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

Muwaththaqa Of Mas`ada B. Sadaqa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

السلام عليكم

I opened this thread mainly for brothers like brother Macisaac and others who have an interest in this subject and have insight and knowledge.

Anyway, there is a discussion on the Fast of `Ashura in the book al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa written by the great master al-Syed ul-Khoe'i (قدس الله روحه), volume 12. The section is called Aqwaal fi Sawm Yawm `Ashura, and it's available here for those who want to read it:

http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=3258

Al-Khoe'i mentions this:

وأمّا الروايات المتضمّنة للأمر واستحباب الصوم في هذا اليوم فكثيرة ، مثل: صحيحة القدّاح : «صيام يوم عاشوراء كفّارة سنة»

وموثّقة مسعدة بن صدقة : «صوموا العاشوراء التاسع والعاشر فإنّه يكفّر ذنوب سنة»

As for the encompassing narrations commanding and recommending the fast of this day, they are many, like: The authentic narration of al-Qadaah [from Abu `Abdillah (عليه السلام), from his father Abu Ja`far (عليه السلام), who said:] "The fasting of the day of `Ashura is atonement for a year." And the dependable (Muwaththaq) narration of Mas`ada b. Sadaqa [from Abu `Abdillah (عليه السلام), from Abu Ja`far (عليه السلام), who said that Imam `Ali (عليه السلام) said:] "Fast on `Ashura, the ninth and the tenth, for verily it atones for the sins of a year."

Al-Khoe'i graded that narration as Muwaththaq, but I don't see how. If we look in al-Wasaa'il 10/457, where al-Khoe'i took this narration from and sourced it in his footnote, we see it was taken from al-Shaykh ul-Tusi (قدس سره) in al-Tahdheebayn. He narrates it from the Asl of `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal, and the Tareeq of al-Shaykh to this book is as follows in his Fihrist:

أخبرنا بجميع كتبه قراءة عليه أكثرها والباقي اجازة ، أحمد بن عبدون ، عن علي بن محمد بن الزبير سماعا وإجازة عنه

In red is the weakness I found in this chain, according to al-Khoe'i himself in Mu`jam Rijal il-Hadith. Per chance I was looking at the entry for `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal. and I drifted over to `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Taa'aa. I saw that al-Khoe'i had said this about `Ali al-Taa'aa:

وطريق الشيخ إليه ضعيف، بعلي بن محمد القرشى

I checked up on this individual, and he is, according to al-Khoe'i, the same person as `Ali b. Muhammad b. al-Zubayr:

8513 - علي بن محمد القرشي :

تقدم ذكره في ترجمة أبان بن تغلب ، وهو علي بن محمد بن الزبير القرشي .

He then says about `Ali b. Muhammad b. al-Zubayr al-Qarashi:

لم تثبت وثاقته

Therefore, the weakness of the chain of al-Shaykh in his Fihrist to `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal should have been clear. Since al-Khoe'i himself said that the narrator through whom the book of `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhaal reached al-Shaykh is without Tawtheeq, it seems that this narration under discussion should have been graded Dha`eef rather than Muwaththaq.

وعليكم السلام

Edited by mansab.jafri
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

Yeah, you are right brother. According to Al-Majlisi this hadeeth is Da`eef (Weak).

  • Source:
  • Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb, vol. 4, pg. 299, hadeeth # 11
    Grading:
  • Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Da`eef (Weak)
    --> Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 7, pg. 115

Al-Khoei has been known to make some contradictions in his grading. One other contradiction that comes to mind is MufaDDal bin `Umar, he says he is "thiqah", but later on he weakens a hadeeth because MufaDDal is in the chain. This can be found in his Mu`jam Rijaal Al-Hadeeth.

Good work brother!

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Actually there have been attempts to try to Authenticate Ali bin Muhammad bin Zubayr though in all quarters he is Majhool hal.

1. For example Mir Damad is said to have reffered to Najashi for this.

In the passage reffering to the tarjuma of Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid where Najashi says

وكان قد لقي ابا الحسن علي بن محمد القرشي المعروف بابن الزبير وكان علوا في الوقت

And Mir Damad says this returns back to Ali bin Muhammad bin Zubayr and that the adjective - He was High in in his time (of his knowledge and superiority) -

is for this Ibn Zubayr but obviously this has problems as the most clear meaning would be back to Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid (the Shaykh of both Tusi and Najashi and the first link in Tusi's 'defective' chain to Ibn Faddal) and the one who Najashi is discussing in this particular case.

And as a final blow to this others refer to the tarjuma of Ishaq bin Hasan bin Bukran wherein the same pattern is used by Najashi but there it involves the adjective - Dhaif in his Madhab and not listened to - and no one tries to refer this jarh back to Ibn Zubayr.

And to complicate matters in some manuscripts it has the letter Ghayn not Ayn therefore - The one reffered to is a Ghaliy minal Ghulu either Ahmad or Ali but this view is heavily contested and that it is Ayn is preponderant.

The popular view is that it is Ayn but what it really means is not praise to any but that Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid lived long enough to meet Ali bin Muhammad bin Zubayr something not any did from among the other Mashaikha of Tusi and Najashi of Ahmad's Tabaqa i.e reach to Ibn Zubayr's times.

2. You do realise that Najashi recalls two chains to Ibn Faddal and one is the exact same as Tusi's but the other is chain with all Rijal Thiqah so an opinion is to confirm Tusi's chain with Najashi's Sahih one and since they were most probably sharing the same book.

But this also has a problem, because the principle is very clear and that is confirming of two chains should only have happened if both Tusi and Najashi's chain had The same Shaykh Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid then branch out (Tusi's containing defective Ibn Zubayr and Najashi's A Thiqah Narrator reaching to Ibn Faddal) but the reality is that one chain of Najashi is Identical to Tusi with the defective Ibn Zubayr and the other is a chain with totally different narrators though Sahih i.e The first link Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid is not there

محمد بن جعفر عن احمد بن محمد بن سعيد عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال

It is quite possible that Al-Khui has made a justifiable logical leap to him in this regard due to importance of Kitab Sawm of Ibn Faddal and then obviously Ibn Faddal makes it drop down to Muwathaq and it is still Mutabar.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one were to consider the isnad of the second hadith defective due to the technical lack of a tawthiq of one narrator in Tusi's tariqa to the book (which personally I don't buy as a valid enough reason to reject a narration), it could still be taken as a shahid to the hadith mentioned prior regarding the fast of `Ashura being the atonement for the sins of a year which is sahih.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

From what I see, that hadeeth that talks about the Fast of `Aashoorah being a kaffaarah of a year seems to have a majhool narrator.

سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ الْقَدَّاحِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ ع قَالَ صِيَامُ يَوْمِ عَاشُورَاءَ كَفَّارَةُ سَنَةٍ

  • Source:
  • Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 4, pg. 300, hadeeth # 13

Ja`far bin Muhammad bin `Ubayd Allaah is majhool according to Al-Khoei.

(salam)

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

Salam Alaikum

You do realise that Najashi recalls two chains to Ibn Faddal and one is the exact same as Tusi's but the other is chain with all Rijal Thiqah so an opinion is to confirm Tusi's chain with Najashi's Sahih one and since they were most probably sharing the same book.

But this also has a problem, because the principle is very clear and that is confirming of two chains should only have happened if both Tusi and Najashi's chain had The same Shaykh Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid then branch out (Tusi's containing defective Ibn Zubayr and Najashi's A Thiqah Narrator reaching to Ibn Faddal) but the reality is that one chain of Najashi is Identical to Tusi with the defective Ibn Zubayr and the other is a chain with totally different narrators though Sahih i.e The first link Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid is not there

محمد بن جعفر عن احمد بن محمد بن سعيد عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال

It is quite possible that Al-Khui has made a justifiable logical leap to him in this regard due to importance of Kitab Sawm of Ibn Faddal and then obviously Ibn Faddal makes it drop down to Muwathaq and it is still Mutabar.

Al-Sayyed Al-Khoi uses this argument; he says that if Al-Najjashi had this one book (of Ibn Faddhal) from one chain in which all persons are thiqat, and he had another chain for the same book with the chain he shares with Al-Tusi, but is dha`eef, this second chain can be authenticated by the first saheeh chain, because it has already been established through Al-Najjashi that both chains brought him the same book.

Therefore, according to this explanation, the chain is justifiably muatthaq rather than dha`eef.

But he has sometimes explained it that it seems that he believes that Ahmad ibn Abdul Wahid (sheikh of Tusi and Najjashi) has two chains to Ibn Faddhal, one weak and one saheeh.

But where is the saheeh one which he Najjashi is meant to have??

This explanation seems lacking.

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

Salam Alaikum

Al-Sayyed Al-Khoi uses this argument; he says that if Al-Najjashi had this one book (of Ibn Faddhal) from one chain in which all persons are thiqat, and he had another chain for the same book with the chain he shares with Al-Tusi, but is dha`eef, this second chain can be authenticated by the first saheeh chain, because it has already been established through Al-Najjashi that both chains brought him the same book.

Therefore, according to this explanation, the chain is justifiably muatthaq rather than dha`eef.

But he has sometimes explained it that it seems that he believes that Ahmad ibn Abdul Wahid (sheikh of Tusi and Najjashi) has two chains to Ibn Faddhal, one weak and one saheeh.

But where is the saheeh one which he Najjashi is meant to have??

This explanation seems lacking.

Yes you are right brother

As far as I can tell the other chain Najashi has which is Sahih to Ibn Faddal is this one

محمد بن جعفر عن احمد بن محمد بن سعيد عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال

The problem now is that this strengthening according to some happens only if In Najashi's Sahih chain there was Tusi's Shaykh (Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid) and then a Thiqah individual and then Ibn Faddal and this would strengthen Tusi's Dhaif chain that has Ahmad bin Abdul Wahid >IbnZubayr>Ibn Faddal

But al-Khui counters that while mentioning the books of Ibn Faddal, Najashi lists both chains so He is sure it is the same book that came to him one from what we know call a Dhaif chain (since at the time Najashi wouldn't have had a problem with Ibn Zubayr) and one from what we know call a Sahih chain.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This from Al-Khui

æÞÏ ÐßÑäÇ ÛíÑ ãÑøÉ Ãäø ØÑíÞ ÇáÔíÎ Åáì ÇÈä ÝÖøÇá æÅä ßÇä ÖÚíÝÇð ÅáÇø Ãäø ØÑíÞ ÇáäÌÇÔí ÕÍíÍ æÔÜíÎåãÇ æÇÍÏ æåæ ßÇÝ Ýí ÇáÊÕÍíÍ

ÇáãÓÊäÏ Ýí ÔÑÍ ÇáÚÑæÉ ÇáæËÞì - ÇáÌÒÁ ÇáÍÇÏí ÚÔÑÝÕá Ýí ßÝøÇÑÉ ÇáÕæã

Page 324

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...