chapter on the desirability of performing every legal act for which it is narrated from them Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã that there is a reward

[182] 1 Ü ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÈÇÈæíå Ýí ßÊÇÈ ( ËæÇÈ ÇáÃÚãÇá ) Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä Úáí Èä ãæÓì¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÇáÍßã¡ Úä åÔÇã¡ Úä ÕÝæÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä ÈáÛå ÔíÁ ãä ÇáËæÇÈ Úáì ( ÔíÁ ãä ÇáÎíÑ ) ÝÚãáå ßÇä áå ÃÌÑ Ðáß ( æÅä ßÇä ÑÓæá Çááå ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) áã íÞáå ).

1 – Muhammad b. `Ali b. Babuwayh (as-Saduq) in the book Thawab al-A`mal from his father from `Ali b. Musa from Ahmad b. Muhammad from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Hisham from Safwan from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: One whom something reaches him of reward upon [something of good] and he acts upon it, he has the recompense of that [even if the Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå did not say it.]

[183] 2 Ü æÝí ( Úíæä ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ): Úä ÚÈÏ ÇáæÇÍÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏæÓ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÞÊíÈÉ¡ Úä ÍãÏÇä Èä ÓáíãÇä¡ ÞÇá: ÓÃáÊ ÃÈÇ ÇáÍÓä Úáí Èä ãæÓì ÇáÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Úä Þæá Çááå ÚÒ æÌá: ( Ýãä íÑÏ Çááå Ãä íåÏíå íÔÑÍ ÕÏÑå ááÇÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä íÑÏ Çááå Ãä íåÏíå ÈÅíãÇäå Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ Åáì ÌäÊå æÏÇÑ ßÑÇãÊå Ýí ÇáÇÎÑÉ íÔÑÍ ÕÏÑå ááÊÓáíã ááå¡ æÇáËÞÉ Èå¡ æÇáÓßæä Çáì ãÇ æÚÏå ãä ËæÇÈå ÍÊì íØãÆä Çáíå¡ ÇáÍÏíË.

2 – And (as-Saduq) in `Uyun al-Akhbar from `Abd al-Wahid b. Muhammad b. `Abdus from `Ali b. Muhammad b. Qutayba from Hamdan b. Sulayman. He said: I asked Abu ‘l-Hasan ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã about the saying of Allah `azza wa jalla “Whomsoever Allah wants to guide, He expands his breast to Islam” (6:125). He said: Whomsoever Allah wants to guide by His faith in the dunya to His Garden and the house of His honor in the hereafter, he expands his breast to surrender unto Allah, trust in Him, and tranquility to what He has promised him of His reward until he is reassured (?) in regards to it, (al-hadith)

[184] 3 Ü ÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ÇáÈÑÞí Ýí ( ÇáãÍÇÓä ): Úä Úáí Èä ÇáÍßã¡ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä ÈáÛå Úä ÇáäÈí ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) ÔíÁ ãä ÇáËæÇÈ ÝÚãáå ßÇä ÃÌÑ Ðáß áå¡ æÅä ßÇä ÑÓæá Çááå ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) áã íÞáå.

3 – Ahmad b. `Abdillah al-Barqi in al-Mahasin from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Hisham b. Salim from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: One for whom something about reward reaches him from the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå, so he acts upon it, the recompense of that is for him, even if the Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå had not said it.

[185] 4 Ü æÚä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÇáäÖÑ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÑæÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä ÈáÛå Úä ÇáäÈí ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) ÔíÁ ãä ÇáËæÇÈ ÝÝÚá Ðáß ØáÈ Þæá ÇáäÈí ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) ßÇä áå Ðáß ÇáËæÇÈ¡ æÅä ßÇä ÇáäÈí ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ) áã íÞáå.

4 – And from his father from Ahmad b. an-Nadr from Muhammad b. Marwan from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: One for whom something about reward (in which there is reward – in al-Mahasin) reaches him from the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå, so he acts upon it seeking the saying of the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå, the recompense of that is for him, even if the Prophet Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå had not said it.

[186] 5 Ü æÚä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÞÇÓÇäí¡ Úãä ÐßÑå¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÌÚÝÑí¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå¡ Úä ÂÈÇÆå ( Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå ( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå ): ãä æÚÏå Çááå Úáì Úãá ËæÇÈÇ Ýåæ ãäÌÒå áå¡ æãä ÃæÚÏå Úáì Úãá ÚÞÇÈÇ Ýåæ Ýíå ÈÇáÎíÇÑ.

æÑæÇå ÇáÕÏæÞ Ýí ( ÇáÊæÍíÏ ) Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä¡ Úä ÇáÕÝÇÑ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä æÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå¡ Úä Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ¡ ãËáå.

5 – And from `Ali b. Muhammad al-Qasani from the one whom he mentioned from `Abdullah b. al-Qasim al-Ja`fari from Abu `Abdillah from his fathers Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã. He said: The Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå said: Whomever Allah has promised him reward for an act, then He fulfils it for him. And whomever He has promised him punishment for an act, then He has the choice.

[187] 6 Ü ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ¡ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä ÓãÚ ÔíÆÇ ãä ÇáËæÇÈ Úáì ÔíÁ ÝÕäÚå ßÇä áå¡ æÅä áã íßä Úáì ãÇ ÈáÛå.

æÑæÇå ÇÈä ØÇæÓ Ýí ßÊÇÈ ( ÇáÅÞÈÇá ) äÞáÇ ãä ßÊÇÈ åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ ÇáÐí åæ ãä ÌãáÉ ÇáÃÕæá¡ Úä ÇáÕÇÏÞ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ãËáå.

6 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: One who hears something of reward upon (doing) something, so he acts on it, it is for him, even if it was not upon what had reached him.

And Ibn Tawus narrated its like in the book al-Iqbal, transmitting from the book of Hisham b. Salim, which was from the group of the usool, from as-Sadiq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.

[188] 7 Ü æÚä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÚãÑÇä ÇáÒÚÝÑÇäí¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÑæÇä ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÌÚÝÑ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) íÞæá: ãä ÈáÛå ËæÇÈ ãä Çááå Úáì Úãá ÝÚãá Ðáß ÇáÚãá ÇáÊãÇÓ Ðáß ÇáËæÇÈ ÃæÊíå¡ æÅä áã íßä ÇáÍÏíË ßãÇ ÈáÛå.

7 – And from Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Muhammad b. Sinan from `Imran az-Za`farani, from Muhammad b. Marwan. He said: I heard Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã saying: One whom a reward from Allah upon an act reaches him, so he performs that act requesting that reward, he is granted it, even if the hadith was not as what had reached him.

[189] 8 Ü ÃÍãÏ Èä ÝåÏ Ýí ( ÚÏÉ ÇáÏÇÚí ) ÞÇá: Ñæì ÇáÕÏæÞ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ¡ ÈØÑÞå Åáì ÇáÃÆãÉ ( Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã ) Ãä ãä ÈáÛå ÔíÁ ãä ÇáÎíÑ ÝÚãá Èå ßÇä áå ãä ÇáËæÇÈ ãÇ ÈáÛå¡ æÅä áã íßä ÇáÃãÑ ßãÇ äÞá Åáíå.

8 – Ahmad b. Fahd in `Uddat ad-Da`i said: as-Saduq narrated from Muhammad b. Ya`qub by his routes to the Imams Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã that one whom something of good reaches him, so he acts upon it, there is for him of the reward that had reached him, even if the affair (or, command) was not as had been transmitted to him.

[190] 9 Ü Úáí Èä ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑÈä ØÇæÓ Ýí ßÊÇÈ ( ÇáÅÞÈÇá ) Úä ÇáÕÇÏÞ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ãä ÈáÛå ÔíÁ ãä ÇáÎíÑ ÝÚãá Èå ßÇä áå [ ÃÌÑ ] Ðáß æÅä ( áã íßä ÇáÃãÑ ßãÇ ÈáÛå ).

9 - `Ali b. Musa b. Ja`far b. Tawus in the book al-Iqbal (narrating) from as-Sadiq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: One for whom something reaches him of good, so he acts on it, the [recompense of] that is for him, even if [the affair (or, command) was not as had reached him.] (even if the Messenger of Allah Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå had not said it – in al-Iqbal)

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/desirability-of-acting-on-what-is-narrated-of-reward

Not only is the person not punished for this (even though it was incorrect), they are even rewarded.

So the question to pose is, do you really trust the rijal system (whose contradictions and fallibility is very easily demonstrated) so much that you would risk committing the second error? Does it really seem likely to you that all of those many, many ahadith that get labeled as "da`if" based purely on a technical isnad issue, such as the lack of praise for a rawi in a rijal book, are in fact false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

^Interesting stuff there Brother. Few questions:

So when do you, personally, think the 'ilm-ul-Rijal system is useful? Contrary reports? A wider scope?

On what basis did Shaykh as-Saduq (rh), Shaykh al-Mufid (rh), etc reject narrations? Any examples?

What constitutes bidd'ah then?

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

[184] 3 ـ أحمد بن أبي عبدالله البرقي في ( المحاسن ): عن علي بن الحكم، عن هشام بن سالم، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال: من بلغه عن النبي ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) شيء من الثواب فعمله كان أجر ذلك له، وإن كان رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لم يقله.

3 – Ahmad b. `Abdillah al-Barqi in al-Mahasin from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Hisham b. Salim from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: One for whom something about reward reaches him from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله, so he acts upon it, the recompense of that is for him, even if the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله had not said it.

I am told in Sahih al-Bukhari that if I say "Amen" in the prayer at the same time the angels do, all my sins are forgiven. Would this not apply here? Or is this only for ahadith reaching us through the Imams (as)?

And what is the meaning of the ahadith telling us to check the narrators and to include a sanad (and of course that the trustworthy narrator is a proof on us)? Surely the science shouldn't be neglect/rejected completely?

And then how can you blame the Sunnis? All of their hadiths claim to quote the Prophet (pbuh) whereas most of ours claim to quote such and such Imam (as). Why would they bother wanting to know what a later Imam (as) said when they claim to have direct access to the Prophet (pbuh)?

We might as well be Sunni then. But what do we do? We investigate the people who transmitted ahadith and came to the conclusion that we have a better source for the Sunnah.

Should we follow the hadith in our books that tell us to call Abu Bakr "al-Siddiq"? Or should we follow the hadith that tell us to curse him? Or should we follow the ones that don't mention him by name, or curse him, but criticize him?

I agree that it's a flawed system that shouldn't be completely relied on; but it has it's advantages and shouldn't be completely ignored.

was salam

Edited by lotfilms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

^Interesting stuff there Brother. Few questions:

So when do you, personally, think the 'ilm-ul-Rijal system is useful? Contrary reports? A wider scope?

On what basis did Shaykh as-Saduq (rh), Shaykh al-Mufid (rh), etc reject narrations? Any examples?

What constitutes bidd'ah then?

(salam)

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

I don't think the information in the rijal/fihrist books is useless, however I think the system built later using their contents in many ways is. It's highly artificial, so for instance according to some if a rawi is called "faadil" but not specifically called "thiqa" or the like, then the isnad could get graded as hasan but not sahih. Apparently they think saying someone is virtuous would not be considered enough to consider them trustworthy... Or say Saduq said a radiAllah `anhu about someone he knew personally, one of his shuyukh he narrated from, but Najashi/Tusi who lived later than him and wouldn't have known these people personally simply mentioned the person without specifically praising them, then according to a number of scholars this doesn't suffice, the rawi would get marked "majhool" and now the hadith is considered da`if! That and many other things (such as its late appearance in our madhhab) lead me to reject reliance upon it in understanding the basis’ of our religion.

So, what would the information in these source books be good for? A number of things actually. First, the two books of Fihrist are quite interesting and informative in providing us insight into the scope and topics early Shi`i authors were writing about. That is actually what Najashi and Tusi's books are in this case. They weren't written for isnad criticism as such, rather they were to catalog the authors and their books that were in circulation amongst Shi`as. That explains why, to me at least, you don't always get these expressions of praise or condemnation about the people listed in them as that wasn't the primary purpose of the books in the first place.

Take Tusi’s. In it he lists 912 authors. Out of that, going by the index in the printed edition I have, 87 are somehow listed as thiqa. Now get this, do you know how many are listed as actually da`if? 14! That’s it. Out of 912 listings, only 14 he marks out as being da`if. However, since all the rest (all 825 of them) are simply listed out without these types of praise/criticism comments, without anything else from some other book they would all get graded as majhool and thus any hadith they’d be in would be consider da`if… So instead of only 14 getting marked as problematic, you would end up with a potential 839 getting marked so (that is, in the absence of any other information in one of the other books, so in fact the number would be less than that when they are added to the picture) Do see though the huge potential there for discarding tons of hadiths for no other reason than a human-imposed technicality? Now, with so little listed in his Fihrist as such, what they do is take another book of his, his Rijal book that lists out the companions of each Imam (as) (but without really saying a lot about them in most cases), and combine the information in that book with the information in the other to come up with some type of “grading” for the rawi in question as per Tusi’s supposed view. Of course, the two big problem with that is that as mentioned above, you can have what he lists about one person in one book be the opposite of what he lists in the other. A good example is Sahl b. Ziyad, who in the Fihrist he calls da`if but in the Rijal he is listed as thiqa. So which do you go with? The second problem is the simple fact that for all of whatever grading they supposedly are getting from his books for narrators, he himself will use hadiths with those selfsame “da`if” narrators in the chains.

Najashi’s book is more detailed than Tusi’s, but again, like his it’s also a _fihrist_, it wasn’t written for this system so it shouldn’t be surprising how you often can’t get out the information from it one would need to give gradings as such (other than “majhool”).

Anyway, as to my own personal leaning in regards to where we do seem to have a pretty clear picture on the status of an individual, I think that the most useful part of that information is for giving a fuller historical picture of the times of the Imams (as) and the lives of the Shi`as living during them. As to where it might be used in terms of hadith authentication, prior to stating that I should say that I don’t think that in fact you actually can authenticate hadiths unless 1) you have heard it from the Imam yourself or 2) it’s of such a mutawatir status amongst our sect as to being impossible (or near so) to have been fabricated. Either way though, the likelihood of those is either minimal or impossible to do for us now. To me the question thus isn’t really whether the hadith is authentic or not (since that’s something I don’t think we can really know) but whether we should be acting on it or not. There’s a real difference there if you think about it. Does the contents of the report in fact match what the correct ruling is, what we should be doing, is really the question. Whether the Imam literally said those words at that specific time, while I won’t say it’s unimportant, it is not the issue we task ourselves with trying to figure out.

So, to answer that question, you then run the narration through a process. You compare it to the Quran (though even there you have to cautious of such things as not using the mansukh over the nasikh, so you still require usage of the akhbar to know these things) You see whether this report’s contents match was the ta’ifa has acted upon (in this connection, the generations I am concerned with are those that were alive prior to the ghayba, and for say a hundred, two hundred, years after it. The reason for that is that I do believe that greater proximity to the time of the presence of the Imams (as), as well as the fact they had access to way more information than we do today, increases the chance that this agreement in practice would in fact be reflective of what the Imams (as) had taught their Shi`a to do. If the contents match, then you accept the narration. If you are unclear as to the agreed upon practice, you compare what the narrations say. In the case of apparent contradictions, a number of questions can be posed. Important amongst them is comparison to what the `Aama would do. If one of them matches it while the other doesn’t, you might drop the former and act on the latter as the former has a higher likelihood of having been said under taqiyya. (That said I think there’s also a good argument to be made, which some of the Akhbaris did, for the permission being granted to act even on the taqiyya reports as a grace to the Shi`a. They would maintain that it’s not really possible for us to know for sure which is taqiyya and which isn’t, but in following either of them our act is justified in that we would be acting one what the Imam at some point instructed (even if it’s possible that it was said under taqiyya) and thus, even though the action is not correct, we would not be held to account for in since our end of the responsibility would be taken care of (i.e. following the instructions of the Imam). Not sure what I think of that, but it is interesting.

Somewhere along the road, with other things even, you might look at the narrators and compare. So say one was narrated by likes of a Zurara (ra) but the other was narrated by the likes of an `Ali b. Abi Hamza (la), a head of the Waqifiyya, then the one by Zurara would have a higher preference. Another usage (perhaps a more common one for me) would be to see whether the topic of the hadith would be one that a person would actually have any motive in forging. So for instance, say the narration is talking about a cosmic level of knowledge about the Imam, and it turns out that the chain is filled with ghulat, alright, I can see how they would have had a motive in forging it. (though even there I would not say we should declare such a narration as a lie unless we know for sure (which is usually unlikely), lest we fall into the sin as mentioned in the hadiths above). What I don’t really get is what motivation such a ghali (for example) would have in forging a hadith about what to do when you have a shakk in the third rak`at of a four rak`at salat, for example, or the procedure for conducting a business transaction involving the sale of fruits. So without the presence of motivation, I don’t really see what relevance his corrupt beliefs would have on the issue. Another possible usage is in timelines. That is, say an isnad says that X reported from Y, but we know that between the two there was a gap of a 100 years, that type of information could be pertinent. (Even in this latter case though it isn’t actually a showstopper in terms of the hadith’s actual authenticity. It might simply be that one of the other rawis forgot part of the chain when he reported it, but the hadith itself is correct).

Anyhow, as you might see, these types of usages are somewhat peripheral and not very similar to how they are used in the system today. But again, I don’t say throw the information out, what I instead say is to use the information in a more realistic fashion, and one would hope more in line with the original intent in recording it and more in line with the methods of the earlier Imamis, in sha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

makes some sense, doesn't seem completely illogical; interesting. I recall other "akhbari" ish members on the forum saying things similar to this.

However, does the current system of strictness on Halal/Haram and lenience on Mustahabat and Makruhat make sense?

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

Another usage (perhaps a more common one for me) would be to see whether the topic of the hadith would be one that a person would actually have any motive in forging. So for instance, say the narration is talking about a cosmic level of knowledge about the Imam, and it turns out that the chain is filled with ghulat, alright, I can see how they would have had a motive in forging it. (though even there I would not say we should declare such a narration as a lie unless we know for sure (which is usually unlikely), lest we fall into the sin as mentioned in the hadiths above). What I don’t really get is what motivation such a ghali (for example) would have in forging a hadith about what to do when you have a shakk in the third rak`at of a four rak`at salat, for example, or the procedure for conducting a business transaction involving the sale of fruits. So without the presence of motivation, I don’t really see what relevance his corrupt beliefs would have on the issue. Another possible usage is in timelines. That is, say an isnad says that X reported from Y, but we know that between the two there was a gap of a 100 years, that type of information could be pertinent. (Even in this latter case though it isn’t actually a showstopper in terms of the hadith’s actual authenticity. It might simply be that one of the other rawis forgot part of the chain when he reported it, but the hadith itself is correct).

Anyhow, as you might see, these types of usages are somewhat peripheral and not very similar to how they are used in the system today. But again, I don’t say throw the information out, what I instead say is to use the information in a more realistic fashion, and one would hope more in line with the original intent in recording it and more in line with the methods of the earlier Imamis, in sha Allah.

A few things:

I asked a student of Kharijj about Rijal and stuff earlier during the year and he had told me that they accept the ahadith in fiqh form ghulaat and I saw why it made sense and I see that kind of reasoning in your post. How does one "exaggerate" in terms of fiqh with the precise definition of a ghali? So it made some sense to me.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with Mursal ahadith. Please re-explain/elaborate brother.

Earlier in old topics you and Lord Botta (or was it that Abdullah Salafi guy....can't remember) were arguing with one another about the fact that the `amma accept hadith from Nawaasib. In light of your recent reasoning, how do you feel about that? I think the same logic would apply here, at least to an extent.

(salam)

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add something based on an interesting observation I just came across right now. I was just reading in Tusi's Fihrist the entries of Muhammad b. Sinan and Muhammad b. Urama. Both of these would be included in those 14 da`if narrators I mentioned above. Anyhow, here are the entries:

609- محمد بن سنان

له كتب و قد طعن عليه و ضعف و كتبه مثل كتب الحسين بن سعيد على عددها و له كتاب النوادر و جميع ما رواه إلا ما كان فيها من تخليط أو غلو أخبرنا بكتبه و رواياته جماعة عن أبي جعفر ابن بابويه عن أبيه و محمد بن الحسن جميعا عن سعد و الحميري و محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن الحسين و أحمد بن محمد عنه، و أخبرنا أيضا ابن بابويه عن محمد بن علي ماجيلويه عن محمد بن أبي القاسم عمه عن محمد بن علي الصيرفي عنه.

Muhammad b. Sinan: He has books, and he has been defamed and weakened. And his books are like the books of al-Husayn b. Sa`id in their number, and he has the book of the Nawadir. And all of what he narrated – except for what in which there was confusion or ghulw – a group narrated his books and narrations to us from Abu Ja`far b. Babuwayh from his father and Muhammad b. al-Hasan both from Sa`d and al-Himyari and Muahmmad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn and Ahmad b. Muhammad from him. And Ibn Babuwayh also narrated to us from Muhammad b. `Ali b. Majiluwayh from Muhammad b. Abi ‘l-Qasim his uncle from Muhammad b. `Ali as-Sayrafi from him.

610- محمد بن أورمة

له كتب مثل كتب الحسين بن سعيد و في رواياته تخليط، أخبرنا بجميعها إلا ما كان فيها من تخليط أو غلو ابن أبي جيد عن ابن الوليد عن الحسين بن الحسن بن أبان عنه، و قال أبو جعفر ابن بابويه محمد بن أورمة طعن عليه بالغلو فكلما كان في كتبه مما يوجد في كتب الحسين بن سعيد و غيره فإنه يعتمد عليه و يفتي به و كلما تفرد به لم يجز العمل عليه و لا يعتمد.

Muhammad b. Urama: He has books like the books of al-Husayn b. Sa`id. And there is confusion in his riwayat. Ibn Abi Jayyid narrated to us all of it – except for what is in it of confusion or ghulw – from Ibn al-Walid from al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Aban from him. And Abu Ja`far b. Babuwayh said Muhammad b. Urama was defamed with ghulw, so all of what is in his books that is found in the books of al-Husayn b. Sa`id and other than him, so it is relied upon and fatwa is given by it, and all of what he is alone in it is not permissible to act on it nor to rely upon.

Some points of interest here. One, notice how in each case he says how all of their works were narrated to him _except_ for what contained confusion or ghulw? This lends support to the Akhbari response I’ve read about on this, with regards to the fact that it’s known a number of ruwat were weakened, ghulat, etc. And that is that yes, the compilers of our books knew about this (as I’ve repeatedly mentioned, obviously Tusi knew since he wrote these books of “rijal”) but what they had already done was to separate out from their recording what they considered to have been wrong. So basically, the job is already done for us in regards to the collections done by such trustworthies as Kulayni, Saduq, and so on. They had already been sifting out the material, which with greater proximity of time and availability of information they’d have been in a better position to do anyhow.

Note however though that in both these cases, Tusi is showing how the early Shi`i `ulama were not outright rejecting the reports coming through these individuals (which is what the diraya system would have us do) but separating based on their content. In the second example it’s even more clearly stated wherein he’s reporting that if the contents were the same as what could be found in al-Husayn b. Sa`id’s books (a very prominent and reliable early Shi`a author/narrator) then it was to be relied upon _and_ even fatwa to be passed with it, if not though and it was only coming from him and no one else, then it was not permissible to act on it. (Again see the stress on what you can act upon or not act upon). Does it seem likely then that what we have recorded from such narrators in Tusi’s own books would have been going against such stipulations? This clearly shows that to these earlier Shi`as narrations would not get rejected solely on the basis of isnad but rather it was content that was primary. It also shows a more contextual approach to this which I personally would consider a great deal more sophisticated that a simple isnad check can provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Very good post brother! Didn't think of it like that.

One thing, do we still have the books of Al-Husayn ibn Sa'ad?

If we do, then we should do our on "sifting" just to make sure the narrations match up. Not to say our great old school scholars were wrong, but it is always good to double and triple check their work.

If this book is already computer generated, then we have the lovely "control + F" method, that our old school scholars didn't have.

I will attempt to do a search for Al-Husayn ibn Sa'ad's book, if you already have them, please be sure to paste the link or links on my profile.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for instance, say the narration is talking about a cosmic level of knowledge about the Imam, and it turns out that the chain is filled with ghulat, alright, I can see how they would have had a motive in forging it. (though even there I would not say we should declare such a narration as a lie unless we know for sure (which is usually unlikely), lest we fall into the sin as mentioned in the hadiths above). What I don’t really get is what motivation such a ghali (for example) would have in forging a hadith about what to do when you have a shakk in the third rak`at of a four rak`at salat, for example, or the procedure for conducting a business transaction involving the sale of fruits. So without the presence of motivation, I don’t really see what relevance his corrupt beliefs would have on the issue.

A ghali is automatically a liar because he (la) associates with Imams (as) things which Imam never said for themselves. So if he can distort and lie about the aqaed teachings of Imams (as), what makes you think he won't be doing the same with fiqh?

How can one even think of taking fiqh (or ANY narration) from someone who is considered worst than Jews, Christians, fire worshippers, Kharijites or ANY of the ahlul-bidah?

We have been asked not to sit with them, not to eat or drink with them, not to shake their hands and yet you are trying to justify their acceptance in fiqhi hadith. SubhanAllah.

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

It is human nature, once someone is a liar anything and everything that comes from that person's mouth everyone will have heavy doubt and reject outrightly as it should.

I think this methodology is to compensate for the lack of SaHeeH aHaadeeth in our books. I think people might think like this, because there will be so little "SaHeeH" hadeeth in our book, they think it'll be the "watered" down version of Islaam. When actuality it'll be the correct version of Islaam.

What this systematic procedure does is removes any doubtful narrations and atleast your 'Aqeedah, Fiqh, Practices, Du'aas will be firm and established without any doubts.

See the thing is, this methodology of "cherry picking" when to go into isnaad is flawed from the get go...

1.) When do you go to chain? When the hadeeth doesn't sound good to you? or to me? or to Soofee-inclined person A? or ghalee-inclined person B?

--> So if a hadeeth sounds good to me and I like it, then I do what?! accept it? or do I go to isnaad? And even when I go to the isnaad, I have a biased view going into the rijaal books because "i really like this hadeeth", so I will find any sources which make these chain of narrators "thiqah"

2.) So you are telling me if there is a gap of 100 years between one of the narrators, as long as the hadeeth "sounds good" (very relative term) then we turn a blind eye to the 100 years lost? So if one of the narrators forgets one of the names or a couple of the names from the sanad, what makes you think he didn't forget a word or some of the words from the matn (content)? Are you okay with taking a half-baked hadeeth?

  • --> The thing with in sunnee Rijaal books, For example, Ibn Hajar Asqalani breaks down the grading of people like this. "yes this person is thiqah and retentive (good memory)", or "this person is thiqah, but his memory is bad"

  • --> Taking a hadeeth that is a page long from someone who doesn't have a good memory, do you think that is a good idea? or we shouldn't take a du'aa that is pages long from that same person?

  • --> This is like the good ole game of telephone, you mess up one wording here, by the time it gets to the last guy the whole message is jacked up.

  • --> What about if the person narrating who happen to forget some of the names, it was due to "selective memory", because the guy who he narrated from wasn't thiqah, and maybe it'll make the chain weak and he knew it ahead of time.

  • --> One thing, Shee'ah Rijaal book and Usool Al-Hadeeth books do not get into too much, is a b]mudallis
    narrator. If some of you never heard this word before regarding hadeeth, let me give you a quick synopsis. (it is much deeper than what I have said, I have read pages upon pages on scholars just talking about this one thing)

    Mudallis
    - It is when the narrator narrates from someone who he hasn't directly heard the hadeeth from and omits the person who he really hears the hadeeth from.

  • --> Also, what about if the narrator was losing his retentiveness as he got older? And his memory was fading? What will we do then? What about if it is impossible to discern whether the narration was narrated by the person before he start losing his memory, or after he started to lose it? We must reject it right? To stay on the safe side.

  • --> These are the flaws if someone happens to "forget" a person or a few people from the sanad

What you are doing is equivalent to removing the Scienctific Method. So scientists will be going to data before having a hypothesis and going to the conlcusion before the data is even collected.

What this methodology does is put a subjective view on the way aHaadeeth is broken down.

I realize our Rijaal books aren't perfect, but this never stopped 'Allaamah Majlisi from going though Al-Kaafi and making Mir'aat Al-'Uqool or going through Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam and making Milaadh Al-Akhyaar.

Accepting aHaadeeth from a ghaali? What motivation do they have for fiqhi issues? What motivation do they have for exaggerating the 'aqaa-id issues? Nothing! They have been cursed, and condemned by our Imaams, and we have people who are willing and ready to entertain themselves to take a "closer look" at the hadeeth they narrate? So our Imaams say "do not sit with the person who does ghulah of us, but don't worry you can take your fiqhi issues and acts of worship from them" I doubt they would allow for such a thing.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is human nature, once someone is a liar anything and everything that comes from that person's mouth everyone will have heavy doubt and reject outrightly as it should.

Not really.

8. Not every Authentic Hadith should be accepted and not every week should be rejected.

We shall learn in the coming lessons that sometimes a Hadith is weak as far the chain of the narrators are concerned, yet the scholars accept its content. On the other hand, there may be an authentic Hadith as far as the chain of its narrators is concerned. Yet the scholars do not rely on it.
For if a narrator is weak it does not mean he would never tell the truth
. Similarly, it could be that a Hadith is truly narrated from one of the Imams (a.s), yet the Imam did not have a real intention in expressing it such as the Ahadith of Taqiyyah.

Finally according to the absolute majority of the Shi'a scholars[6] there is no book of Hadith that all its Ahadith are authentic. Thus, every Hadith in every book is subject to scholarly investigation.

·

Useful notes on a Sahih Hadith:

The definition of the ancient scholars is more inclusive. That means the number of authentic Hadith according to the pre-Hilli scholars were far more that the post Hilli scholars.

Scholars of Hadith often consider a Mursal Hadith as authentic such as the Mursals of Ibn Abi Omair. The reason being that a narrator such as Ibn Abi Omair does not quote from unreliable people. We shall further discuss the matter on the topic of 'Ashabul-Ejma' (People about whom there is a scholarly consensus).

It may be that a Hadith is authentic yet most of the scholars do not act upon it. When majority of scholars turn away from a Hadith it makes it weak. For instance Abu-Baseer in an authentic Hadith narrated from Imam Sadiq(a.s):

Çä ÚÑÖ ááãÑÃÉ ÇáØãË Ýی ÔåÑ ÑãÖÇä ÞÈá ÇáÒæÇá Ýåی Ýی ÓÚÉ Çä ÊØá æ ÊÔÑȺ æ Çä ÚÑÖ áåÇ ÈÚÏ ÒæÇá ÇáÔãÓ ÝáÊÛÊÓá æ áÊÚÊÏø ÈÕæã ÐᘠÇáیæã ãÇ áã ÊØá æ ÊÔÑÈ.

"If a woman starts her menses before noon in the month of Ramadhan, she may eat and drink (does not keep her fast); but if she starts her menses in the afternoon then she has to perform her ritual shower and count on the fasting of that day so long as she has not eaten or drank." [5]

None of the jurists have given a verdict to the content of the above Hadith. For once a woman starts her menses even five minutes before sunset she has lost the fasting of that day. Further discussion on this issue shall be sought in analytical Fiqh books.

On the other hand, a Hadith may be weak –as long as the chain of its transmitters is concerned- yet the Shi'a jurists have acted upon it. This will compensate the weakness of the Hadith. For instance, one of the conditions of washing a dead body is that the one who washes the dead must be of the same sex (save in the case of husband and wife). Children however are exempt form this condition. A man or a woman can wash a dead baby. The question however remains on the age of the baby. The majority of the Shi'a scholars view that the exception applies to the babies that are not more than three years old. The reference for this verdict is the following Hadith:

Úä ÇÈی äõãیÑ ÞáÊ áÇÈی ÚÈÏÇááå (Ú): ÍÏøöËäی Úä ÇáÕÈی Çáی ˜ã ÊÛÓáå ÇáäÓÇÁ¿ ÝÞÇá Çáی ËáÇË Óäیä.

Abu Nomair said: I asked Imam Sadiq (a.s): Please tell me about the age of a (dead) baby that women can perform his ritual bath? The Imam said: up to three years of age. [6]

The narrator –Abu Nomair- is an unknown person and hence the above Hadith is technically weak. Nonetheless, the verdict of the jurists on it has compensated its weakness. [7]

d. Sometimes a Hadith is weak due to its chain of transmitters. Yet, the same Hadith has another chain of transmitters that is authentic. Thus, the scholars endeavour to collect and examine all different chains of transmitters. For instance, there is a consensus that the usage of liquid enema voids the fast. [8] The reference for this verdict is the following Hadith that is narrated from Imam Redha (a.s):

ÇáÕÇÆã áÇیÌæÒ áå Çä یÍÊÞä.

"It is not permissible for a faster to use enema." [9]

The above Hadith is quoted in two different books with two different chains of transmitters: 1) Kolayni narrated it through Sahl Ibn Ziad from al-Bazanti from Imam Redha (a.s). [10] This Hadith is weak for Sahl Ibn Ziad is weak. 2) Sadooq in his Esnad from al-Bazanti from Imam Redha (a.s). [11] the Esnad of Sadooq to Bazanti is authentic, hence the Hadith is authentic.

Get a proper background of this science, it will help you; rather than learning half-half off the net using Ctrl + F and misleading people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

So I source our Shaheed Al-Thaanee, one of our greatest scholars of all time, where he says that every hadeeth in which the sanad has a weak, or unknown narrator is rejected outrightly.

And You give us book that was written like what? 10-15 years ago max? And my argument is weak?

When I read this...I was "turned off" from this book....

7/5: Playing chess is prohibited according to many narrations.[17] The argument is however, if the prohibition of chess is because it was a means of gambling or it is prohibited whether it is a means of gambling or not. If a jurist is convinced the reason for prohibition of chess is due to gambling, then if it is confirmed by the experts- as it is confirmed- that chess is no longer a means of gambling, then-despite the prohibiting narrations- he will not issue a verdict for its prohibition. His argument would be that playing chess at the time of the Imams (a.s) must have been a means of gambling whereas in our time it is a mental game like other games. Thus, the prohibition or permission of playing chess depends on whether or not it is used for gambling.

For over several centuries most of our jurists have restricted themselves to the texts of narrations. The revolution of opening up the deadlocks of narrations has just begun by the Late Imam Khomeini and his students. Indeed, this great scholar has revived Islam in our modern time in various ways.

Taken from Ch. 13.

See there is a difference from deadlocking and prohibition. Executing people with the sword, because that was the only way at the time (our Imaams have never suggest that this way was better than any other way), now that is deadlocking. Saying "Isma'eel beleives in 1 god" on EVERY shroud is deadlocking.

But chess was specifically prohibited! The game was always a "mind game" and a good tool for "tacticians", but that didnt' stop the Imaams from prohibiting it.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

So I source our Shaheed Al-Thaanee, one of our greatest scholars of all time, where he says that every hadeeth in which the sanad has a weak, or unknown narrator is rejected outrightly.

And You give us book that was written like what? 10-15 years ago max? And my argument is weak?

Eh? Weren't you the one saying earlier that just because the classical scholars agreed on something didn't necessarily mean it could be taken as reliable today since we have access to more information? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(salam)

(bismillah)

I don't mind as long as my cake is good.

I am not a person who says, "just because the old school schoolars did it this way, I want it to change totally". I think we have to pick the best way in picking whatever we do as a means of removing bid'ah within our deen.

If this means that looking at the "other" sect, and see what they do right or wrong and learn from them. Then we should.

Sometimes we as Shee'ahs get this sort of "arrogance" to the way we are. We know we are right (alHamdullilaah), our 'Aqeedah is right, but it doesnt' mean all the practices we are doing are right and all the practices the salafees are proposing, is wrong off the bat. So we have people who will never EVER take anything the "other" sect does doesn't matter how right it sounds.

The issue we are discussing is the way aHaadeeth are grading now. We've determined the way we grade aHaadeeth now isn't "cutting mustard".

What this Shaykh is discussing is the way we (as shee'ahs) are grading hadeeth right now.

You have macIsaac who wants to do a total face change to the system, and you have me who wants to put more organized and systematic method.

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

I don't think the information in the rijal/fihrist books is useless, however I think the system built later using their contents in many ways is. It's highly artificial, so for instance according to some if a rawi is called "faadil" but not specifically called "thiqa" or the like, then the isnad could get graded as hasan but not sahih. Apparently they think saying someone is virtuous would not be considered enough to consider them trustworthy... Or say Saduq said a radiAllah `anhu about someone he knew personally, one of his shuyukh he narrated from, but Najashi/Tusi who lived later than him and wouldn't have known these people personally simply mentioned the person without specifically praising them, then according to a number of scholars this doesn't suffice, the rawi would get marked "majhool" and now the hadith is considered da`if! That and many other things (such as its late appearance in our madhhab) lead me to reject reliance upon it in understanding the basis’ of our religion.

So, what would the information in these source books be good for? A number of things actually. First, the two books of Fihrist are quite interesting and informative in providing us insight into the scope and topics early Shi`i authors were writing about. That is actually what Najashi and Tusi's books are in this case. They weren't written for isnad criticism as such, rather they were to catalog the authors and their books that were in circulation amongst Shi`as. That explains why, to me at least, you don't always get these expressions of praise or condemnation about the people listed in them as that wasn't the primary purpose of the books in the first place.

Take Tusi’s. In it he lists 912 authors. Out of that, going by the index in the printed edition I have, 87 are somehow listed as thiqa. Now get this, do you know how many are listed as actually da`if? 14! That’s it. Out of 912 listings, only 14 he marks out as being da`if. However, since all the rest (all 825 of them) are simply listed out without these types of praise/criticism comments, without anything else from some other book they would all get graded as majhool and thus any hadith they’d be in would be consider da`if… So instead of only 14 getting marked as problematic, you would end up with a potential 839 getting marked so (that is, in the absence of any other information in one of the other books, so in fact the number would be less than that when they are added to the picture) Do see though the huge potential there for discarding tons of hadiths for no other reason than a human-imposed technicality? Now, with so little listed in his Fihrist as such, what they do is take another book of his, his Rijal book that lists out the companions of each Imam (as) (but without really saying a lot about them in most cases), and combine the information in that book with the information in the other to come up with some type of “grading” for the rawi in question as per Tusi’s supposed view. Of course, the two big problem with that is that as mentioned above, you can have what he lists about one person in one book be the opposite of what he lists in the other. A good example is Sahl b. Ziyad, who in the Fihrist he calls da`if but in the Rijal he is listed as thiqa. So which do you go with? The second problem is the simple fact that for all of whatever grading they supposedly are getting from his books for narrators, he himself will use hadiths with those selfsame “da`if” narrators in the chains.

Najashi’s book is more detailed than Tusi’s, but again, like his it’s also a _fihrist_, it wasn’t written for this system so it shouldn’t be surprising how you often can’t get out the information from it one would need to give gradings as such (other than “majhool”).

Anyway, as to my own personal leaning in regards to where we do seem to have a pretty clear picture on the status of an individual, I think that the most useful part of that information is for giving a fuller historical picture of the times of the Imams (as) and the lives of the Shi`as living during them. As to where it might be used in terms of hadith authentication, prior to stating that I should say that I don’t think that in fact you actually can authenticate hadiths unless 1) you have heard it from the Imam yourself or 2) it’s of such a mutawatir status amongst our sect as to being impossible (or near so) to have been fabricated. Either way though, the likelihood of those is either minimal or impossible to do for us now. To me the question thus isn’t really whether the hadith is authentic or not (since that’s something I don’t think we can really know) but whether we should be acting on it or not. There’s a real difference there if you think about it. Does the contents of the report in fact match what the correct ruling is, what we should be doing, is really the question. Whether the Imam literally said those words at that specific time, while I won’t say it’s unimportant, it is not the issue we task ourselves with trying to figure out.

So, to answer that question, you then run the narration through a process. You compare it to the Quran (though even there you have to cautious of such things as not using the mansukh over the nasikh, so you still require usage of the akhbar to know these things) You see whether this report’s contents match was the ta’ifa has acted upon (in this connection, the generations I am concerned with are those that were alive prior to the ghayba, and for say a hundred, two hundred, years after it. The reason for that is that I do believe that greater proximity to the time of the presence of the Imams (as), as well as the fact they had access to way more information than we do today, increases the chance that this agreement in practice would in fact be reflective of what the Imams (as) had taught their Shi`a to do. If the contents match, then you accept the narration. If you are unclear as to the agreed upon practice, you compare what the narrations say. In the case of apparent contradictions, a number of questions can be posed. Important amongst them is comparison to what the `Aama would do. If one of them matches it while the other doesn’t, you might drop the former and act on the latter as the former has a higher likelihood of having been said under taqiyya. (That said I think there’s also a good argument to be made, which some of the Akhbaris did, for the permission being granted to act even on the taqiyya reports as a grace to the Shi`a. They would maintain that it’s not really possible for us to know for sure which is taqiyya and which isn’t, but in following either of them our act is justified in that we would be acting one what the Imam at some point instructed (even if it’s possible that it was said under taqiyya) and thus, even though the action is not correct, we would not be held to account for in since our end of the responsibility would be taken care of (i.e. following the instructions of the Imam). Not sure what I think of that, but it is interesting.

Somewhere along the road, with other things even, you might look at the narrators and compare. So say one was narrated by likes of a Zurara (ra) but the other was narrated by the likes of an `Ali b. Abi Hamza (la), a head of the Waqifiyya, then the one by Zurara would have a higher preference. Another usage (perhaps a more common one for me) would be to see whether the topic of the hadith would be one that a person would actually have any motive in forging. So for instance, say the narration is talking about a cosmic level of knowledge about the Imam, and it turns out that the chain is filled with ghulat, alright, I can see how they would have had a motive in forging it. (though even there I would not say we should declare such a narration as a lie unless we know for sure (which is usually unlikely), lest we fall into the sin as mentioned in the hadiths above). What I don’t really get is what motivation such a ghali (for example) would have in forging a hadith about what to do when you have a shakk in the third rak`at of a four rak`at salat, for example, or the procedure for conducting a business transaction involving the sale of fruits. So without the presence of motivation, I don’t really see what relevance his corrupt beliefs would have on the issue. Another possible usage is in timelines. That is, say an isnad says that X reported from Y, but we know that between the two there was a gap of a 100 years, that type of information could be pertinent. (Even in this latter case though it isn’t actually a showstopper in terms of the hadith’s actual authenticity. It might simply be that one of the other rawis forgot part of the chain when he reported it, but the hadith itself is correct).

Anyhow, as you might see, these types of usages are somewhat peripheral and not very similar to how they are used in the system today. But again, I don’t say throw the information out, what I instead say is to use the information in a more realistic fashion, and one would hope more in line with the original intent in recording it and more in line with the methods of the earlier Imamis, in sha Allah.

Good stuff, although you didn't address the first point you raised and I commented on, i.e. tasalsul in all these narrations, ahadith or rijali. This problem goes beyond what you have described above, since it devalues everything..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have people who will never EVER take anything the "other" sect does doesn't matter how right it sounds.

(salam)

Of course we don't need take anything from anyone else. We have the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt (as) - and the Prophet (pbuh) told us to follow them. Regardless of what anyone else said, it is only these two sources which have any importance for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we don't need take anything from anyone else. We have the Qur'an and the Ahlul Bayt (as) - and the Prophet (pbuh) told us to follow them. Regardless of what anyone else said, it is only these two sources which have any importance for us.

And you think I am taking their hadeeth? I am just saying look into their books on how thye break down aHaadeeth. You do realize, all of our scholars delve into the big time books of the sunnees.

Even their Usool Al-Hadeeth.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ghali is automatically a liar because he (la) associates with Imams (as) things which Imam never said for themselves. So if he can distort and lie about the aqaed teachings of Imams (as), what makes you think he won't be doing the same with fiqh?

It's strange to be claiming to give so much weight to the books of rijal while also going to conclusions their authors would not hold. To show you what I mean, in Najashi:

ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÚÈíÏÇááå ÇáÓÚÏí ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇÈä ÚÈíÏÇááå Èä Óåá ããä ØÚä Úáíå æÑãí ÈÇáÛáæ. áå ßÊÈ ÕÍíÍÉ ÇáÍÏíË¡

al-Husayn b. `Ubaydullah as-Sa`di Abu `Abdillah b. `Ubaydullah b. Sahl, of those who were accused of ghulw. He has books sahih of hadith.

So according to the very author whose book this so-called science so much depends, a person accused of ghulw could be a narrator of sahih hadiths. This demonstrates not only that corruption of beliefs was not considered by them to be an impediment to narrating truthful hadiths, as we well know by the many hadiths the early Shi`a would rely upon even though they would come via Waqifis, Fathis, etc., it also shows how baseless this later definition of "sahih" is.

As to the ghulat in particular, some points. One, by bringing up this point you would seem to be exaggerating the degree to which our hadith books have ghulat narrators in them. Most of the so-called da`if narrations are marked so not because of the presence of a ghali, but because of the technical "failing" of there being a supposedly majhool narrator. Two, I don't think you're really going to find even amongst those one that have someone accused of ghulw in it much narrations by the heads of ghulw themselves. Again, holding an incorrect belief doesn't automatically turn you into a hadith fabricator. Three, do you really think that authors such as Tusi and Saduq would have been including ahadith in their books that by the standard of accepted Imami beliefs would qualify as ghulw? I don't care what some modern Batris think about these things, trying to Sunnify our beliefs as much as they can. It's the measure of Imami orthodoxy I'm referring to, and I find it extremely doubtful any of these scholars would have been including narrations of heretical doctrine in their books. Four, much if not most of these are individuals who had been _accused_ of ghulw. Accusation and reality aren't always the same thing, and we know that at times some of this could go to a very strict level (the (in)famous first step of ghulw being denial of sahw idea we find amongst the Qummis).

This latter point brings up the more serious charge against this system though, which I've brought up before, and that is why exactly should we be relying on the comments of un/reliability in the books of rijal themselves? Where did these authors get their own information from? Fact is, we really don't know, and guesses at that are really just guesses. So it's amazing to me that these people should require such scrutiny of sourcing the isnads when it comes to the ahadith, but when it comes to the (sometimes contradictory) biographical comments in the rijal books we're supposed to just take that as is and judge the hadith against their standards!

And you think I am taking their hadeeth? I am just saying look into their books on how thye break down aHaadeeth. You do realize, all of our scholars delve into the big time books of the sunnees.

Even their Usool Al-Hadeeth.

(salam)

And from there arises the corruption of our madhhab.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ghali is automatically a liar because he (la) associates with Imams (as) things which Imam never said for themselves. So if he can distort and lie about the aqaed teachings of Imams (as), what makes you think he won't be doing the same with fiqh?

How can one even think of taking fiqh (or ANY narration) from someone who is considered worst than Jews, Christians, fire worshippers, Kharijites or ANY of the ahlul-bidah?

We have been asked not to sit with them, not to eat or drink with them, not to shake their hands and yet you are trying to justify their acceptance in fiqhi hadith. SubhanAllah.

w/s

(bismillah)

Aside from what Brother Macisaac has said, someone who has extreme (ghali) or even short (muqasir) beliefs doesn't make them liars. You're confusing someone just being taught that this is the truth with someone who fabricates things about the Imams of Aal Muhammad (Çááåã Õá Úáí ãÍãÏ æÂá ãÍãÏ). What they believe may be wrong but it doesn't impede their trustworthiness (or veracity) in things that have nothing to do with their status.

Yunus ibn `Abdur-Rahman (ra) was a prime companion of Imam ar-Ridha (ÓáÇã Çááå Úáíå) but people thought he was a Ghali and was exaggerating the status of the Imam (Úáíå ÓáÇã) when he was not.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Edit: Also^ Ghali as the direct narrator from the Imam and from someone else in the other parts of the chain is a bit different. The former could be ignored as fabricating while the later would have more leniency i think.

Hmmm more random questions.

I'm curious to know your take Brother Macisaac on what Lotfilms said.

Also what about majhul narrators not listed in our books? Or when the isnad says "Rajalun"?

Wouldn't a mursal connection (or disconnection) be proven strong/weak depending on the other narrations with the same content's authenticity/strength?

Also what about chains to entire collections (like al-Ikhtisas by Shaykh al-Mufid رحمت الله علیه)?

(salam)

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Btw, Shaykh al-Radhy is not the only scholar who considers detailed version of Hadith al-Kisa 'daeef / fabricated'. Syed Murtada Askari also questioned its authenticity.

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ó: åá ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ ÕÍíÍ ÓäÏÇð ¿

Ì: ÍÏíË (ÇáßÓÇÁ) åæ ãä ÇáãÊæÇÊÑÇÊ ÚäÏäÇ¡ æáßä ÎÈÑ ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ ÇáãæÌæÏ Ýí (ãÝÇÊíÍ ÇáÌäÇä) ÓäÏå ÛíÑ ÕÍíÍ¡ äÙíÑ ÃÔíÇÁ ßËíÑÉ Ýíå ÓäÏåÇ ÛíÑ ÕÍíÍ. ÃãÇ ÃÕá ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ¡ æåæ Ãä ÇáäÈí (Õ) ÌãÚ Ãåá ÈíÊå (Ú) ÊÍÊ ÇáßÓÇÁ¡ æäÒáÊ Úáíåã ÇáÂíÉ Ýí Þæáå ÊÚÇáì: {ÅöäøóãóÇ íõÑöíÏõ Çááå áöíõÐúåöÈó Úóäúßõãú ÇáÑøöÌúÓó Ãóåúáó ÇáúÈóíúÊö æóíõØóåøöÑóßõãú ÊóØúåöíÑðÇ}(ÇáÃÍÒÇÈ/33)¡ æÞÇá áÃã ÓáãÉ: Åäß Úáì ÎíÑ¡ æáßäß áÓÊ ãä Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ¡ Ýåæ ÍÏíË ÕÍíÍ¡ íÑæíå ÇáÓõäøÉ æÇáÔíÚÉ¡ æáßä ÇáÍÏíË ÇáÐí íÊÏÇæá ÞÑÇÁÊå ÈÚÖ ÇáäÇÓ ããÇ åæ ãÑæíøñ Ýí (ãÝÇÊíÍ ÇáÌäÇä) áíÓ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÓäÏ.

http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/mbayynat/books/nadwas/fikr374q2.htm

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, mac, I think there is another point you might've neglected. You refer to the little comments on the narratiors (87+14/912) as a point of absurdity. However, it is possible, and most probable that the weighting given to each narrators is not uniformly distributed, but exponentially distributed (i.e. those have more weight then the others - weight referring to the quantity of narrations they've reported). In such a case, how else could we determine that 50% of usool al-kafi is acceptable? With only 101 narrators, we would expect a lot less..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, mac, I think there is another point you might've neglected. You refer to the little comments on the narratiors (87+14/912) as a point of absurdity. However, it is possible, and most probable that the weighting given to each narrators is not uniformly distributed, but exponentially distributed (i.e. those have more weight then the others - weight referring to the quantity of narrations they've reported). In such a case, how else could we determine that 50% of usool al-kafi is acceptable? With only 101 narrators, we would expect a lot less..

Actually, using this system most of al-Kafi gets considered da`if:

According to the great Imami scholar Zayn al-Din al-`Amili, known as al-Shahid al-Thani (911-966/1505-1559), who examined the asnad or the chains of transmission of al-Kafi's traditions, it consists of 5072 sahih, 144 hasan, 1118 muwaththaq, 302 qawi and 9485 traditions which are categorized as daif.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/kafi/1.htm

This directly contradicts what Kulayni himself said about the compilation of it though (which is that it is implicitly all sahih, in the meaning of that term with the ancients). This either means 1) Kulayni was somehow ignorant of the status of all these supposedly "weak" narrators in his book, which is of course makes no sense (he is said to have written a book of "rijal" himself) 2) Kulayni was lying (doesn't even deserve comment) 3) the system is bringing up a huge amount of false negatives and is inconsistent with the method of the ancients and their understanding of sahih/da`if. Not hard to figure which possibility I agree with.

You do have a point though which actually would back my suspicion on this, and that is that it would more often be the prominent (or infamous) narrators that would be eliciting these types of additional comments as to their status, but for less prominent ones it just wasn't figured as appropriate to do so. That is, the ones who would get the praise of being thiqa, fadil, wajh and so on, these were the real heavyweights and prominent personalities and so out of respect the rijal authors would append these complements to them. The other authors were not actually unknown or uncertain to them, nor certainly was there anything bad known about them, they just weren't of that same rank as a Zurara, a Fadl b. Shadhan, a Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman, and so forth. If _every_ good narrator got these elicited praises said about them, it kind of would take away the force of saying it for the really big names. And again, it bears stressing on, these books were _not_ written for this science as it did not exist amongst the Imamis of that time, so one really should not be reading too much into the fact that so many of these ruwat/authors don't have these comments on their status mentioned with them. It was only centuries later that it was invented, largely by importing it from the Sunnis. What you get though in a lot of cases is the trying to fig a square peg in a round hole, and it just doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Edit: Also^ Ghali as the direct narrator from the Imam and from someone else in the other parts of the chain is a bit different. The former could be ignored as fabricating while the later would have more leniency i think.

It's also important to remember the supposed ghali might very not have been a ghali himself, but rather his name became associated with their circles and thus you had guilt by association. I suspect this to have been the case with Mufaddal b. `Umar and even Muhammad b. Sinan, and would explain why you have some indications of the Imam's (as) themselves considering them trustworthy.

Also what about majhul narrators not listed in our books?

Again, being listed in our books (meaning the four source books of rijal) or not is really kind of irrelevant. Many of those whom Shaykh Saduq narrated from are majhool to us, not mentioned in these books, but if they were not authors of books (who would thus be mentioned in a fihrist) or a companion of an Imam (living after the ghayba and reporting to Saduq) why would they have been?

Or when the isnad says "Rajalun"?

I tend to the view that this doesn't really matter in so far as the one narrating from him is himself a trustworthy narrator. There's different reasons why a person might be listed as "a man" or "the one whom he mentioned" etc. such as for instance maybe the narrator was protecting the identity of the person he was narrating from. Or take the case of Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr, where his mursalat have been accepted as he was known to only narrate from trustworthy people. Also, why he had mursalat bears mentioning. He had been imprisoned, and during his period of imprisonment his books were unintentionally destroyed (either his sister buried them or they were left in a room and the rain got to them). So, the recordings of the exact chains in many cases got lost, but the narrations themselves were preserved.

Wouldn't a mursal connection (or disconnection) be proven strong/weak depending on the other narrations with the same content's authenticity/strength?

Exactly. In fact this is hitting on the way that the ancients would use in determining whether a report could be acted upon or not. The chain wasn't really that important, what was key was whether it had qara'in, contextual evidence, to indicate it is to be used or not. Those contextual evidences could cover a number of things, and really this is a great deal more sophisticated in its approach than a simplistic looking up of a chain and doing the math. (So to say that rejecting the value diraya and rijal is thus to reject the supposedly scientific method, this is false. What it is is using a more well-grounded method instead.)

Also what about chains to entire collections (like al-Ikhtisas by Shaykh al-Mufid ÑÍãÊ Çááå Úáیå)?

On the one hand, I do think there's value in looking at the reliability of works holistically. But as regards to these chains issues in determining that, I think this is extreme. As to al-Ikhtisas, there does seem some pretty strong arguments against Mufid being it's author, however that doesn't at all mean it isn't a reliable work to use. It's simply that this attribution may be incorrect (if I remember right, would have to check, but another theory is that it's actually Ibn Qulawayh's instead I think)

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, Shaykh al-Radhy is not the only scholar who considers detailed version of Hadith al-Kisa 'daeef / fabricated'.

w/s

Da'if and fabricated are NOT the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Da'if and fabricated are NOT the same thing.

^True but a narration is graded 'fabricated' b/c of daeef narrators in it. And not much difference b/w the two because for scholars (who really believes in rijal methodology) a narration becomes saqit from hujjah whether its daeef or fabricated. See the works on fiqh by Usuli scholars such as Syed al-Khoei, Sadiq Rohani etc.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^True but a narration is graded 'fabricated' b/c of daeef narrators in it.

w/s

Not at all. Hadith are regarded fabricated when it goes against the Holy Qur'an mainly due to the hadith of the Prophet about it.

And not much difference b/w the two because for scholars (who really believes in rijal methodology) a narration becomes saqit from hujjah whether its daeef or fabricated. See the works on fiqh by Usuli scholars such as Syed al-Khoei, Sadiq Rohani etc.

It does not however mean that a dai'f narration is worthless. Many hadith were considered dai'f in the past which are considered fine today (esp the hadiths with regards to the end of time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not however mean that a dai'f narration is worthless. Many hadith were considered dai'f in the past which are considered fine today (esp the hadiths with regards to the end of time).

A Da'eef narration should NOT be taken. A hadeeth might be Da'eef to one scholar and SaHeeH to another. Read the different gradings of Al-Majlisi in Mir'aat Al-'Uqool and Bahboodee's SaHeeH Al-Kaafi. But if you were to REALLY look into this hadeeth and its chain, there is absolutely NO WAY it can be classed as SaHeeH, due to its chain.

A good portion of this hadeeth is no where found in our book. If you were to take a paragraph from this hadeeth, you will not find it in our works written in this manner at all.

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^True but a narration is graded 'fabricated' b/c of daeef narrators in it. And not much difference b/w the two because for scholars (who really believes in rijal methodology) a narration becomes saqit from hujjah whether its daeef or fabricated. See the works on fiqh by Usuli scholars such as Syed al-Khoei, Sadiq Rohani etc.

w/s

(salam)

Brother, do you take Sadiq Rohani as credible?

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solely on rijal? Sorry I'm not a rijal worshipper.

lol

God I loved some of macs posts on this thread!

I wish he was still like this :(

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

God I loved some of macs posts on this thread!

I wish he was still like this :(

A good debater can take any position and present a good case. Something to think about.

Personally, I think you can usually tell when macisaac doesn't fully believe in his argument though, and his arguments in this thread were not very convincing. It reads more like someone wanting to defend a certain position for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Regardless of Macisaac's present day affiliations, may Allah (swt) reward him and guide him to His (swt) satisfaction, his arguments and points in this topic are second to none!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading through his posts. He makes an excellent case for rejecting the purely 'Rijali' method of authenticating narrations, and explains that the alternative we have is not any less scientific, but actually a lot more sophisticated and subtle!

Im pretty sure a number of scholars of today adhere to the method he has described, so its not something alien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Macisaac's methods have gone up and down from this point onward (his rejection of rijal) and spiraled into many different phases and ideas and ultimately coming down to the "gut feeling" approach. I would suggest laymen, myself first and foremost, take caution when trying to read and understand these things and not pretend like some guy on SC has all the answers and that the ulemaa of the Hawza know nothing.

Anyways, this is an old topic. Yes, it was refreshing bit of anti-rijalism, but long gone are those days. Closing.

في أمان الله

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...