Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Tragedy Of Zahra [as]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

Mashallah. For me personally this was a timely post.

I like your diraya approach too. I am happy you use the term "qawi", since I have read that this term did not gain wide currency amongst the fuqaha (apparently introduced by Shaykh Bahai), but I do see basis for using it. The move from "qawi" to "qawi kal hasan" was neat.

(wasalam)

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

(bismillah)

There are also scholars who accept this Riwayah, among them:

al-Imam al-Khumayni, al-Allamah al-Mamaqani, ash-Shaykh al-Khawjawiy, as-Sayyid al-Burujirdiy, al-Muhaqiq ad-Damad and Mirza Tabrizi among others.

Another point is that Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr has no existence in our books, except for a single narration in at-Tahdhib, which as-Sayyid al-Khui rules as a case of Tashif [manuscriptal error] [the actual name in that Hadith's Isnad should be Abdur-Rahman b. Yahya].

Also, there are multiple instances where Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran [who is in the Sixth Tabaqa] narrates from Abdallah b. Sinan [who is in the Fifth Tabaqa], and the one who narrates from him is Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ash'ariy al-Qummiy [who is in the seventh Tabaqa], so the Tabaqa consideration also agrees.

Furthermore, al-Majlisi in Bihar quotes the narration with its Isnad having Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran and not Abdur-Rahman b. Bahr, thus in his Nuskha of Dalail it is Ibn Abi Najran who is present.

Thanks bro. It has been recently put to my attention that Ibn Tawwus and Bahr al-`Ulum named that majhul narrator as from the Mashayikh of Mufid [ra] and Najashi [ra]. More weight to his tahseen, and if the later then thiqa.

But it's also been put to my attention that this chain is odd and there's another problem with it. That it's always Ibn Miskan narrating from `Abdullah b. Sinan, not verse. And because this is a naskh issue, it may actually be Muhammad b. Sinan in this chain who's narrating form Ibn Miskan, which is a very common chain, also some going from Ibn Abi Najran >> Muhammad b. Sinan >> Ibn Miskan

Care to comment on that irregularity?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

The two hadeeth above are weak and I can get into a dars on this but I won't for the readers. (I will one day make an article or something weakening the chain of `Amrikee from `Alee bin Ja`far inshaa' Allaah with the tawfeeq of Allaah (SWT))

First and foremost, the naskh issue is a problem. Let's just assume for now it isn't bin baHr because of the tabaqah of ibn abee najraan is the same. So good job for the person who fabricated this chain.

Secondly, `Abd Allaah bin Sinaan NEVER narrates from `Abd Allaah bin Miskaan! Muhammad bin Sinaan narrates from `Abd Allaah bin Miskaan. Check all chains of all books. I haven't seen it. This is a completely a fabricated chain. But please see examples below:

Úóäúåõ Úóäú íóÚúÞõæÈó Èúäö íóÒöíÏó Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ãõÓúßóÇäó Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÈóÕöíÑò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Ú ÞóÇáó

:
ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ãõÓúßóÇäó Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÈóÕöíÑò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö ÚI

If I wanted to take out more chains I could probably take out 50 or so more of the same chains. It is impossible for the two narrators to have narrated from each other. There aren't any other ahaadeeth.

(salam)

Wallaahu 'Alam

Edited by Abu Abdullaah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks for opening this thread brother, and jazakallah to all the brothers who have contributed.

The two hadeeth above are weak and I can get into a dars on this but I won't for the readers. (I will one day make an article or something weakening the chain of `Amrikee from `Alee bin Ja`far inshaa' Allaah with the tawfeeq of Allaah (SWT))

Would it be possible for you to share other ahadith you may have come across on the topic of the tragedy of Sitna Fatimah (as)? It would be a very valuable contribution to this thread. That was, as well the discussion on the ahadith that have already been quoted, other narrations on the subject can continuously be added to the thread for the benefit of the readers inshaAllah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

But it's also been put to my attention that this chain is odd and there's another problem with it. That it's always Ibn Miskan narrating from `Abdullah b. Sinan, not verse. And because this is a naskh issue, it may actually be Muhammad b. Sinan in this chain who's narrating form Ibn Miskan, which is a very common chain, also some going from Ibn Abi Najran >> Muhammad b. Sinan >> Ibn Miskan

Care to comment on that irregularity?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

We have cases where Ahmad b. Muhammad (al-Ash'ariy al-Qummiy) narrates from Ibn Abi Najran, and this is established.

Similarly we have cases where Ibn Abi Najran narrates from Abdallah b. Sinan, and this too is established.

It has also been recorded Abdur-Rahman b. Abi Najran narrating from Muhammad b. Sinan.

So since Ibn Abi Najran narrates from both Abdallah and Muhammad (the two Ibn Sinans) both could be the case here,

but since Dalail which is the source is explicit in that it is Abdallah, then I see no reason why we should choose not to go with that.

Of course the question comes as to does Abdallah b. Sinan narrate from Ibn Muskan?

As for Abdallah bin Sinan narrating from Ibn Muskan, then it is true that I have not found a narration where Abdallah b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan, but what I can say is that they were both companions who narrated from as-Sadiq directly, and there is nothing that prevents two people who were clearly contemporaries from narrating from each other.

It is true that we have clear cases where Muhammad b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan, but this does not prevent Abdallah narrating from him too as it appears to have occured here, not having other cases where this happened does not mean that it is impossible for it to have happened, as they were both contemporaries, this could be the one and only case of this happening.

Now if someone is willing to call it a fabrication just because we do not have other cases where Abdallah b. Sinan narrates from Ibn Muskan then that is too harsh a step, and not carefully considered or based on Ilm, as a case where two contemporaries narrate from each other [without there being other cases of such, as it may be the only Hadith they heard from each other] is possible.

Furthermore, why not then say that according to other chains it should be Muhammad b. Sinan who narrates from Ibn Muskan, and Abdallah is a Tashif in it, why say fabrication? is this not exposing some hidden feelings against the Matn, I find calling it a fabrication very simplistic, and having no proof whatsoever, how can some of us who are not able to write three sentences in proper Arabic call something a fabrication that scholars like Mamaqani, Damad, Tabrizi, Allamah Hilli [in one place] call Mu'tabar.

How can you say it cannot happen, were Abdallah b. Sinan and Ibn Muskan not contemporaries?

Note: there is no other cases of such a transmission does not equal it has not happened in this case, how many times do we have narrators narrating from others only one or two Ahadith?

Lastly, Some scholars consider Muhammad b. Sinan Thiqah i.e. al-Khumayni, and for them whichever Ibn Sinan it is, the Hadith is Mu'tabar, after making Tawthiq of the Shaykh of Tabari by other considerations as have been mentioned by brother Dar.

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

(bismillah)

(salam)

There are no hidden feelings here but straight logic. Don't say that there is a possibility of this one hadeeth with this specific shaadh chain out of all the aHaadeeth in the world that one can narrate, they narrate on this specific incident? With a Ghaalee in there? I'm sorry but logic doesn't dictate that one shaadh chain magically appeared out of nowhere to speak about the most riveting story in Shee`ah and/or Sunnee Islaam.

This is easily capable of being fabricated.

This is in matters of `aqeedah. Let's not just jump the gun because it's something we have heard our whole lives or because it's in Sunnee books, also.

Disclaimer: I hate to do these things, but I must for the readers out there to not get a bad impression of me. I don't like the Khulafaa' (the first three caliphs). Now, I won't curse them openly or privately because I haven't seen authentic aHaadeeth to curse them. This doesn't mean I like them and what I will say is I will, with all my heart, do tabarra (disassociate) from these individuals. They have done some good in their lives and one shouldn't take that away from them, but nifaaq entered into their hearts and they turned away from Islaam and died on the path of kufr.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam throughout SC history. Readers please see other topics in regards to this.

Wallaahu 'Alam

(salam)

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

(bismillah)

(salam)

There are no hidden feelings here but straight logic. Don't say that there is a possibility of this one hadeeth with this specific shaadh chain out of all the aHaadeeth in the world that one can narrate, they narrate on this specific incident? With a Ghaalee in there? I'm sorry but logic doesn't dictate that one shaadh chain magically appeared out of nowhere to speak about the most riveting story in Shee`ah and/or Sunnee Islaam.

Why can it not happen?,

In other words it has happened.

And this is enough for some as Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

Which Ghali?

This is easily capable of being fabricated.

Being easy to fabricate does not mean that it has been fabricated, you are the one who claimed it is fabricated, what is your proof for that, apart from your point that Abdallah b. Sinan has not been shown to have narrated from Ibn Muskan elsewhere, but as has been pointed out to you, they were contemporaries, so there is nothing that prevents them from narrating from each other,

Would you call all other cases where one Thiqah has narrated from another Thiqah once as Shadh and this means the the Matn is by necessity fabricated? what Ilm Hadith is that.

If that is the case, then we have many instances where somebody has narrated just one Hadith from another.

This is in matters of `aqeedah. Let's not just jump the gun because it's something we have heard our whole lives or because it's in Sunnee books, also.

Actually it is in matters of Ta'rikh, there is no Aqeedah here.

And names of scholars of Rijal who consider the Hadith Qawwiy have already been quoted, are you a Hujjah or them?

To be fair I don't consider you calling the Hadith a fabrication as meaning in any way that you support the Khulafa.

As for sending La'an, you do not need any Hadith, Allah [and whose Sunnah to follow better than Him] says that he sends La'nah on those who anger the prophet, is the prophet not angry with those who snatched the Khilafah?

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

Why can it not happen?,

In other words it has happened.

And this is enough for some as Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

Which Ghali?

Muhammad bin Sinaan

Being easy to fabricate does not mean that it has been fabricated, you are the one who claimed it is fabricated, what is your proof for that, apart from your point that Abdallah b. Sinan has not been shown to have narrated from Ibn Muskan elsewhere, but as has been pointed out to you, they were contemporaries, so there is nothing that prevents them from narrating from each other,

Would you call all other cases where one Thiqah has narrated from another Thiqah once as Shadh and this means the the Matn is by necessity fabricated? what Ilm Hadith is that.

If that is the case, then we have many instances where somebody has narrated just one Hadith from another.

And each one would be case by case basis. I would have to see your examples. Show me your examples of thiqaat narrators narrating from thiqaat narrators only once ever. (one matn)

Actually it is in matters of Ta'rikh, there is no Aqeedah here.

And names of scholars of Rijal who consider the Hadith Qawwiy have already been quoted, are you a Hujjah or them?

I am a nobody and Allaah (SWT) is my witness that I mean that. I am simply pointing out the obvious points that if he ('Abd Allaah bin Sinaan) narrated from ibn Miskaan, where is it? Ibn Miskaan isn't a joe schmo. He is one of the aSHaab al-ijma`. If you were with a aSHaab al ijma` level person would you want only one hadeeth? Yes this was made by al-Kashshee the grouping, but their status among the community was known.

To be fair I don't consider you calling the Hadith a fabrication as meaning in any way that you support the Khulafa.

Thank you brother.

Whatever I have said that is correct is from Allaah (SWT) and whatever I have said that is incorrect is from myself and sharr al Shaytaan.

As for sending la`n individually like "Oh Allaah, curse first, second, and third." No I don't do that. As far as saying "La`natullaah `alaa al-qawm al-zaalimeen" I do that. I also do "Rabbanaa aatihim Di`fayni minal `adhaab wal `anhum la`nan kabeera" in my qunoot in salaah.

But I'm not going to be like those people who are doing it are doing bid`ah. I mean it is between them and Allaah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. I preferably want to make sure I follow all SaHeeH hadeeth and go by that philosophy to be consistent with my `aqeedah and `ibaadah. That's why I never hate on Yaasir al-Habeeb. I think he is good. At least he isn't afraid to debate Sunnnes. Big up to him. And I, for one, am more leaning to doing la`n on them than not, but SaHeeH hadeeth is SaHeeH hadeeth. It pains me sometimes not to do it after seeing their garbage. But at the end of the day, I would be a hypocrite if I did la`n and it wasn't SaHeeH.

Wallaahu 'Alam

Fadlallaah answers this hadeeth:

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Edited by Abu Abdullaah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As for sending la`n individually like "Oh Allaah, curse first, second, and third." No I don't do that. As far as saying "La`natullaah `alaa al-qawm al-zaalimeen" I do that. I also do "Rabbanaa aatihim Di`fayni minal `adhaab wal `anhum la`nan kabeera" in my qunoot in salaah.

So u dont take them by name becuase its not in a SaHeeH hadith? This is ur reasoning?

So u have never send lanat by name? except what is in by name in related Hadith?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

Thanks bro. It has been recently put to my attention that Ibn Tawwus and Bahr al-`Ulum named that majhul narrator as from the Mashayikh of Mufid [ra] and Najashi [ra]. More weight to his tahseen, and if the later then thiqa.

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

But Ayatollah Khoei never rejected burning door incident,if he considered every Hadees of this narrator zaeef.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

There is no clear proof that he was from the mashaykh of Najashi.

From rijaal Najashi:

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

The word used by Najashi is "ÞÇá" (the narrator said) and not "ÃÎÈÑäÇ" (the narrator told us) etc. The word ÞÇá doesn't proves that the narrator met Shaykh Najashi or was from his mashaykh. Syed al-Khoei also didn't consider him from the mashaykh of Najashi.

As for him being from mashaykh of Shaykh al-Mufeed (ar), then it's not of much significance. Ayatullah Khoei considered them majhool and their ahadith daeef if they don't have clear tawtheeq.

w/s

(wasalam)

I am not saying he is for sure, I am noting that Sayyid Bahr al-`Ulum is including him amongst the Mashayikh of al-Najashi [ra]. Also, I believe in qara'in of tamdeeh and tasheeh for ruwat and riwiayaat as majhul is the weakest and most unrealistic of weaknesses.

Anyway, both hadith are weak as far I am concerned now. The Ibn Sinan in the first narration is Muhammad b. Sinan and he is a weak, ghali liar - this is due to naskh issues and shawahid chains. The second is weak due to tons of irsal/tadlees.

However, the truth of this incident is untouched, the weakness of these two narrations doesn't mean their mutun are untrue - our Qudama [ra] had agreement and ijma`a - rather all the Shi`a did, and this is hujja.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

if im not mistaken, ijma means consensus?

So why is ijma hujja? I mean they can have a consensus and still be wrong?

i think ijma and ijtihad in fiqh is one thing but ijma in aqeedah is also used?

Ijma` of the Qudama' [ra] is hujja for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they had way more hadith than we do (we have lost so much) and they used the loads and apparent (obvious) external evidences to authenticate and weaken hadith - they did not do this one-by-one rijal grading thing. Their nearness to the time of the Imams [as] and the earlier fuqaha allowed them to see and notice the tawatur of ideas/beliefs and practices in order to know something is from the Imam [as] himself.

Our idea of ijma` is not that the ijma` itself is proof, rather that the ijma` is indicative of the Imam [as]'s opinion through his Shi`a, khawas companions and the fuqaha of the Imamia who had hadith we do not have.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Isn't the incident itself mutawatir? I mean four or more different chains, regardless of weakness in sanad?

Two instances have been introduced in this thread, and putting aside those in the works of the `aamma, don't we also have other instances in Shi`i literature?

Dar ul Islam

I've noted you've changed your view. Gleaning from the other posts, I am supposing it is because of the isolated instance where `abdullah b sinan is shown narrating from `abdillah b muskan, which I suggest strengthens the conjecture that it is unreliable.

Could you elaborate on your rejection of the second hadith? I have read that the author of al-Ma`aalim, Shaykh Bahai, Mirdamad and al-Majlisayn found it sahih. Whereas you mention tonnes of irsal and tadlis!

(wasalam)

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

(bismillah)

Dar ul Islam

I've noted you've changed your view. Gleaning from the other posts, I am supposing it is because of the isolated instance where `abdullah b sinan is shown narrating from `abdillah b muskan, which I suggest strengthens the conjecture that it is unreliable.

Yes, and Sayed Fadlallah [rh] explained that the naskh on this issue is just "ibn Sinan" which is vague and can be either `Abdullah or Muhammad. And the shawahid chains show that it can only be Muhamamd and not `Abdullah.

Could you elaborate on your rejection of the second hadith? I have read that the author of al-Ma`aalim, Shaykh Bahai, Mirdamad and al-Majlisayn found it sahih. Whereas you mention tonnes of irsal and tadlis!

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

It's a major case of irsal/tadlees. It's not surprising that past scholars have missed this - ittisal and connection of chains has been pretty ignored by our scholars as compared to Sunnis. You can see that there's problems with who is narrating from who based on shawahid chains and their tabaqaat.

Now, it's not just Muhammad b. Yahya [ra] to al-`Amriki [ra]. Although we know his intermediaries, there is one that's majhool (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-`Alwai). Muhammad b. Yaya [ra] is in Tusi's [ra] isnad to Muhamamd b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari's book. So whenever he's narrating from `Amriki, it's coming from al-`Attar [ra] too.

ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Èúäö Úóáöíòø Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Úóäú ÃóÎöíåö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÍóÓóäö Ú ÞóÇá‏

ÃóÎúÈóÑóäöí Èöåö ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö íóÍúíóì Úóäú ÃóÈöíåö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóÍúÈõæÈò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÃóÍúãóÏó ÇáúÚóáóæöíöø Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Úóäú ÃóÎöíåö ãõæÓóì Èúäö ÌóÚúÝóÑò Ú ÞóÇá‏

ó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáÔóøíúÎõ ÈöÅöÓúäóÇÏöåö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóÍúÈõæÈò Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÃóÍúãóÏó Úóäö ÇáúÚóãúÑóßöíöø Úóäú ÕóÝúæóÇäó Èúäö íóÍúíóì Úóäú Úóáöíöø Èúäö ãóØóÑò Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò

ãÍãøÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÈÅÓäÇÏå Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ ÇáÚáæíø (1) ¡ Úä ÇáÚãÑßí ÇáÈæÝßí ¡ Úä Úáí Èä ÌÚÝÑ ¡ Úä ÃÎíå ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã )

Also the issue of al-`Amriki. He's from the same tabaqah as like `Abdullah b. Ja`far al-Himyari [ra], he's a companion of al-`Askari [as] and lived during the minor ghayba. There's really no way for him to narrating from Ali b. Jafar [ra] who died in `Urayd during al-Hadi [as]'s imamah. He does a lot of tadlees, you can find him narrating directly from al-Rida [a] and then one time with just a single intermediary between him an al-Baqir [as]...which can't happen.

Khui says he was a servant al-Jawad [as], but where is that coming from? None of the early rijal books [including al-Hilli and friends] mention this, no one includes him amongst the companions of any other Imam except al-`Askari [as].

...That si why the second one is weak. Tadlees and irsal. The chain is disconnected. I believe Bahr al-`Ulum talks about al-`Amriki and weakens this connection as well.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Points to Note:

1. He says the Sanad is Mu'tabar if it is indeed Abdallah b. Sinan.

2. al-Majlisi is the one who in his recording of the Hadith in Bihar says Ibn Sinan [which is his way of shortening the Sanad, be it Abdallah or Muhammad], but the original source Dalail explicitly contains Abdallah b. Sinan, so al-Majlisi saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar [would be him shortening for Abdallah b. Sinan in this case], so there is no issue of Naskh difference, and of it consequently being Mardud between Abdallah and Muhammad for him to drop it due to the possibility of it being the weak Muhammad.

3. There is no confusion in the Mu'tabar Riwayah present about the incident for him to drop this due to those other Riwayah.

I agree that Muhammad b. Sinan is the one who is known for narrating from Ibn Muskan, this does not prevent Abdallah narrating from him, as they were also contemporaries, and the scholars who consider this Mu'tabar indicate this case for the Ithbat that Abdallah has narrated from Ibn Muskan.

One Hadith you say, well there are many cases of a Thiqah narrating only one Hadith from another Thiqah, examples will follow, Insha Allah.

Yes, and Sayed Fadlallah [rh] explained that the naskh on this issue is just "ibn Sinan" which is vague and can be either `Abdullah or Muhammad. And the shawahid chains show that it can only be Muhamamd and not `Abdullah.

There is no Naskh issue in this, al-Majlisi shortens both Abdallah b. Sinan and Muhammad b. Sinan by saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar, Fadhlallah cannot point this to be a Naskh issue by looking at Bihar, that would be laughable, when we go back to the original source it is unequivocal about it being Abdallah b. Sinan and not Muhammad, so we know what al-Majlisi meant when he says in his chain in Bihar Ibn Sinan, especially as he shortens this for both Abdallah and Muhammad.

The only question is whether Abdallah narrates from Ibn Muskan, we have no Shawahid of this chain in other Hadith, but as has already been said, a Thiqah can narrate just one Hadith from another Thiqah, and that is why there are scholars who agree about I'tibar of the chain.

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

(bismillah)

ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞÉ ÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáãÑÌÚ ÇáÓíÏ ÝÖá Çááå(ÑÖ) ÇáÓäÏ ãÚÊÈÑ ÈäÇÁ Úáì Ãä ÇáÑÇæí ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÓäÇä¡ áßä ÈäÇÁ Úáì ÇáãÕÇÏÑ ÇáÊí ÊÐßÑ (ÇÈä ÓäÇä) Ýåæ ãÑÏÏ Èíä ãÍãÏ æÚÈÏ Çááå¡ æÚäÏ ÓãÇÍÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä áíÓ ãæËÞÇð ßãÇ ÚäÏ ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÎæÆí ÅÖÇÝÉ Åáì ÅÖØÑÇÈ ÇáÑæÇíÇÊ ÇáæÇÑÏÉ Ýí ãÓÃáÉ ÊÚÑÖ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ(Ú) ááÖÑÈ æÅÓÞÇØ ÇáÌäíä

Points to Note:

1. He says the Sanad is Mu'tabar if it is indeed Abdallah b. Sinan.

Yes, that is true.

2. al-Majlisi is the one who in his recording of the Hadith in Bihar says Ibn Sinan [which is his way of shortening the Sanad, be it Abdallah or Muhammad], but the original source Dalail explicitly contains Abdallah b. Sinan, so al-Majlisi saying Ibn Sinan in Bihar [would be him shortening for Abdallah b. Sinan in this case], so there is no issue of Naskh differences and of it consequently being Mardud between Abdallah and Muhammad for him to drop it due to the possibility of it being Muhammad.

Hmm can you show me that the original nusukh explicitly refer to it as Abdullah b.Sinan [ra]? The ones I've seen online are already edited to conform with Bihar.

One Hadith you say, well there are many cases of a Thiqah narrating only one Hadith from another Thiqah, examples will follow, Insha Allah.

I agree that this is possible, but examples of this would be nice. Also examples where narrators switch orders in terms of their usually narration order (like with Ibn Muskan and `Abdullah).

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

salvation

Could you please refer to the mu`tabar Shi`i reports of this incident?

Could you also explain why the qarina that, excepting this case, the b sinan who narrates from b muskan is muhammad b sinan does not give us a reason to believe that the copy of the original source - dalail al imama - did not undergo naskh?

Shukran.

Dar ul Islam

Now, it's not just Muhammad b. Yahya [ra] to al-`Amriki [ra]. Although we know his intermediaries, there is one that's majhool (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-`Alwai). Muhammad b. Yaya [ra] is in Tusi's [ra] isnad to Muhamamd b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari's book. So whenever he's narrating from `Amriki, it's coming from al-`Attar [ra] too.

I didn't understand this section. I would be grateful if you re-explained.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

I didn't understand this section. I would be grateful if you re-explained.

(wasalam)

(wasalam) / (wasalam)

I mean further proof of the irsal between al-`Attar [ra] and al-`Amriki [ra] is that Tusi narrates the Book of Muhammad b. Ahman b. Yahya al-Ash`ari [ra] through al-`Attar and you can find a lot of hadith where it's Muhammad al-Ash`ari to al-`Amriki [ra].

Also, we may say that this tadlees is acceptable because know who al-`Attar's intermediaries are (who are thiqat). But there is an instance where it's a majhul, so it still leaves this a problematic.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

Have I rightly understood: that there are many chains from Shaykh Tusi to al-`ash`ari's Book, where one such chain includes a majhul, such that it becomes unclear whether a particular hadith has come through this chain or another?

If so, how many chains are there altogether connecting Shaykh Tusi and the book?

And is there just one majhul in the class of intermediaries?

Shukran.

Just to add: there is a short old thread defending muhammad b sinan - caution needs to be taken not to let the off-topic discussion affect one's appraisal of both views: http://www.shiachat....mmed-bin-sinan/

(wasalam)

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

Hmm can you show me that the original nusukh explicitly refer to it as Abdullah b.Sinan [ra]? The ones I've seen online are already edited to conform with Bihar.

The only reference that Fadhlullah could give that it could be Muhammad is because the chain in Bihar contains Ibn Sinan, [and we know that al-Majlisi shortens this in Bihar for both Abdallah and Muhammad], as for Dalail itself it contains 'Abdallah'.

And 'Abdallah' is what is present in the edition of Dalail al-Imamah published by Maktaba al-Haydariyya and others citing Nuskha of the book [without going through Bihar].

And note that at-Tabariy narrates it twice in Dalail, each time saying 'Abdallah b. Sinan'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dar ul Islam

Have I rightly understood: that there are many chains from Shaykh Tusi to al-`ash`ari's Book, where one such chain includes a majhul, such that it becomes unclear whether a particular hadith has come through this chain or another?

If so, how many chains are there altogether connecting Shaykh Tusi and the book?

And is there just one majhul in the class of intermediaries?

Shukran.

(wasalam)

(wasalam) / (wasalam)

No, there is the 1 tareeq to the book from Tusi that goes through Muhammad b. Yahya al-`Attar [ra]. Then there are other random hadith from the other compilers that have Muhammad b. Yayha al-`Attar narrating to al-`Amriki [ra] through that majhul intermediary.

And at other times you see that Muhammad b. Yahya is narrating directly to al-`Amriki. So you can see the tadlees. Sometimes you'll even find that there are 2 intermediaries between al-`Attar and al-`Amriki, al-Ash`ari and Muhammad b. Ali b. Mahbub.

Just to add: there is a short old thread defending muhammad b sinan - caution needs to be taken not to let the off-topic discussion affect one's appraisal of both views: http://www.shiachat....mmed-bin-sinan/

I've read this thread and Muhammad b. Sinan is weak and the arguments to his praise are weak and against the biggest of our scholars in jarh and ta`deel. Also, if I recall, one of the hadith praising him is from Ahmad b. Hilal, the ex Imami nasibi. His narrations that are weird and against others are put aside, iirc, and attributed to after his leaving the Imamia into nasb.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So what you are saying is that someone cannot narrate from another directly and also with intermediaries without it being a case of Tadlis?

We have examples of people who stopped narrating from others except through a Wasita for accuracy and other reasons, like they were away and came back.

Or the author died, and they went through his other students to get other Ahadith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

So what you are saying is that someone cannot narrate from another directly and also with intermediaries without it being a case of Tadlis?

We have examples of people who stopped narrating from others except through a Wasita for accuracy and other reasons, like they were away and came back.

Or the author died, and they went through his other students to get other Ahadith.

Excellent, can you bring examples akhi?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Excellent, can you bring examples akhi?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

A good example is an-Najashi in his Tarjama of Abi al-Mufadhal ash-Shaybani, he says about him:

ßÇä ÓÇÝÑ Ýí ØáÈ ÇáÍÏíË ÚãÑå¡ ÃÕáå ßæÝí¡ æßÇä Ýí Ãæá ÃãÑå ËÈÊÇ Ëã ÎáØ¡ æÑÃíÊ Ìá ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ íÛãÒæäå æíÖÚÝæäå¡ áå ßÊÈ ßËíÑÉ...¡ ÑÃíÊ åÐÇ ÇáÔíÎ æÓãÚÊ ãäå ßËíÑÇ¡ Ëã ÊæÞÝÊ Úä ÇáÑæÇíÉ ÅáÇ ÈæÇÓØÉ Èíäí æÈíäå

He used to travel alot in finding the Ahadith all his life, his origin is Kufah, and he was in his earlier period firm (thabit), then he made mistakes [changed], and I saw a majority of our companions talking about him and weakening him, he has a lot of books, ......, I saw this Shaykh and heard from him alot [many Ahadith], then I stopped narrating from him except with a Wasita between me and him.

The Mutahaqiqin from the scholars say that the reason for an-Najashi choosing to narrate from him with a Wasita is so that he could access the Ahadith of this Shaykh of his when he was in his period of firmness, unless otherwise presently the man had changed.

Now you could find Ahadith [even though we do not have an-Najashi's collections] where an-Najashi narrated directly from him and others with a Wasita, this is not Tadlis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

But isn't there a large gap between al-`Attar and al-`Amriki anyway? What tabaqah are they in respectively?

What about al-`Amriki [ra] connection to Ali b. Jafar [ra]? I don't know if that can be established. Khui claims he was a servant al-Jawad [as], but where did that come from?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I have not found out exactly whether it is possible for al-Attar to narrate from al-Amriki or not, and how far in terms of a gap there exists between them, it is true what you say about us not having sufficient info. about matters of Ittisal, but, we have to tread with caution.

You can have cases of limited interaction, especially when one is young and is meeting a Shaykh in his old age and so could take only a few Ahadith from him, and the rest of his Ahadith from him would be through Wasita, example:

ÞÇá ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÚÈíÏÇááå ÑÍãå Çááå ÌÆÊ ÈÇáãäÊÎÈÇÊ Åáì ÃÈí ÇáÞÇÓã Èä Þæáæíå ÑÍãå Çááå ÃÞÑÇåÇ Úáíå ÝÞáÊ : ÍÏËß ÓÚÏ ¡ ÝÞÇá : áÇ ¡ Èá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí æÃÎí Úäå æ ÃäÇ áã ÃÓãÚ ãä ÓÚÏ ÅáÇ ÍÏíËíä

an-Najashi quotes al-Husayn b. Ubaydullah (al-Ghadhairi) may Allah have mercy on him saying: I came with the Muntakhabat (collection) to Abi al-Qasim bin Qulawayh [Ja'far b. Muhammad - Sahib Kamil az-Ziyarat] may Allah have mercy on him so as to read it out to him [i.e so he can permit me its narration], so I said to him: has Sa'ad [b. Abdallah] narrated to you [i.e. directly], so he said: No, but my father and brother narrated on his authority to me, and I did not hear from Sa'ad except two Ahadith [i.e. directly].

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

(bismillah)

But isn't there a large gap between al-`Attar and al-`Amriki anyway? What tabaqah are they in respectively?

What about al-`Amriki [ra] connection to Ali b. Jafar [ra]? I don't know if that can be established. Khui claims he was a servant al-Jawad [as], but where did that come from?

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

If you look in terms of the paths of an-Najashi to his [al-Amriki's] two books, then I find this not impossible at all.

áå ßÊÇÈ ÇáãáÇÍã¡ ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÞÒæíäí¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÅÏÑíÓ¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇáÚáæí¡ Úä ÇáÚãÑßí¡ æáå ßÊÇÈ äæÇÏÑ¡

ÃÎÈÑäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÔÇÐÇä¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ¡ Úäå¡ Èå

in the first path to his Kitab al-Malahim - Ahmad b. Idris [who is in the same Tabaqa as Muhammad b. Yahya as a Shaykh of al-Kulayni] narrates from him with one Wasita [i.e. al-Alawiy] in between.

in the second path to his Kitab an-Nawadir - Abdallah b. Ja'far [al-Himyari] [who is in the same Tabaqa as Muhammad b. Yahya as a Shaykh of al-Kulayni] narrates from him directly.

al-Khui does not say that he was a Khadim to Abu Ja'far II, rather it is Yahya from whom al-Amriki narrates a Hadith in Kamil az-Ziyarat who was in the Khidma of Abu Ja'far II.

Ñæì (ÇáÚãÑßí) Úä íÍíì¡ æßÇä Ýí ÎÏãÉ ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáËÇäí Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã¡ æÑæì Úäå ÃÍãÏ Èä ÅÏÑíÓ¡ æãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì. ßÇãá ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ: ÇáÈÇÈ 28¡ Ýí ÈßÇÁ ÇáÓãÇÁ æÇáÃÑÖ Úáì ÇáÍÓíä æíÍíì ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã¡ ÇáÍÏíË 18

The Ruju' of the Dhamir of 'wa kana fi khidma .. ' above is to Yahya.

In it, Ja'far b. Muhammad narrates from his father (Muhammad b. Qulawayh) AND his brother (Ali b. Muhammad b. Qulawayh) from Ahmad b. Idris AND Muhammad b. Yahya from al-Amriki b. Ali from Yahya - who was in the Khidma of Abu Ja'far II - from Ali from Safwan al-Jammal from Abi Abdallah.

Therefore, looking at this I say that the teachers of al-Kulayni do narrate from al-Amriki directly and at times with one Wasita, therefore, Muhammad b. Yahya as a teacher of al-Kulayni can narrate from him too.

Let us remember that narrating directly once and with Wasita at other times is not the only requirement for calling it a case of Tadlis.

Having said that, the gap between al-Amriki and Ali b. Ja'far is quite long, and needs research to ascertain.

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

(bismillah)

Interesting. al-Himyari and al-Saffar ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåãÇ are from the same Tabaqah, as in Muhammad b. Yahya al-`Attar ÑÖí Çááå Úäå. It wouldn't be problematic for him to be narrating directly from al-`Amriki ÑÖ.

Also, I was looking at al-Himyari's ÑÖ chains to Ali b. Ja`far ÑÍãå Çááå and there seems to only be 1 narrator between them:

[627] 5 Ü ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ Ýí ( ÞÑÈ ÇáÅÓäÇÏ ): Úä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáÚáæí¡ Úä ÌÏå Úáí Èä ÌÚÝÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞÇá: ÓÃáÊå Úä ÇáÚÞÑÈ¡ æÇáÎäÝÓÇÁ¡ æÃÔÈÇååä¡ ÊãæÊ Ýí ÇáÌÑÉ¡ Ãæ ÇáÏäø (1)¡ íÊæÖøà ãäå ááÕáÇÉ¿ ÞÇá: áÇ ÈÃÓ Èå.

And since Muhammad b. Yahya ÑÍãå Çááå is in the same Tabaqah as al-Himyari Ñå, it would be normal to only have 1 narrator between him and `Ali b. Ja`far ÑÖ who lived to be like a hundred and died during imamah of al-Hadi Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.

Also, al-`Amriki ÑÖ would be in the same tabaqah as Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd al-Yaqtini ÑÍãå Çááå (from the mashayikh of al-Saffar) and there's only 1 person between him and al-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (Yunus b. `Abdurrahman ÑÖ).

Also, I think al-Najashi''s ÑÖí Çááå Úäå tarahhum may be definite tahseen or tawtheeq - he seems to give it to his mashayikh (thiqat) and to big big people like Aban b. Taghlib ÑÖí Çááå Úäå. Hmm...

This would make both hadith saheeh.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

BarakAllah beek for your research brother Dar'ul_Islam, very enlightening indeed.

1 – The historians (non-Shi`a) narrate this incident in various places & this is a public event, difficult to fabricate about in comparison to closed-door conversations

2 – Her [as] grave is unknown and it is undeniable that she died angry with the Shaykhayn

3 – No reason is posited for her death aside from this and she died at a very young age

4 – The non-Shi`a have accused the Shi`a of this belief and idea from long time coming

5 - `Umar’s personality & lack of restraint is well known

…list goes on

I think you may have forgotten to state there that the only other reason posited for her death aside from that is she died of grief - this begs the question: is it fitting that an infallible out of the 14 will grieve to a suicidal extent? given the amount of patience & perseverance they have?

Edited by ßÑíã
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...