Munazara [debate]: Farid Versus Walid (wasil)

[Muntaqim Force 243]

It is relevant to the debate. If Ka'b is some anti-Islamic figure that tried to turn Jewish ideas into mainstream Muslim ones, as Walid asserted and others quoted him, than you have an issue if Ibn Abbas used to narrate from him.

2blade whats up. Hannibal said "no reliable narration" by Ibn Abbas so if he narrated from kab or not, does not matter.

[Yasoob Al Deen 22]

I was quoting Sahib Jawahir (that is if you can read what he said), the most great of these so-called NINE took from him, the rest obscure ones did not take much from anybody, so how does this help your point?

Also, not criticizing such a great narrator (in terms of number of his narrations) is what we point to, despite their well proven methodology in this, why should they criticize a nobody whom no one takes from.

You're missing the point. You can't make the argument that the Qummis would have defamed Ibraheem if Ibraheem was weak because to quote Farid:

Personally, I don’t believe that this specific point means much, especially once one realizes how few the actual students of Ibrahim bin Hashim are. Al-Khoei lists a total of nine students. Out of that group, it seems that the only real major student was Ibrahim bin Hashim’s son Ali, who narrated the vast majority of his father’s hadith. I believe the next couple of important students were Sa’ad bin Abdullah and Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya, assuming that most of his hadiths are actually connected to Ibrahim. Yet, even their quantities of hadiths aren’t high enough for one to assume that they were dedicated students. I believe those two don’t even hit the seventy hadith mark, and one can easily hear that much during a single hadith sitting or two. The rest of his nine students seem to have narrated a lot less.

I honestly don’t think that your argument regarding the criticism of the Qummis stands if we are talking about nine people.

As for not criticizing Ibn Sinan and Sahl, where are you? they spoke against them, alot.

That's clearly not what I said. This is what I said:

The Mutaqadimeen narrated a lot from him

They also narrated alot from Muhammed bin Sinan and Sahl bin Ziyad.

I could add what Farid has said:

not all Qummis were sensitive and strict. Ironically, the bunch that narrated the hadiths of Ibrahim bin Hashim are the same that narrated the hadiths of Sahl bin Ziyad, Ahmad bin Hilal, and Al-Sayyari, who are all completely rejected by Shia hadithists. So, yes, these narrators, which apparently make up the population of Qom, did narrate the hadiths of liars and weak narrators.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Yasoob Al Deen

[Islamic Salvation 3,207]

I am not just talking of direct narrators from him, clearly his son Ali was the major one there (and he is Thiqah according to all), I am talking about how Kulayni, Saduq, Mufid, Tusi all depended on this particular chain without ANY mention of criticism from the contemporary scholars to Ibrahim (from the Qummis) - where he spread his Hadith, do you think they did not know of his importance, or more importantly when his son was narrating from his father's books, do you think that all those who were taking down these narration were fools not to think about this diffused guy Ibrahim, all you and your ilk want is a clear word Thiqah under his entry from a Najashi and a Tusi, and once you do not have that, and that too without knowing what these two scholars were actually doing in their books, you think he is unknown;

My point is this,

1. Ibrahim bin Hashim and his son Ali (on his father's authority) narrated the major number of narrations we have in the presence of the Qummis and its scholars,

2. They did not criticize him at ALL or his son, and we know for a fact that - they did do so for those they deemed weak.

3. Rather they accepted him fully (every scholar after him narrated from him - through intermediaries) without any words against him and his Hadith was a Hujjah,

4. This is a greater Tawthiq in weight than what a Tusi or a Najashi can say in one word under their entries for him - them saying he was the first to bring the Hadith from Kufa to Qum is enough to describe his stature.

5. I am not saying that anyone the Qummis narrated from is Thiqah, I am saying anyone they narrated from in such number without there being evidence of Jarh whatsoever from their side is Thiqah for them (and Thiqah for us until contrary eveidence is brought - which it has not been brought in Ibrahim bin Hashim's case by any modernist and so the status quo remains - the blind will not see it though).

6. Even if some narrated from Sahl bin Ziyad, Ahmad bin Hilal, and Al-Sayyari, some of the negative talk against these was figures were recorded by other Qummis themselves, and it is known that Sahl is not weak to all and soem Qummis themselves considered him weak, and al-Sayyari is crticized by the Qummiyun themselves, and mostly Matruk, how can you compare them to Ibrahim bin Hashim.

And I thank that Farid mentioned Ahmad bin Hilal (for it proves one point)

وذكر النجاشي في ترجمة محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى: أن محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد واستثنى في جملة ما استثناه مما يرويه محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، ما يرويه عن أحمد بن هلال، وتبعه على ذلك: أبو جعفر بن بابويه، (الصدوق)، وأبو العباس ابن نوح

- and Najashi mentions in his Tarjama for Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya (that): Muhammad bin Hasan bin Walid excluded in all that he excluded from his narration on Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya - what Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya narrated on the authority of Ahmad bin Hilal, and followed him in this Abu Jafar Ibn Babawayh (as-Saduq) and Abul Abbas bin Nuh,

And we all know what Shaykh Abul Abbas bin Nuh himself had commented that he agrees with all exclusions except for in the case of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid (who was apparently on good terms in his estimation), so we have the witness of Shaykh Abul Abbas bin Nuh who agrees with the inclusion of Ibrahim bin Hashim, and I know that you will say he included Majahil, and I say yes, he only excluded whom he thought clear in weakness and he did not think Ibrahim (with his role in our Hadith) weak, and this is brighter than the sun.

And just to show another example of their care in this regard

حدثنا شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد (رضي الله عنه) قال: سمعت سعد بن عبد الله، يقول: ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن تشيعه إلى النصب، إلا أحمد بن هلال، وكانوا يقولون: إن ما تفرد بروايته أحمد بن هلال، فلا يجوز استعماله،

(as-Saduq) narrated to us our Shaykh Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ahmad bin Walid (may Allah be well pleased with him), he said: I heard Sad bin Abdallah saying: we did not see nor hear one of Tashayyu (a Shia) who returned from his Tashayyu to Nasb, except Ahmad bin Hilal, and they (who? the Qummiyun) used to say: what Ahmad bin Hilal narrated exclusively with no support then (from other narrators) it is not allowed the use of it.

Two points:

1. Look at the care, of trying to preserve the authentic from the weak, and you think they did not do their job in Ibrahim bin Hashim who is more important than Ahmad bin Hilal.

2. I say to Shaykh Sad, you have not heard nor seen those who have turned back from Tashayyu to Nasb except one, but there are wonders going on here, with some so-called Shias supporting Nasb under the banner of Tahsayyu and the day is maybe not far when they will join them officially.

Finally, As Sayyid al-Khui said:

انه أول من نشر حديث الكوفيين بقم .

والقميون قد اعتمدوا على رواياته ، وفيهم من هو مستصعب في أمر الحديث ، فلو كان فيه شائبة الغمز لم يكن يتسالم على أخذ الرواية عنه ، وقبول قوله

He was the first to originate the Hadith of the Kufans in Qum, and the Qummiyun depended on his narrations, and in them (the Qummiyun) were some who were extremists in the matter of Ahadith, so if there was in him an illusion of doubt, they would not have acceded to taking the Riwayat on his authority (i.e mainly from his son), and accepting his words.

Unfortunately, some people here, think that our own scholars were incompetent in taking the mass number of Ahadith upon which the Sunnah of the Aimmah stands from Ibrahim bin Hashim, and they trust some guy online centuries after - to inform that he was Majhul and they support him with an unprecedented support, as though it was in a matter that would cause the Deen to strengthen, they and their camp have exposed themselves to me at least of their true face.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Islamic Salvation

[Saved 28]

<p>

Wow. 7 pages of lame comments.

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That doesn't sound like some big-time Akhlaaq Mr Yasoob. He who accuses others of lacking something should himself not be displaying a lack of that same thing.</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

We have people saying that the rijal system is entirely worthless. These are the same people who have never displayed any knowledge in or about this field when a discussion on ilm ar-rijaal or ilm ad-dirayah has occurred on SC.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>I am sure you can see the full page of the mess and confusion <em>rijaal</em> has made of Islaam in that Far-d-Walid debate. If rijaal were such a fine, clear "science", would the debate have been what it is? You rijaalees would have been the most united group on earth, Sunnee and Shee'ah. Well, I need not tell you the kind of mess you guys are in.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>One needs not "display" a "knowledge" of a "science" he deems worthless. Don't you think so?</div>

<div> </div>

<div>

<div>

We have people saying that Farid is a liar and other insults. Farid actually has very great akhlaaq; far better than the people who are insulting him and do not even know him. We have people doubting people's tashayyu'. Lord Botta is an intelligent, knowledgable, well-behaved Muslim. He easily outshines most of the Imamis on SC in akhlaaq, `ilm of tashayyu', and `aql.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Seems like Farid al-Naasibee has got a huge "fan" here. No surprise, really. Every group has its hypocrites.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>

<div>

The Quran DOES have asaneed (Chains). That doesn't mean he doubts the Quran. Why don't you make the same accusation against <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Khui</span> who tried to weaken all 10 famous qiraa'aat and then couldn't prove the Quran was preserved beyond "but it must be!"

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>Khui? I would expect an Akhlaqee to at least say "Sayyid al-Khui", in case you have a problem with calling him with his official titles. Actually, it is the same Akhlaaq of Farid. He mentions our Imaams (as) with no respect, and has got a student in that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Leave that anyway. Please show us A SINGLE SAHEEH CHAIN for the Qur'aan? If you can't, produce at least its "several" chains so that we can see if it has any <em>asl</em> as far as <em>rijaal</em> is concerned.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why do you guys hesitate to judge the Qur'aan too through <em>rijaal</em>, if you so much trust it?!</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

If you could avoid speaking on behalf of Farid when you don't even know him or what he's thinking, I'd appreciate it.

</div>

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>I debated Farid for years. I know him and what he is. Thanks for the note anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

The mutaakhireen's tawtheeq in this case has little eight as it based on little more than speculation. Are you up-to-date with the debate? You have repeatedly argued that the lack of jarh from the Qummis is evidence for Ibraheem's tawtheeq. Farid seems to have crippled this argument by pointing out that Ibraheem has a total of 9 students, and only a few (?) of them narrate a significant number. Therefore it is not correct to argue that the "strict" Qummis would have defamed him if he was weak. Feel free to respond to Farid's point which is explained properly in the debate. Also Ibn al-Waleed did not remove majaheel from Nawadir al-Hikma. Indeed he accepted the narrations of majaheel. Rubbish. So everyone who wasn't criticised has suddenly become thiqa? It is possible to argue that this methodology is the correct for the Imamis and that this is why Ibraheem is thiqa. It doesn't however prove his tawtheeq. Qiyas is acceptable justification? Ibn Tawoos' statement invokes our curiosity. For he said that there was acceptance of Ibraheem, but to whom was Ibn Tawoos referring to? Was he saying that his contemporaries accepted Ibraheem or was he alluding to a lost earlier rijaal book with tawtheeq for Ibraheem? They also narrated alot from Muhammed bin Sinan and Sahl bin Ziyad. Shaheed was interpreting the statements about Ibraheem in the rijaal books as praise. Farid is arguing they are not statements of praise. This may be worth looking into. (wasalam)

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>So, bottom line is: you agree that Farid is correct, and the vast majority of our scholars in <em>rijaal</em>, including some of the finest, were idiots, and that hundreds or perhaps thousand of our hadeeths are weak!</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Good job, dear!</div>

<div> </div>

<div>You have just painted vividly the confusion of you rijaalees, and how one part of you is at war with another. Your religion is based upon personal judgments and conjectures. Keep it up dear. It will land you where others like you belong.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>In any case, since you are so fond of Farid (and probably his Salafee religion and rijaal "science"), I put a simple question to TwoBlade, who was doing this "job" (of speaking the Farid voice) here, and he has run away from it. You see, it is so much central to Farid's criticism of the Shee'ah narrator in question in the debate. <strong>IS IBN MAJAH THIQAH?</strong> If yes, how?</div>

<div> </div>

<div>I would be very pleased to explore the Ibn Majah argument with you, Yasoob.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Take care, and please reply to my questions. Thanks a lot in advance.</div>

<div> </div>

<div> </div>

</div>

[Yasoob Al Deen 22]

Saved, I am entitled to point out that the majority of people made unhelpful attacks and comments that don't contribute to a productive discussion. Your personal attacks on me and my beliefs means I won't be replying to the rest of your post.

BTW, I should point out that just because I'm discussing a few points, it doesn't mean I am a follower of Farid or that I actually think Ibraheem bin Hashim. Ibraheem bin Hashim is thiqa in my belief. I just believe in fairly testing out ideas which sometimes I do by debating them.

I am not just talking of direct narrators from him, clearly his son Ali was the major one there (and he is Thiqah according to all)

Thiqa according to which mutaqadim other than Najashi?

, I am talking about how Kulayni, Saduq, Mufid, Tusi all depended on this particular chain without ANY mention of criticism from the contemporary scholars to Ibrahim (from the Qummis) - where he spread his Hadith, do you think they did not know of his importance, or more importantly when his son was narrating from his father's books, do you think that all those who were taking down these narration were fools not to think about this diffused guy Ibrahim, all you and your ilk want is a clear word Thiqah under his entry from a Najashi and a Tusi, and once you do not have that, and that too without knowing what these two scholars were actually doing in their books, you think he is unknown;

Shaykh at-Taa'ifa relied on ahadeeth with weak ahadeeth as hujjah because ilm ar-rijaal was not that important to him. Ilm ar-rijaal has no way near the importance in Shia Islam, like it does in Sunni Islam. However if we are arguing whether Ibraheem is thiqa, there is no explicit statement for this. I do think however that it is possible to infer tawtheeq by considering various evidences. The best of which is Ali bin Ibraheem's heavy reliance on his father's narrations. Ali was thiqa, `ayn, jaleel, and he was also the son of Ibraheem; a son usually knows their father very well. Would Ali have relied on Ibraheem this heavily (most of his ahadeeth are through his father) if the latter was weak? I think not.

1. Ibrahim bin Hashim and his son Ali (on his father's authority) narrated the major number of narrations we have in the presence of the Qummis and its scholars,

2. They did not criticize him at ALL or his son, and we know for a fact that - they did do so for those they deemed weak.

3. Rather they accepted him fully (every scholar after him narrated from him - through intermediaries) without any words against him and his Hadith was a Hujjah,

Hmm, I guess the Qummis would have weakened Ali bin Ibraheem if they had suspected the muttoon of his narrations?

4. This is a greater Tawthiq in weight than what a Tusi or a Najashi can say in one word under their entries for him - them saying he was the first to bring the Hadith from Kufa to Qum is enough to describe his stature.

5. I am not saying that anyone the Qummis narrated from is Thiqah, I am saying anyone they narrated from in such number without there being evidence of Jarh whatsoever from their side is Thiqah for them (and Thiqah for us until contrary eveidence is brought - which it has not been brought in Ibrahim bin Hashim's case by any modernist and so the status quo remains - the blind will not see it though).

Only 9 have passed on his ahadeeth may mean that only these 9 had the chance to examine Ibraheem? Although pretty much all of 9 were thiqaat, and big narrators. However they didn't narrate much from Ibraheem, so one can still use this argument?

6. Even if some narrated from Sahl bin Ziyad, Ahmad bin Hilal, and Al-Sayyari, some of the negative talk against these was figures were recorded by other Qummis themselves, and it is known that Sahl is not weak to all and soem Qummis themselves considered him weak, and al-Sayyari is crticized by the Qummiyun themselves, and mostly Matruk, how can you compare them to Ibrahim bin Hashim.

I was saying that the ulema and great ruwaat relied on dhu'ufa' like Sahl.

And I thank that Farid mentioned Ahmad bin Hilal (for it proves one point)

æÐßÑ ÇáäÌÇÔí Ýí ÊÑÌãÉ ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä íÍíì: Ãä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÇáæáíÏ æÇÓÊËäì Ýí ÌãáÉ ãÇ ÇÓÊËäÇå ããÇ íÑæíå ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ ãÇ íÑæíå Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä åáÇá¡ æÊÈÚå Úáì Ðáß: ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÈÇÈæíå¡ (ÇáÕÏæÞ)¡ æÃÈæ ÇáÚÈÇÓ ÇÈä äæÍ

- and Najashi mentions in his Tarjama for Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya (that): Muhammad bin Hasan bin Walid excluded in all that he excluded from his narration on Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya - what Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya narrated on the authority of Ahmad bin Hilal, and followed him in this Abu Jafar Ibn Babawayh (as-Saduq) and Abul Abbas bin Nuh,

And we all know what Shaykh Abul Abbas bin Nuh himself had commented that he agrees with all exclusions except for in the case of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid (who was apparently on good terms in his estimation), so we have the witness of Shaykh Abul Abbas bin Nuh who agrees with the inclusion of Ibrahim bin Hashim, and I know that you will say he included Majahil, and I say yes, he only excluded whom he thought clear in weakness and he did not think Ibrahim (with his role in our Hadith) weak, and this is brighter than the sun.

Decent argument. But perhaps Ibraheem's personal status was not unknown due to his few students?

And just to show another example of their care in this regard....

It is an interesting point.

Perhaps the following narration shows that people were aware of Ibraheem despite the few who are recorded as narrating from him (and Ahmed bin Muhammed bin Isa is recorded as having suspected quite a few people):

[3480] æó Ýöí ËóæóÇÈö ÇáúÃóÚúãóÇáö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÇáúÍóÓóäö Úóäö ÇáÕóøÝóøÇÑö Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò ÞóÇáó ßõäúÊõ ÃóäóÇ æó ÅöÈúÑóÇåöíãõ Èúäõ åóÇÔöãò Ýöí ÈóÚúÖö ÇáúãóÞóÇÈöÑö ÅöÐú ÌóÇÁó Åöáóì ÞóÈúÑò ÝóÌóáóÓó ãõÓúÊóÞúÈöáó ÇáúÞöÈúáóÉö Ëõãóø æóÖóÚó íóÏóåõ Úóáóì ÇáúÞóÈúÑö ÝóÞóÑóÃó ÓóÈúÚó ãóÑóøÇÊò ÅöäóøÇ ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇåõ Ëõãóø ÞóÇáó ÍóÏóøËóäöí ÕóÇÍöÈõ åóÐóÇ ÇáúÞóÈúÑö æó åõæó ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ ÅöÓúãóÇÚöíáó Èúäö ÈóÒöíÚò Ãóäóøåõ ãóäú ÒóÇÑó ÞóÈúÑó ãõÄúãöäò ÝóÞóÑóÃó ÚöäúÏóåõ ÓóÈúÚó ãóÑóøÇÊò ÅöäóøÇ ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇåõ ÛóÝóÑó Çááóøåõ áóåõ æó áöÕóÇÍöÈö ÇáúÞóÈúÑö

(wasaa'il ash-shia, volume 3, page 277-8)

(wasalam)

[guest 34193 41]

Just a quick point here, but since when is having nine different people narrate from you a "small number"? We wouldn't really know how many students he had, just that there would be that many ruwwat from him in our books. But nine is hardly a small number when you consider most times chains will tend to be the same people from the same people repeatedly (e.g. Hammad from Hariz from Zurara, etc.)

Anyway, this is just a clear example of how fragile and weak building one's religion on this construct really is. Instead of thereby "weakening" a narrator of indubitable character, the strength of the system itself is what should be coming under greater scrutiny here.

[Islamic Salvation 3,207]

Good find brother Yasoob,

I think for us the Tawthiq is a futile excercise, as we are being forced to follow the standards which our olden scholars did not recognize,

But I think one of the strongest (if you are talking about the standards imposed by modern day Ilm Rijal in polemics) is this argument:

Basically Ibn Tawus in one of his works (Falah as-Sail) narrates a Hadith from al-Amali of as-Saduq, the Sanad of that Hadith is as follows:

as-Saduq>Muhammad bin Musa bin Mutawakkil>Ali bin Ibrahim>Ibrahim bin Hashim>Ibn Abi Umayr>the one he narrated from>Imam,

and after narrating it, Ibn Tawus says:

" ورواة الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق"

'And the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqat by general agreement (I'tifaq)'.

Falah as-Sail Chapter 19 Page Number 158

And Sayyid Kadhim al-Haeri said about this

فإن فرض الاتفاق من قبل طبقة علي بن طاووس على وثاقة شخص من الرواة الواقعين في زمن الأئمة المتأخرين ( عليهم السلام ) يورث القطع بوثاقته أو بثبوت وثاقته بسند تام - على الأقل

And the occurence of I'tifaq from the Tabaqah (generation) before Ali bin Tawus upon the Wathaqa of a man who was from the narrators living in the age of the latter imams (peace be upon them) inherits (provides) certainity on his Wathaqa, or the existence of (claim) to his Wathaqa by a complete Sanad.

Qadha Fi Fiqhil Islamiy Page Number 490

And Sayyid al-Khui says about it (but speaking about Muhammad bin Musa bin Mutawakkil, another one in that Sanad who has not got explicit Tawthiq, but his argument applies equally for Ibrahim bin Hashim)

وكان الأحرى عليه ( قده ) أن يناقش في الطريق من أجل محمد ابن موسى بن المتوكل الذي لم يرد فيه أي توثيق يعتمد عليه في كتب الرجال ، غير أننا بنينا على وثاقته ، نظرا إلى أن ابن طاووس يروي حديثا يشتمل سنده عليه ، ثم يقول ( قده ) : وجميع رواته ثقات اتفاقا ، ونحن وإن لم نعول على توثيق المتأخرين إلا أن هذا التعبير من مثل ابن طاووس - الذي كل عبارات المدح دون شأنه - يورث الاطمئنان بأن في جملة المتفقين بعض القدماء الذين نعتمد على توثيقهم ولا أقل من شخص أو شخصين . وهذا المقدار كاف في التوثيق . إذا لا ينبغي التأمل في صحة السند

And what was apparent for him (Ibn Tawus) was to critique the Sanad of that (particulat) Hadith (which he was narrating from the Amali of Saduq) due to the presence of Muhammad bin Musa bin Mutawakkil in it (the Sanad), for he is one about whom, there has been no explict Tawthiq to be depended upon in his right in our books of Rijal, nevertheless we have ruled in favour of his Wathaqa, depending upon the fact that Ibn Tawus narrates a Hadith whose Sanad contains him, and then says after it, 'and all its Ruwat (narrators) are of the Thiqat by agreement (I'tifaq)', and we have relied on this despite the fact that we do not take Tawthiq from the Muta'akhireen, but this statement from the likes of Ibn Tawus - about whom every word of praise falls short - grants certainity in this group who have agreed (made I'tifaq on the Wathaqa on the Rijal of the Sanad of that Hadith), there is a number from the Qudama (older scholars), whose Tawthiq we take, and at the least on or two of these (are part of the I'tifaq), and this number is enough for Tawthiq.

Kitab as-Sawm Vol.2 Page Number 309

And Mirza Nuri said:

وقال ابن طاووس في فلاح السائل بعد ذكر سند فيه إبراهيم بن هاشم القمي قال : ورجال السند ثقات بالاتفاق

And Ibn Tawus said in Falah as-Sail, after mentioning a Sanad in it is Ibrahim bin Hashim al-Qummiy, He Said: and the men of the Sanad are of the Thiqat by I'tifaq.

Khatmatul Mustadrak Vol.4 Page Number 33

And the Sayyid Hasan Sadr said:

قال السيد ( رحمه الله ) : ورواة هذا الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق ، ومراسيل محمد بن أبي عمير كالمسانيد عند أهل الوفاق

And the Sayyid (Ibn Tawus) (may Allah have mercy on him said): 'And the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqat by I'tifaq, and the Marasil of Ibn Abi Umayr (for this Hadith under discussion is one of them) are like the Masanid for the people of the succesful community'

Nihayatu Diraya Page Number 413

So basically this argument can be summarized as

ان السيد ابن طاووس ادعى الاتفاق على وثاقته ، حيث قال عند ذكره رواية عن أمالي الصدوق في سندها ابراهيم بن هاشم : " ورواة الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق

The Sayyid Ibn Tawus claimed I'tifaq upon the Wathaqa, when he said after recalling a Riwayah from the Amali of as-Saduq in its Sanad is Ibrahim bin Hashim "And the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqat by I'tifaq".

Now Sayyid Ibn Tawus d.664 h., but what he was claiming I'tifaq for - brings into light that scholars previous than him had the same view, and so even if you do not accept Tawthiq of Muta'akhir then the Tawthiq of Mutaqadim may be revealed in this way, as we don't know how far back this I'tifaq Ibn Tawus was claiming stretches to, but if it takes one or two of the Mutaqadim, then it is enough, and this is what emerges from investigation.

Taken from (Bro. Jabir Muhammadiy) http://www.alkafi.net/vb/showthread.php?t=372

Edited September 6, 2011 by Islamic Salvation

[14infallibles 111]

Salaam

Sorry brother but is this one of the examples of good ahlaq!!!!? Opening without saying salaam and attacking not one or two or three but many by calling there thoughts 'lame' ??? Who will read the rest if you first line is like this. Anyways stop siding Yazidis even if you see them doing good (impossible).

JazakAllah

(salam)

Is it good akhlaq to repeatedly accuse shia of nasibism?

[Yasoob Al Deen 22]

Just a quick point here, but since when is having nine different people narrate from you a "small number"? We wouldn't really know how many students he had, just that there would be that many ruwwat from him in our books. But nine is hardly a small number when you consider most times chains will tend to be the same people from the same people repeatedly (e.g. Hammad from Hariz from Zurara, etc.)

The point about 9 being few is only in relation to the point that "the Qummis would have defamed Ibraheem if he was weak because they are strict". 8 actually, since one isn't a Qummi. This is arguably important in the absence of tawtheeq. Or the absence of tawtheeq might just be an accident.

Anyway, this is just a clear example of how fragile and weak building one's religion on this construct really is. Instead of thereby "weakening" a narrator of indubitable character, the strength of the system itself is what should be coming under greater scrutiny here.

This isn't a flaw with the system. It's a sign of how the expectations of what the system should do have changed and how the system lacks a sufficient type of information.

[Yasoob Al Deen 22]

I think for us the Tawthiq is a futile excercise, as we are being forced to follow the standards which our olden scholars did not recognize,

Quite possibly true. Although perhaps Najashi shared the modern view to some extent since he says whether many rijaal are thiqa or dha`eef. Perhaps the reason why Najashi does not strengthen Ibraheem is that Najashi had not received explicit or strong enough implicit tawtheeq for Ibraheem hence his honest lack of tawtheeq for him.

But I think one of the strongest (if you are talking about the standards imposed by modern day Ilm Rijal in polemics) is this argument:

Basically Ibn Tawus in one of his works (Falah as-Sail) narrates a Hadith from al-Amali of as-Saduq, the Sanad of that Hadith is as follows:

as-Saduq>Muhammad bin Musa bin Mutawakkil>Ali bin Ibrahim>Ibrahim bin Hashim>Ibn Abi Umayr>the one he narrated from>Imam,

and after narrating it, Ibn Tawus says:

" ورواة الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق"

'And the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqat by general agreement (I'tifaq)'.

Falah as-Sail Chapter 19 Page Number 158

Al-Hilli in Khulasat Al-Aqwaal (p. 49):

ولم أقف لاحد من اصحابنا على قول في القدح فيه، ولا على تعديله باتنصيص، والروايات عنه كثيرة، والارجح قبول قوله

Rough translation: And I haven't seen anyone from our people attacking him, nor strengthening him in specific, and the narrations from him are plenty, and it is more correct to accept him.

So who is more correct, al-Hilli or Ibn Tawoos? I would say not Ibn Tawoos. Al-Hilli was the generation after Ibn Tawoos and he says that he didn't see any explicit tawtheeq for Ibraheem.

Ibn Tawoos is 200 years after Najashi. Sure, there may have been people in those 200 years that accepted Ibraheem but did these people have access to an explicit tawtheeq of Ibraheem that Tusi and Najashi didn't?

What do you think? How would you interpret al-Hilli's words?

Take care, brother Islamic Salvation,

(wasalam)

Edited September 6, 2011 by Yasoob Al Deen

[Gypsy 3,166]

2. I say to Shaykh Sad, you have not heard nor seen those who have turned back from Tashayyu to Nasb except one, but there are wonders going on here, with some so-called Shias supporting Nasb under the banner of Tahsayyu and the day is maybe not far when they will join them officially.

Can you please share some names with us? Or some characteristics and attributes of such people.

Since we are having a high number of self proclaim hadith experts and studentr studying ilm al-rijl, it would be dangerous to follow/depend on someone who is and I am using you words "some so-called Shias supporting Nasb under the banner of Tahsayyu and the day is maybe not far when they will join them officially"

Please also let me know if I need to start a new topic so as not to distract the ongoing discussion.

[diracdeltafunc 235]

Can you please share some names with us? Or some characteristics and attributes of such people.

Since we are having a high number of self proclaim hadith experts and studentr studying ilm al-rijl, it would be dangerous to follow/depend on someone who is and I am using you words "some so-called Shias supporting Nasb under the banner of Tahsayyu and the day is maybe not far when they will join them officially"

Please also let me know if I need to start a new topic so as not to distract the ongoing discussion.

Have you downgraded from an admin?

[Hannibal 970]

It is relevant to the debate. If Ka'b is some anti-Islamic figure that tried to turn Jewish ideas into mainstream Muslim ones, as Walid asserted and others quoted him, than you have an issue if Ibn Abbas used to narrate from him.

Please re-read what I said. Allamah Majlisi believes there are no reliable chains of transmission that go back to ibn Abbas, so it is irrelevant how many times Ka'ab is quoted by him if the narration is not even believed to be from him in the first place.

[Saved 28]

Saved, I am entitled to point out that the majority of people made unhelpful attacks and comments that don't contribute to a productive discussion. Your personal attacks on me and my beliefs means I won't be replying to the rest of your post. BTW, I should point out that just because I'm discussing a few points, it doesn't mean I am a follower of Farid or that I actually think Ibraheem bin Hashim. Ibraheem bin Hashim is thiqa in my belief. I just believe in fairly testing out ideas which sometimes I do by debating them.

Good excuse for running away, again! Quite frustrating how Farid followers behave sometimes.

Just a quick point here, but since when is having nine different people narrate from you a "small number"? We wouldn't really know how many students he had, just that there would be that many ruwwat from him in our books. But nine is hardly a small number when you consider most times chains will tend to be the same people from the same people repeatedly (e.g. Hammad from Hariz from Zurara, etc.) Anyway, this is just a clear example of how fragile and weak building one's religion on this construct really is. Instead of thereby "weakening" a narrator of indubitable character, the strength of the system itself is what should be coming under greater scrutiny here.

Nader Zaveri too said the same thing:

Everyone knows that the Shee'ah form of breaking down hadeeth is heavily flawed and the Sunnee's are light years ahead of us in that regard.

These rijaalees are basing their religion upon such a horrible system.

[twoblade 2]

Please re-read what I said. Allamah Majlisi believes there are no reliable chains of transmission that go back to ibn Abbas, so it is irrelevant how many times Ka'ab is quoted by him if the narration is not even believed to be from him in the first place.

You're right, I skimmed it - his point is totally valid. But how do you treat riwayat of Bibi Fatima az-Zahra than? By Shi'i tradition, the Aima connect their chains through 'Ali > Muhammad. And from what I know, the riwayat of Fatima are few and far between - and the ones that exist are severely flawed. If that's the case, and I may well be wrong and unfamiliar with some phenomenal Shi'i work on the topic, it would suggest that her role as far as preserving the religion is almost equally limited outside of her mystical status.

Edited September 7, 2011 by twoblade

[Hannibal 970]

@farid/followers

not all Qummis were sensitive and strict. Ironically, the bunch that narrated the hadiths of Ibrahim bin Hashim are the same that narrated the hadiths of Sahl bin Ziyad, Ahmad bin Hilal, and Al-Sayyari, who are all completely rejected by Shia hadithists. So, yes, these narrators, which apparently make up the population of Qom, did narrate the hadiths of liars and weak narrators.

Although I'm not trying to enter into the debate here (I have 0 time), I do find the debates to be funny from both sides.

Just to give you an example, Sahl ibn Ziyad was kicked out of Qum.So you guys (especially Farid) need to do your homework.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Hannibal

[guest 34193 41]

/\ Plus in regards to al-Sayyari also mentioned in that quote, see what Ibn al-Ghada'iri says the Qummi shuyukh did:

( 11 ) - 11 - أَحْمَدُ بنُ مُحَمَّد بن سَيّار، يُكنّى‏ أبا عَبْداللَّه، القُمّيّ، المعروف بالسَيّاريّ. ضَعِيْفٌ، مُتهالِكٌ، غالٍ، مُنْحَرِفٌ. اسْتَثْنى‏ شُيُوخُ القُمّيّين رِوايَتَهُ من كتاب «نَوادِرِ الحِكْمةِ». وحَكى عليُّ بنُ مُحَمَّد بن مَحْبُوب عنه في كتاب «النَوَادِرِ» المُصَنَّف‏ أنّهُ قالَ بِالتَناسُخِ.

11 – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sayyar. Known by the kunya Abu `Abdillah. Al-Qummi. Known as as-Sayyari. Weak. Careless. Ghal. Deviated.

The Shuyukh of Qum excluded his narrations from the book “Nawadir al-Hikma”. In the book which was compiled, “An-Nawadir”, `Ali b. Muhammad b. Mahbub spoke about him and said that he was a proponent of reincarnation.

http://www.tashayyu....ibn-al-ghadairi

[The Green Knight 8,264]

Honestly, I think the debate in question is a staged, predetermined "mustakilla" or 911 twin towers type circus. A "Waleed" debating a dishonest and proven nasibi with the use of the ol' smoke and mirrors rijaal "science", why I've not been motivated to even check it out. If you don't believe me, just wait and see. Complete unquestioning obedience and full reliance on hadith while considering it the top source to learn your religion is for ahl-e-hadith a.k.a wahabies.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Abu Dujana

[Hannibal 970]

Honestly, I think the debate in question is a staged, predetermined "mustakilla" or 911 twin towers type circus. A "Waleed" debating a dishonest and proven nasibi with the use of the ol' smoke and mirrors rijaal "science", why I've not been motivated to even check it out. If you don't believe me, just wait and see. Complete unquestioning obedience and full reliance on hadith while considering it the top source to learn your religion is for ahl-e-hadith a.k.a wahabies.

Yes notice how his friends got quiet here once his problematic examples (Sayyari, Sahl ibn Ziyad etc.) were exposed.

[The Green Knight 8,264]

Exactly. Golden words by MacIsaac imo:

Anyway, this is just a clear example of how fragile and weak building one's religion on this construct really is. Instead of thereby "weakening" a narrator of indubitable character, the strength of the system itself is what should be coming under greater scrutiny here.

There are too big and too numerous problems with the foundation and principles of the Sunni sect which largely rests atop their vast collection of very confusing and tricky ahadith codex, that also happens to conflict with the Qur'an with regards to aqaid, usool and furoo', as well as with the spirit or understanding of the righteous and moral message from God for all humanity that came with Hz. Adam (as) and manifested itself comprehensively time and again through all the books of Abrahamic religions and by the blessed messengers of God that came after him whose sunnahs and sayings can also be found and contemplated today. They also defy all history and common sense.

Surprisingly, however, the Ahl-e-hadith sort of Sunni neglect everything and instead base their religion to follow the corrupt "Aslaaf" and the mullah's word blindly and dishonestly. Ayesha is their second biggest religion narrator, and they can't deny the battle of the camel or her completely negative mention in the Qur'an in surah Tahreem, yet they claim to obey the Qur'an and revere Ali (as) simultaneously. They revere the mother who killed 30,000 of her children. And then, they try to defend Muawiya and Yazid, the final and epic manifestation and evidence of Satan's evil influence over the ummah and its affairs, like a seed of evil that finally springs up from the soil that was taking its roots dormant and hidden in the past. An evil that has always existed since Adam (as) and which has always had its roots and influence on humanity, and has sprung up to bring about disasters for the righteous and obedient servants of God throughout history. Yet they refuse and believe that all sahaba were pious, and even more absurd that they were given "immunity from even future sins". They make this non-issue the bone of contention with us, who they call the "Rafidha" even though history is abundantly clear that it is they themselves who broke away, manifested as the qadriyah, jabriyah, mu'tazilla and then formed their 4 different religions some 200-300 years after.

How can anyone actually reason with such a people, and more importantly, why would anyone sense a need for that anyway other than with the sole intention to please God by attempting to awaken his brothers.

[Saved 28]

Honestly, I think the debate in question is a staged, predetermined "mustakilla" or 911 twin towers type circus. A "Waleed" debating a dishonest and proven nasibi with the use of the ol' smoke and mirrors rijaal "science", why I've not been motivated to even check it out. If you don't believe me, just wait and see. Complete unquestioning obedience and full reliance on hadith while considering it the top source to learn your religion is for ahl-e-hadith a.k.a wahabies.

Believe me brother, the debate is real. Farid was completely mistaken about his chances in the debate. He was keen about it, and since he is the best of the cyber Nawaasib in rijaal, they backed him. Walid behaves irrationally sometimes, especially in his inexplicably hostile attitude towards Shee'ahs generally (he calls me a muskhrik for believing in Wilaayah al-Takwiniyyah and Istighaathah). I consider him a hypocrite with love of Aboo Bakr, 'Umar and 'Aaishah in his heart. But, trust me, he has no sponsorship from the Nawaasib, at least not in this debate.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Saved

[The Green Knight 8,264]

His inexplicable hatred for Shia doesn't tell you anything? Its called nasb. Of course, someone as wicked as Farid wouldn't let the opportunity to get famous simply pass away. He admitted that himself that all that matters to him is to "win" and not the pursuit of truth. And anyway what's a WWF predetermined fake wrestling match without some suspense? Even if Waleed "wins" or vice versa, then what? Ask yourself, would you convert to Sunnism if Farid wins and Walid is defeated comprehensively? Or would Umar Al-Farar convert to Shiaism if the opposite happens? Can't you see what they are doing with that attention? I'll give you a hint. In advertisement business, they say that even a negative rating or a bad review done by someone is still a good advertisement.

Religion is not a matter of who wins or loses, its not a sports match. Its much more and much deeper. Debates, munazara, criticism, comparative study etc., is all well and good up to a certain point. But the actual religion is something completely different. Don't let people try to get you all caught up in an arena of their own rules that is their own creation and drag you down to their level. They are constantly trying to change our perception of religion and distort our standards and understanding of it. Only their religion depends on rijaal. There is a reason why our scholars didn't really bother with the so-called "hadith sciences", qiyas and stuff like that. Rijaal books are not preserved and men and their opinions are far from perfect. Why value it as such an imperative factor then?

Suppose if two people start a "munazra" based on gambling. They ask a parrot to drag out a fortune telling card out of 73 cards to know which sect is the right one. Would you value that method at all? I hope you follow my point.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Abu Dujana

[Saved 28]

His inexplicable hatred for Shia doesn't tell you anything? Its called nasb. Of course, someone as wicked as Farid wouldn't let the opportunity to get famous simply pass away. He admitted that himself that all that matters to him is to "win" and not the pursuit of truth. And anyway what's a WWF predetermined fake wrestling match without some suspense? Even if Waleed "wins" or vice versa, then what? Ask yourself, would you convert to Sunnism if Farid wins and Walid is defeated comprehensively? Or would Umar Al-Farar convert to Shiaism if the opposite happens? Can't you see what they are doing with that attention? I'll give you a hint. In advertisement business, they say that even a negative rating or a bad review done by someone is still a good advertisement. Religion is not a matter of who wins or loses, its not a sports match. Its much more and much deeper. Debates, munazara, criticism, comparative study etc., is all well and good up to a certain point. But the actual religion is something completely different. Don't let people try to get you all caught up in an arena of their own rules that is their own creation and drag you down to their level. They are constantly trying to change our perception of religion and distort our standards and understanding of it. Only their religion depends on rijaal. There is a reason why our scholars didn't really bother with the so-called "hadith sciences", qiyas and stuff like that. Rijaal books are not preserved and men and their opinions are far from perfect. Why value it as such an imperative factor then? Suppose if two people start a "munazra" based on gambling. They ask a parrot to drag out a fortune telling card out of 73 cards to know which sect is the right one. Would you value that method at all? I hope you follow my point.

I agree with you 100% with everything you have said above brother.

As you probably know, I am no fan of rijaal or its practitioners or Walid. But I feel Farid al-Naasibee and his followers staked their religion upon this irrational gamble. I am happy they can see the extreme mess they have created for themselves in that debate.

Walid is trying to reply to our objections to the rijaal system as a whole in that debate. But he simply cannot source it from the Qur'aan and Sunnah. It was a heresy created by Sunnees. It destroyed their religion. Unfortunately, some Shee'ahs too now base their religion on that unholy conjecture.

You don't see it? You can authenticate ANY hadeeth in Sunnee Islam, and you can weaken ANY hadeeth that you don't like! Rijaal allows you to do that. The rijaal scholars are always fighting about the reliability of narrators, and you sometimes see the same man fighting with himself about the same narrator!

It is so bad. One scholar grades a hadeeth "Saheeh (authentic)" and another grades it "Mawdoo' (fabricated)"!! And they both follow rijaal! What am I saying? Even the same scholar, like Shaykh al-Albaanee did, would authenticate the same hadith with the same chain somewhere and weaken it elsewhere.

Such is the wonder of rijaal!

It is pure kufr to attribute such confusion to Allaah and His Messengers (as)

[Gypsy 3,166]

(salam)

Walid if you are reading this then please copy the debate thread and download it to your computer. You don't wanna lose your hard work in case you get banned or the thread is deleted by a mod. That forum is well know for it's nasibism and hatred against Shia.

I am copying one of walid's posts here because it seems that he is reading SC, especially this thread. Although we have our differences but this post is interesting.

a side note: i see many shia doubt ilm-al-rijel just because sunnis use it ! first of all we the shia started this art of ilm rijel but yes sunnis have expanded on it a lot more , not better but more so be careful. our rijel specialist rarely rely on "hadas" intuition but on their shyukh and views of experts from people who lived during times of the narrators and knew them , of course there 's hadas also but not anywhere near what sunnis use. some people think bigger is better : because sunnis wrote so many books about this then they must have more accurate knowledge and this is not true at all. Najashi and tusi rely on what they get from earlier scholars most of the time and so did ibn tawoos and hilli even though al-hilli relies on hadas more than others and this is not a crime because even hadas is not as strong as "hiss" (tangible real information) then it's still valid because if we don't trust allmah al-hilli who knows the madhab like the back of his hand then who can we trust?

neglecting ilm al-rijel is going against the quran and the holy imams from rasool Allah (saww) and sahib al-zaman(as) and it means taking the hadith of masoomin lightly and accepting some hadiths can lead to deliberate lies upon masoomin (as).

ilm al-rijel came from instinct (fitrah) and we use it everyday in different amounts : when you hear a liar speaking then you have difficulty believing him and this is about minor issues let alone hadith almasoomin(as).

I go as far as saying : not using ilm-rijel is haram because ilm-rijel allows you to satnd before Allah and say : oh Allah i didn't follow this hadith to satisfy my desires but because as far as i know it was sahih. (just an example)

now is ilm rijel mathematics ? no and it has many flaws and that's where the bigger rule comes in: whatever contradicts the quran and definitive sunnah then it's falsehood even if its sanad is clearer than the sun.

but i understand the frustration of some people at Nader zaveri and co because they want to impose ilm-rijel in a way that is aggressive and not in line with teaching of masoomin . i never saw nader reject a hadith that is sahih al-sanad as if sanad sahih means hadith sahih ! this is very dangerous and untrue but he is not the one with this view because many of ours scholars do this. i do reject many hadith with sahih sanad because they contradict the quran and sunnah and also the intellect because Allah gives us intellect to be judged according to it so how can he judge us about things that don't agree with intellect?(see the very first hadith from alkafi alshareef and it's sahih )

be careful i am not saying the intellect is the basis for sharee'a but that intellect is necessary in understanding the true sharee'a

ws

Edited September 8, 2011 by Zareen

[Hannibal 970]

I agree with you 100% with everything you have said above brother.

As you probably know, I am no fan of rijaal or its practitioners or Walid. But I feel Farid al-Naasibee and his followers staked their religion upon this irrational gamble. I am happy they can see the extreme mess they have created for themselves in that debate.

Walid is trying to reply to our objections to the rijaal system as a whole in that debate. But he simply cannot source it from the Qur'aan and Sunnah. It was a heresy created by Sunnees. It destroyed their religion. Unfortunately, some Shee'ahs too now base their religion on that unholy conjecture.

You don't see it? You can authenticate ANY hadeeth in Sunnee Islam, and you can weaken ANY hadeeth that you don't like! Rijaal allows you to do that. The rijaal scholars are always fighting about the reliability of narrators, and you sometimes see the same man fighting with himself about the same narrator!

It is so bad. One scholar grades a hadeeth "Saheeh (authentic)" and another grades it "Mawdoo' (fabricated)"!! And they both follow rijaal! What am I saying? Even the same scholar, like Shaykh al-Albaanee did, would authenticate the same hadith with the same chain somewhere and weaken it elsewhere.

Such is the wonder of rijaal!

It is pure kufr to attribute such confusion to Allaah and His Messengers (as)

See my views on the subject:

http://www.shiachat....on-shia-hadith/

Edited September 8, 2011 by Hannibal

[The Green Knight 8,264]

I am copying one of walid's posts here because it seems that he is reading SC, especially this thread. Although we have our differences but this post is interesting.

Interesting? Yes. He only proved me correct by going hysterical and issuing takfir for those who reject ilm-e-rijaal. :D

By his own analogy, a Jew could similarly stand in front of God and say: "I'm sorry but I was sure that the Talmud and the old testament were sahih, all my scholars said so, and I followed it through and slew dozens of gentile infants since we're a special race. Has incest like Lot does in Genesis. I hated and blasphemed about Jesus because Talmud is sahih according to my knowledge."

So it's going to be THAT easy to get off the hook on judgment day huh? Hmm. What if someone replies: "How about you used your brain instead, Copernicus?" And then, laughably, he speaks of God given intellect (which apparently he don't have) and shoots himself in the foot.

And...what?! Does this guy see no difference between a donkey and a horse? How can the opinion of dishonest Farid-clone mullahs like Ibn Tamiya or Ismail Al-Nasibi etc. be as reliable, dependable or honest as Al-Hilli? How can a pure believer be equal to a dishonest, lying, deceiving, nasibi? What an absurd person. He's not too different than Farid and I'm not surprised at all.

I believe the secret is out. And judging by his post I must add that he's actually a really poor debater and a man of very limited intellect. I guess he has been impressing you lot SOLELY with the rijaal and isnad mumbo jumbo all this time? Time to admit it.

[Gypsy 3,166]

I believe the secret is out. And judging by his post I must add that he's actually a really poor debater and a man of very limited intellect. I guess he has been impressing you lot SOLELY with the rijaal and isnad mumbo jumbo all this time? Time to admit it.

I hope this is not directed at me because I have never done anything remotely rijal like. I am not very interested in studying ilm al rijal. Ilm al rijal is just one of the branches of Islamic knowledge secondary only to the Holy Quran. I believe that to get a complete knowledge and understanding of the Islamic knowledge you also need to get exposure into the Quranic science, Quranic tafseer, Islamic history, Arabic language, study of Arabic linguistic, sociological and geopolitics of the ancient Islamic world and etc.

If you have been following the debate you would have already realized how lame the Sunni rijal system is when people like Abu Huraryah and other enemies of the Ahlul Bayt are deemed trustworthy. It is as if they were architecting a religion that would compete and rival the school of Ahlul Bayt.

Not to say that Shia hadeeths don't have problem. The only difference is that we do not revere the enemies of Ahlul Bayt. And this makes a huge different because it was the enemies of Ahl al Bayt that introduces among the first and earliest biddah in Islam and the later days Sunni scholars were only pilling higher and deeper into the rotten foundation.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Zareen

[Abu Tufayl 2,606]

(bismillah)

The system of rijaal and ahaad narrations is slippery slope of recursion that gets us nowhere. Here's a couple of my questions that, from my experience, Rijaalis are unable to really answer with certainty:

Where do the information from these rijaal books come from?

>> There are so many problems here. The authors of these rijaal works did not know all these narrators personally and meet them. In fact, they were all probably hundreds of miles away from each other and separated by generations. Most people will throw out there that they got this information from previous rijaal works. Well, how do we know that? Did they say they got Fulan b. Fulan's information from Fulan's book of Rijaal? Then again, how do we know this Fulan guy's rijaal book itself is trustworthy and authentic?

How do you know this rijaal book is authentic when you have to grade a chain that leads back to the book?

>> Obviously we can't use the contents of the book in questions to grade it's own authenticity. Nor can we go to "another" rijaal book to say it's authentic cause we haven't establish if that tariqah is sound either.

Why are we blindly trusting what these rijal books say to be true and rejecting things like Saduq رحمه الله's statement that all of al-Faqeeh is saheehi? From the looks of some of the books, like Rijaal al-Tusi, it doesn't seem like our `ulema were using this information the way the Nawasib do. It appears like they just cared to document that Fulan b. Fulan is a real person and actually exists - not some made up guy in a chain. If our scholars really cared about this system like some people like to advocate, there would have been much more text and writing on this and more direct, explicit nass from the Imams [as] saying to use this system (hello, they lived while the `awaam were doing it, so it's not something strange and unknown to them).

Glass house. I refuse to put Islam in the hands of such a weak and utterly fallible, flawed system.

في أمان الله

Edited September 9, 2011 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Saimaaa 59]

This thread has turned into SHIA VS SHIA RIJJAL SYSTEM somehow. I wonder why did not Al-khoei think of rejecting the rijjal system or Sadooq and Tusi the way people are rejecting it on this thread. The issue is that any sane and impartial person would say that Rijjal system is the only logical and rational explanation of historical events and narrations attributed to some individuals. What other tools does one have to reject a Hadith? The Akhbaris reject rijjal system as well so are they right in their claims. The only issue is that after the technical knockout of Walid , members here have decided to bash the whole rijjal system to save their face so that rijjal system can be devalued and people can continue following the myths without investigating them.

The questions are simple.

1.Do you accept all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? ( Anyone who says yes to this would be an Akhbari)

2.Do you reject all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? (Anyone who says yes to this would be a "Quran only")

3.What other tools do you have for grading Hadiths or rejecting some and accepting some if you don't believe in Rijjal system?

Edited September 9, 2011 by saima.bukhari

[aladdin 149]

This thread has turned into SHIA VS SHIA RIJJAL SYSTEM somehow. I wonder why did not Al-khoei think of rejecting the rijjal system or Sadooq and Tusi the way people are rejecting it on this thread. The issue is that any sane and impartial person would say that Rijjal system is the only logical and rational explanation of historical events and narrations attributed to some individuals. What other tools does one have to reject a Hadith? The Akhbaris reject rijjal system as well so are they right in their claims. The only issue is that after the technical knockout of Walid , members here have decided to bash the whole rijjal system to save their face so that rijjal system can be devalued and people can continue following the myths without investigating them.

The questions are simple.

1.Do you accept all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? ( Anyone who says yes to this would be an Akhbari)

2.Do you reject all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? (Anyone who says yes to this would be a "Quran only")

3.What other tools do you have for grading Hadiths or rejecting some and accepting some if you don't believe in Rijjal system?

Abu Bakr started the system of hadith, narrated by one person only.

He was the Caliph, the Judge, the Jury, the Witness, the One Man Hadith Narrator, the Truthful Companion, when he tried to make Imam Ali (as) and his family (as) penniless, so that he can have his Caliphate.

Do you remember the hadith?

Thus, the hadith narration become one person only passing the hadith. Where as, the Holy Quran requires at least two witnesses for everything. But the hadith narration requires just one person only, thanks to abu Bakr.

[Gypsy 3,166]

This thread has turned into SHIA VS SHIA RIJJAL SYSTEM somehow. I wonder why did not Al-khoei think of rejecting the rijjal system or Sadooq and Tusi the way people are rejecting it on this thread. The issue is that any sane and impartial person would say that Rijjal system is the only logical and rational explanation of historical events and narrations attributed to some individuals. What other tools does one have to reject a Hadith? The Akhbaris reject rijjal system as well so are they right in their claims. The only issue is that after the technical knockout of Walid , members here have decided to bash the whole rijjal system to save their face so that rijjal system can be devalued and people can continue following the myths without investigating them.

The questions are simple.

1.Do you accept all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? ( Anyone who says yes to this would be an Akhbari)

2.Do you reject all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? (Anyone who says yes to this would be a "Quran only")

3.What other tools do you have for grading Hadiths or rejecting some and accepting some if you don't believe in Rijjal system?

We were wondering where you went. It seems you had to hide in shame after lack-luster performance by Farid. But you are back, it seems. Anyway, in case you missed one of my posts, the problem with the Sunni rijal system is that it is very unIslamic. The biggest enemies of Islam were deemed trustworthy. And hence their misguidance turned into Islamic teaching.

If you have been following the debate you would have already realized how lame the Sunni rijal system is when people like Abu Huraryah and other enemies of the Ahlul Bayt are deemed trustworthy. It is as if they were architecting a religion that would compete and rival the school of Ahlul Bayt.

Not to say that Shia hadeeths don't have problem. The only difference is that we do not revere the enemies of Ahlul Bayt. And this makes a huge different because it was the enemies of Ahl al Bayt that introduces among the first and earliest biddah in Islam and the later days Sunni scholars were only pilling higher and deeper into the rotten foundation.

[Abu Tufayl 2,606]

(bismillah)

This thread has turned into SHIA VS SHIA RIJJAL SYSTEM somehow. I wonder why did not Al-khoei think of rejecting the rijjal system or Sadooq and Tusi the way people are rejecting it on this thread. The issue is that any sane and impartial person would say that Rijjal system is the only logical and rational explanation of historical events and narrations attributed to some individuals. What other tools does one have to reject a Hadith? The Akhbaris reject rijjal system as well so are they right in their claims. The only issue is that after the technical knockout of Walid , members here have decided to bash the whole rijjal system to save their face so that rijjal system can be devalued and people can continue following the myths without investigating them.

We have tawaatur and the various other Qaraa'in. Just because Sayyid Khu'i رحمه الله uses this system doesn't mean it is the best. And no, no rationale and objective person would say this is the best tool, it is full of holes that I have explained above and is just a system of doubt upon doubt. Sadooq رحمه الله may have used rijaal somewhat but not in the way you see it today. He said all of al-Faqeeh is saheeh. But if you open those prized rijal books and looked up some narrators, you'd find them weak by this rigid, human and overly technical system.

The questions are simple.

1.Do you accept all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? ( Anyone who says yes to this would be an Akhbari)

No

2.Do you reject all the Hadiths recorded in major Shia Hadith books? (Anyone who says yes to this would be a "Quran only")

No

3.What other tools do you have for grading Hadiths or rejecting some and accepting some if you don't believe in Rijjal system?

Tawatur and Qaraa'in

في أمان الله

[Love-Of-Islam 47]

<p>

</p>

<p><img alt=" (bismillah)" class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.shiachat.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/bismillah.gif" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>We have tawaatur and the various other Qaraa'in. Just because Sayyid Khu'i رحمه الله uses this system doesn't mean it is the best. And no, no rationale and objective person would say this is the best tool, it is full of holes that I have explained above and is just a system of doubt upon doubt. Sadooq رحمه الله may have used rijaal <em>somewhat</em> but not in the way you see it today. He said all of al-Faqeeh is <em>saheeh</em>. But if you open those prized rijal books and looked up some narrators, you'd find them weak by this rigid, human and overly technical system.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>No</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tawatur and Qaraa'in</p>

<p> </p>

<p>في أمان الله</p>

<p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>what is tawatur and qaraain and how do u use it to grade hadiths? </p>

[aladdin 149]

......

Salam sister,

Your name was brought up by Walid in one of his posts, so can you pass the following to him:

This is regarding the abu Hurairah and the Creation of Universe, which is supposedly taken by abu Hurairah from the Torah.

1. Abu Hurairah mentions in the hadiths that the Creation took Seven Days, and it started from Saturday and ended on Friday.

2. Farid (Lord Botta) couldn't answer him and made comments that the Torah was altered by Jews during the time of rasool Allah (saws) and Islam.

Both the statements are false:

1. According to Torah, Allah Created in Six Days and not Seven Days as reported by abu Hurairah. Also, according to Torah, the Creation started on Sunday (the first day) and ended on Friday and not what abu Hurairah reported that it started on Saturday.

Saturday is sabst (sabbath - seven) day and God rested on that day, as no work to be done on the Sabbath day.

The Ten Commandments, the Commandment of Sabbath is as follows:

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

The Sabbath is well mentioned in the Holy Quran and how the Jews used to break the Sabbath.

2. The TaNaKh which the Christians call the Old Testament consists of Torah (the first five books), Naviim (prophets) and Ketviim (books). Even though Prophet Isa (a.s.) kept on accusing the scribes writing the TaNaKh with their own hand, the Christians completely accepted the whole TaNaKh as true word of God. The Torah which is the first five books of TaNaKh was translated by Christians around sometime in the second century and they call it, "Pentateuch".

So there is no way the Torah was altered during the time of rasool Allah and Islam by Jews, as it was also with Christians in the form of Pentateuch.

[aladdin 149]

What's your proof that Farid is a nasibi?

Please check out my signature and the following Farid (Lord Botta) quote:

No, I don't hate Yazid at the moment. There is a lot of dispute as to whether he ordered killing Al-Hussain within Ahlul Sunnah. So, I don't have a solid opinion about this issue yet.

1. What do you think about Farid's above quote?

2. Do you think he is being honest when he says that, "So, I don't have a solid opinion about this issue yet."?

3. Do a search member name, "Lord Botta", and see who are included in his ignore list?

Wa'Salam.