Shia & Sunni Ahadith Grading Methods?

[Ruq]

Salam alaikum to one and all.

So i was snooping around a Sunni forum yesterday and someone there, who seemed to be an authority for them regarding ahadith grading, suggested that Sunni's have a different method for determining the authenticity of ahadith(?) he didnt go in to detail, but he didnt seem to be talking about difference of opinion about who was reliable etc, more the actual methodology.

Is this true? and if so, how do they generally differ?

Thank you for any info that can be offered.

[Cake]

Salam alaikum to one and all.

So i was snooping around a Sunni forum yesterday and someone there, who seemed to be an authority for them regarding ahadith grading, suggested that Sunni's have a different method for determining the authenticity of ahadith(?) he didnt go in to detail, but he didnt seem to be talking about difference of opinion about who was reliable etc, more the actual methodology.

Is this true? and if so, how do they generally differ?

Thank you for any info that can be offered.

(wasalam)

There are different methodologies that are used to ascertain whether a hadith is reliable (or, authentic). The main method that Sunnis use, from what I know, is `ilm ad-dirayah, in which they judge the authenticity of a hadith primarily by its chain of narrators (isnad) and content of the narration (matn). The most important condition by this method is that the chain must be composed only of trustworthy (thiqa) narrators; although there are others such as ittisal, `ilal, etc.

Some Shi`a scholars use this method too, such as sayyid al-Khui and Fadhlullah. The premises and conditions to be used in this method vary, especially with relatively recent scholarship (e.g. Sanad). Conditions are relaxed, by both Shia and Sunnis, in certain subjects, such as narrations reporting mustahhab practices. See http://www.shiachat....l/#entry2560601 for different camps. Others regard the bulk of our hadiths to be authentic, such as the Akhbaris. Apparently Kamal al-Haydari believes we should compare narrations to the Quran to judge their reliability - which, although is a valid method, isn't used much. I don't know how he thinks this is possible, as most ahadith are not explicitly supported, or irreconcilably contradicted, by the Quran, and hence Kulayni said the method wasn't useful for most ahadith.

If you want me to expand on a point, let me know, and I'll try to inshallah.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Cake

[Inquisitor]

(wasalam)

If you want me to expand on a point, let me know, and I'll try to inshallah.

Ws,

Please do, it will benefit us.

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

Ws,

Please do, it will benefit us.

I think he intended for you to pick a point for him to elaborate one.

I'll throw in my two cents, iA.

Both sects use `ilm al-dirayah and rijal. Now the difference given is the emphasis paid to it and what exactly is the relationship between the narrators and content of what is narrated. I think the difference within our own sect that makes our content much stronger is the fact that our hadith developed with infallible source in reach and compilation happened during their life times. Also, because we are a small Taa'ifa (central base of scholarship), it is easy to find shuhra (popularity) of a ruling/opinion/belief among the Taa'ifa to know the ruling of the Imam [as]. So you can see that the early scholars (Qudama/Mutaqaddimeen) and well as the later scholars (Muta'akhireen) believing and acting upon narrations that have a narrator they themselves find weak or majhool or mursal. That is because the content of the narration has strong contextual evidence (qara'in khaijiyya) that affirm it's veracity, such as ijmaa`of the early community, shawhid, multiplicity in different usool sources, etc.

Just a word of caution since you're snooping around Sunni forums. I wouldn't fall into the "we have better rijal system" trap, it's not at all impressive for system created and managed by a sect to be useful in "proving" that very sect's doctrines/ideologies and nullifying that of others. That is quite circular. Also from the fact that, both sects are very guilty of content based criticism (and that affected rijal).

Allahu a`lam.

في أمان الله

[WilayaBlood]

Aslamalaykum,

Apparently Kamal al-Haydari believes we should compare narrations to the Quran to judge their reliability - which, although is a valid method, isn't used much. I don't know how he thinks this is possible

This is a method given by the Ahlul Bayt a.s themselves and that itself says it all.

Bravo

[Cake]

Aslamalaykum,

This is a method given by the Ahlul Bayt a.s themselves and that itself says it all.

Bravo

The Quran cannot be used to judge most ahadith: most ahadith are not explicitly supported by the Quran, nor are most ahadith irreconcilably contradicted by the Quran. Hence shaykh al-Kulayni himself says in the beginning of al-Kafi that this method cannot be used to judge most ahadith.

Even when we use this method, it does not necessarily prove that a hadith is necessarily authentic or fabricated, because a fabricator can say what is already known via the Quran.

It is true that the Imams taught this method, but we have to see in what context. And some of the ahadith that give this method are in the context of ghulat; there were ghulat who would ascribe divinity to the Imams, or say that the Shari`ah had been abrogated, or otherwise. For example, in the context of al-Mughira bin Sa`id altering the usul (hadith books of the companions of the Imams) and then circulating the corrupted usul, the Imam warns his companions and tells them to judge it by the Quran. These alterations would have to be something clearly suspicious.

Furthermore, the method is actually that what the Quran explicitly supports is correct, and what the Quran irreconcilably contradicts is false. It is not that whatever the Quran doesn't contradict is authentic, or whatever agrees with the "spirit" of the Quran is authentic.

In my experience, the people who advocate this method cherry-pick when they want to apply it. For example, when it comes to the issue of istighatha, which the Quran seems to clearly and irreconcilably contradict, this method is ignored, and the practice is validated on the basis of having an intention which is other than what your words are saying (e.g. that only God can help while your words indicate that you are calling upon another for help).

There are other methods too which have a basis. For example, God says in the Quran to verify what a fasiq reports to us, and this is because the fasiq may have changed or fabricated the report. This is why `adalah is a necessary requirement for the tawtheeq of a narrator in `ilm ad-dirayah.

(wasalam)

Edited May 14, 2013 by Cake

[IbnSohan]

The Quran cannot be used to judge most ahadith: most ahadith are not explicitly supported by the Quran, nor are most ahadith irreconcilably contradicted by the Quran. Hence shaykh al-Kulayni himself says in the beginning of al-Kafi that this method cannot be used to judge most ahadith.

Even when we use this method, it does not necessarily prove that a hadith is necessarily authentic or fabricated, because a fabricator can say what is already known via the Quran.

It is true that the Imams taught this method, but we have to see in what context. And some of the ahadith that give this method are in the context of ghulat; there were ghulat who would ascribe divinity to the Imams, or say that the Shari`ah had been abrogated, or otherwise. For example, in the context of al-Mughira bin Sa`id altering the usul (hadith books of the companions of the Imams) and then circulating the corrupted usul, the Imam warns his companions and tells them to judge it by the Quran. These alterations would have to be something clearly suspicious.

Furthermore, the method is actually that what the Quran explicitly supports is correct, and what the Quran irreconcilably contradicts is false. It is not that whatever the Quran doesn't contradict is authentic, or whatever agrees with the "spirit" of the Quran is authentic.

In my experience, the people who advocate this method cherry-pick when they want to apply it. For example, when it comes to the issue of istighatha, which the Quran seems to clearly and irreconcilably contradict, this method is ignored, and the practice is validated on the basis of having an intention which is other than what your words are saying (e.g. that only God can help while your words indicate that you are calling upon another for help).

There are other methods too. For example, God says in the Quran to verify what a fasiq reports to us, and this is because the fasiq may have changed or fabricated the report. This is why `adalah is a necessary requirement for the tawtheeq of a narrator in `ilm ad-dirayah.

(wasalam)

can you quote what kulayini said about using quran to judge hadiths?

[Cake]

can you quote what kulayini said about using quran to judge hadiths?

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك الله أنه لا يسع أحدا " تمييز شئ مما اختلف الرواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السلام برأيه، إلا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السلام: " اعرضوها على كتاب الله فما وافى كتاب الله عز وجل فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردوه " و قوله عليه السلام: " دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم " وقوله عليه السلام " خذوا بالمجمع

عليه، فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه " ونحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلا أقله ولا نجد شيئا " أحوط ولا أوسع من رد علم ذلك كله إلى العالم عليه السلام وقبول ما وسع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السلام: " بأيما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم ".

A random, poor translation that I have at hand:

My brother in faith, may Allah grant you proper guidance, please note that there is no other way to sort out the confusion that comes from the variation of the narration of the scholars except by the help of the principles that the scholar (a) has set. "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

Also he has said, "Leave alone what agrees with the views of the others because the right is in what is opposite to them."

Also there are his (a) words, "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

We are only able to apply such principles to a very few of such cases. We do not find any thing better and more precautionary than to refer to the scholar (a) and accept that which is within the limit of his (a) words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

And another:

O’ brother! may God guide you. It is upto no person to discriminate between different versions of the traditions of the Imams according to his own light and except on the basis of the verdicts (criterion) laid down by the Imam himself. The verdict of the Imam is: "Check it up with the text of the Book of God (Qur'an), accept it if it agrees with the text and reject it if it does not." The verdict further lays down, "Let alone the agreeing with what is on the lips of general people since the truth is just the opposite." The third verdict lays down: "Accept what is held in common by all the narrators quoting us. Since there can be no doubt about what is unanimously held by all." (The narrators of our traditions - ahadith. ) But, to our knowledge, very few such contradicting traditions can be solved on the basis of the above described criterion. In the case of such (contradicting) traditions the best, the simpler and the more comprehensive solution is to leave all knowledge (regarding contradicting traditions) to the Imam himself. Imam has given us the easiest solution to choose and follow any of the version among such contradicting traditions. The Imam has said, "Whatever you have accepted and followed with the 'intention of obeying (the Imam) is valid for you." Thus has Allah made (the task of selecting and collecting the traditions) easy.

Regardless of whether Kulayni was talking about ikhtilaf in the muttoon of ahadith, or the authenticity of ahadith, or both, he still considered the method of comparing a hadith with the Quran as inapplicable except in a few cases.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Cake

[IbnSohan]

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك الله أنه لا يسع أحدا " تمييز شئ مما اختلف الرواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السلام برأيه، إلا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السلام: " اعرضوها على كتاب الله فما وافى كتاب الله عز وجل فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردوه " و قوله عليه السلام: " دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم " وقوله عليه السلام " خذوا بالمجمع

عليه، فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه " ونحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلا أقله ولا نجد شيئا " أحوط ولا أوسع من رد علم ذلك كله إلى العالم عليه السلام وقبول ما وسع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السلام: " بأيما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم ".

A random, poor translation that I have at hand:

My brother in faith, may Allah grant you proper guidance, please note that there is no other way to sort out the confusion that comes from the variation of the narration of the scholars except by the help of the principles that the scholar (a) has set. "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

Also he has said, "Leave alone what agrees with the views of the others because the right is in what is opposite to them."

Also there are his (a) words, "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

We are only able to apply such principles to a very few of such cases. We do not find any thing better and more precautionary than to refer to the scholar (a) and accept that which is within the limit of his (a) words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

And another:

O’ brother! may God guide you. It is upto no person to discriminate between different versions of the traditions of the Imams according to his own light and except on the basis of the verdicts (criterion) laid down by the Imam himself. The verdict of the Imam is: "Check it up with the text of the Book of God (Qur'an), accept it if it agrees with the text and reject it if it does not." The verdict further lays down, "Let alone the agreeing with what is on the lips of general people since the truth is just the opposite." The third verdict lays down: "Accept what is held in common by all the narrators quoting us. Since there can be no doubt about what is unanimously held by all." (The narrators of our traditions - ahadith. ) But, to our knowledge, very few such contradicting traditions can be solved on the basis of the above described criterion. In the case of such (contradicting) traditions the best, the simpler and the more comprehensive solution is to leave all knowledge (regarding contradicting traditions) to the Imam himself. Imam has given us the easiest solution to choose and follow any of the version among such contradicting traditions. The Imam has said, "Whatever you have accepted and followed with the 'intention of obeying (the Imam) is valid for you." Thus has Allah made (the task of selecting and collecting the traditions) easy.

Regardless of whether Kulayni was talking about ikhtilaf in the muttoon of ahadith, or the authenticity of ahadith, or both, he still considered the method of comparing a hadith with the Quran as inapplicable except in a few cases.

he did not say inapplicable. he said that we (him) do not know except very little to be able to apply that method and it will be safer (ahwat) to refer to another principle that says that if we submitted to either hadith (in case of ikhtilaf), we will be still on the safe side.

داود بن الحصين عن عمر بن حنظلة عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال قلت في رجلين اختار كل واحد منهما رجلا فرضيا ان يكونا الناظرين في حقهما فاختلفا فيما حكما وكلاهما اختلفا في حديثنا قال الحكم ما حكم به أعدلهما وأفقههما وأصدقهما في الحديث وأورعهما ولا يلتفت إلى ما يحكم به الاخر قال قلت فإنهما عدلان مرضيان عند أصحابنا ليس يتفاضل واحد منهما على صاحبه قال فقال ينظر إلى ما كان من روايتهما عنا في ذلك الذي حكما به المجمع عليه أصحابك فيؤخذ به من حكمنا ويترك الشاذ الذي ليس بمشهور عند أصحابك فان المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه وانما الأمور ثلاثة امر بين رشده فمتبع وأمر بين غيه فمجتنب وأمر مشكل يرد حكمه إلى الله تعالى قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله حلال بين وحرام بين وشبهات بين ذلك فمن ترك الشبهات نجا من المحرمات ومن اخذ بالشبهات ارتكب المحرمات وهلك من حيث لا يعلم قلت فإن كان الخبران عنكم مشهورين قد رواهما الثقات عنكم قال ينظر فيما (فما - خ) وافق حكمه حكم الكتاب والسنة وخالف العامة اخذ به .

قلت جعلت فداك وجدنا أحد الخبرين موافقا للعامة والاخر مخالفا لها

(٢٥٤)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

بأي الخبرين يؤخذ قال بما يخالف العامة فان فيه الرشاد قلت جعلت فداك فان وافقهما الخبران جميعا قال ينظر إلى ما هم اليه أميل حكامهم وقضاتهم فيترك ويؤخذ بالاخر قلت فان وافق حكامهم وقضاتهم الخبران جميعا قال إذا كان كذلك فارجه حتى تلقى امامك فان الوقوف عند الشبهات خبر من الاقتحام في الهلكات .

this is a hadith that put the different methods to solve a religious problems in order, i am not sure if the sanad is strong or weak but it seem that every methode should be used at one stage,quran should be used at given stage

-------

I am not judging what sodouq said, i am not aware whom he was talking to nor about their subject nor about the level of disagreement. But to say that a given, recommended method by imams is to be discarded is equal to rejection of the hadith that recommended it , isnt it?

Edited May 14, 2013 by IbnSohan

[Cake]

^ ?

My point is that, at least according to one likely interpretation, Kulayni mentioned this principle and then said that it, and some other principles, cannot be applied most of the time. His exact wording, or the situation he mentions (because if he cannot apply this principle to the ahadith in order to solve ikhtilaf, how one will be able to use it to determine authenticity), or his solution is besides my point.

I am not advocating rejection of this principle. I am saying its application is not useful most of the time. This is obvious. Try determining which ahadith are authentic in kitab at-Tawhid or kitab as-Salat of al-Kafi using this method. Or trying using this method to determine which ahadith we should prefer when there is ikhtilaf in these abwab.

An example when this principle can be applied is quoted below:

(http://www.shiachat....dren-and-heaven)

عنه، عن أبيه أبي عبد الله البرقي، عن ابن فضال، عن عبد الله بن بكير، عن زرارة قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: لا خير في ولد الزنا ولا في بشره ولا شعره ولا في لحمه ولا في دمه ولا في شئ منه (يعنى ولد الزنا). وفي رواية أبي خديجة، عن أبي - عبد الله عليه السلام، قال: ان كان أحد من أولاد الزنا نجا لنجا سائح بني اسرائيل، فقيل له: وما سائح بنى اسرائيل؟ - قال: كان عابدا، فقيل له: ان ولد الزنا لا يطيب أبدا ولا يقبل الله منه عملا، قال: فخرج يسيح بين الجبال ويقول: ما ذنبي؟

In Al-Barqi's Mahasin and Al-Saduq's Iqab al-Amal:

Imam Baqir said: "There is no good in the walad zina, not in his skin, his hair, his flesh, his blood, or anything from him."

And it is narrated by Abi Khadijah from Imam Sadiq who said:

"There was once a son of zina from Bani Israel who was a wanderer, and it was thought he was an ascetic." It was said to him, "The walad zina can never be purified, and Allah does not accept his actions." So, he went running to the mountains, and cried, "What was my sin?"

وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ ۚ وَإِن تَدْعُ مُثْقَلَةٌ إِلَىٰ حِمْلِهَا لَا يُحْمَلْ مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْبَىٰ ۗ إِنَّمَا تُنذِرُ الَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُم بِالْغَيْبِ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ ۚ وَمَن تَزَكَّىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَتَزَكَّىٰ لِنَفْسِهِ ۚ وَإِلَى اللَّـهِ الْمَصِيرُ

No soul laden bears the load of another; and if one heavy-burdened calls for its load to be carried, not a thing of it will be carried, though he be a near kinsman. Thou warnest only those who fear their Lord in the Unseen and perform the prayer; and whosoever purifies himself, purifies himself only for his own soul's good. To God is the homecoming. (35:18)

قُلْ أَغَيْرَ اللَّـهِ أَبْغِي رَبًّا وَهُوَ رَبُّ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ ۚ وَلَا تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلَّا عَلَيْهَا ۚ وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ ۚ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُم مَّرْجِعُكُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

Say: 'Shall I seek after a Lord other than God, who is the Lord of all things?' Every soul earns only to its own account, no soul laden bears the load of another. Then to your Lord shall you return, and He will tell you of that whereon you were at variance. (6:164)

It should also be noted that both ahadith are also dha`if by isnad. The first is reported through Barqi's father who is dha`if (http://www.shiachat....i/#entry2443001) and the second is mursal it seems.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Cake

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

^ and then someone who beliefs other wise would bring some other what that supports his argument. Comparing with Qur'an is at two levels.

1. Ask the imam a.s . Many of our ahadees are confirmations from Qur'an an Natiq. This has been done during times of every imam a.s.

2. Compare to the Qur'an with our best efforts and keep the result to ourselves or people will differ.

Had there been ease in this system some author would have given ayats for every hadees on a given topic. Even IF he is ale to do it, he can't be sure if it is a suspended command so he will refer to a hadees from a later masoom and if the wujoob or istihaab is established from sunna then he wouldn't find it in apparent meanings of Qur'an in most cases

[Inquisitor]

(bismillah)

Both sects use `ilm al-dirayah and rijal. Now the difference given is the emphasis paid to it and what exactly is the relationship between the narrators and content of what is narrated. I think the difference within our own sect that makes our content much stronger is the fact that our hadith developed with infallible source in reach and compilation happened during their life times.

Can you please help with some references to indicate that the Shia hadith compilation was done under the vigilance of the Imams (a.s) [?]. I had heard sometime ago that the books written down by the companions of the Imams (a.s) amounted to about 60,000 in numbers and then the Imams (a.s) aided in filtering them that eventually got it down to 400 and now the 4 important books we have. This seems to be a bit hard to digest in that a number as huge as running in thousands can actually be compacted in about 4 books...

(wasalam)

There are different methodologies that are used to ascertain whether a hadith is reliable (or, authentic). The main method that Sunnis use, from what I know, is `ilm ad-dirayah, in which they judge the authenticity of a hadith primarily by its chain of narrators (isnad) and content of the narration (matn). The most important condition by this method is that the chain must be composed only of trustworthy (thiqa) narrators; although there are others such as ittisal, `ilal, etc.

If you want me to expand on a point, let me know, and I'll try to inshallah.

Isn't the method you mentioned the same as what Shias use, namely checking the narrators and the content? So how is the Sunni method different in principle and methodology? Also, what is ittisal, ilal ?

A quick question too: How is tawatur established. I heard it is by checking if narrators come from different places or have different ideologies or backgrounds etc? Do Shias and Sunnis differ in the understanding of its establishment as well?

[Cake]

Can you please help with some references to indicate that the Shia hadith compilation was done under the vigilance of the Imams (a.s) [?]. I had heard sometime ago that the books written down by the companions of the Imams (a.s) amounted to about 60,000 in numbers and then the Imams (a.s) aided in filtering them that eventually got it down to 400 and now the 4 important books we have. This seems to be a bit hard to digest in that a number as huge as running in thousands can actually be compacted in about 4 books..

The companions of the Imams themselves either recorded ahadith textually or they narrated them orally to the next generation who then recorded them textually or they too narrated them orally to the next...etc. If I am not mistaken, by the time, the ahadith reached the authors of the Four Books, they were mostly written down, and textual records seem to be the main method of the companions of the Imams.

We know that the authors of the Four Books took from the companions' compilations (henceforth titled usul). For example, we know this because they said so. For example, in the intro to al-Faqih by as-Saduq:

ما فيه مستخرج من كتبمشهورة، عليها المعول وإليها المرجع، مثل كتاب حريز بن عبدالله السجستاني وكتاب عبيد الله بن علي الحلبي وكتب على بن مهزيار الاهوازي، وكتب الحسين بن سعيد، ونوادر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري وكتاب الرحمة لسعد بن عبدالله وجامع شيخنا محمد بنالحسن بن الوليد رضي الله عنه ونوادر محمد بن أبي عمير وكتب المحاسن لاحمد بن أبي عبدالله البرقي ورسالة أبي - رضي الله عنه - إلي وغيرها من الاصول والمصنفات التي طرقي إليها معروفة في فهرس الكتب التي رويتها عن مشايخي وأسلافي - رضي الله عنهم

all that is in it is taken from famous books, which are relied upon and which are referred to, such as the book of Hariz b. `Abdullah as-Sijistani, the book of `Ubaydullah b. `Ali al-Halabi, the books of `Ali b. Mahzyar al-Ahwazi, the books of al-Husayn b. Sa`id, the Nawadir of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Isa, the book Nawadir al-Hikma the composition of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. `Imran al-Ash`ari, the Kitab ar-Rahma of Sa`d b. `Abdullah, the Jami` of our shaykh Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid, may Allah be pleased with him, the Nawadir of Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr, the books of al-Mahasin of Ahmad b. Abi `Abdillah al-Barqi, the epistle of my father, may Allah be pleased with him, to me, and other than them from the usool and the books which my routes to them are known in the catalog of books which I narrated from my elders and my predecessors, may Allah be pleased with them.

(Translated by Macisaac)

^Most of the names mentioned by Saduq are companions, or contemporaries, of Imams.

A small minority of these usul have survived until today. For example, some survived by being copied by Ibn Idris at the end of one of his books. For example, see this: http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hariz

With regard to the number of usul, 400 is an oft-repeated number, but it may not be the correct number, and there are other numbers that have been mentioned.

With regard to the Imams' involvement, they weren't checking every work. We do have the occasional report mentioning how a book would be presented to an Imam, who would approve (or disapprove) of its contents. But I doubt that the majority, or many, of usul were checked by an Imam.

Isn't the method you mentioned the same as what Shias use, namely checking the narrators and the content? So how is the Sunni method different in principle and methodology? Also, what is ittisal, ilal ?

The Sunnis, from what I know, tend to heavily rely on this method. With the Imami scholars, there is more ikhtilaf as its to validity, the premises and conditions to be used, and other methods are also used (such as taking what there is reported ijma over).

One main condition that we would disagree with is the idea that all the sahaba are `adil (i.e. righteous), and so we can take ahadith from any sahaba. We believe that the sahaba do not automatically, nor necessarily, gain `adalah simply by seeing or talking to the Prophet; and their dhabt (i.e. accuracy) is open to question, just as is everyone else's.

Ittisal refers to the connection of the chain. For example, everyone in the chain might be thiqa (trustworthy), but there may have a gap of generations between two adjacent narrators in a chain, which means, even if both are trustworthy in themselves, we don't know how the hadith travelled from one narrator, over generations, to the next.

`Ilal refers to hidden defects. For example, discovering that a name in a chain actually refers to someone else, and not the usual person who it might refer to. This can be important if for example that name is being interpreted to refer to someone trustworthy, when actually it might be referring to someone who is weak.

A quick question too: How is tawatur established. I heard it is by checking if narrators come from different places or have different ideologies or backgrounds etc? Do Shias and Sunnis differ in the understanding of its establishment as well?

According to `ilm ad-dirayah, when the number of narrators in every generation is sufficient to ensure that fabrication/error with regard to that narration becomes virtually impossible. There are other definitions.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Cake

[IbnSohan]

@ Cake

I am not sure bro about how you feel or in what context you said " The Quran method is useless" but for me this sound very incorrect. Firstly, It is a ma'soum teaching and it should not be degraded down as if it is a theory made by a contemporary mujtahid. I think the Soudouq way of handling down this matter of humbling himself and saying that he dose not know enough to be able to use that method is much better than saying that it is a total rubbish. Secondly, the Quran method is not used when the hadith is Mu'tabar, It is used when a given clear hadith contradicts a muhkam verses from Quran, this is at least the way the contemporary scholars see it.

[Inquisitor]

With regard to the number of usul, 400 is an oft-repeated number, but it may not be the correct number, and there are other numbers that have been mentioned.

Can you please state a few of the other numbers mentioned and references for their quotations as such by few scholars?

With regard to the Imams' involvement, they weren't checking every work. We do have the occasional report mentioning how a book would be presented to an Imam, who would approve (or disapprove) of its contents. But I doubt that the majority, or many, of usul were checked by an Imam.

So, the number I heard - 60,000 etc is entirely incorrect? Infact, I've been under the impression that since the four books are important to the Shias, it only made sense that they contained hadith that were seen 'reliable' to the companions of the Imams (a.s), and thus found a way in those 4 books. Also, why did his companions not present their works to the Imam/s, wouldn't that be a good step in ensuring the ahadith they heard or compiled are all authentic? Isn't it logical for people to go to an Imam when they have access to him and gain his approval of the books to narrate them further down the line?

With the Imami scholars, there is more ikhtilaf as its to validity, the premises and conditions to be used, and other methods are also used (such as taking what there is reported ijma over).

Can you please explain it in easier terms, with examples if they're handy?

According to `ilm ad-dirayah, when the number of narrators in every generation is sufficient to ensure that fabrication/error with regard to that narration becomes virtually impossible. There are other definitions.

Yah, I know the definition, but I was pointing towards something else. Would a hadith narrated in praise of the khulafa, in a generation from 20 people , all of whom are known to be nasibis, make the hadith mutawatir? Don't we have to check if the narrators are coming from different places or have different ideologies etc to finally grade a hadith as mutawatir?

[Cake]

I am not sure bro about how you feel or in what context you said " The Quran method is useless" but for me this sound very incorrect. Firstly, It is a ma'soum teaching and it should not be degraded down as if it is a theory made by a contemporary mujtahid. I think the Soudouq way of handling down this matter of humbling himself and saying that he dose not know enough to be able to use that method is much better than saying that it is a total rubbish. Secondly, the Quran method is not used when the hadith is Mu'tabar, It is used when a given clear hadith contradicts a muhkam verses from Quran, this is at least the way the contemporary scholars see it.

I didn't say it's useless and don't intend to sound degrading toward the method. I said "its application is not useful most of the time. This is obvious. Try determining which ahadith are authentic in kitab at-Tawhid or kitab as-Salat of al-Kafi using this method. Or trying using this method to determine which ahadith we should prefer when there is ikhtilaf in these abwab." I explained that "It is true that the Imams taught this method, but we have to see in what context. And some of the ahadith that give this method are in the context of ghulat; there were ghulat who would ascribe divinity to the Imams, or say that the Shari`ah had been abrogated, or otherwise. For example, in the context of al-Mughira bin Sa`id altering the usul (hadith books of the companions of the Imams) and then circulating the corrupted usul, the Imam warns his companions and tells them to judge it by the Quran. These alterations would have to be something clearly suspicious." Also, a hadith which is sahih by isnad can be rejected if it irreconcilably contradicts the Quran.

Can you please state a few of the other numbers mentioned and references for their quotations as such by few scholars?

(http://tinyurl.com/ceej3yx):

وقال الشيخ المفيدأبو عبد اللهمحمد بن النعمان البغدادي رضي الله عنه وقدس روحه: صنف الامامية من عهد أمير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام إلى عهد أبي محمد الحسن العسكري صلوات الله عليه أربع ماية كتاب تسمى الأصول وهذا معنى قولهم: أصل، ثم أنى عقبت بعد ذلك بأسماء شعراء أهل البيت عليهم السلام المعروفين منهم بقدر وسعي وطاقتي وما توفيقي إلا بالله عليه توكلت وهو رب العرش العظيم

So shaykh al-Mufid said there were 400 usul composed between Imam Ali and Imam al-Askari, aleyhum assalam.

قال المحقق الحلي في " المعتبر ": " كتب من أجوبة مسائله أي جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام أربعمائة مصنف سموها اصولا

قال الطبرسي في " إعلام الورى بأعلام الهدى ": " روى عن الإمام الصادق عليه السلام من مشهوري أهل العلم أربعة آلاف إنسان وصنف من جواباته في المسائل أربعمائة كتاب تسمى الأصول، رواها أصحابه وأصحاب ابنه موسى الكاظم عليه السلام

However Muhaqiq al-Hilli and Tabarasi attribute these 400 usul only as the usul reported from Imam as-Sadiq, which means there would be more than 400.

Apparently Ibn Shahr Ashub said there are 700, but I can't seem to find this.

So, the number I heard - 60,000 etc is entirely incorrect? Infact, I've been under the impression that since the four books are important to the Shias, it only made sense that they contained hadith that were seen 'reliable' to the companions of the Imams (a.s), and thus found a way in those 4 books. Also, why did his companions not present their works to the Imam/s, wouldn't that be a good step in ensuring the ahadith they heard or compiled are all authentic? Isn't it logical for people to go to an Imam when they have access to him and gain his approval of the books to narrate them further down the line?

I don't know about the number about 60,000, although it sounds high.

The Akhbari perspective argues that the Four Books are all-reliable, because Saduq and arguably Kulayni said so, and supposedly Tusi did too. Some companions did present some books to the Imams, and some books were approved and some were not.

I would say that part of the reason is that the Imam wasn't accessible alot of the time to some of the narrators, partly due to distance (e.g. some Imams lived in Medinah while the early Shi`ah narrators appear to have been initially primarily based in Kufa) and oppression (e.g. Imam al-Askari apparently was under house arrest for most of his life) and otherwise. Also, because the Imami narrators seem to have been concentrated in a few cities, e.g. Qum and Rayy, then some narrators knew other narrators, and who to take hadiths from and who not to take from, and what sounded acceptable and what had e.g. ghuluw in it.

Can you please explain it in easier terms, with examples if they're handy?

Examples:

-Allamah al-Hilli generally only accepted ahadith that came only through 12ers, though this isn't a common position. So he would generally consider a Waqifi or Fathi or Sunni or otherwise as unreliable.

-Do we accept all the ahadith of Ibn Abi Umayr as sahih even if he reports in a mursal fashion? Generally, a mursal hadith is considered weak. But an argument can be made that the mursal hadiths of Ibn Abi Umayr can be accepted because he only reports from a thiqa (trustworthy) narrator.

-Do we take the tawthiq `aama of tafsir al-Qummi? The introduction of tafsir al-Qummi says everyone in it is thiqa. Some people accept this and so can make hundreds or so of narrators thiqa, and some do not.

If that still does not make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain it as basically as I can.

An example of a big difference:

Shaykh as-Sanad would question the premises of `ilm ad-dirayah. He claims that many of the gradings of Najashi and Ibn al-Ghada'iri were based on their ijtihad, rather than most of them being based on reports transmitted to them relaying a narrator's trustworthiness, or lack of. Therefore, he says we do not have to do taqlid to their gradings based on their ijtihad, and can make our ijtihad in grading a narrator.

Yah, I know the definition, but I was pointing towards something else. Would a hadith narrated in praise of the khulafa, in a generation from 20 people , all of whom are known to be nasibis, make the hadith mutawatir? Don't we have to check if the narrators are coming from different places or have different ideologies etc to finally grade a hadith as mutawatir?

Well, it would have to be enough people in every generation to convince one of the hadith being safe from fabrication. But yes, if there is a sign that indicates it might be fabrication, then one would take that into account. E.g. all the narrators are weak and some of them are known liars.

If you PM me your email address, I'll send you a good article by the academic Kohlberg on the subject of the 400 usul.

(wasalam)

Edited May 17, 2013 by Cake

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

Shaykh as-Sanad would question the premises of `ilm ad-dirayah. He claims that many of the gradings of Najashi and Ibn al-Ghada'iri were based on their ijtihad, rather than most of them being based on reports transmitted to them relaying a narrator's trustworthiness, or lack of. Therefore, he says we do not have to do taqlid to their gradings based on their ijtihad, and can make our ijtihad in grading a narrator.

I do not think it is correct to state this and claim that the premises of `ilm al-dirayah is that the information in rijal books is khabar passed from thiqa shaykh to thiqa student down to these fihirist and rijal authors. There many different perspectives that are taken, this premises, observational testimony (hissi shahada) passed down, is only one. Others are the premises of probability of rijali asssessment (zhunun rijaliyya), saying of the experts (qawl ahl al-khibra), satisfaction of withaqa by indicators (timnaana al-qara'in), etc. Each have their own bases and arguments as well as their implications.

Allahu a`lam

في أمان الله

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Salamalaikum,

The methods of compilation of ahadees of our classical scholars is testimony in itself as to their approach in resolving the correctness of ahadees

Things that would run in their mind while compiling a book.

1. Deciding the objective of the book, its contensts, its subjects, and sources to rely upon.

2. Selecting all related ahadees from the asl relied upon. The Usool were generally not specific to a subject but had various things in it.

The Usool were practiced upon by the shias of those times and it did include things which are not to be practiced upon like the Mansukh commands (suspended), the Mutashabih (doubtful/incomprehensible) and the ahadees to be practiced in taqiyya. Many usool were presented to the aimma a.s. from time to time and this can be established if we look in to the depth of the lifes of most Aimma a.s.

Then they had filters when taking narrations. Lets take a look from a fiqhi perspective.

1. Aqwaal of Rasool Allah saww are to be taken from the Abwaab al Madinatul Ilm (The doors of the City of Knowledge) and from those testified by the Abwaab.

2. Treating the Aqwaal of Rasool Allah saww equivalent to the verses of Quran and interpretation should be sought from the Abwaab. In the absence of this best practice an option of following with intent of Itaat was also given to shias who could not get or find a specific interpretation.

3. Collecting the ahadees which are Mansukh together with Mohkam so as to maintain the same balance which Quran also has in it.

4. To present ahadees which are inthe form of tafseer and if Mansukh and Mohkam ayaat both have a tafseer then both are quoted similarly to what has been said in point 3. In addition the hadees from a later Imam is quoted after the previous so as to ensure which hukm would be Mohkam and that could be an indicator in many cases to adjudge a Mohkam ayat. If this issue was a non Fiqhi issue and is not sensitive enough requiring taqiyya then it would be considered as layers

of interpretation of a given ayat (Minimum of 7 zahir and 7 batin to 70 respectively)

5. The ahadees to be practiced in taqiyya is also given so as to help those shias who might face taqiyya; at times such ahadees spoke of more than one hukm as there are more than 1 sunni madhab.

6. Then the Ahkaam which have a choice are also quoted if there are any. For e.g., Concentrating in salat can be done while looking at turbah, imagining the text of Quranic ayat etc.

7. Judgments of Imam Ali a.s. in a specific circumstance or a Sunni hadees quoted from Imam Ali a.s. in the absence of a hadees on a particular issue from any of the Aimma a.s.

8. If the issue is not popular among Shiite awaam and nothing can be ascertained/or no law is mentioned from sunni sources on a given hukm but there exists a contradiction in a Hukm then the classical scholars would see who was Thiqah among such differing ahadees and follow that as a source of guidance.

If a student who does not know such rules before taking up the study of ahadees, he might face difficultites. And he might also face problems if his primary approach is rijaali as he would disturb the sequence of understanding a Hukm and would be forced to even accept zaeef in rijal ahadees. At this point his understanding and approach would not be in symphony and would look be subjective.

After all these principles if someone is unable to ascertain as Kulayni said: 'he could follow any of the hukm with intention of Itaat' and that is based on what aimma a.s. have said. That is my approach and understanding.

[Ruq]

O wow, i'd forgotten i made this thread >.< im so glad i remembered as there have been so many useful replies, thank you!