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

Istithnaa' From Nawadir Al-Hikmah

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Nawadir al-Hikmah was a mashhoor and reliable book compiled by the esteemed Qummi Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash`ari. This is his tarjima in Najashi’s Fihirist:

محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران بن عبد الله بن سعد بن مالك الاشعري القمي أبو جعفر، كان ثقة في الحديث. إلا أن أصحابنا قالوا: كان يروي عن الضعفاء ويعتمد المراسيل ولا يبالى عمن أخذ وما عليه في نفسه مطعن في شئ وكان محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد يستثنى من رواية محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى ما رواه عن

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. Imra b. Abdullah b. Sa`d b. Maalik al-Ash`ari al-Qummi, Abu Ja`far, He was reliable in hadith except that our companions said: He was narrating from dhu`afaa’ (weak narrators) and he was depending on maraseel and he did not care from whom he took from and there no accusations against him personally in anything. And Ibn al-Waleed excised from Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya’s narrations that which he narrated from…

Then Najashi proceeds to give the list of persons that Ibn al-Waleed removed from Nawadir al-Hikmah, here is the list:

Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani

“A man”

“Some of our Companions”

Muhamamd b. Yahya al-Mu`aadhi

Abi `Abdillah al-Razi al-Jaamoorani

Abi `Abdillah al-Sayyari

Yusuf b. al-Sakht

Wahb b. Manbah

Abi `Ali al-Nishaburi

Abi Yahya al-Wasiti

Muhammad b. Abi `Ali, Abu Sameena

“In a hadith”

“A book” and he didn’t bring it forward

Sahl b. Ziyad al-Aadami

Muhammad b. Isa b. Ubayd through a broken chain

Ahmad b. Hilal

Musa b. Ali al-Hamadani

`Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Shami

`Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Razi

Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. Sa`eed

Ahmad b. Basheer al-Raqqi

Muhammad b. Harun

Mamuwayh b. Ma`roof

Muhammad b. `Abdullah b. Mahraan

al-Hasan b. a-Husayn al-Lu’lui’s lone narrations

Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Malik

Yusuf b. al-Haarith

`Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Dimishqi

al-Tusi pretty much says the same thing in the tarjima, quotes Saduq [ra], he has 1 extra name on that list:

al-Haytham b. `Addi

Najashi goes on to say that Abul `Abbas b. Nuh – one of his big Mashayikh – and Saduq agreed with Ibn al-Waleed in this and follow him on it, except Ibn Nuh disputed Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd and “does not know what he [ibn al-Waleed] saw in him” because according to Ibn Nuh is upon “clear `adalah and withaqah.”

The mashhoor opinion is that everyone who was removed from Nawadir by Ibn al-Waleed [ra] is weak, arguments say that due to what Ibn Nuh [ra] is disputing about al-`Ubaydi and that they mention this removal in the taraajim of weakened narrators, it shows that they were weak in the eyes of Ibn al-Waleed.

However, it is arguable to say that this isn't necessarily true and that some of these people are just majhool. Firstly, al-`Ubaydi’s removal and weakening is found in other places in Saduq’s works, quoting Ibn al-Waleed as well, so his tadheef is not solely relied upon here. They explicitly call him weak, also.

Some of the Excised individuals, who are indeed weakened, have no mention of this excision as part of that weakening, for example:

Najashi on Ahmad b. Hilal:

أحمد بن هلال أبو جعفر العبرتائي صالح الرواية، يعرف منها وينكر، وقد روى فيه ذموم من سيدنا أبى محمد العسكري عليه السلام. ولا أعرف له إلا كتاب يوم وليلة، وكتاب نوادر ... قال أبو علي بن همام: ولد أحمد بن هلال سنة ثمانين ومائة ومات سنة سبع و ستين ومائتين

Ahmad b. Hilal, Abu Jafar al-`Ibartaa’I, Righteous narration, some from them are recognized and some rejected and it is narrated regarding him defaming from Our Master Abi Muhammad al-`Askari [ra] and I do not know of his except the Book of A Day and a Night and a Book of Nawadir…[chains to books]… Abu `Ali b. Hamaam said: Ahmad b. Hilal was born in the year 186 and died in the year 267.

أحمد بن محمد بن سيار أبو عبد الله الكاتب، بصري، كان من كتاب ال طاهر في زمن أبي محمد عليه السلام. ويعرف بالسياري، ضعيف الحديث، فاسد المذهب، ذكر ذلك لنا الحسين بن عبيدالله. مجفو الرواية، كثير المراسيل... إلا ما كان من غلو وتخليط.

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sayyaar, Abu `Abdullah, the Correspondent, Basran, He was from the book of Aali Taahir in the time of Abi Muhammad [as] and he is known by al-Sayyari, weak hadith, deviant sect, al-Husayn b. Ubaydallah mentioned to us rough narration(?) and many maraseel… [chains to books]…[receiving them] except what was from exaggerations and confusion.

These are the two examples I’m showing for brevity. Tusi mentions Ibn Hilal as well (nothing in Fihirist, as a ghali in his Rijal) but no reference to Nawadir. He makes comment elsewhere about not taking his infiraad, but that’s what the Qudama did regarding people of non-Imami mathhab. He says almost verbatim the same thing about al-Sayyari in his fihirist, nothing about him in Rijal.

Some people, they actually strengthen, aside from those Tusi references himself as a disagreement.

Najashi

محمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني روى عن أبيه عن جده عن الرضا عليه السلام. وروى إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمذاني، عن الرضا عليه السلام... وكيل الناحية، و أبوه وكيل الناحية، وجده علي وكيل الناحية، وجد أبيه إبراهيم بن محمد وكيل [ الناحية]

Muhammad b. Ali b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Hamadani, narrated fromhis father from his grandfather from al-Rida [as]. And narrated Ibrahim b. Hashim from Ibrahim . Muhammad al-Hamadani from Rida [as]… Wakeel of the locality [for the Imam], his father was a wakeel and his gradfather, and his father’s grandfather was a wakeel.

So Najashi makes no reference to this narrator's removal from Nawadir as any form of weakening and instead mention his Wukalah from the Imam. Najash is either strengthening him due to his wukalah or just mention random facts and leaving him majhool (depends on your imaraat). Tusi just weakens him with no commentary, Ghada’iri say he is “yu`raf wa yunkar” and narrates from Dhu`afaa and relied on Maraseel - no reference to Nawadir.

الحسن بن الحسين اللؤلؤي كوفي ثقة كثير الرواية له كتاب مجموع نوادر.

al-Hasan b. al-Husayn al-Lu’lu’i, Kufi, Thiqah, many narrations, he has a book of compiled Nawadir

So Najashi gives him tawtheeq, explicitly! No mention of disagreement here, as would be possible given the tarjima of al-`Ubaydi. Tusi mentions this person, says Saduq [ra] weakened him, though no reference to Nawadir like he does for al-`Ubaydi.

The Majaheel

Yusuf b. al-Sakht – no mention in both Fihirist, mentioned in Rijal Tusi only commenting on who he narrated from/to

Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Shami – only mentioned in Rijal as narrating by al-Ash`ari

Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Razi – muhmal

Yusuf b. al-Harith – mentioned in Rijal as a butri

Haytham b. `Addi – just mentioned in rijal as narrated by al-Ash`ari

There are many examples of where one of the two leaves them without commentary, but the other says something. This is also indicative that removal from the Nawadir was not always seen as a sign of weakening.

According to some `ulemaa, the non-excision and removal from Nawadir al-Hikmah is a sign of withaqah upon the opinion of Ibn al-Waleed. Sh. Muslim al-Daawiri [ha] has a good bahth on this subject.

The first few things people say in response to this imarah are:

- He removed Dhu`afaa, he may have left majaheel

- The Qudamaa’ believed in Asaalat al-`Adaalah

- Tasheeh of books by the Qudama is upon qara’in

The first point I addressed above, some of the people removed from Nawadir are majhool, not everyone removed has been marked as weak, some even strengthened. Also, in the case of being majhool, Ibn al-Waleed also removed forms of irsal and ibhaam (things like “a man” or “from some of our companions”) – which in principle is the same as jahaalah, although viewed as irsal. The information about Ibn al-Waleed removing these doesn’t even specify them all as weak people, and al-Ash`ari not caring from who he took from implies jahalaat and dh`if.

It is not established that the Qudamaa’ believed in asaalat al-`adaalah. Khui [ra], and his students who followed him on this, are working off a “possibility.” Many scholars put aside this accusation as untrue for many reasons, such as the known and recorded legacy of the Qudamaa’ and the extremeness of the Qummis in rijal and finding `adalah of narrators, etc. (Dawiri [ha] also has a good bahth on this when discussing Saduq’s al-Faqeeh). Another point that was brought forward by someone is when the chain would narrate from “a group of our companions.” This is a wording indicative of the unnamed person(s) to be Imami/Shi`i – if they believed in the asaalat, why excise them and remove their narrations? The Qudamaa' also labeled riwayah from Majaheel has a type of discrediting - so how would they all just depend on them themselves? A few taraajim regarding this for example:

جعفر بن محمد بن مالك: قال النجاشي: «كوفي، أبو عبد الله، كان ضعيفاً في الحديث. قال أحمد بن الحسين: كان يضع الحديث وضعاً ويروي عن المجاهيل

Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Malik: Najashi said: Kufi, Abu Abdullah, he is weak in hadith, Ahmad b. al-Husayn said: He was fabricating hadith a fabricating (emphatic grammar) and narrating from majaheel.

Bakr b. Ahmad b. Ibrahim b. Ziyad

وقال ابن الغَضائري: «يروي الغَرائب، ويعتمد المجاهيل، وأمره مُظْلَم»

and Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri said: He narrates strange narrations and he depended on Majaheel, his affair is dark.

قال ابن الغضائري: (كان ضعيفاً جداً، فاسد الرواية والمذهب، وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى الأشعري أخرجه من قم، وأظهر البراءة منه، ونهى الناس عن السماع منه والرواية، ويروي عن المراسيل، ويعتمد المجاهيل) (2).

Sahl b. Ziyad

Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri said: He was very weak, fasid narration and madthhab and Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa al-Ash`ari expelled him from Qum and made clear his baraa'ah from him and he forbad the people form hearing and narrating from him, he narrated maraseel and depended on majaheel

The final point is about the Qudamaa’ using the external evidences (al-qara’in al-khaarijiyya) to accept narrations. Saduq [ra] made tasheeh of the book. It is far to say the tasheeh was based upon Qara’in as the book was already going through rijal filtering by Ibn al-Waleed. Also, if the contents of these narrations were the point of tasheeh for this book, why remove all these majaheel and dhu`afaa WITH their narrations absolutely? Tasheeh can be made and narrations filtered without necessitating rijal by the Qudamaa, as is witnessed with Saduq’s al-Faqih – he leaves a lot of famous weak people but accepts their narrations as supporting qara’in, like Sahl b. Ziyad.

Actually, you can open up Tahtheeb al-Ahkam and find some of the narrations that Ibn al-Waleed [ra] has removed with those same narrators. This is because Tusi [ra] received the book from different turuq apart from passing through Ibn al-Waleed. In these narrations you can find things that are 100% unproblematic and there would be no reason to remove such a narration from Nawadir, even if dhi`f of a Rawi was one qareena to the Qudamaa, as exampled from the inclusion of dhu`afaa narrations in their other filtered works. Here is an example:

وعنه عن محمد بن عبد الله ابن أحمد عن الحسن بن علي ابن أبي عثمان - وأبو عثمان اسمه عبد الواحد بن حبيب - قال: زعم لنا محمد بن أبي حمزة الثمالي عن معاوية بن عمار الدهني عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: صلاة الليل تحسن الوجه وتذهب الهم وتجلو البصر.

…. From Abi `Abdillah (as) he said: The prayer of the night beautifies the face, drives away worries, and sharpens vision

Even if dhu`afaa is just one qareena for the Qudamaa, it is strange that they would even remove such unproblematic narrations as the above HERE but not in other works (like al-Faqeeh) that are unproblematic, but still narrated by dhu`afaa or majaheel – unless this book was authenticated on the basis of rijal only and putting aside Qara’in in this instance.

So these are some insights and reason why some `ulemaa accept those not removed from Nawadir as a imarah of tawtheeq and I think it is a logical and reliable argument, putting aside extreme cynicism.

والله أعلم

All correct and good things here are from Allah, and all mistakes are my own.

Allah [swt] have mercy and forgive us, especially our `ulemaa who give their lives in His cause.

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Chatroom Moderators

This is not one of your more coherently-written posts.

The mashhoor opinion is that everyone who was removed from Nawadir by Ibn al-Waleed [ra] is weak, arguments say that due to what Ibn Nuh [ra] is disputing about al-`Ubaydi and that they mention this removal in the taraajim of weakened narrators, it shows that they were weak in the eyes of Ibn al-Waleed.

However, it is arguable to say that this isn't necessarily true and that some of these people are just majhool. Firstly, al-`Ubaydi’s removal and weakening is found in other places in Saduq’s works, quoting Ibn al-Waleed as well, so his tadheef is not solely relied upon here. They explicitly call him weak, also.

Some of the Excised individuals, who are indeed weakened, have no mention of this excision as part of that weakening, for example:

What does it matter if a person is weakened without mentioning their removal from Nawadir, or that it is not listed amongst the reasons for their weakening? Neither Tusi nor Najashi's books can be considered comprehensive. Nor does the weakening have to be based on Ibn al-Walid's removal; i.e. is a narrator weak because Ibn al-Walid removed him from Nawadir or did Ibn al-Walid remove him because he is weak?

Najashi on Ahmad b. Hilal:

أحمد بن هلال أبو جعفر العبرتائي صالح الرواية، يعرف منها وينكر، وقد روى فيه ذموم من سيدنا أبى محمد العسكري عليه السلام. ولا أعرف له إلا كتاب يوم وليلة، وكتاب نوادر ... قال أبو علي بن همام: ولد أحمد بن هلال سنة ثمانين ومائة ومات سنة سبع و ستين ومائتين

Ahmad b. Hilal, Abu Jafar al-`Ibartaa’I, Righteous narration, some from them are recognized and some rejected and it is narrated regarding him defaming from Our Master Abi Muhammad al-`Askari [ra] and I do not know of his except the Book of A Day and a Night and a Book of Nawadir…[chains to books]… Abu `Ali b. Hamaam said: Ahmad b. Hilal was born in the year 186 and died in the year 267.[...]Tusi mentions Ibn Hilal as well (nothing in Fihirist, as a ghali in his Rijal) but no reference to Nawadir. He makes comment elsewhere about not taking his infiraad, but that’s what the Qudama did regarding people of non-Imami mathhab.

Why would it be necessary to mention his removal from Nawadir? He is clearly weak. There are the words of Saduq in Kamal, and Tusi's words in Tahdhib v9 p205:

فَأَوَّلُ مَا فِي هَذَا الْخَبَرِ أَنَّهُ ضَعِيفُ الْإِسْنَادِ جِدّاً لِأَنَّ رُوَاتَهُ كُلَّهُمْ مَطْعُونٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَ خَاصَّةً صَاحِبُ التَّوْقِيعِ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ هِلَالٍ فَإِنَّهُ مَشْهُورٌ بِالْغُلُوِّ وَ اللَّعْنَةِ وَ مَا يَخْتَصُّ بِرِوَايَتِهِ لَا نَعْمَلُ عَلَيْه‏

“First of all, this narration is very weak in its chain, because all the narrators have been criticized, especially sahib al-tawqee’ Ahmad bin Hilal, for his is infamous for his ghuluww and him being cursed, and what he narrates alone we do not act upon, and

Kamal p76:

وهذا الخبر لا يوجب أنه لم يعرف ، على أن راوي هذا الخبر أحمد بن هلال ( 1 ) وهو مجروح عند مشايخنا - رضي الله عنهم - . 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 التشيع إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال ، وكانوا يقولون : إن ما تفرد بروايته أحمد بن هلال فلا يجوز استعماله ،

And this narration does not say that Zurarah was not having recognition of the Imam. Moreover, the narrator of this report is Ahmad bin Hilal and this person is not reliable in the view of our senior scholars.

Narrated to us our teacher, Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ahmad bin Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: I heard Saad bin Abdullah say: Neither we have seen or heard about any Shia person leaving the Shia faith and adopting Nasibi beliefs, except for Ahmad bin Hilal. And they used to say: it is not lawful to use a traditional report narrated solely by Ahmad bin Hilal.

If you reply mentioning Najashi's "salih ar-riwayah", I will point out that it is irrelevant as this is not about whether we are to act on his narrations or not. There is strong jarh mufassir here that Ibn Hilal is weak, and so Ibn al-Walid removed him from Nawadir. Why then would anyone need to mention his removal from Nawadir as a reason for his weakness?

أحمد بن محمد بن سيار أبو عبد الله الكاتب، بصري، كان من كتاب ال طاهر في زمن أبي محمد عليه السلام. ويعرف بالسياري، ضعيف الحديث، فاسد المذهب، ذكر ذلك لنا الحسين بن عبيدالله. مجفو الرواية، كثير المراسيل... إلا ما كان من غلو وتخليط.

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Sayyaar, Abu `Abdullah, the Correspondent, Basran, He was from the book of Aali Taahir in the time of Abi Muhammad [as] and he is known by al-Sayyari, weak hadith, deviant sect, al-Husayn b. Ubaydallah mentioned to us rough narration(?) and many maraseel… [chains to books]…[receiving them] except what was from exaggerations and confusion.

Again, I don't see what point you're trying to prove here.

Some people, they actually strengthen, aside from those Tusi references himself as a disagreement.

Najashi

محمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني روى عن أبيه عن جده عن الرضا عليه السلام. وروى إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمذاني، عن الرضا عليه السلام... وكيل الناحية، و أبوه وكيل الناحية، وجده علي وكيل الناحية، وجد أبيه إبراهيم بن محمد وكيل [ الناحية]

Muhammad b. Ali b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Hamadani, narrated fromhis father from his grandfather from al-Rida [as]. And narrated Ibrahim b. Hashim from Ibrahim . Muhammad al-Hamadani from Rida [as]… Wakeel of the locality [for the Imam], his father was a wakeel and his gradfather, and his father’s grandfather was a wakeel.

So Najashi makes no reference to this narrator's removal from Nawadir as any form of weakening and instead mention his Wukalah from the Imam. Najash is either strengthening him due to his wukalah or just mention random facts and leaving him majhool (depends on your imaraat). Tusi just weakens him with no commentary, Ghada’iri say he is “yu`raf wa yunkar” and narrates from Dhu`afaa and relied on Maraseel - no reference to Nawadir.

...So? There are people who have no tawthiq or tadh`if in Najashi and Tusi's rijal books but have tawthiq or tadhi`f elsewhere. Or sometimes one will mention facts and jarh/ta`dil that the other does not. The two shaykhs' books are not comprehensive.

الحسن بن الحسين اللؤلؤي كوفي ثقة كثير الرواية له كتاب مجموع نوادر.

al-Hasan b. al-Husayn al-Lu’lu’i, Kufi, Thiqah, many narrations, he has a book of compiled Nawadir

So Najashi gives him tawtheeq, explicitly! No mention of disagreement here, as would be possible given the tarjima of al-`Ubaydi. Tusi mentions this person, says Saduq [ra] weakened him, though no reference to Nawadir like he does for al-`Ubaydi.

Sometimes Najashi and Tusi clash without saying that there is a clash. So there is no necessity for Nawadir to be mentioned. I am sure that you know that Najashi did not agree with every jarh from Ibn al-Walid. It is quite possible that Najashi considered him thiqa and ibn al-Walid considered him dha`if.

The Majaheel

Yusuf b. al-Sakht – no mention in both Fihirist, mentioned in Rijal Tusi only commenting on who he narrated from/to

Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Shami – only mentioned in Rijal as narrating by al-Ash`ari

Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Razi – muhmal

Yusuf b. al-Harith – mentioned in Rijal as a butri

Haytham b. `Addi – just mentioned in rijal as narrated by al-Ash`ari

They may be majhul to us now, but they may have been dha`if to Ibn al-Walid.

There are many examples of where one of the two leaves them without commentary, but the other says something. This is also indicative that removal from the Nawadir was not always seen as a sign of weakening.

Not really.

What was the point of him removing stuff then? Did he randomly decide to remove thiqat too?

According to some `ulemaa, the non-excision and removal from Nawadir al-Hikmah is a sign of withaqah upon the opinion of Ibn al-Waleed. Sh. Muslim al-Daawiri [ha] has a good bahth on this subject.

The first few things people say in response to this imarah are:

- He removed Dhu`afaa, he may have left majaheel

- The Qudamaa’ believed in Asaalat al-`Adaalah

- Tasheeh of books by the Qudama is upon qara’in

The first point I addressed above, some of the people removed from Nawadir are majhool, not everyone removed has been marked as weak, some even strengthened. Also, in the case of being majhool, Ibn al-Waleed also removed forms of irsal and ibhaam (things like “a man” or “from some of our companions”) – which in principle is the same as jahaalah, although viewed as irsal.

This is not logical.

It is easily countered. For example, a narrator may be majhul today, but dha`if for Ibn al-Walid.

Also, "a man" or "some of our companions" is not an irsal issue. It is an issue of the ruwat being majahil.

The information about Ibn al-Waleed removing these doesn’t even specify them all as weak people, and al-Ash`ari not caring from who he took from implies jahalaat and dh`if.

As for the named ruwat, we do not know if they are weak or unknown for Ibn al-Walid.

As for the "a man" or "from companions", they are mubham, not majhul, and the former is weaker. One can say Ibn al-Walid removed the weak and mubham narrators, but left the majhul narrators.

It is not established that the Qudamaa’ believed in asaalat al-`adaalah. Khui [ra], and his students who followed him on this, are working off a “possibility.” Many scholars put aside this accusation as untrue for many reasons, such as the known and recorded legacy of the Qudamaa’ and the extremeness of the Qummis in rijal and finding `adalah of narrators, etc. (Dawiri [ha] also has a good bahth on this when discussing Saduq’s al-Faqeeh). Another point that was brought forward by someone is when the chain would narrate from “a group of our companions.” This is a wording indicative of the unnamed person(s) to be Imami/Shi`i – if they believed in the asaalat, why excise them and remove their narrations? The Qudamaa' also labeled riwayah from Majaheel has a type of discrediting - so how would they all just depend on them themselves? A few taraajim regarding this for example:

Ibn al-Walid does not have to be in asalat al-adalah in order to leave majahil in Nawadir.

Also, in those tarajim, the ruwat are known to narrate a lot from weak or unknown people. Even the Qummis narrated from weak and unknown people sometimes. For example, Sad al-Ashari reports from Sahl.

Saduq [ra] made tasheeh of the book.

Source?

It is far to say the tasheeh was based upon Qara’in as the book was already going through rijal filtering by Ibn al-Waleed. Also, if the contents of these narrations were the point of tasheeh for this book, why remove all these majaheel and dhu`afaa WITH their narrations absolutely?[....]

Can you prove what is from Nawadir and what is not today? I doubt it. Btw, Walid couldn't do it with Farid in their debate on Ibrahim.

Give me an example of a rawi who has been made thiqa by this.

WS.

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

(bismillah)

I won't be responding to every single point/section of your post and much of it is repeated arguments/information from what is before it/related it to.

What does it matter if a person is weakened without mentioning their removal from Nawadir, or that it is not listed amongst the reasons for their weakening? Neither Tusi nor Najashi's books can be considered comprehensive. Nor does the weakening have to be based on Ibn al-Walid's removal; i.e. is a narrator weak because Ibn al-Walid removed him from Nawadir or did Ibn al-Walid remove him because he is weak?

My point here is that there is no proof to say that Ibn al-Waleed removed these people from Nawadir al-Hikmah because they are weak or liars. We have a few options to speculate when thinking about why these people were removed and what kinds of people did he remove:

1. He removed Dhu`afaa’ only

2. He removed dhua`faa’ and majaheel

3. He removed people erroneously – even thiqat/`adul

4. He only removed majaheel

(I am putting aside mabhoomeen from this list).

Number 3 we can throw out without much of a fuss – unless someone would accuse Ibn al-Waleed of such a thing. We can rule out Number 4 by looking at al-Najashi’s comments (Ibn Nuh’s) about Muhammad b. Isa b. Ubayd that this is a weak person removed and this person was removed due to his weakness. So we are left with option #1 and #2.

Why would it be necessary to mention his removal from Nawadir? He is clearly weak….If you reply mentioning Najashi's "salih ar-riwayah", I will point out that it is irrelevant as this is not about whether we are to act on his narrations or not. There is strong jarh mufassir here that Ibn Hilal is weak, and so Ibn al-Walid removed him from Nawadir. Why then would anyone need to mention his removal from Nawadir as a reason for his weakness?

The point about mentioning the narrator’s removal from Nawadir is to identify why Ibn al-Waleed removed that list of people. Tusi and Najashi may have weakened these narrators for reasons other than Ibn al-Waleed/Saduq’s weakening by seeing he was removed from Nawadir.

...So? There are people who have no tawthiq or tadh`if in Najashi and Tusi's rijal books but have tawthiq or tadhi`f elsewhere. Or sometimes one will mention facts and jarh/ta`dil that the other does not. The two shaykhs' books are not comprehensive.

This actually proves my point. With the list of narrators that Ibn al-Waleed excised from the book, the rijal left majhool cannot be majhool to them if Ibn al-Waleed only removed dhu`afaa. If it was known and recognized that he removed these narrators due to weakness, then it is illogical and senseless for them to be left majhool because they know who he removed and they have this information at their disposal.

They may be majhul to us now, but they may have been dha`if to Ibn al-Walid.

They cannot be majhool to us if the reason for Ibn al-Waleed [ra]’s removal was because the narrator in question is weak according to him.

This is not logical.

It is easily countered. For example, a narrator may be majhul today, but dha`if for Ibn al-Walid.

Also, "a man" or "some of our companions" is not an irsal issue. It is an issue of the ruwat being majahil.

Please see above, they cannot be majhool if their removal was due to weakness by Ibn al-Waleed. And that is my point exactly regarding mabhoomeen – the essence of that sort of weakness is jahaalat of a narrator. If Ibn al-Waleed is removing mabhoomeen (who's essence is being uknown and therefore weak chain) it behooves to remove other majaheel (named ones) due to their weakening of the isnaad from being unknown.

Ibn al-Walid does not have to be in asalat al-adalah in order to leave majahil in Nawadir.

It is logically necessary to conclude the exclusion of Majaheel if we admit Tasheeh of the book, Tasheeh not from Qara'in, and no belief in asaalat al-`adaalah.

Source?

وجميع ما فيه مستخرج من كتب مشهورة، عليها المعول وإليها المرجع، مثل كتاب حريز بن عبد الله السجستاني (2) وكتاب عبيد الله بن علي الحلبي (3) وكتب على بن مهزيار الاهوازي (4)، وكتب الحسين بن سعيد (5)، ونوادر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى (6) وكتاب نوادر الحكمة ...

Al-Faqeeh

Can you prove what is from Nawadir and what is not today? I doubt it. Btw, Walid couldn't do it with Farid in their debate on Ibrahim.

Give me an example of a rawi who has been made thiqa by this.

Walid made an error in his debate with Farid. We know the books that encompass al-Ash`ari’s nawadir and we can see what was narrated from it from the topic of the hadith (all of it is fiqh, as I recall) and all that is narrated in al-Tahtheebayn are regarding the topic of the books in Nawadir al-Hikmah, the other books of al-Ash`ari relate to history and such.

And I do not believe in the necessity of the Qudamaa’ believing an imara of tawtheeq or tahseen for it to be accepted, such as with the taraddi and tarahhum of Saduq [ra]. We have brains and we can use them to figure things out with the sources at hand. I have a tidbit on why this doesn’t matter in that thread regarding Saduq’s Mashayikh.

WS.

Wa`alaykumussalaam

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
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...