Authenticating Hadiths

[Incognito]

There exists numerous Rijal books, some of which contradict the other. In one book you may find a certain narrator to be classified as weak whereas in the other he is strong

How can we verify hadiths with the reliability of chains that are different from different Rijal books?

[JawzofDETH]

There exists numerous Rijal books, some of which contradict the other. In one book you may find a certain narrator to be classified as weak whereas in the other he is strong

How can we verify hadiths with the reliability of chains that are different from different Rijal books?

Because Rijal shouldn't be our centre of focus,

content whether in agreement with the Qur'aan and Islamic precepts is more important.

People have been known to attribute things to people who are famous while they are false accounts.

That is why we should look at what is being said, not who is saying it.

Was-Salaam

[SoRoUsH]

There exists numerous Rijal books, some of which contradict the other. In one book you may find a certain narrator to be classified as weak whereas in the other he is strong

How can we verify hadiths with the reliability of chains that are different from different Rijal books?

(salam)

Very Good Question.

I am curious as well.

And I do consider that the science of hadiths is extremely important.

[shia1400]

There exists numerous Rijal books, some of which contradict the other. In one book you may find a certain narrator to be classified as weak whereas in the other he is strong

How can we verify hadiths with the reliability of chains that are different from different Rijal books?

I believe by improving and increasing your knowledge(which could be gained through reading different books and researching)

you could get rid of you confusion a little bit (a little is better than nothing) of course if you think about what you read and research

we all are being gifted with our brain to think ang judge...

however it is not possible for ordinary people (that are not scholars) to answer all their questions and remove their confusion.

(even scholars can not do that themeselvs too:wacko:)

Any way there are so many books,scholars,ideas,resources etc....

that we can not trust or reject them all .

only we could improve our knowledge until the owner of those knowledge who is our 12th imam (Mahdi ajalallah farajaho)

let us know about the accuracy of them.

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Shia 'ilm al-Rijal is hard to accept.

We don't know who most people are, and there is little consistency in the rijal gradings.

This is because the Shia never really developed the science of rijal until the time of Shaheed al-Thani, hundreds of years after the ghaybah of al-Mahdi(as). And he pretty much copied the Sunnis. So he never really met any of the narrators because they were long dead.

And al-Kulayni was reportedly a master of rijal, yet his book is filled with thousands of weak traditions; that should be enough proof that Shia rijal has nothing to stand on.

On the other hand, the Sunni 'ulema were literally living right there during the time of these narrators and they used to test these narrators, so they developed a far more accurate science and they took it a lot more seriously.

What's the point of quoting a ma'sum if the people who are giving us the hadith are unknown or a bunch of liars?

We shouldn't forget that people had no trouble lying against Allah(swt) and they had no trouble lying against the Prophet (pbuh), so we shouldn't be naive to think that we can automatically trust a hadith attributed to an Imam.

was salam

Edited October 10, 2010 by lotfilms

[Nader Zaveri]

Shia 'ilm al-Rijal is hard to accept.

We don't know who most people are, and there is little consistency in the rijal gradings.

This is because the Shia never really developed the science of rijal until the time of Shaheed al-Thani, hundreds of years after the ghaybah of al-Mahdi(as). And he pretty much copied the Sunnis. So he never really met any of the narrators because they were long dead.

And al-Kulayni was reportedly a master of rijal, yet his book is filled with thousands of weak traditions; that should be enough proof that Shia rijal has nothing to stand on.

On the other hand, the Sunni 'ulema were literally living right there during the time of these narrators and they used to test these narrators, so they developed a far more accurate science and they took it a lot more seriously.

What's the point of quoting a ma'sum if the people who are giving us the hadith are unknown or a bunch of liars?

We shouldn't forget that people had no trouble lying against Allah(swt) and they had no trouble lying against the Prophet (pbuh), so we shouldn't be naive to think that we can automatically trust a hadith attributed to an Imam.

Brother, if you know nothing about Shee`ah `ilm Al-Rijaal or its history it is best not to comment or speak about it.

Our `ilm Al-Rijaal has NOT been copied from the Sunnees, no matter what you say, or HOW MUCH they (the sunnees) would love it.

And Shaheed Al-Thaanee isn't the "first" one to make this system, it is ACTUAL said that his book, Al-Diraayah, is ONE of the first books on Usool Al-Hadeeth, and the OLDEST we have right now. The "four-fold" system, that you see "SaHeeH", "Hasan", "Muwaththaq", "Da`eef" has been said to come from Sayyid ibn Tawoos which is 300+ years before Shaheed Al-Thaanee. But that is just the naming and categorizing of hadeeth. I can show you places from Al-Sadooq's book where He (Al-Sadooq) and his teacher (ibn Al-Waleed) weaken narrations just because of ONE weak narrator.

Heck, Al-Toosi dedicated a WHOLE section in his Usool Al-Fiqh book to hadeeth that CAN and CANNOT be accepted by certain types of narrators, their madhaahib (pl. madhhab), etc. (Al-Toosi, Al-`Uddah, around pg. 350 it starts). Notice it is in his Usool Al-Fiqh book! So "categorizing" them into 4 different things are not considered "copying" from the Sunnees, as we have narrations from our Imaams that talk about go and accept the aHaadeeth narrated by thiqaat (pl. thiqah) narrators. Heck MAJORITY if not ALL of the categories of fiqh came SO MUCH later as well, do we copy that from the sunnees or call this bid`ah? No.

It is said, Al-Kulayni had actually his OWN Rijaal book. Forget Al-Kulayni as he died 329 AH, we have major COMPANIONS of the Imaams such as Ibn FaDDaal who has written Rijaal books. Also great companions like FaDl bin Shaadhaan said things like "take so and so's narrations, and do not take so and so's narrations", this can be still found in Al-Najaashee's Rijaal book. Also, if you happened to look at Al-Kashee's rijaal, you will see the Imaams and companions of the Imaams talking about certain individuals to take or not to take their narrations.

Once again, our `ilm Al-rijaal is NOT copied from the Sunnees.

(salam)

Edited October 10, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[Incognito]

And al-Kulayni was reportedly a master of rijal, yet his book is filled with thousands of weak traditions; that should be enough proof that Shia rijal has nothing to stand on.

The same can be said about Bukhari

It is very simple to pick out a narrator in the chain and prove him to be untrustworthy, more than likely, some scholar has written something negative about him

I often see when it comes to debate that both sides would be authenticating the chain of hadith using many different books. That is stupid, since that way, we could almost prove anything to be correct and valid

[guest 34193]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Shia 'ilm al-Rijal is hard to accept.

We don't know who most people are, and there is little consistency in the rijal gradings.

This is because the Shia never really developed the science of rijal until the time of Shaheed al-Thani, hundreds of years after the ghaybah of al-Mahdi(as). And he pretty much copied the Sunnis. So he never really met any of the narrators because they were long dead.

And al-Kulayni was reportedly a master of rijal, yet his book is filled with thousands of weak traditions; that should be enough proof that Shia rijal has nothing to stand on.

On the other hand, the Sunni 'ulema were literally living right there during the time of these narrators and they used to test these narrators, so they developed a far more accurate science and they took it a lot more seriously.

What's the point of quoting a ma'sum if the people who are giving us the hadith are unknown or a bunch of liars?

We shouldn't forget that people had no trouble lying against Allah(swt) and they had no trouble lying against the Prophet (pbuh), so we shouldn't be naive to think that we can automatically trust a hadith attributed to an Imam.

was salam

Don't let the razzle dazzle of the Salafis fool you bro, their own system is as messed us, actually much more so, than our own. You want contradictions? Look up some random narrators in their books and see how much there is of that amongst them, or the games they play to make certain narrations fit (e.g stuff like reject all of his hadiths _except_ for those about hajj. why the heck just for hajj if he wasn't reliable? because they want to keep the latter while rejecting the former.)

I have a ton of my own criticism of the isnad criticism system that eventually came in place amongst usooli scholars. Instead of looking at that though, comparing it to the Sunni construct and thinking we come up short, you should instead look at what earlier scholars like Tusi and others used themselves which was to give greater weight to the contextual evidence for the text of the tradition as the determiner of its usability. This is light years beyond some simplistic X from Y from Z system that can VERY easily be manipulated and give lots of false positives and negatives.

[guest 34193]

Another point, something totally absent from the Sunni system. For a very long time Sunni `ulama were against writing down the hadiths. It's not that they were against hadiths themselves obviously, it was that they actually considered that it was not something you were supposed to do, that is, writing them, instead it was supposed to only be done via oral transmission. With us on the other hand the Imams (as) specifically encouraged their Shi`a to actually write down the hadiths they heard from them, and hence you have the hundreds of "usool" books that their companions and their students composed. Scholars like Kulayni and Saduq then took these _written_ books, extracted their contents and in turn made their own larger, organized compilations. This is totally absent from the Sunni system. It would have been like say instead of a supposedly oral chain going from the Prophet (pbuh) down to Bukhari, and from Bukhari another oral chain until the Sunnis finally decided it was ok to write down his book, you instead had a sahaba literally writing down what the Prophet (pbuh) said in a book, verify its contents with him, and that book get passed down until Bukhari or whoever received it himself, extracted the hadiths and _wrote_ them in his book, itself then getting handed down. The latter is how it more or less happened with us, with the companion of the Imam doing the writing of the book.

[Abu Abdullaah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brother LotFilms,

Have you heard of 'Abd Allaah bin Jabla al Kinaanee, al-Hasan bin 'Alee al-FaDDaal, Al-Hasan bin MaHboob, Ahmad bin 'Alee al-'Aqeeqee, 'Alee bin al-Hakam al-Zubayr, FaDl bin Shaadhaan, and al-FaDDaal's son 'Alee? Did you know each of them had their own rijaal works? (Not as extant as al-Barqee's from that time period which is pre-ghaybah)

'Abd Allaah bin Jabla al-Kinaanee (died 219 A.H.), according to al-Barqee, who was a saHaaba from Imaam Kaadhim (as), wrote a rijaal book.

Al-Hasan bin 'Alee al-FaDDaal wrote a rijaal book.

Al-Hasan bin MaHboob wrote a rijaal book named Kitaab al Mashaykha. The difference between a kitaab of mashaykha and a regular rijaal book is that it lists the shuyookh instead of mentioning the SaHaaba of the A'immah (as).

Al-FaDDaal's son 'Alee and Ahmad bin 'Alee al-'Aqeeqee both wrote rijaal books.

'Alee bin al-Hakam al-Zubayr also wrote a rijaal book. Ibn al-Hakam al-Zubayr is trustworthy not only in our rijaal literature (considered thiqah jaleel qadar according to Khu'ee), but Ibn Hajar Asqalaanee quotes from his rijaal book.

Al-Barqee's Tabaqaat, which is in the third century, explicated the SaHaaba of the A'immah (as) instead of going into the authenticity of the narrators.

There were many rijaal works, as you can see from the above points, between Al-MaHboob and Shaykh Taa'ifah.

Remember, since Al-Kinaanee is one of our earliest rijaal works, this proves that not only the Shee'ah had a rijaal system way before Shaheed al-Thaanee, but that they were building their rijaal system at the same time as the Sunnees.

Some of the Sunnee rijaal examination had started with scholars (e.g. Ibn 'Awn (d. 151 A.H.), and Shu'ba (d. 160 A.H.)).

It would be practically neccessary for the Imaamees to have a rijaal system because of the various sectarian divisions which plagued the ummah. One would need to know who was an Imaamee, Waaqifite, 'Aamee, and many other sects. As you might know by now that a majority of Imaam Kaadhim's (as) companions had become Waaqifite.

If we delve into the post-ghaybah time period, then works (e.g. Al-Najaashee and Al-Kashshee) quote the views of 'Alee bin al-Hasan al-FaDDaal and FaDl bin Shaadhaan on several occasions.

In order for them to directly quote from these two, you would have to have their books. So we can ascertain that their books were there around this time.

Al-Najaashee (d. 450 A.H.) quotes 'Alee bin Al-Hasan al-FaDDaal. Also, he says that the narrator 'Alee bin Abee Hamza al-BaTaa'inee was a liar.

Al-Kashshee says that Al-'Ayyaashee, his teacher, asked ibn al-FaDDaal on the character of 'Alee bin Hassan.

Al-Kashshee had older rijaal texts. We can understand this from his statement: "I have found [a book] in the handwriting of Jibreel bin AHmad..."

Inshaa Allaah I hope this helped. This should be pretty straightforward. The Shee'ah Rijaal system has been there since the beginning, and we do not have to copy a Sunnee system. This is propaganda and mudslinging from the opponents and I pray that you are not convinced from such false allegations and accusations. Aameen.

(salam)

Edited October 11, 2010 by Abu Abdullaah

[JawzofDETH]

Bro lotfilms, you getting attacked there... ...lol.

Don't worry I agree with you in sprirt. But neither

of us are saying that rijaal should be done away

with, too much over-reacting taking place when one

discusses rijaal these days.

Plus some of these rijaalites we have here on shi'a

chat are not to be trusted completely because they do

their own study independantly into rijaal etc. Quoting

a bunch of late scholars without awareness of new

found developments which come from the centres of

learning and translating with their imperfect 1-2-3-Arabic

for beginners knowledge/ google-translate and other of

languages.

That being said, I don't disagree with self-study, I even

believe one can become a scholar this way, but learning

isnad is not going to make you a self-made-scholar, it's

going to turn you into an ignorant bigot living in your own

cloud-koo-koo-land. Quoting sanads and we are expected to

accept them -just like that, I mean really? If it disagrees

with Qur'aan and Islamic Precepts then that is the first cirterion,

after all The holy Prophet (pbuh) said: "I am leaving you... ...the

book of Allah & my itrah." And "the two shall not separate until they

are reunited with me at the pond." So it can have immaculate

rijaal and still be a lie, it can still be forgery, I just have to print

it on some prachment make it look old and ratty and leave it on

one of these guy's doorsteps. The holy Prophet (pbuh) didn't

say: "I am leaving you... ...The Qur'aan and this perfect list of thiqat

thabth narrators." Lol, He (pbuh) could have done that but he knew

better. But refer back to the Qur'aan AND ACTUAL CONTENT OF

THE NARRATIONS and you'll never faulter. Ofcourse there are gray

areas, but ideally never in significant issues.

The rijaalite mentality will be the death of us, shi'a Islam of the future,

our doors of ijtehad are never closed and because a late-scholar

said such and such about a narration, it could be wrong because

the times they are a changin'

New information is becoming available and WE today should be

STILL recording, deciding which scientist and people of our time

are trustworthy and reliable. Keep recording and keep saving for

posterity and processing and cataloguing the old aswell. This is

the way shi'a Islam stayed sharp, crisp, refreshing as a school of

thought all those years and this is the way it will continue to be the

forerunner of all religions in the future.

Was-Salaam

Edited October 11, 2010 by JawzofDETH

[Abu Tufayl]

Don't let the razzle dazzle of the Salafis fool you bro, their own system is as messed us, actually much more so, than our own. You want contradictions? Look up some random narrators in their books and see how much there is of that amongst them, or the games they play to make certain narrations fit (e.g stuff like reject all of his hadiths _except_ for those about hajj. why the heck just for hajj if he wasn't reliable? because they want to keep the latter while rejecting the former.)

Got any specific examples on hand, brother? I'm curious about these kinds of things. I'm more looking for things suspect to a narrator being a Shi'i or RafiDi.

Another point, something totally absent from the Sunni system. For a very long time Sunni `ulama were against writing down the hadiths. It's not that they were against hadiths themselves obviously, it was that they actually considered that it was not something you were supposed to do, that is, writing them, instead it was supposed to only be done via oral transmission. With us on the other hand the Imams (as) specifically encouraged their Shi`a to actually write down the hadiths they heard from them, and hence you have the hundreds of "usool" books that their companions and their students composed. Scholars like Kulayni and Saduq then took these _written_ books, extracted their contents and in turn made their own larger, organized compilations. This is totally absent from the Sunni system. It would have been like say instead of a supposedly oral chain going from the Prophet (pbuh) down to Bukhari, and from Bukhari another oral chain until the Sunnis finally decided it was ok to write down his book, you instead had a sahaba literally writing down what the Prophet (pbuh) said in a book, verify its contents with him, and that book get passed down until Bukhari or whoever received it himself, extracted the hadiths and _wrote_ them in his book, itself then getting handed down. The latter is how it more or less happened with us, with the companion of the Imam doing the writing of the book.

This is something I've been thinking about to. The fact that it was full books and compilations that were written during the life of the Masumeen (as) lends greater weight to contextual evidence of ahadeeth and how completely oral chains first being written hundreds of years after the Prophet (pbuh) lends to a lot of error and mistakes.

But just a quesiton I've had. The chains that are listed for our hadeeth, are these the chains from which, for example, Thiqqat ul Islam (ra) got that book? Meaning the person "narrating" wrote down this narration? Or was it a third party person who wrote it down during the life of an Infallible (as) and that's the chain going back from the author to the original narrator, for example Zurarah (ra), quoting the Imam (as)?

(salam)

[Abu Abdullaah]

This is something I've been thinking about to. The fact that it was full books and compilations that were written during the life of the Masumeen (as) lends greater weight to contextual evidence of ahadeeth and how completely oral chains first being written hundreds of years after the Prophet (pbuh) lends to a lot of error and mistakes.

But just a quesiton I've had. The chains that are listed for our hadeeth, are these the chains from which, for example, Thiqqat ul Islam (ra) got that book? Meaning the person "narrating" wrote down this narration? Or was it a third party person who wrote it down during the life of an Infallible (as) and that's the chain going back from the author to the original narrator, for example Zurarah (ra), quoting the Imam (as)?

(bismillah)

(salam)

One way to figure out if a specific hadeeth is written or orally transmitted (or from some of the following ways below) is by the way how the isnaad is written, sometimes. For instance, there are seven modes of reception:

1)Samaa' = which is hearing the tradition from the Shaykh's saying it

2)Qiraa'ah = reading back a tradition to the Shaykh

3)Ijaazah = permission to transmit on someone's authority

4)Munaawalah = handing over a book of traditions. Now two types of this Munaawalah is:

[*](a.) Munaawalah with permission to transmit from it

[*](b.) Munaawalah without explicit permission to transmit from it

5)Kitaabah = writing down. Now two types of Kitaabah is:

[*](a.) Kitaabah along with permission to transmit from it

[*] (b.) Kitaabah without permission to transmit from it

6)I'laam = declaration

-When a Shaykh declares to his student that a particular book or tradition is the result of what he has heard or narrated without saying "Transmit on my authority" or "I permit you to transmit on my authority". There are two different opinions on whether transmission from such a declaration is allowed or not

7)Wijaadah = finding traditions.

-When a reporter finds the traditions of a person in his handwriting, without actually having heard them from him

Sometimes, if you read the chain and you start seeing "Sami'tu" and various other wordings, then you might know the mode of transmission. It is not that easy sometimes and you might have to break the other modes of transmissions down, more analytically, depending on the understanding of the chain.

Of course the best mode of transmission is when the reporter has heard the tradition himself from the narrator without any change. Transmitting from someone's book is allowed and is sounder in safeguarding from alteration. Transmitting the meaning of a tradition is allowed, provided that the original wording of the tradition is preserved and has not been distorted in any way.

Shaheed Al-Thaanee speaks more in great deal about this subject in his book "Diraayah al-Hadeeth".

(salam)

Edited October 13, 2010 by Abu Abdullaah

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Our `ilm Al-Rijaal has NOT been copied from the Sunnees, no matter what you say, or HOW MUCH they (the sunnees) would love it.

Akhi, i didn't get this out of my pocket. Shaykh Hurr al-'Amali talks about this in a few places in Wasil al-Shia.

Read what he says in volume 30 pgs 258-259 in particular. They're fairly interesting views.

Of course, we know al-'Amili's view on rijal, so if you disagree with him, then this would be a good place to refute his statements

as brother Macisaac as been alluding to, the people in the time of the Imams (as) and even right after appear to have used a different system of analyzing hadiths.

The "four-fold" system, that you see "SaHeeH", "Hasan", "Muwaththaq", "Da`eef" has been said to come from Sayyid ibn Tawoos which is 300+ years before Shaheed Al-Thaanee.

...and about 400 years after the ghaybah of Imam al-Mahdi(as).

And about 500 years after the Sunnis developed it.

Heck, Al-Toosi dedicated a WHOLE section in his Usool Al-Fiqh book to hadeeth that CAN and CANNOT be accepted by certain types of narrators, their madhaahib (pl. madhhab), etc. (Al-Toosi, Al-`Uddah, around pg. 350 it starts). Notice it is in his Usool Al-Fiqh book! So "categorizing" them into 4 different things are not considered "copying" from the Sunnees, as we have narrations from our Imaams that talk about go and accept the aHaadeeth narrated by thiqaat (pl. thiqah) narrators. Heck MAJORITY if not ALL of the categories of fiqh came SO MUCH later as well, do we copy that from the sunnees or call this bid`ah? No.

1) al-Tusi lived a couple hundred years after the ghaybah

2) How is that not copying? If Person 1 does something and a few weeks later Person 2 does something very similar and they lived together....... this is obviously copying; or we can at least say that Person 2 was influenced by Person 1.

3) There's nothing special about the Imams saying to accept from thiqat; this is common sense.

It is said, Al-Kulayni had actually his OWN Rijaal book.

That's the thing bro; how is it that al-Kulayni had a rijal book, yet al-Kafi is a joke from the point of view of rijal? Clearly there is a disconnect between rijal now-a-days and rijal from his time?

Forget Al-Kulayni as he died 329 AH, we have major COMPANIONS of the Imaams such as Ibn FaDDaal who has written Rijaal books. Also great companions like FaDl bin Shaadhaan said things like "take so and so's narrations, and do not take so and so's narrations", this can be still found in Al-Najaashee's Rijaal book. Also, if you happened to look at Al-Kashee's rijaal, you will see the Imaams and companions of the Imaams talking about certain individuals to take or not to take their narrations.

How many of these books do we still have and how many of them are actually useful for rijal studies? Having a book listing who fought with Ali and who fought against him isn't enough to really be a rijal book.

And as for the Imams talking about certain individuals, there's too much taqiyyah involved lol

Don't let the razzle dazzle of the Salafis fool you bro, their own system is as messed us, actually much more so, than our own.

Can you elaborate on this for my benefit and the benefit of others here?

(e.g stuff like reject all of his hadiths _except_ for those about hajj. why the heck just for hajj if he wasn't reliable? because they want to keep the latter while rejecting the former.)

Don't you do something similar where, for certain narrators, you reject their narrations in areas where they would be likely to play with the hadith and take their narrations in areas where do don't think they would mess with the hadith?

Another point, something totally absent from the Sunni system. For a very long time Sunni `ulama were against writing down the hadiths. It's not that they were against hadiths themselves obviously, it was that they actually considered that it was not something you were supposed to do, that is, writing them, instead it was supposed to only be done via oral transmission.

i've yet to see any authentic basis for this. There's plenty of evidence that a number of the Sahaba and Tabieen wrote down hadiths and there's an interesting book on the compilation of the Sunnah that discusses this and other issues:

http://ia351435.us.archive.org/2/items/wahawaha/dhntt.pdf

it's long, but interesting

With us on the other hand the Imams (as) specifically encouraged their Shi`a to actually write down the hadiths they heard from them, and hence you have the hundreds of "usool" books that their companions and their students composed.

There's hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh) encouraging people to write hadiths and preserve knowledge as well.

Yes there were disputes whether they were allowed to write or not, but there were people who did write hadiths.

Have you heard of 'Abd Allaah bin Jabla al Kinaanee, al-Hasan bin 'Alee al-FaDDaal

The waqafi and the fatahi?

Al-Hasan bin MaHboob, Ahmad bin 'Alee al-'Aqeeqee, 'Alee bin al-Hakam al-Zubayr, FaDl bin Shaadhaan, and al-FaDDaal's son 'Alee?

Ahmad bin Ali isn't proven to be thiqa and besides these works are so small that you can't really rely on it for rijal studies.

Did you know each of them had their own rijaal works? (Not as extant as al-Barqee's from that time period which is pre-ghaybah)

There are doubts about al-Barqi's works as well, no?

Remember, since Al-Kinaanee is one of our earliest rijaal works, this proves that not only the Shee'ah had a rijaal system way before Shaheed al-Thaanee, but that they were building their rijaal system at the same time as the Sunnees

If this is your definition of developing a system of rijal, then one can say that rijal began during the time of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh)

And there's hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh) strengthening some narrators and weakening others.

It would be practically neccessary for the Imaamees to have a rijaal system because of the various sectarian divisions which plagued the ummah. One would need to know who was an Imaamee, Waaqifite, 'Aamee, and many other sects. As you might know by now that a majority of Imaam Kaadhim's (as) companions had become Waaqifite.

Yes we would ;)

Fascinating discussion brothers :)

was salam

[Abu Abdullaah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

...and about 400 years after the ghaybah of Imam al-Mahdi(as).

And about 500 years after the Sunnis developed it.

I think what you are failing to realize is that the trustworthiness and sects of an individual is the real foundation of where the 'ilm al-rijaal starts. Now placing them in the four categories is a way to put them into an organized format which would recognize these ahaadeeth from an imaamee, non-imaamee, and weak narrators. If this system had started 1000000 years after the Prophet (SAWAS), then that wouldn't matter because the foundation which is the trustworthiness and sect of an individual were already set.

The waqafi and the fatahi?

Abd 'Allaah bin Jablah was not a Waaqifite. The second one was a FaThee, but some say he returned to Imaamee before his death but, nevertheless, both are thiqah. Of course the latter will get graded as muwaththaq, but his narrations are still taken. Even though he returned to Imaamee, it wouldn't make a difference in the grading because most of his ahaadeeth were in his FaTHee time period.

Ahmad bin Ali isn't proven to be thiqa and besides these works are so small that you can't really rely on it for rijal studies.

I am sure that these are just some from many works that they received brother, alot have been lost.

There are doubts about al-Barqi's works as well, no?

I think it is used as a proof of tawtheeq for some companions of Imam Alee (as). Those who are mentioned by al-Barqee in the list of 'From Khawas Ashaab Alee ' are relied by Syed al-Khu'ee and not considered majhool. The khawas of Alee are given the position of mamdooH by Al-Khu'ee. In that sense, there are about 17 narrators that have received some sort of strengthening, except Al-Asbagh bin Nabata and the sons of Abi Ja'ad who have been strengthened by Al-Najashi. But all in all, it is not used tawtheeq or jarh, but mainly used for understanding list of companions of Imaams (as) and what were they (e.g. Kufan).

If this is your definition of developing a system of rijal, then one can say that rijal began during the time of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh). And there's hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh) strengthening some narrators and weakening others.

And that is why I believe going by rijaal is very important. The A'immah (as) have authenticated individuals and da'eefed individuals. So we do have some sort of system out there. Now if you are strictly speaking of the four fold system, then, yes, Shaheed al-Thaanee is the one to bring that system into place. But as far as weakening ahaadeeth by one weak narrator or something, as Nader has said above, our old scholars have done that, also.

(salam)

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Akhi, i didn't get this out of my pocket. Shaykh Hurr al-'Amali talks about this in a few places in Wasil al-Shia.

Read what he says in volume 30 pgs 258-259 in particular. They're fairly interesting views.

...and about 400 years after the ghaybah of Imam al-Mahdi(as).

And about 500 years after the Sunnis developed it.

I've read that, and this was same argument that Al-Astraabaadee had. Which I think it is weak. Because I can argue back at them saying that their category of "mutawaatir" has been hijacked from the Sunnees.

But, I don't get your contention. Are you getting mad at the 4-fold system? Or using thiqaat narrators for accepting hadeeth?

Because I hope you do realize, the "muwaththaq" category isn't part of the Sunnee categorization of Sunnee hadeeth.

Also, I can also argue that the Sunnees jacked it from our Imaam `Alee (as) when he divided the ikhtilaaf of hadeeth into the narrators of 4 categories.

Do you believe that the word "waajib" and "mubah" are a bid`ah? Or that they've been "stolen" from the sunnees? Majority of the aHaadeeth we have that are in the "waajib" category, the word "waajib" hasn't even been used, these are the scholars inferring this and putting them in a category. Guess what?! According to your logic and argument, this is either considered bid`ah or "stealing" from the Sunnees. This is the same thing the "SaHeeH" "Da`eef", etc has been used, they are just mere categories to allow the reader to know.

Kind of like when I used the word "Da`eef Jiddan", this allows the reader to know that there are 2+ narrators in the matn of the hadeeth that are da`eef. Just another category.

These are just categories. Nothing special about putting something in catgories, like I said 90% of fiqh categories will be considered bid`ah or taking from the Sunnees. If you've ever read Al-Sadr's Usool Al-Fiqh book Al-Duroos, he has a 1001 categories for fiqh, none of them from the Imaams.

The main thing is, is having the principle there, which is what? Looking and taking the aHaadeeth from the thiqaat narrators, that's it. Sunnees stole that from us.

The principle of looking to thiqaat narrators are all over our aHaadeeth and the SaHabas of the companions.

1) al-Tusi lived a couple hundred years after the ghaybah

2) How is that not copying? If Person 1 does something and a few weeks later Person 2 does something very similar and they lived together....... this is obviously copying; or we can at least say that Person 2 was influenced by Person 1.

3) There's nothing special about the Imams saying to accept from thiqat; this is common sense.

1.) No he didn't live "couple of hundred years after ghaybah". 329 AH is ghaybah, and Al-Toosi DIED at 460 AH.

3.) Yes, it is special that the Imaams said this. It isn't common sense.

(salam)

[Abu Abdullaah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

3) There's nothing special about the Imams saying to accept from thiqat; this is common sense.

What about an Imaam (as) saying if someone is thiqah or a person is deviated? Doesn't that hold much more weight? Or if an Imaam (as) says that four persons are very dear to him (e.g. Zuraarah, Burayd, Muhammad bin Muslim, and Ahwal)? Or if someone like Abee al-KhaTTaab is deviated in his viewpoints on particular subjects like delaying maghrib?

(salam)

[The Persian Shah]

I have a ton of my own criticism of the isnad criticism system that eventually came in place amongst usooli scholars.

Please explain these..

[JawzofDETH]

al-Tusi lived a couple hundred years after the ghaybah

I think you are confusing Nasrudin At-Tusi and Shekh Muhammad At-Tusi (At-Ta'ifah)

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I think what you are failing to realize is that the trustworthiness and sects of an individual is the real foundation of where the 'ilm al-rijaal starts. Now placing them in the four categories is a way to put them into an organized format which would recognize these ahaadeeth from an imaamee, non-imaamee, and weak narrators. If this system had started 1000000 years after the Prophet (SAWAS), then that wouldn't matter because the foundation which is the trustworthiness and sect of an individual were already set.

Either way brother, most of the authors you mentioned would be considered by Twelvers to be innovators at best and kuffar at worst. How many hadiths are there of the Imams condemning the Waqafis and other sects and saying not to get anything from them?

Abd 'Allaah bin Jablah was not a Waaqifite. The second one was a FaThee, but some say he returned to Imaamee before his death but, nevertheless, both are thiqah. Of course the latter will get graded as muwaththaq, but his narrations are still taken. Even though he returned to Imaamee, it wouldn't make a difference in the grading because most of his ahaadeeth were in his FaTHee time period.

al-Najashi says he was.

Besides, most of the people you've quoted would barely be considered Muslim by certain hadiths of the Imams. How is it that you rely on a Zaydi Jarudi (ibn Uqdah) for rijal than al-Kulayni himself?

How often do you get al-Kulayni's view on a person?

I think it is used as a proof of tawtheeq for some companions of Imam Alee (as). Those who are mentioned by al-Barqee in the list of 'From Khawas Ashaab Alee ' are relied by Syed al-Khu'ee and not considered majhool. The khawas of Alee are given the position of mamdooH by Al-Khu'ee. In that sense, there are about 17 narrators that have received some sort of strengthening, except Al-Asbagh bin Nabata and the sons of Abi Ja'ad who have been strengthened by Al-Najashi. But all in all, it is not used tawtheeq or jarh, but mainly used for understanding list of companions of Imaams (as) and what were they (e.g. Kufan).

al-Barqi's book has been attributed to others by later scholars. The narrators that are seen as "mamdooh" by Khu'i wasn't seen as "mamdooh" by early scholars.

Just like how Sulaym bin Qays was one of Imam Ali's close Companions, yet al-Ghada'iri says that his companions say that Sulaym bin Qays is unknown. Annnnnnnd al-Ghada'iri's book being really from him is in doubt too. Annnnnnd Sulaym's own book has been tahreef'ed so many times that it's a joke now, if it was ever even written by him.

This is an example of Shia rijal; nobody knows nothing because liars and innovators were so insistent on changing books and playing with them to fit their deviant beliefs.

al-Kulayni was supposedly wrote a book of rijal, yet his pinnacle book, "The Sufficient" is mostly weak hadiths from the point of view of rijal. That says it all about the mess of Shia rijal.

Another interesting book, "الجرح والتعديل عند الشيعة الامامية" where the author compares the methodologies of al-Hilli and al-Khu'i and it tries to show how shaky and indecisive they are about their own hadiths.

And that is why I believe going by rijaal is very important. The A'immah (as) have authenticated individuals and da'eefed individuals. So we do have some sort of system out there.

That doesn't mean anything; Sunnis have authentic hadiths by their standards of the Prophet (pbuh) authenticating Abu Hurayrah, Abu Bakr, Umar, ibn Abbas, etc etc lol

But, I don't get your contention. Are you getting mad at the 4-fold system? Or using thiqaat narrators for accepting hadeeth?

My contention is that the Shias during the times of the Imams spent very little time judging the accuracy and trustworthiness of their narrators compared to the Sunnis in the age when their narrators were narrating hadiths.

And i would love to be proven wrong on this.

3.) Yes, it is special that the Imaams said this. It isn't common sense.

It is common sense. The Quran condemns the disbelievers, trouble-makers, liars, innovators, etc etc over and over. Why would we get our deen from these people? It's common sense.

was salam

Edited October 18, 2010 by lotfilms

[Gypsy]

(salam)

Sorry, my topic is a little bit off

I think you are confusing Nasrudin At-Tusi and Shekh Muhammad At-Tusi (At-Ta'ifah)

He is not the only one! :!!!:

I was reading the news (PressTV) about a castle in Alamut and his name was mentioned. I was confused as to what Shaykh Tusi was doing in such a dangerous place!

Iranian archaeologists say they might have found the observatory built by Iranian polymath, Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi at the country's Alamut Castle.

The team found ruins of a structure which they say might belong to the observatory built by Tusi during the 13th century.

"The structure of the castle shows that it could have been used for astronomical activities," Choubak said, adding that people could explore the sky from all sides of the structure.

Based on astronomy tools previously found at the site and the fact that Khawja Nasir al-Din Tusi lived in the Alamut Castle for a long time, archeologists say he could have built an observatory there.

Khawja Nasir al-Din Tusi also built the 800-year-old Maragheh Observatory in the western heights of the city of Maragheh in East Azerbaijan Province.

Built before the invention of telescope, the observatory has inspired the construction of many other similar centers including the one in Samarqand.

Persian philosopher, scientist, and mathematician Khawja Nasir al-Din Tusi has written about 150 works in Persian and Arabic on a wide range of subjects in astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/147102.html

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

My contention is that the Shias during the times of the Imams spent very little time judging the accuracy and trustworthiness of their narrators compared to the Sunnis in the age when their narrators were narrating hadiths.

And i would love to be proven wrong on this.

Brother, I have already told you there are companions of the Imaam who wrote "Rijaal" works. Even Al-Najaashee quotes Al-FaDl bin Shaadhaan when he is authenticating and weakening narrators, if you've EVER picked up Al-Najaashee's Rijaal book yours, instead being fed this information from people (whom I think you already know that I know who is feeding you this one sided information).

If you do not know, FaDl bin Shaadhaan = GREAT companion of the Imaam.

Also, if you were to take the time out and pick up Al-Kashee's Rijaal book, you'll see the hadeeth from our Imaams and companions of our imaams that authenticate and weaken narrators, but of course you want to be fed this one sided information.

Al-Kashee's rijaal is much higher than ANY sunnee rijaal work? How so you might say? It is Hadeeth of the companions and imaams saying this guy is weak or strong, but in it, it included a "chain of narrators" so you can check that specific chain and make sure that chain that authenticates or weakens a narrator is SaHeeH.

Sunnee's rijaal books is very low on the scale in the sense you just have to "trust" this guy who says this person is thiqah or da`eef. You are trusting his dhann (speculation).

And brother, let's be honest...You've never read that PhD work, so you wouldn't know if it is interesting. Don't try to come off as if you've read it, when we all know you haven't. You are once against getting fed this information from people.

I can pick out inconsistencies left and right from Sunnee Rijaal works, so scholars being inconsistent isn't a way to prove that the whole system is a "joke".

(salam)

Edited October 19, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[Yahya2004]

Another interesting book, "ÇáÌÑÍ æÇáÊÚÏíá ÚäÏ ÇáÔíÚÉ ÇáÇãÇãíÉ" where the author compares the methodologies of al-Hilli and al-Khu'i and it tries to show how shaky and indecisive they are about their own hadiths.

The book by the Paltalk User al7wzawi the anti-shi'a salafi polemicist is by no means an impartial book, I met him in person, hes a nice guy who hasnt even studied Sunni rijaal and proclaims he hasnt read a sunni book for 4 years, he admitted to me there are ishkal with sunni rijaal too and even praised the methodologies of Muhammad Asif al-Muhseni as well as Shaykh Hussein al-Radhy. The book is fascinating, but reaks of bias and from the very beginning of the book- you can tell he's on an attack for no reason.

I like Nadir have doubt you read this book, and find it fascinating that a user who never previously used 'ilm al rijaal would go and read a book like this with no background knowledge to it.

[JawzofDETH]

(salam)

Sorry, my topic is a little bit off

He is not the only one! :!!!:

Lol!

You should read a few of the stories of Nasrudin At-Tusi,

he was quite a guy, I have deep admiration for him as a scientist,

But here's a twisted amusing:

Also according to some sources he presented a book on the 12 Imaams (as)

to the then khalif of Baghdad and his (the khalif's) Qadi threw it in the Euphraites,

Nasrudin and the Mongols then invaded Baghdad and to repay the favour, Nasrudin

had the entire library of the Qadi thrown into the Euphraites (there was probably nothing

worth reading there anyways :lol:) then according to some sources the mongol leader was

afraid to murder the khalif of Baghdad for fear of creating enemies among the muslims so good

Nasurdin devised a cunning plan, some sources say he had the khalif rolled up in a carpet and had

him rolled around in the room (to death) while other sources say he had him stuck in a room till he died.

That way no can say he was actively assassinated.

Here is a pic I believe:

No doubt he must have picked up these tactics from his Hashashin Isma'ili cousins while he was with them.

Nasrudin, The 12er Hashashin.

He loathed them and regarded them as heretics though. :lol:

Was-Salaam

Edited October 20, 2010 by JawzofDETH

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Brother, I have already told you there are companions of the Imaam who wrote "Rijaal" works. Even Al-Najaashee quotes Al-FaDl bin Shaadhaan when he is authenticating and weakening narrators, if you've EVER picked up Al-Najaashee's Rijaal book yours, instead being fed this information from people (whom I think you already know that I know who is feeding you this one sided information).

If you do not know, FaDl bin Shaadhaan = GREAT companion of the Imaam.

Tell me brother, how many times does al-Najashi quote al-Fadhl bin Shadhan? :)

Can you list the hadiths where al-Najashi quotes him when authenticating/weakening narrators? I'm curious :)

And if you include only authentic chains with him, it would be even better.

Also, if you were to take the time out and pick up Al-Kashee's Rijaal book, you'll see the hadeeth from our Imaams and companions of our imaams that authenticate and weaken narrators, but of course you want to be fed this one sided information.

1) How often do you find an Imam weakening someone in an authentic hadith, without this hadith being declared as taqiyyah?

2) The Prophet (pbuh) is reported in authentic hadiths as authenticating many people. And the Companions used to test people and that Taba'ieen used to test people. Why should i ignore them?

Bro just look at how the Salafi scholars today approach Islam compared to how the Shia scholars today approach Islam.

Brother, you yourself know as well as i do how many of the innovations the Shia 'ulema today tolerate that have no basis from the Imams.

Which Imam told us to beat ourselves like animals during Muharram. Yet which scholar dares to criticize this? How many of the scholars justify this?

Which Imam told us to blindly follow one scholar? Yet which usuli scholar dares to go against this system?

Which Imam told us to say the third shahadah in the adhan/iqama? Yet how many scholars dare to criticize this? How many scholars justify this?

On the other hand, the Salafi scholars are strict against innovations.

Look how the scholars of the Salaf were so keen to have only the authentic Sunnah. Look how ibn Abi Shaybah dedicated a whole portion of his Musannaf to refuting Abu Hanifa.

In terms of Islam, should i trust scholars who encourage myths for the love of Allah(swt)?

Or should i trust scholars who break down myths and want nothing more than the pure, authentic Sunnah, for the love of Allah(swt)?

Look how many innovations have sprung up from the time of the Imams that the Shia 'ulema not only tolerate, but actually encourage. Imagine what their forefathers were like when hadiths were being written. This is one of the major sources of my doubts.

The book by the Paltalk User al7wzawi the anti-shi'a salafi polemicist is by no means an impartial book, I met him in person, hes a nice guy who hasnt even studied Sunni rijaal and proclaims he hasnt read a sunni book for 4 years, he admitted to me there are ishkal with sunni rijaal too and even praised the methodologies of Muhammad Asif al-Muhseni as well as Shaykh Hussein al-Radhy. The book is fascinating, but reaks of bias and from the very beginning of the book- you can tell he's on an attack for no reason.

Obviously it's a biased book.

I like Nadir have doubt you read this book, and find it fascinating that a user who never previously used 'ilm al rijaal would go and read a book like this with no background knowledge to it.

Subhan'Allah just because i've never posted fatwas on hadiths on ShiaChat like other members here have doesn't mean i've ignored rijal my entire life lol.

was salam

[avjar7]

I feel that people are not evaluating the issue of hadith methodology with the correct perspective. Therefore, I wish to put it in perspective.

1. Islam consists of:

-Belief, also called aqeedah. This is assent of the heart to the pillars of Islam, such as prayer, fasting, etc. And also the walayah of 'Ali.

-Having knowledge of and acting upon the fardh aspects of worship. Such as knowing that there are five prayers in a day, their times, its obligatory aspects, and those actions which if done during prayer, render it invalid. Knowing what breaks wudhu, how to do wudhu and ghusl, fulfilling the conditions of fasting and hajj, etc.

-Having knowledge of and avoiding haraam or undesirable things, which if done intentionally, will be counted as sins with Allah.

These are the main aspects of Islam, upon which is determined the salvation of Muslims. Outside of these things, everything else is secondary, and even tertiary. The main point being, in none of these core issues is there contention based upon 'ilm al-rijal.

2. There is one thing every scholar agrees concerning:

There are certain narrators, and isnaads, which are accepted as trustworthy/authentic, by the 'ijma (consensus) of the Shia.

3. In terms of narrations which delineate halaal and haraam, which inform us of the fardh aspects of worship, which communicate the core aspects of aqeedah, these undisputed narrators transmit the majority of these narrations.

Acting upon this knowledge is the purpose of life, this is what Rasool Allah's mission was in communicating Islaam. Such knowledge is what is incumbent upon Muslims to know and act upon to fulfill the test of this life. In these areas, 'Ilm al-Rijaal plays no role. Simply, because in terms of halaal and haraam, aqeedah, etc. all of the narrations that are crucial and central to Islam have been narrated through undisputed isnaads.

4. The problem that arises is the issue of narrators who fall outside of this category, whose status is unknown, or whose status is disputed, or whom are said to be trustworthy, yet fall outside of the narrators who are accepted without dispute. Some of these narrators might have been trustworthy, or they might not have been. Some of them, despite being trustworthy, have methodological issues associated with them, such as problems with the dates they lived--if they could have narrated from a certain person given the supposed dates of their life, and problems with memorization, etc.

At the same time, narrations whose isnaads contain such disputed narrators very rarely play a deciding factor in determining an issue of halaal and haraam, or an issue central to aqeedah, or a fardh aspect of worship. Such knowledge is mass-transmitted through more reliable isnaads, and knowledge of such is not dependent on one narration alone. Rather, narrations whose isnaads contain disputed narrators involve issues such as mustahabbat, tafseer, or eschatology.

5. -Mustahhabat: These are things that if you do them with the right intention, you will be rewarded for going above and beyond what is obligatory. Moreover, the problems in 'ilm al-rijal do not touch upon those issues of mustahhabat which are most emphasized: There is no dispute over how many mustahhab units of prayer there are connected to each obligatory prayer, etc.

Rather, there might be conflict over something like, is it mustahhab to wash one's hands before and after each meal? These are not things which in any way constitute fardh aspects of Islam, upon which hinges any aspect of our salvation. We have been informed through other narrations, that if you act upon a narration which enjoins one to do a certain mustahhab action, believing that it is authentically from the Prophet, then you will have the reward of that action, even if it is not really from the Prophet. It is about one's intention. Due to the fact that mustahhabat are not fardh, you can either do them or not do them. If your intention is to act upon them and get reward from them, then do so. If you really do not believe that it's from the Prophet, or you don't feel like acting on it anyway, then don't. It is a personal choice. The majority of narrations which involve disputed narrators revolve around issues of mustahhabat, which, according to authentic narrations, due to their nature, rarely need to involve any aspect of 'ilm al-rijaal anyway.

-Tafseer: In Sunni Islaam, it is often the case that tafseer of a certain verse is crucial in determining the legality of a certain issue, or the understanding of a certain subject. Therefore tafseer is paramount in deciphering halaal and haraam, aqeedah, etc. In Shia Islam, the halaal and haraam are fully preserved. While there might be a narration with a problematic isnaad which attempts to give an explanation of a certain verse in relation to an issue of halaal and haraam, determination of halaal and haraam is usually never dependent on the tafseer alone. Most always the issue has been explained in-full through other narrations, and understanding of the tafseer does not affect the overall knowledge of the subject.

Sunnis also rely upon tafseer in determining the abrogated and the abrogating commands in the Qur'an, from which to determine halaal and haraam. Knowledge of this in its final form has been preserved and is transmitted by the imaams. While many tafseer narrations are authentic, if there is a verse connected to a narration with a disputed isnaad, most likely the issue in question does not hinge upon that narration alone, and a much more comprehensive understanding can be found through authentic narrations elsewhere.

-Eschatology/Random Facts/Anecdotes About Reward and Punishment/General Sayings/Akhlaq/History: These are perhaps interesting to know, but knowledge of them does not form a part of aqeedah, or is crucial in determining haraam and halaal. Little time should be spent discussing the disputes about them, as most of them are not relevant, have no bearing on the purpose of life for a Muslim, and do not constitute things which must be accepted for one to have salvation. The general rule with these is: Accept what is in accord with the spirit of the Qur'an, reject that which goes against it. Believing or not believing some aspect of these subjects is a personal and academic issue.

--

So, that which is essential for Muslims to know, and upon which is determined their salvation--'ilm al-rijaal plays no role. The other issues in which it does play a role are secondary, non-essential issues, in which most of the time we can have sure knowledge of such areas, but at the same time, if there is a dispute therein, are secondary to the overall goal of Islam.

If, for some reason, there is any issue which arises in which there is a question of haraam and halaal, it is advised in authentic hadiths to abandon the action out of precaution.

With this in mind, disputes of 'ilm al-rijal should not play a central focus in Islam. Discussion of 'ilm al-rijaal in secondary issues is fine, but it should be confined to experts and discussed with the right audience, right tone and knowledge, etc. Most of the subjects about which these discussions take place have no bearing on the salvation as Muslims, discussion of them is non-essential, and speculation concerning them will increase your chances of lying against Allah. And if you are right or wrong in them, or act upon them or choose to not act upon them in action or belief, it is not obligatory, and reward in them depends on your intention alone.

The objects which deserve our attention and focus as Muslims are not the subject of 'ilm al-rijaal, and thus, from this it leads that 'ilm al-rijaal should not be discussed with the frequency that it is.

Edited October 20, 2010 by avjar7

[guest 34193]

/\ Ahsant! JazakAllah khayr, ya akhi.

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Thank-you brother avjar for your excellent post reminding us what our focus should be, but how exactly can you prove walayat without rijal?

There's nothing clear about Imamate in the Quran; only Shia hadiths clearly spell this out for us.

(And without Imamate, there is no Shia Islam)

So we are forced to examine Shia hadiths to accept the Imams as the true divinely-appointed successors of the Prophet (pbuh).

Now, this raises the question, "How do we know what we are reading was really said by the Imams or not?"

This is where rijal and a close scrutiny of the history/compilation of Shia hadiths comes in, no?

was salam

Edited October 20, 2010 by lotfilms

[avjar7]

/\ Ahsant! JazakAllah khayr, ya akhi.

Thank you, wa iyyakum.

how exactly can you prove walayat without rijal?

There's nothing clear about Imamate in the Quran; only Shia hadiths clearly spell this out for us.

(And without Imamate, there is no Shia Islam)

So we are forced to examine Shia hadiths to accept the Imams as the true divinely-appointed successors of the Prophet (pbuh).

Now, this raises the question, "How do we know what we are reading was really said by the Imams or not?"

This is where rijal and a close scrutiny of the history/compilation of Shia hadiths comes in, no?

(wasalam)

Walayah as the central aspect of Shia Islam is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, through narrators and isnaads which are accepted by the consensus of the Shia. Knowing about walayah has absolutely nothing to do with unknown, or otherwise disputed narrators, around which discussion concerning the contentions of 'ilm al-rijaal is centered.

Edited October 20, 2010 by avjar7

[Nader Zaveri]

Tell me brother, how many times does al-Najashi quote al-Fadhl bin Shadhan? :)

Can you list the hadiths where al-Najashi quotes him when authenticating/weakening narrators? I'm curious :)

And if you include only authentic chains with him, it would be even better.

Subhan'Allah just because i've never posted fatwas on hadiths on ShiaChat like other members here have doesn't mean i've ignored rijal my entire life lol.

Your contention with Shee`ah Islaam is for the wrong reasons. No one tells you to do the 3rd testimony in Adhaan, or do matam, or any other innovations that the Shee`ahs do. Keep to what our "salaf" have talked about. Which are the Imaams, their companions and classical scholars (pre-Hillee), and you'll find true shee`ah Islaam. In which, even the Salafees won't dare call us "mushriks".

I don't feel like quoting the many times Al-Najaashee quotes from FaDl, but I can tell you, it is a lot. No need to get "authentic chains", your WHOLE contention was that Shee`ahs somehow "hijacked" this whole concept of `ilm al-rijaal from the Sunnees.

Of course you are curious how many times FaDl bin Shaadhaan has been quotes, of course you are, because you haven't read Al-Najaashee's rijaal for yourself to even see it for yourself.

How about this, I'll do you a favor and not give you the list you desire to want, but instead you can make a list for yourself. It'll be a good practice for you to pick up Al-Najaashee's Rijaal, for once.

And you can ask whoever is feeding you this information for them to help you out, and check the isnaad on such narrations.

(salam)

Edited October 20, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[SayYaAli]

(bismillah)

(salam)

There's nothing clear about Imamate in the Quran; only Shia hadiths clearly spell this out for us.

Perhaps you should refute the points made here (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234980072-does-4165-contradict-our-conception-of-imamate/page__p__2098773__fromsearch__1entry2098773 ) about Imamate in the Quran. before claiming that?

[lotfilms]

(bismillah)

(salam)

i will reply to Brother Nader's post first then Brother Avjar's

I don't feel like quoting the many times Al-Najaashee quotes from FaDl, but I can tell you, it is a lot.

Brother, you keep mentioning this and i don't know if you're trying to test me or if you're being serious.

i don't know what you're talking about when you keep saying that al-Fadhl is quoted by al-Najashi a lot; in reality he's quoted only a few times.

This is all of the times al-Fadhl bin Shadhan is quoted in al-Najashi's Rijal:

1) "صاحب الفضل بن شاذان وراوية كتبه"

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/18.html

(#678)

My comment: All it says is that Ali bin Muhammad bin Qutayba was a companion of al-Fadhl bin Shadan; that doesn't mean anything

2)"...قال الفضل بن شاذان : كنت في قطيعة الربيع في"

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/03.html#03

(#72)

My comment: This is a mursal statement by al-Kashshi; he never met al-Fadhl and he narrates through a wasta

3) "قال أبو محمد الفضل بن شاذان : لا أحل لكم أن ترووا أحاديث محمد بن سنان"

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/22.html

(#888)

My comment: This is not proven to be from al-Fadhl because Ali bin Muhammad is unknown (though i do agree with weakening Muhammad bin Sinan).

4) "...كان الفضل بن شاذان رحمه الله يحب العبيدي"

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/23.html

(#896, pg.334)

My comment: Same as above

5) "كتاب الانتصاف من ذوي الانحراف عن مذهب الاشراف في مواريث الاخلاف ، كتاب نقض ما نقضه الزجاجي النيشابوري على أبي محمد الفضل بن شاذان رحمه الله"

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/26.html

(#1047; pg. 388)

My comment: This doesn't really tell us much about his opinions.

6) "...حدثنى علي بن محمد بن قتيبة قال : حدثني الفضل بن شاذان قال : حدثني عبد العزيز بن المهتدي ، وكان خير قمي رأيته "

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/30.html

(#1208, pg.447)

My comment: Same problem with Ali bin Muhammad bin Qutayba

7) And of course, the bio of the guy himself:

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/rejal-alnajashi/21.html

(#840)

7 instances of him being quoted (esp through unknown people) isn't being quoted "many times' at all.

Even if we assume that Ali bin Muhammad bin Qutaybah is thiqah, we only have 3 instances in al-Najashi's rijal where al-Fadhl comments on people.

i think the problem here is that you're assuming that the "ibn Shadhan" that al-Najashi quotes hundreds of times is al-Fadhl bin Shadhan. In reality, it's al-Najashi's teacher Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad bin Ali bin Shadhan.

And notice how his teacher (ibn Shadhan) is preceded by "akhbarana", so it can't be al-Fadhl.

Also, there's too big of a gap between al-Najashi and al-Fadhl bin Shadhan for him to quote him directly.

And when you search just using al-Fadhl, it's usually other people.

Walayah as the central aspect of Shia Islam is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, through narrators and isnaads which are accepted by the consensus of the Shia. Knowing about walayah has absolutely nothing to do with unknown, or otherwise disputed narrators, around which discussion concerning the contentions of 'ilm al-rijaal is centered.

i could say the same thing about the Christians with their belief in the trinity and the Hindus with their belief in re-incarnation, and the Greeks with their multiple gods, etc

There are many groups whose trusted men/leaders have led them astray with myths and exaggerations.

This is why we must be careful to follow clear commands from what has been revealed by God Almighty and to avoid falling into the traps of those who came before us:

قَالَ قَدْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ رِجْسٌ وَغَضَبٌ ۖ أَتُجَادِلُونَنِي فِي أَسْمَاءٍ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا نَزَّلَ اللَّـهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ ۚ فَانتَظِرُوا إِنِّي مَعَكُم مِّنَ الْمُنتَظِرِينَ

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ ۖ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَ

مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ ۚ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّـهِ ۚ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّـهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ إِنْ عِندَكُم مِّن سُلْطَانٍ بِهَـٰذَا أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

etc etc

i could understand minor details of fiqh not being in the Quran; but something that is supposedly the most important part of the religion not being clear in there??

In addition to the whole hadith system that proves this doctrine having some serious creditably issues?

Why does Allah(swt) not tell us ONCE to believe in the Imams after the Prophet(pbuh)?

Very strange!

Perhaps you should refute the points made here (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234980072-does-4165-contradict-our-conception-of-imamate/page__p__2098773__fromsearch__1entry2098773 ) about Imamate in the Quran. before claiming that?

Is there anything in particular you want refuted?

i think some people there ignore the fact that i was making the same arguments years ago.

was salam

Edited October 21, 2010 by lotfilms

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

No brother, there has been no confusion on my part. I know of Ibn Shaadhaan as being one of the teachers. Your WHOLE issue and contention was our Sahabas of the Imaams were not "busy" doing the jarH and ta`deel of narrators. Even though it is weak by isnaad, it seems to be that they, the sahabas, were doing jarH and ta`deel.

Also, since you've seen it in Al-Najaashee's rijaal, how about you delve into Al-Kashee's rijaal, and see the jarH and ta`deel of our Imaams and SaHabas of our Imaams on different narrators.

Like I've said before, there have been SaHabas of our Imaams who have made Rijaal books. No one is taking anything from the Sunnees.

Lets look at the 4-fold system which you SO desperately say we "jacked" from the Sunnees. From the very beginning, SaHeeH and Da`eef hadeeth has been the category of our narrations since forever. (go check out sadooq's book and pre-sadooq's book). And like I have said, the "muwaththaq" category is unique ONLY to the Shee`ahs. And the Hasan category seems to be the ONLY category in which you can contest that it has been "hijacked" from the Sunnees. By the way, the hasan category is RARELY if ever used in Shee`ah hadeeth grading, only some people use it for Ibraaheem bin Haashim Al-Qummee.

So based off of that 3 out of the 4 hadeeth gradings are taken from Shee`ahs, and you could contend 1 hasan category has been "hijacked", in which it is rarely if ever used, especially by contemporary scholars.

So I really don't know your contention.

Question:

Brother, can you show me Khaleefah Al-Raashidoon in the Qur'aan? Or how about this. Can you please show me a SaHeeH hadeeth from The Prophet (SAWAS) saying that the "Khaleefah Al-Raashidoon are Aboo Bakr, `Umar, `Uthmaan, and `Alee". Don't give me Qiyaas, since YOUR sect loves Qiyaas so much.

I don't want to see the hadeeth saying "follow my sunnah and the sunnah of the khaleefah al-raashidoon", because that doesn't specify who it is. And don't give me the hadeeth that gives the order of the "most beloved companions", starting off with Aboo Bakr then going to `Umar, and so on.

I mean, if it is SUCH a FUNDAMENTAL part of YOUR `aqeedah, that you can follow their Sunnah, SURELY there must be an explicit hadeeth that is SaHeeH from the Prophet stating that those 4 are the "rightly guided caliphs".

I want CLEAR and EXPLICIT hadeeth that says THEY are the khaleefah al-raashidoon. (no Qiyaas)

If you can't find it (which you won't), you can even ask your little friends who are helping you make these post to go and find it as well.

(salam)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Nader Zaveri

[Abu Abdullaah]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Let us see the double standard you are going by...

You are saying that Shee'ahs take ahaadeeth from Waqifites and FaTHees and that they are not considered good in accordance to what our Imaams (as) said. Well, have you studied ilm al rijaal of Sunnees to see that they take ahaadeeth from thiqaat RawaafiD (i.e Abaan ibn Taghlib)?? Even when you check out their ilm al rijaal books, they say RawaafiD, or Shee'ah thiqah. Who says you can't take from a thiqah non-Shee'ah? Is this a rule you are making exclusive to us? The ahaadeeth might say stuff on the lines of not reading salaah behind them or not giving them zakaat or doing tabarra, but it doesn't say you can't take ahaadeeth from them, especially if they are known in the community as being thiqah. That argument you made makes no sense in hadeeth. Our job back in the day was to gather ahaadeeth, but then the scholars would go through slowly slowly and make things smaller and smaller based off the rijaal (i.e. Shaykh Toosee did this to Shaykh Kashee's book, and also Shaykh Najaashee said that Shaykh Kashshee had alot of weak narrators in it, but it was very informative).

A little more on Abaan that I found from Wikipedia, pretty interesting stuff:

Shi'ite scholars consider him reliable and the Sunni scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Mu'in, Abu Hatam and al-Nasa'i also has confirmed him. The books compiled by Abaan are now missing but the books ascribed to him in the catalogues are as follows:

1 - Ma'aani al-Qur'aan

2 - Kitaab al-Qiraa'at

3 - Al-Gareeb fil-Qur'aan

4 - Al-Fadaail

5 - Kitaab Siffin

(salam)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Abu Abdullaah

[SayYaAli]

@lotfilms

Nothing in particular, except I don't think you gave satisfying answers to all the points people made about Imamate being in the Quran.