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
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Tufayl

Muhammad B. Sinan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Excellent article brother!

I spent last night searching the Internet about the different views on Muhammad Bin Sinan, and got nowhere fast, except further confusion!

This sum's up all of the different opinions beautifully.

Jazakallah!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kashi: Muhammad b. Masud [from] Abdullah b. Hamduwayh said: I heard al-Fadhl b. Shathan saying: I do not permit that I narrate the sayings of Muhammad b. Sinan. al-Fadhl mentioned in some of his books: From the famous liars is Ibn Sinan, and he is not Abdullah.

[Abdullah b. Hamduwayh is Majhool]

I'm pretty sure he means he's not `Abdullah b. Sinan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Yes, that's clear. My reference to the "majhool" was the Abdullah b.Hamduwayh in the narration's chain.

في امان الله

Ah, missed that. Have you taken into consideration however that what has reached us of Muhammad b. Sinan's traditions are the filtered narrations (which however do have some odd things in them), and not the sum body of it? Particularly, if you look at the work associated with him that did not get accepted into the Imami canon, but rather was preserved through outside sources (i.e. the Nusayris, who consider him as one of their saints), you fall well out of the range of Imami orthodoxy (e.g. reincarnation etc) and can see why amongst the ancients there would have been such a negative view on him and his beliefs and mistrust of his narrations. See particularly the Kitab al-Haft wa 'l-Azilla for example, which though attributed as a dialogue between Imam Sadiq (as) and Mufaddal b. `Umar, is apparently likely his work:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LderHOzgLPUC&lpg=PA210&ots=9qtdrle_AD&dq=muhammad%20b.%20sinan%20kitab%20al-haft&pg=PA210#v=onepage&q=muhammad%20b.%20sinan%20kitab%20al-haft&f=false

And here in regards to his role in the Nusayri tradition and work preserved there:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3GB31QSFmVYC&lpg=PA6&dq=muhammad%20b.%20sinan%20nusayri&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=sinan&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Yes, I've thought about that, but it would make sense seeing as he was close to the ghulaat (perhaps even one for a bit) and so they took that opportunity to start attributing things to the Imams [as] through him. It is well outside sources that we can trace, but there are things I've been shown in there that are not necessarily ghuluw, but can be understood otherwise. And this was another tool of the ghulaat, to misinterpret authentic traditions (in addition to fabricating them).

For example, here's something interesting from the entry of Ma`ruf b. Karbooth, one of the Ashab al-Ijma, in al-Kashi:

طاهر بن عيسى، قال: وجدت في بعض الكتب عن محمد بن الحسن، عن اسماعيل بن قتيبة، عن أبي العلاء الخفاف، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: أنا وجه الله أنا جنب الله، وأنا الاول، وأنا الاخر، وأنا الظاهر، وأنا الباطن، وأنا وارث الارض، وأنا سبيل الله وبه عزمت عليه، فقال معروف بن خربوذ: ولها تفسير غير ما يذهب فيها أهل الغلو

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

A point I forgot to mention: his corrupted beliefs would not actually impact his personal trustworthiness. What seems to be the case is that he would have been a sincere ghaali. Yes - a truthful person who believed in things that just sound so true (in someway) about the Imams [as] being this or that.

I am sure those people who are most critical of Ibn Sinan could attest to this point (salafized shias). They think mainstream Shi'ism has become a vortex of ghuluw, the scholars and laymen drowning in it. But I do not think they would say these people are liars and making stuff up, rather misinterpreting and saying certain points "proven by logic" must be true - this is not putting words in the blessed mouth of the A'immah [as].

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Thanks for the interesting post.

Maybe the boundaries that once determined ghuluw need to be redefined (I do think they are nowadays). Certainly if a belief which seems like ghuluw can now be proven both quranically and from the narrations themselves, then it quite absurd to claim such a person is a ghaali. Rather he has reached - often - fairly obvious conclusions from the akhbaar.

In any case, this also highlights a major pitfall of adopting a solely Rijali approach when authenticating hadith. It is often extremely difficult to determine the exact trustworthiness of a man, and one's personal desires and beliefs can affect the matter of tawtheeq or tadh'eef. Rather the authenticity of the sanad should serve only as a valuable qarina for authentication of the khabar, not the sole red line. And of course, most depressingly, we see this method neglect the one source that perhaps mutawatir (or near tawwatur) narrations have ordered us to return to when examining the akhbaar. It is the Holy Quran, which guides to that which most upright. The Book which is tibyaan to all things. The narrations in this regard say "كل ما جائكم عنا فاعرضوه على كتاب ربنا" - All that comes to you from us, then display it to our Lord's book..to the end of the narration. Of course this 'arth against the Quran has its rules and principles, but it should be the first and foremost Qarina that indicates the authenticity of a khabar regardless of the sanad and how many ghaalis are present or otherwise.

Edited by InfiniteAscension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamalaikum,

The crux of the discussion is the ulema weren't giving opinions against Mohammad ibn sinan for a rijaali who is about to borrow/invent a science of ilm e rijaal to reject his narrations which they already seived to be truth from what they thought was ghulu.

The opinions was not meant for us but for the ones in those days who were narrating from him so that they be careful in his narrations . And if someone thinks that the likes of kulayni and sudooq did not understand the religion to the extent that they could not know which hadees is what then what is left of literature of imami madhab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Okay, before the topic gets into a discussion about Akhbarism or Authenticating all our ahadeeth....I'm just going to end it here. No more of it, if you want to make a topic about the weaknesses and problems of rijal and/or the superiority of Qara'in and the Manhaj of the Qudamaa, make a topic for it.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, missed that. Have you taken into consideration however that what has reached us of Muhammad b. Sinan's traditions are the filtered narrations (which however do have some odd things in them), and not the sum body of it? Particularly, if you look at the work associated with him that did not get accepted into the Imami canon, but rather was preserved through outside sources (i.e. the Nusayris, who consider him as one of their saints), you fall well out of the range of Imami orthodoxy (e.g. reincarnation etc) and can see why amongst the ancients there would have been such a negative view on him and his beliefs and mistrust of his narrations. See particularly the Kitab al-Haft wa 'l-Azilla for example, which though attributed as a dialogue between Imam Sadiq (as) and Mufaddal b. `Umar, is apparently likely his work:

http://books.google....al-haft&f=false

And here in regards to his role in the Nusayri tradition and work preserved there:

http://books.google....q=sinan&f=false

Shykh Hussain Muhammad AlmaTHthloum, an Alawi scholar, have written a book about the misconceptions about the Alawi sect. He said in his book that Haft and ATHthilla is not considered a sacred book by Alawis, he also said that the book is not written by Mufudhal but by others maybe to accuse him of heresy. He said that the Haft and Aththellah was not mentioned by alkhusaibi who wrote the main hadith books for the Alawi sect. Alkhusaibi lived in the second hijri century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shykh Hussain Muhammad AlmaTHthloum, an Alawi scholar, have written a book about the misconceptions about the Alawi sect. He said in his book that Haft and ATHthilla is not considered a sacred book by Alawis, he also said that the book is not written by Mufudhal but by others maybe to accuse him of heresy. He said that the Haft and Aththellah was not mentioned by alkhusaibi who wrote the main hadith books for the Alawi sect. Alkhusaibi lived in the second hijri century.

I've noticed Nusayri/`Alawis tend to lie a lot about their religion. According this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3GB31QSFmVYC&lpg=PA6&dq=muhammad%20b.%20sinan%20nusayri&pg=PA243#v=onepage&q=sinan&f=false

the Kitab al-Haft is cited in almost every Nusayri source beginning with the writings of Ibn Nusayr himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed Nusayri/`Alawis tend to lie a lot about their religion. According this:

http://books.google....q=sinan&f=false

the Kitab al-Haft is cited in almost every Nusayri source beginning with the writings of Ibn Nusayr himself.

They deny this claim, can you prove that the book alhaft wa alaththellah has been cited in almost every Alawi book? They say that these misconceptions mostly were written by Orientalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Dar,

Good post. In places it's come that Fadl b. Shadhan considered him a liar: الکذّابون المشهورون: أبو الخطّاب و يونس بن ظبيان و يزيد الصايغ و محمّد بن سنان، و أبو سمينة أشهرهم ‌‌

However, elsewhere notice the name is absent (it might have been an addition in the previous passage):

إنّ الکذّابين المشهورين أربعة: أبو الخطّاب و يونس بن ظبيان و يزيد الصائغ و أبو سمينة، و هو أشهرهم

Notice the name isn't here in this one passage (see Ibn Dawud, under the entry of Muhammad b. Ali aka. أبو سمينة

The latter quote where ibn Sinan's name is absent is more likely given that it is more consistent with the fact that ibn Shadhan narrated a lot from him.

With that being said, I think it's also important to note that there has been a distinction in Shi'i rijal between someone who is weak in riwayah and someone who is weak in dirayah. In other words, someone may not be clear in terms of where and how he is getting his information (and thus subject to accusations of dishonesty) but nevertheless be reliable in terms of the texts he's relaying.

Ah, missed that. Have you taken into consideration however that what has reached us of Muhammad b. Sinan's traditions are the filtered narrations (which however do have some odd things in them), and not the sum body of it? Particularly, if you look at the work associated with him that did not get accepted into the Imami canon, but rather was preserved through outside sources (i.e. the Nusayris, who consider him as one of their saints), you fall well out of the range of Imami orthodoxy (e.g. reincarnation etc) and can see why amongst the ancients there would have been such a negative view on him and his beliefs and mistrust of his narrations. See particularly the Kitab al-Haft wa 'l-Azilla for example, which though attributed as a dialogue between Imam Sadiq (as) and Mufaddal b. `Umar, is apparently likely his work:

I don't think that's a fair statement. Kitab al-Haft is a very shady work and it's been authored by multiple authors over the centuries, many of its current parts going back to the 5th/11th centuries. This is clear in that the writing style is different in different parts, and the amount of contradictions the work has, and its been passed through and interpolated by various groups from Kufan extremists to Nusayri Ismailis. There is no doubt that this is the work of multiple and many anonymous authors. Additionally, there have been numerous books in the centuries with that name which got mixed around as well. The 1960s edition which is what's used most often is based off of a shady manuscript which is essentially a mishmash of various other shady works that came under a similar title.

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a fair statement. Kitab al-Haft is a very shady work and it's been authored by multiple authors over the centuries, many of its current parts going back to the 5th/11th centuries. This is clear in that the writing style is different in different parts, and the amount of contradictions the work has, and its been passed through and interpolated by various groups from Kufan extremists to Nusayri Ismailis. There is no doubt that this is the work of multiple and many anonymous authors. Additionally, there have been numerous books in the centuries with that name which got mixed around as well. The 1960s edition which is what's used most often is based off of a shady manuscript which is essentially a mishmash of various other shady works that came under a similar title.

It's true that it appears to be a mishmash of different strata, however a candidate for one of those strata would be Muhammad b. Sinan's own Kitab al-Azilla which Najashi mentions (even just the name is a pretty good indication of the material it would have been dealing with). The fact is undeniable that he is heavily associated with the ghali circles of that era, hence his condemnation along with Abu 'l-Khattab and Yunus b. Zhibyan and others, whose thought would eventually culminate to what would become the Nusayris. BTW the latter were not Isma`ilis, rather they are Twelver ghulat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Salam Dar,

Good post. In places it's come that Fadl b. Shadhan considered him a liar: الکذّابون المشهورون: أبو الخطّاب و يونس بن ظبيان و يزيد الصايغ و محمّد بن سنان، و أبو سمينة أشهرهم ‌‌

However, elsewhere notice the name is absent (it might have been an addition in the previous passage):

إنّ الکذّابين المشهورين أربعة: أبو الخطّاب و يونس بن ظبيان و يزيد الصائغ و أبو سمينة، و هو أشهرهم

Notice the name isn't here in this one passage (see Ibn Dawud, under the entry of Muhammad b. Ali aka. أبو سمينة

The latter quote where ibn Sinan's name is absent is more likely given that it is more consistent with the fact that ibn Shadhan narrated a lot from him.

Wasalaam.

I am aware that Ibn Dawud has this noted in his book, but many scholars have attributed to Ibn Dawud such a long list of errors that we cannot assume the principle of non-error for him and it is strange, and unlikely, that Kashi would have him mentioned in 2 places and it'd both be Tasheef. Fadhl probably did call him a liar, at least for some time, but I don't think it really matters over all.

With that being said, I think it's also important to note that there has been a distinction in Shi'i rijal between someone who is weak in riwayah and someone who is weak in dirayah. In other words, someone may not be clear in terms of where and how he is getting his information (and thus subject to accusations of dishonesty) but nevertheless be reliable in terms of the texts he's relaying.

Yes, I believe this which why I, and many scholars, do not take the general weakening to be mutlaq for taktheeb.

في امان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that it appears to be a mishmash of different strata, however a candidate for one of those strata would be Muhammad b. Sinan's own Kitab al-Azilla which Najashi mentions (even just the name is a pretty good indication of the material it would have been dealing with). The fact is undeniable that he is heavily associated with the ghali circles of that era, hence his condemnation along with Abu 'l-Khattab and Yunus b. Zhibyan and others, whose thought would eventually culminate to what would become the Nusayris. BTW the latter were not Isma`ilis, rather they are Twelver ghulat.

I don't think that's accurate either and it's based on an argument Halm made which cannot be substantiated. There were numerous works that were part of the tradition of Ashbah and Azilla of which the Kitab al-Haft was part of, many of whom carried the same title. It's more likely that the Kitab al-Azilla that Najashi mentions referred to a seperate treaties whose content we don't know about. In fact, a better guess would be that the work in question is better attributed to Yunus b. Zubyan in which many of the quotes in the work in question are attributed to.

Anyways, Najashi also attributes a work by the name of Kitab al-Azilla to `Abd al-Rahman b. Kathir al-Hashimi. It also comes under the entry of Ali b. Abi Saleh. Although here the text shows that there is a question in regards to its attribution to b. Abi Saleh, but it's still relevant to my point.

and sorry about my typo, I meant Syrian Ismai'iis (the work howevr doesn't seem to reflect much of their normative doctrines)

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Wasalaam.

I am aware that Ibn Dawud has this noted in his book, but many scholars have attributed to Ibn Dawud such a long list of errors that we cannot assume the principle of non-error for him and it is strange, and unlikely, that Kashi would have him mentioned in 2 places and it'd both be Tasheef. Fadhl probably did call him a liar, at least for some time, but I don't think it really matters over all.

Yes, I believe this which why I, and many scholars, do not take the general weakening to be mutlaq for taktheeb.

في امان الله

Salam,

Yes I am aware of that, but I thought this was suggestive given the amount of narrations Ibn Shadhan narrated from him. In the end, I thought it was inconsequential as you said.

About the passage in question, here is an interesting discussion in my edition of Mustadrak (esp the part on differing manuscripts that exist). It's very long, here I quote only part of it (I bolded the part where he talks about Ibn Dawud's quotation on the famous liars):

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل ؛ الخاتمةج‏4 ؛ ص81

و في موضع آخر: و ذكر الفضل بن شاذان في بعض كتبه، قال:

الكذابون المشهورون: أبو الخطاب، و يونس بن ظبيان، و يزيد الصانع و محمّد ابن سنان، و أبو سمينة أشهرهم‏[1].

و الجواب: أما أولا: فبأنّ الظاهر اتحاد المراد في الموضعين، و الموجود في أصل كلام الفضل: ابن سنان، و لذا قال: و ليس بعبد اللّه الجليل المعروف، فانحصر في محمّد، فذكره باسمه في الثاني، ثم عيّنه في محمّد بن سنان الزاهري فذكره في ترجمته، فبعد تسليم كونه محمّدا، فمن الجائز أن يكون مراده محمّد ابن سنان أخا عبد اللّه، الذي له روايات في طبّ الأئمة (عليهم السّلام) و لا قرينة على التعيين، بل هي على عكسه أدلّ كما ستعرف.

و أمّا ثانيا: فلأن ابن داود قال في رجاله، في ترجمة محمّد بن علي أبو سمينة: في الكشي: كان يرمى بالغلوّ، و ذكر الفضل بن شاذان في بعض كتبه:

أن‏ الكذابين‏ المشهورين‏ أربعة: أبو الخطاب، و يونس بن ظبيان، و يزيد الصائغ، و أبو سمينة أشهرهم‏[2].

و لولا قوله: أربعة لكان من المحتمل سقوط ابن سنان من قلمه، و معه فهو دالّ على خروج محمّد بن سنان عنهم.

قال السيد الأجل: و لعل النسخ في ذلك كانت مختلفة، أو أن الزيادة في بعضها من الدسّاسين في كتب الفضل‏[3]، انتهى، و يحتمل الدس في‏

______________________________

(1) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 978.

(2) رجال الكشي 2: 823/ 1033.

(3) رجال ابن داود: 507/ 454 طبعة جامعة طهران.

(4) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274.

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، الخاتمةج‏4، ص: 82

الكشي.

و أمّا ثالثا: فلأن هذه المبالغة العظيمة في محمّد بن سنان و اقترانه مع أبي الخطاب ممّا يكذّبه الوجدان، فإنّ من نظر إلى الأخبار و عرف الرجال يعلم أنه ليس مثلهم، و لا ممّن يقرب منهم، و أنّه على تقدير الضعف ليس من الكذابين المشهورين، أو ممّن يحرم الرواية عنه- كما يأتي‏[4] عن الفضل- إن ثبت تحريم الرواية عن الضعفاء، و يكذّبه أيضا رواية الأجلّاء عنه، بل الفضل و أبيه عنه، بل إكثاره، و بذلك ردّ كلامه الكشي بعد نقل كلامه السابق و كلامه الآتي ما لفظه:

و قد روى عنه: الفضل و أبوه، و يونس، و محمّد بن عيسى العبيدي، و محمّد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، و الحسن و الحسين ابنا سعيد الأهوازيان، و ابنا دندان، و أيوب بن نوح، و غيرهم من العدول و الثقات من أهل العلم‏[5]، انتهى.

و صريحه التنافي بين النسبة المذكورة و رواية الجماعة عنه، و هذا واضح بحمد اللّه تعالى.

و أمّا رابعا: فيما رواه الكشي عنه: عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمّد بن قتيبة النيسابوري قال: قال أبو محمّد الفضل بن شاذان: ردّوا أحاديث محمّد بن سنان عنّي، و قال: لا أحلّ لكم أن ترووا أحاديث محمّد بن سنان عنّي ما دمت حيّا، و أذن في الرواية بعد موته، قال أبو عمرو: و قد روى عنه [الفضل‏]

______________________________

(1) سيأتي هنا و ما بعده ماله علاقة.

(2) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، الخاتمةج‏4، ص: 83

و أبوه‏[6]. إلى آخر ما تقدم.

و منه يظهر أن قوله: و أذن. إلى آخره، من تتمة كلام الفضل لا من كلام الكشي‏[7]، و إلّا لأخره عن قوله: قال أبو عمرو، الذي هو من كلام نفسه، أو لبعض رجاله و الرواة عنه.

و بعض المحققين استظهر من عدم نقل النجاشي هذه الجملة في رجاله، حيث نقل فيه عن الكشي إلى قوله: حيّا، أنه من كلام الكشي لا الفضل، و فيه تأمّل.

و لو كان لما ضرّ بالمقصود، فإن جزم الكشي باستناد الإذن إليه بعد موته يكفي في منافاته، لكون محمّد من الكذابين المشهورين، فإن الموت كما صرّح به السيد الأجل: لا يحلّ محرما و لا يبيح مكروها محظورا[8]، و ما قيل: أن قوله: ما دمت حيّا متعلّق بقوله: لا أحلّ لكم، لا بقوله: أن ترووا، فيكون من باب السالبة بانتفاء الموضوع، لأنه إذا مات انتفى إن كان التحليل غير بعيد، إلّا أنه مناف لقوله: أذن، إن كان من تتمة كلامه، و لما فهمه الكشي منه، إن كان من كلامه، و كذا غيره من الذين عثرنا على كلماتهم من المحققين، كالاستاذ الأكبر[9]، و المحقق البحراني‏[10]، و بحر العلوم‏[11] و غيرهم.

______________________________

(1) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

(2) لا يخفى ان الاذن كان من الفضل في حياته مقيدا بما بعد الموت، و الناقل له النيسابوري أو أحد رواة الخبر، اما كون أصل العبارة: و اذن في الرواية بعد موته، من تتمة كلام الفضل فبعيد غايته.

(3) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274.

(4) تعليقة البهبهاني: 298.

(5) لم نعثر عليه.

(6) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274- 277.

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، الخاتمةج‏4، ص: 84

و ثالثها: ما رواه الكشي: عن حمدويه، قال: كتبت أحاديث محمّد بن سنان عن أيوب بن نوح، و قال: لا أستحل أن أروي أحاديث محمّد بن سنان‏[12].

و عن حمدويه بن نصير، أن أيوب بن نوح دفع إليه دفترا فيه أحاديث محمّد بن سنان، فقال لنا: إن شئتم أن تكتبوا ذلك فافعلوا، فإني كتبت عن محمّد بن سنان و لكن لا أروي لكم عنه شيئا، فإنه قال قبل موته: كلّ ما حدثتكم به لم يكن لي سماعا و لا رواية إنّما وجدته‏[13].

و الظاهر أنّ علة عدم الاستحلال في النقل الأول هي كون أخباره و جادة بقرينة الثاني.

فالجواب: أما أولا: فبأنّ اعتبار الوجادة و عدمه من المسائل الفرعية المختلف فيها، ذهب إلى الأوّل جماعة منا، فالقول به و ابتناء العمل عليه ليس من الصغائر فضلا عمّا فوقها.

و قال السيد الأجلّ في رجاله: و الظاهر اعتبار الوجادة إن كان الكتاب معروف الانتساب إلى مؤلّفه‏[14]، و قد مرّ بعض الكلام فيه في الفائدة الثالثة[15].

و ثانيا: أنّ لمحمّد بن سنان أخبار لا تحصى مشافهة عن الأئمة (عليهم السّلام) و هي غير داخلة في هذه الكليّة قطعا.

و ثالثا: أنّ له روايات كثيرة مشافهة و سماعا عن أصحابهم (عليهم السّلام) لا يمكن دخولها أيضا في هذه الكلية، قال السيد الأجل: و حمل كلامه.

______________________________

(1) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

(2) رجال الكشي 2: 795/ 977.

(3) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 276.

(4) تقدم ماله علاقة بالمقام في بداية الجزء الثاني.

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، الخاتمةج‏4، ص: 85

على إرادة نفي العموم دون عموم النفي في غاية البعد[16].

و رابعا: أنه كيف حرّم الرواية عنه مع روايته عنه، ففي الكافي في باب أن المؤمن كفو المؤمنة: عدّة من أصحابنا، عن علي بن الحسن بن صالح الحلبي، عن أيوب بن نوح، عن محمّد بن سنان، عن رجل، عن أبي عبد اللّه (عليه السّلام)[17]. الخبر.

و في التهذيب في باب تلقين المحتضرين: أخبرني أحمد بن عبدون، عن علي بن محمّد بن الزبير القرشي، عن علي بن الحسن بن فضّال، عن أيوب بن نوح، عن محمّد بن سنان، عن محمّد بن عجلان، قال: سمعت صادقا يصدق على اللّه- يعني أبا عبد اللّه (عليه السّلام)- قال: إذا جئت بالميت‏[18]. الخبر.

و خامسا: أنه لو كان صدوقا قادحا كيف خفي على الفقهاء الأجلّة من نقدة الرواة الذين أخذوا عنه مثل: ابن محبوب‏[19]، و صفوان‏[20]، و أحمد بن محمّد بن عيسى‏[21]، و ابن فضال‏[22]، و أضرابهم، و تفرّد به أيوب بن نوح‏[23].

و سادسا: ما أشار إليه السيد الأجل في رجاله، من أن الكلام المنقول عن أيوب بن نوح هنا متدافع، فإن حمدويه بن نصير حكى عنه أنه دفع إليه.

إلى آخر ما مرّ، و علّل الامتناع بما حكاه عنه، و التدافع في ذلك ظاهر، فإن دفع‏

______________________________

(1) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 276.

(2) الكافي 5: 343/ 2.

(3) تهذيب الأحكام 1: 313/ 909.

(4) تهذيب الأحكام 1: 437/ 1407 و 10: 163/ 651.

(5) تهذيب الأحكام 2: 236/ 935 و 4: 278/ 843 و 7: 129/ 565.

(6) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

(7) تهذيب الأحكام 4: 164/ 462.

(8) رجال الكشي 2: 687/ 729.

مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، الخاتمةج‏4، ص: 86

الدفتر الذي أخرجه إلى حمدويه و قوله: إذا شئتم أن تكتبوا ذلك فافعلوا، صريح في الرخصة، و قول حمدويه في روايته الأخرى: كتبت أحاديث محمّد بن سنان عن أيوب بن نوح، واضح الدلالة على روايته له أحاديث ابن سنان.

فلو كانت الرواية محرّمة غير جائزة كما ذكره لم يستقم ذلك، و ظني أن الرجل قد أصابته آفة الشهرة، فغمض عليه بعض من عانده و عاداه بالأسباب القادحة من الغلوّ و الكذب و نحوهما، حتى شاع ذلك بين الناس و اشتهر، و لم يستطع الأعاظم الذين رووا عنه، كالفضل بن شاذان، و أيوب بن نوح، و نحوهما، دفع ذلك عنه، فحاولوا بما قالوا رفع الشنعة عن أنفسهم، كما يشهد به صدور هذه الكلمات المتدافعة عنهم.

ثم سرى ذلك إلى المتأخرين الذين هم أئمة الفن، مثل الكشي، و النجاشي، و المفيد، و الشيخ، و ابن شهرآشوب، و السيدين الجليلين ابني طاوس، و العلامة، و ابن داود، و غيرهم، فضعفه طائفة، و وثقه أخرى‏[24]، و اضطرب آخرون، فاختلفت كلمتهم فيه كما علمت ذلك مما نقلناه عنهم مفصّلا، و في أقل من هذا الاختلاف و الاضطراب ما يمنع التعويل و الاعتماد على ما قالوه، فبقيت الوجوه التي ذكرناها أوّلا سالمة عن المعارض، و عاد المدح من بعضهم عاضدا و مؤيدا لها، و استبان من الجميع أن الأصحّ توثيق محمّد بن سنان.

و من طريف ما اتفق لبعض العارفين، أنه تفأل لاستعلام حال محمّد بن سنان من الكتاب العزيز فكان ما وقع عليه النظر قوله تعالى: إِنَّما يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبادِهِ الْعُلَماءُ[25]، و اللّه أعلم بأسرار عباده‏[26].[27]

[1] ( 2) رجال الكشي 2: 823/ 1033.

[2] ( 3) رجال ابن داود: 507/ 454 طبعة جامعة طهران.

[3] ( 4) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274.

[4] ( 1) سيأتي هنا و ما بعده ماله علاقة.

[5] ( 2) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

[6] ( 1) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

[7] ( 2) لا يخفى ان الاذن كان من الفضل في حياته مقيدا بما بعد الموت، و الناقل له النيسابوري أو أحد رواة الخبر، اما كون أصل العبارة: و اذن في الرواية بعد موته، من تتمة كلام الفضل فبعيد غايته.

[8] ( 3) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274.

[9] ( 4) تعليقة البهبهاني: 298.

[10] ( 5) لم نعثر عليه.

[11] ( 6) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 274- 277.

[12] ( 1) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

[13] ( 2) رجال الكشي 2: 795/ 977.

[14] ( 3) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 276.

[15] ( 4) تقدم ماله علاقة بالمقام في بداية الجزء الثاني.

[16] ( 1) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 276.

[17] ( 2) الكافي 5: 343/ 2.

[18] ( 3) تهذيب الأحكام 1: 313/ 909.

[19] ( 4) تهذيب الأحكام 1: 437/ 1407 و 10: 163/ 651.

[20] ( 5) تهذيب الأحكام 2: 236/ 935 و 4: 278/ 843 و 7: 129/ 565.

[21] ( 6) رجال الكشي 2: 796/ 979.

[22] ( 7) تهذيب الأحكام 4: 164/ 462.

[23] ( 8) رجال الكشي 2: 687/ 729.

[24] ( 1) كذا في الأصل، و الصحيح: ضعفته، و وثقته، لإسناد الفعل إلى مؤنث.

[25] ( 2) فاطر 35: 28.

[26] ( 3) رجال السيد بحر العلوم 3: 277.

[27] نورى، حسين بن محمد تقى، مستدرك الوسائل و مستنبط المسائل، 28جلد، مؤسسة آل البيت عليهم السلام - قم، چاپ: اول، 1408ق.

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested, Agha Buzurg Tehrani says that the al-Haft wa al-Azilla is falsely attributed (mansubah) to Mufaddal al-Ju`fi:

المنسوبة الى المفضل الجعفى قم و581 : صاحب التوحيد 4 91 :و 482 و الهفت هذا فى67 بابا وجدت بين الطائفة المفضلية فى سوريا فطبعها عارف تامر ببيروت1960 ثم عثر مصطفى غالب بنسخة اخرى منها اسمها الهفت الشريف و هى ايضا فى 67 بابا لكنها اكبر من نسخه عارف تامر ، فطبعها دار الاندلس فى سورية 1964 فى10 222 ص مع مقدمه لمصطفى غالب زيف فيها نسخه تامر ملحقات فهرسة مجدوع ص203 و . 302

Ja'far Subhani says the same thing: http://www.aqaed.com/faq/3361/

There is also a list of various authors who authored books called kitab al-azilla. Agha Buzurg brings 4:

856 : كتاب الأظلة

لأبي جعفر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى الأشعري القمي شيخ القميين و الرئيس الذي كان يلقى السلطان لقي الإمام الرضا و أبا جعفر الثاني و أبا الحسن العسكري ع ذكر ذلك كله النجاشي

857 : كتاب الأظلة

لعبد الرحمن بن كثير الهاشمي قال النجاشي هو ضعيف و كتابه فاسد مختلط .

858 : كتاب الأظلة

لأبي الحسن علي بن أبي صالح محمد الكوفي الحناط كان يلقب بزرج يرويه عنه حميد بن زياد النينوائي المتوفى سنة 310 كما في النجاشي .

859 : كتاب الأظلة

لأبي جعفر محمد بن سنان الزاهري الراوي عن الإمام الرضا ع و المتوفى سنة 220 ذكره النجاشي .

Edited by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested, Agha Buzurg Tehrani says that the al-Haft wa al-Azilla is falsely attributed (mansubah) to Mufaddal al-Ju`fi:

المنسوبة الى المفضل الجعفى قم و581 : صاحب التوحيد

Well Tawhid was clearly not the work of Mufaddal, so I'm not sure how much weight I'd give his word regarding al-Haft. But saying al-mansub doesn't have to mean denying, it's more a neutral statement regarding an attribution that is controversial in some manner, without committing to its actual authorship either way for or against. However, I don't actually necessarily think al-Haft was his either. BTW, not sure you've seen this, but came across a very interesting thesis today you might be interested in (while on this topic):

http://www.academia....fa_al-Tradition

Ja'far Subhani says the same thing: http://www.aqaed.com/faq/3361/

Maybe I'm misreading him, but all I got from that was that he was denying it's attribution to Imam Sadiq (as).

Edited by macisaac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He kind of discredits himself right there, since Tawhid was clearly not the work of Mufaddal. However, I don't actually necessarily think al-Haft was either. BTW, not sure you've seen this, but came across a very interesting thesis today you might be interested in (while on this topic):

http://www.academia....fa_al-Tradition

Salam,

Yes I've read that before. I actually used some of his ideas in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm misreading him, but all I got from that was that he was denying it's attribution to Imam Sadiq (as).

He also says its mansub ilayh to Mufadal, which technically means its falsely attributed to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So Muhammad b. Sinan [ra] is thiqa and from those who are very close to the Imams [as], but he had entertained ideas of the ghulaat at some point and they had began to attribute things to him even after Safwan and the rest of the core companions of the Ta’ifa [ra] prevented him from deviating and going astray.

 

 

 

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

One must be precise here. After examining some narrations, (Filled with exaggerations), in the chain, (With Muhamamd b. Sinan), you will find, within the chain, there are extreme Ghul'at as well, who had also some "Tawtheeq", On top, they are rejected by Al-Tusi, Take for example: Is'aa b. Abee'd Al-Yaqtinti (عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني), who has narrated from B. Sinan, however even with his approval, he is considered as "Ghali", By Shiekh Al-Tusi. So, In totality, I would not accuse him, unless one has examined the narrations provided. I have seen for example, The narration where Al-Yaqinti narrates from b. Sinan, and you will find some exaggeration, but here the question rises (For example), who is the exaggerator here? Well, based on The Lengthy discussion on B. Sinan, we can safely say its Al-Yaqtinin, and not B. Sinan. Note, this is only an example.

 

________________________

(wasalam)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

One must be precise here. After examining some narrations, (Filled with exaggerations), in the chain, (With Muhamamd b. Sinan), you will find, within the chain, there are extreme Ghul'at as well, who had also some "Tawtheeq", On top, they are rejected by Al-Tusi, Take for example: Is'aa b. Abee'd Al-Yaqtinti (عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني), who has narrated from B. Sinan, however even with his approval, he is considered as "Ghali", By Shiekh Al-Tusi. So, In totality, I would not accuse him, unless one has examined the narrations provided. I have seen for example, The narration where Al-Yaqinti narrates from b. Sinan, and you will find some exaggeration, but here the question rises (For example), who is the exaggerator here? Well, based on The Lengthy discussion on B. Sinan, we can safely say its Al-Yaqtinin, and not B. Sinan. Note, this is only an example.

 

 

Sh. Tusi does not say that Muhammad b. `Isa is in fact a ghali, he says:

 

وقيل: إنه كان يذهب مذهب الغلاة،

 

"And it is said that he was going down the path of the exaggerators"

 

Furthermore, I have not seen any ghuluw in the narrations of Muhammad b. Sinan nor Muhammad b. `Isa. In fact, I do not even agree with the totality of my own article above anymore. I don't think Muhammad b. Sinan was every a ghali or "in risk" of becoming one. This was the perception of others as there were competing strands in the Ta'ifa regarding how low or high the station of the Imams [as] is. Muhammad b. Sinan, Mufaddal b. `Umar, Jabir al-Ju`fi رضي الله عنهم are from the latter camp and would naturally be accused of ghuluw by those of the lower imamology spectrum.

 

I think Muhammad b. Sinan is ثقة على الأقوى even if he did dabble in some Wijada [finding books and narrating them] which isn't a rejected form a narration and can be acceptable if the attribution of the book is correct. Some of the `ulema do not even accept such an accusation saying it is very far given the sheer number of companions and narrators Ibn Sinan knew and met. He was a main player in our Ta'ifa, whether some like to admit that or not. He was a well known figure and the Qummis did not shy away from him at all. We also know that Ibn Sinan narrated with سماع from certain narrators such as Ibn Muskan, Mufaddal b. `Umar, and Abul al-Jarud as he himself uses أخبرنا or حدثنا in these instances and other narrators it can be assumed due to sheer number of narrations from them such as Isma`il b. Jabir. So we can, perhaps, say his narrations from his main teachers are something like صحيح while from others are حسن.

 

He was one of the main teachers of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa - an extremist in anti-ghuluw and head of Qum - and Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. al-Khattab another main player of the Ta'ifa.

 

The Qummis and Kulayni repeatedly narrate from Ibn Sinan as a source in their literature. Ibn Sinan appears is over 30 of Saduq's turuq in his Mashaykha and narrates directly from him in al-Faqih repeatedly. The most esteemed narrators and fuqaha of the Ta'ifa narrated *all* his books and narrations forward. It was only al-Mufid who would later come to "filter" his narrations of ghuluw and takhleet, again his own personal views. (We can assume it was Mufid because similar filtering occurred with the books of Abu Sumayna and al-Hilli states clearly it was Mufid رحمه الله). 

 

I have also written a piece on Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd similar to this one. 

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

Furthermore, I have not seen any ghuluw in the narrations of Muhammad b. Sinan nor Muhammad b. `Isa. In fact, I do not even agree with the totality of my own article above anymore. I don't think Muhammad b. Sinan was every a ghali or "in risk" of becoming one. This was the perception of others as there were competing strands in the Ta'ifa regarding how low or high the station of the Imams [as] is. Muhammad b. Sinan, Mufaddal b. `Umar, Jabir al-Ju`fi رضي الله عنهم are from the latter camp and would naturally be accused of ghuluw by those of the lower imamology spectrum.

 

 

(wasalam)

Sorry dear brother, I think you thought, that I was against Muhammad b. Sinan. I in fact agree with you, that he is trustworthy and correct in narration. What I originally meant is that, "Even" if there was a narrations that has a bit of "Ghul'aat" , it cannot be attributed to him, or said, that it was he who exaggerated it. Because, you'll find some of those within the chain itself are Ghul'at. Thus, for those who accuse Muhammad b. Sinan of being Ghali, or extreme,  I would disagree on the basis, of the rest of the chain narrators who are or might be Gh'awal. However, I take my words back, that in his narrations are Ghul'at. I said this on the basis of the this narrations: (I found after reading one of the criticism, against The school of Ahlulbayt (a.s)) 


The following Narration in: Ka'mel Al-Ziya'rat  (كامل الزيارات لجعفر بن محمد بن قولويه), By: Ja'far bin Muhammad bin Qawqaliyah: 141:

 



حدثني أبي رحمه الله عن سعد بن عبد الله عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني عن محمد بن سنان عن أبي سعيد القماط عن ابن أبي يعفور عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال: بينما رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) في منزل فاطمة (ع) والحسين في حجره إذ بكى وخر ساجدا ثم قال: يا فاطمة يا بنت محمد إن العلي الأعلى تراءى لي في بيتك هذا في ساعتي هذه في أحسن صورة وأهيا هيئة وقال لي: يا محمد أتحب الحسين فقلت: نعم قرة عيني وريحانتي وثمرة فؤادي وجلدة ما بين عيني فقال لي: يا محمد - ووضع يده على رأس الحسين (ع) - بورك من مولود عليه بركاتي وصلواتي ورحمتي ورضواني ولعنتي وسخطي وعذابي وخزيي ونكالي على من قتله وناصبه وناواه ونازعه أما انه سيد الشهداء من الأولين والآخرين في الدنيا والآخرة - وذكر الحديث

 

 

However, it is wrong to claim, that it is Allah (istaghfrallah), its rather the angle who was brought down: As Al-Majlsi Comments:
 

 

 

قال العلاّمة المجلسيّ ـ رحمه الله ـ : «إنّ العليّ الأعلى» أي رسوله جبرئيل ، أو يكون التّرائي كناية عن غاية الظّهور العلميّ ، و «حسن الصّورة» كناية عن ظهور صفات كماله تعالى له ، و «وضع اليد» كناية عن إفاضة الرّحمة ـ انتهى . أقول : يأتي مثله وفيه : «والله يزوره» ، وأيضاً : «إنّ الله تبارك وتعالى يتجلّى لزوّار الحسين عليه السلام» ، ولكلّ واحدٍ منهما بيانٌ ، فمن أراد الاطّلاع فليراجع الباب الثّامن والثّلاثين تحت رقم 4 ، والباب الثّامن والسّتين تحت رقم 1.
 
صفحة ( 69 )
 
 

 

 

So, I guess Muhammad b. Sinan in Totality, does not narrate Ghul'at narrations. What do you think of the narration? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

I stumbled into this, in addition (Concerning the above narration)


 

 
وقال التستري في الخصائص الحسينية:
والمراد من الترائي: غاية الظهور العلمي، وبحسن الصورة: ظهور صفات الكمال. ووضع اليد: كناية عن افاضة الرحمة الخاصة على الامام الحسين صلوات الله تعالى عليه.(4)
 

_______________________________________________________________


(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

(wasalam)

Sorry dear brother, I think you thought, that I was against Muhammad b. Sinan. I in fact agree with you, that he is trustworthy and correct in narration. What I originally meant is that, "Even" if there was a narrations that has a bit of "Ghul'aat" , it cannot be attributed to him, or said, that it was he who exaggerated it. Because, you'll find some of those within the chain itself are Ghul'at. Thus, for those who accuse Muhammad b. Sinan of being Ghali, or extreme,  I would disagree on the basis, of the rest of the chain narrators who are or might be Gh'awal. However, I take my words back, that in his narrations are Ghul'at. I said this on the basis of the this narrations: (I found after reading one of the criticism, against The school of Ahlulbayt (a.s)) 

The following Narration in: Ka'mel Al-Ziya'rat  (كامل الزيارات لجعفر بن محمد بن قولويه), By: Ja'far bin Muhammad bin Qawqaliyah: 141:

 

حدثني أبي رحمه الله عن سعد بن عبد الله عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني عن محمد بن سنان عن أبي سعيد القماط عن ابن أبي يعفور عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال: بينما رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) في منزل فاطمة (ع) والحسين في حجره إذ بكى وخر ساجدا ثم قال: يا فاطمة يا بنت محمد إن العلي الأعلى تراءى لي في بيتك هذا في ساعتي هذه في أحسن صورة وأهيا هيئة وقال لي: يا محمد أتحب الحسين فقلت: نعم قرة عيني وريحانتي وثمرة فؤادي وجلدة ما بين عيني فقال لي: يا محمد - ووضع يده على رأس الحسين (ع) - بورك من مولود عليه بركاتي وصلواتي ورحمتي ورضواني ولعنتي وسخطي وعذابي وخزيي ونكالي على من قتله وناصبه وناواه ونازعه أما انه سيد الشهداء من الأولين والآخرين في الدنيا والآخرة - وذكر الحديث

 

 

However, it is wrong to claim, that it is Allah (istaghfrallah), its rather the angle who was brought down: As Al-Majlsi Comments:

 

 

 

قال العلاّمة المجلسيّ ـ رحمه الله ـ : «إنّ العليّ الأعلى» أي رسوله جبرئيل ، أو يكون التّرائي كناية عن غاية الظّهور العلميّ ، و «حسن الصّورة» كناية عن ظهور صفات كماله تعالى له ، و «وضع اليد» كناية عن إفاضة الرّحمة ـ انتهى . أقول : يأتي مثله وفيه : «والله يزوره» ، وأيضاً : «إنّ الله تبارك وتعالى يتجلّى لزوّار الحسين عليه السلام» ، ولكلّ واحدٍ منهما بيانٌ ، فمن أراد الاطّلاع فليراجع الباب الثّامن والثّلاثين تحت رقم 4 ، والباب الثّامن والسّتين تحت رقم 1.
 
صفحة ( 69 )
 
 

 

 

So, I guess Muhammad b. Sinan in Totality, does not narrate Ghul'at narrations. What do you think of the narration? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

I stumbled into this, in addition (Concerning the above narration)

 

 
وقال التستري في الخصائص الحسينية:
والمراد من الترائي: غاية الظهور العلمي، وبحسن الصورة: ظهور صفات الكمال. ووضع اليد: كناية عن افاضة الرحمة الخاصة على الامام الحسين صلوات الله تعالى عليه.(4)
 

_______________________________________________________________

(wasalam)

The answer is in the quote you posted.

 أقول : يأتي مثله وفيه : «والله يزوره» ، وأيضاً : «إنّ الله تبارك وتعالى يتجلّى لزوّار الحسين عليه السلام» ، ولكلّ واحدٍ منهما بيانٌ ، فمن أراد الاطّلاع فليراجع الباب الثّامن والثّلاثين تحت رقم 4 ، والباب الثّامن والسّتين تحت رقم 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tusi in al-Ghayba includes him amongst the Praised Representatives and he presents in his favor a narration from Abu Jafar the Second [al-Jawad] (as).

 

Here is the narration:

 

وأما محمد بن سنان: فإنه روي عن علي بن الحسين بن داود قال: سمعت أبا جعفر الثاني عليه السلام يذكر محمد بن سنان بخير ويقول: رضي الله عنه برضائي عنه فما خالفني وما خالف أبي قط (7).

 

Shaykh at-Tusi says: And as for Muhammad b. Sinan, `Ali b. al-Husayn b. Dawud narrated: I heard Abu Ja`far the Second (as) mention Muhammad b. Sinan, and he said: Allah is pleased with him because I am pleased with him. He did not oppose me, nor did he oppose my father, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

If anyone is interested, below I am linking to Sayed Aḥmad Madadī's website - a history, jurist, over-all big scholar in Qum from among Sayed Sistani's students حفظهما الله - regarding a question students sent to him about his view of Muḥammad b. Sinān

 

http://www.ostadmadadi.ir/arabic/article/8748/

 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...