Response To Narrator Criticism In Sunni Rijal

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

 

This is a section from Āyatullāh al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Sanad حفظه الله’s second volume in his rijāl series (pages 105 - 111) where he criticizes and refutes the methods of the Sunni Rijāl Scholars - exploiting their Nasb and utterly unacademic method of filtration. I pray the people find this discussion beneficial, inshā’Allah. I translated this myself, I put the arabic in on places I was little more unsure. Some parts of more word for word, others are less.

 

It is extremely important to look into and investigate the Jarh and Ta`dīl of the different schools of the Sunnis where they continued in weakening narrators who would narrate the fadā’il of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and their status or those who would narrate the defects of the opponents of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام or those would narrate prophetic narrations in agreement with the ahkām practiced by the school of Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام especially after the formed the principles [of their Mazhzhhab] in their hands today which they have made very clear that the Sunna with them is in opposing the Ahl al-Bayt [as] and exiling them and those obstinately with them. But every that narrator increases in this [opposing them and their followers] then it is said that he is firm in the Sunna, while everything coming from those narrating in their favor is passion (hawā), affection, love (muwadda) for the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and inclining towards them, they criticized attributing to them weakness, innovation, and attacks.

 

According to them there is no obstruction or over-stepping [the bounds] in the sayings of their masters of Jarh and Ta`dīl being nothing other than the their rijālī fatāwā concluded from their conjectural ijtihād and they are not bound to anything like their sayings being necessarily based on observation testimony. We have mentioned many examples of this that the criticisms they have applied and ruled for a narrator are based on their principles of theology and the Rijālī scholar used them in giving opinions on a narrator by investigating their narrations or the teachers of the narrator that they would seek out to study and narrate from. We will provide a few example in their Jarh and Ta`dīl showing their partisanship or nasb opposing the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام.

 

1 - `Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa (trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام

 

2 - Ziyād b. Abīh : A man of severe calamities, excessive crimes, and mortal sins. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt : He was included amongst the very ascetic ones. Ahmad b. Sālih said: He was not accused of lying.

 

3 - `Imrān b. Hattān : leader of the Khawārij. He wrote well-known poetry regarding Ibn Muljam al-Murādī praising him. al-`Ijlī authenticated him. al-Bukhārī included him amongst the narrators of his Sahīh and selected his narrations.

 

4 - Harīz b. `Uthmān : The one would who would pray in the masjid and would not leave until he had cursed (yal`an) `Alī seventy times every single day. al-Bukhārī, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmizhī, and others presented his narrations as proof [as a matter of dalīl]. In al-Riyād al-Nadra : Thiqa, except he hates `Alī, Allah hates him.

 

5 - al-`Abbās b. Bakkār al-Dabbī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān al-I`tidāl : He is accused by his hadith from Khālid b. `Abd Allah from Bayān from al-Sha`bī from Abī Juhayfa from `Alī عليه السلام marfū`an (meaning it originates from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله): On the Day of Resurrection a Caller will call: O People of the Gathering! Lower your gazes from Fātima until she passes the path (al-Sirāt) to Paradise. He [al-Zhahabī] also said: And from among his many false sayings: from Khālid b. `Amr al-Azdī from al-Kalbī from Abī Sālih from Abī Hurayra. He said: It is written upon the throne (al-`Arsh): There is no god except Allah Myself Only, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله is My slave and My messenger, I supported him with `Alī.

 

6 - `Ubayd Allah b. Mūsā al-`Abasī : from al-Khatīb that Ahmad b. Hanbal abandoned narrations from him when he heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān, so he went his messenger to Yahyā b. Ma`iīn so he said to him : Your brother Abū `Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal sends you salām and he says : Behold you increase in narrating the narrations from `Ubayd Allah and you and I both heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān and I surely have abandoned narrations from him. So Yahyā b. Ma`īn said to the messenger : I return the salām to Abī `Abd Allah. Say to him : Yahyā b. Ma`īn sends you salām, he said to you : You and I both heard `Abd al-Razzāq presenting [defamation] in `Uthmān b. `Affān so then abandon narrations from him! For verily `Uthmān is more virtuous than Mu`āwiya.

 

7 - Zakariyyā b. Yahyā al-Kasā’ī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān : `Abd Allah b. Ahmad [b. Hanbal] said: I asked Ibn Ma`īn about him so he said : a vile man that narrates vile narrations. He also said : He deserves that a well be built for him and then he is thrown in it. Abū Yu`lā al-Mūsalī narrated: Zakariyyā al-Kasā’ī narrated to me: Zakariyyā b. al-Qāsim narrated to me from Mu`allā b. `Irfān from Shaqīq from `Abd Allah. He said: I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله take the hand of `Alī عليه السلام while he saying: Allah is my walī and I am your walī and the enemy whoever makes you their enemy and peacemaker with whoever makes with with you.

 

8 - Talīd b. Sulaymān al-Kūfī al-A`raj al-Muhārabī : In al-Tahzhīb : Abū Dawūd said : a rāfidī that villifies Abā Bakr and `Uthmān, a vile man malignant, rāfidī. Ibn Mu`ayd said: A liar, he vilifies `Uthmān and any person who villifies `Uthmān or Talha or anyone from the companions of Rasulullah صلى الله عليه وآله is a dajjāl (anti-christ, super-evil-liar) his narrations are not written down!

 

So anyone who vilifies anyone from the Sahaba is proven to be a dajjāl according to Ibn Ma`īn and it is not permissible to write his hadith.

 

al-Muzaffar after he narrates this principle from Ibn Hajr, he said : So why is it that Mu`āwiya and his ilk and the renegade Khawārij are not liars and dajjāls according to Ibn Ma`īn? Yes, their honesty is proven according to him [along with] their status as enemies with the Imam of the Pious (al-muttaqīn) and their abusing of the one whom abusing is abusing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. I digress(? ليت شعري), is abusing a Companion greater or going to war with the Imam of the time and killing thousands of Muslims? How is it that the likes of Talha not a dajjāl while he went to war with him, the one with whom going to war with is going to war with Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله? And while the one who abuses Talha is a dajjāl? This is nothing but `ajīb (amazing - in this context meaning hypocrisy)!

 

10 - Lamāza b. Zabbār al-Azdī al-Jahdamī : [al-Zhahabi] said in Mīzā al-I`tidāl : He was present at the incident of Jamal and he was a Nāsibī. He would defame `Alī عليه السلام and praise Yazīd لعنه الله. And in al-Tahzhīb : Ibn Ma`īn said: He would vilify `Alī. Abū Lubayd said : I said to him [Limāza] : Why do you abuse `Alī? He said : That I abuse a man that kills 2500 from us while the Sun is as here!?

The man is authenticated, Ibn Sa`d gives him authentication (tawthīq). Harb said from his father : He was righteous in narrations and he praised him good praises.

 

Then after this Ibn Hajr said: I had disputed their majority tawthīq for the Nāsibī and their absolute weakening for the Shī`ah. Especially that the narration “No one shall love him except a believer and none shall hate him except a hypocrite” has come down in `Alī’s right. Then the response regarding that was clarified to me that the enmity here-there is clarified by a reason and that is because he was the supporter of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله because it is human nature to hate the one who brings harm for the hater and love for its opposite and that what generally returns to the affairs of this world. The report regarding the love of `Alī and hating him is not general...for the majority of those described as Nāsibī are also described as being honest and people who hold on to the affairs of the religion; while in opposition to that, the majority of those described as rawāfid are liars and are not upright in reporting. The origin regarding it is that the Nāsiba believed that `Alī killed `Uthmān or aided in it so their hate for him was religiously inspired (!) according to their claim. Then, in addition to that, is that there are those from them and their family that were killed in the wars of `Alī عليه السلام

 

(لا حول ولا قوّة إلا بالله العلي العظيم)

 

I [Āyatullāh Muhammad al-Sanad حفظه الله تعالى] say: There are several points here that need to be turned to:

 

The First: Ibn Hajr makes it very clear in this discussion that the practice of the master of Jarh and Ta`dīl of the Sunnis was that they would mostly give tawthīq to the Nāsibī and weaken the Shī`ah absolutely and this reporting from him about methodology of the people in Jarh and Ta`dīl and that it is explicitly being in opposition to the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام not regarding honesty of tongue or the lack of it.

 

Second: From that which indicates the nasb of Ibn Hajr is that he weakened some thuqāt because they would abuse some of the Companions like Talha and `Uthmān without it being clarified for a reason - like what has passed in the entry of Talīd - meanwhile he has given tawthīq to those who vilify Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه السلام; rather he says that most of the Nāsiba were described with honesty of the speech and upholders of religion so what is concluded from his words is the following: Everyone who abuses a single one from the Companions is a dajjāl, it is not permissible to take narrations from him except the insulters/abusers of Amīr al-Mūminīn `Alī عليه أفضل الصلاة والسلام for verily they are generally the masters of religious affairs and described as honest in speech! So welcome to this type of religiosity! Congratulations to these religious ones the most daring [in challenging] Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله! How joyous for these pens that seek reward in supporting Banī Umayya in assaulting the law of Islam and the sanctity of the Master of Risālah al-Mudriyya (?) with wickedness and fasād and hating the purified progeny and aiding the Tulaqā’* and the sons of Tulaqā’! The opposers of the Imam of Truth! The drinkers of wine! The creators of calamities and pages of darkness, the likes of Talha, `Uthmān, and Mu`āwiya لعنه الله. “A grievous word comes from the mouths! The speak nothing but lies!” [al-Kahf 18:5]

 

*Tulaqā’ refers to those people who remain kuffār until the Fath of Makka, like Abī Sufyān

 

The Third: As for his words that enmity for him is many times clarified for a reason and that is because he is the supporter of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. So to that: Surely that necessitates from the language of the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله in revealing the virtue of `Alī عليه السلام as anyone one who despises the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله supporter is a hypocrite without specificity to `Alī عليه السلام. In addition to that is that Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه السلام is the scale of truth! The entirety of his demeanor, actions, and sayings are the fountain of truth and honesty. He is the dīn and none is the dīn but him. For verily `Alī is with the truth and the truth is with `Alī, it turns wherever he turns - and whenever. So anyone who hates `Alī then surely he has hated him because he was the one who held up the dīn and the truth and helped the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله as he does not have separate administration/control outside of that limit (إذ ليس له تصرّف خارج عن ذلك النطاق). As you know that anyone who hates the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله is a kāfir without being clarified for a reason because he “does not speak out of passion/desire. It is only a revelation revealed” [al-Najm 53: 3-4]. So if Ibn Hajr has mentioned that for the Nawāsib as an excuse then surely the polytheists are more excused than them! They only had hated the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله due to their disagreement in their worldly affairs (فلو كان ما ذكره ابن حجر عذراً للناصبة لكان المشركين أعذر لأنهم إنما كانوا يبغضون النبيّ صلى الله عليه وآله لمعارضتهم في دنياهم).

 

The Conclusion: The matter of Jarh and Ta`dīl is subjected to the ijtihād of the rijāli according it was grounded in from inquiries of belief so his conclusions that he put out were nothing but his fatāwā, meaning his ijtihād and the majority of the matter is not grounded in assessing the moral behavior of the narrator. 

 

In light of that, then it is possible to judge these criticisms and refute them by raising the point of action on ijtihād in those instances that are built [supposedly] on observational reports that are existent in the books with them that is determined by the methodologies we have indicated towards. This opens the grounds of ijtihād in rijāl amongst them and remedies the way regarding the tampering (tahrīf) in weakening narrations and authenticating them that they have and the toying with the inherited sunna and parallel to this invitation is another invitation stating: Not to accept their criticism unless it is reasoned with what is correct and necessitates criticism. This opens the doors in front of the authoring researchers amongst them who want to pursue the truth and reality.

 

----------

 

If you have corrections to the translation and stuff, please post them here or PM them to me.

 

في أمان الله

Edited July 21, 2013 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Kazmi_202]

Jazakallah for this, very insightful. Its amazing that these people have the audacity to repeatedly claim that their Hadith science is one of the most sophisticated and exemplary systems in place, while the Shia have nothing of the sort! But in reality they just have a 'mind boggling' system that seeks to legitimise why their narrations are filled with manifest enemies of the AhlulBayt (as)!!

 

On a side note, they say that we have ourselves strengthened narrators even though they were Nasibi's, and therefore we are being hypocritical. An example of this claim is provided below:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015528-those-who-love-me-to-much-will-be-ruined-ali-as/#entry2608800

 

Is there any truth to this claim? And if true, is the difference that they strengthen Nasibi's for being Nasibi's, while our scholars have deemed them reliable for other reasons (if they have at all that is!!).

[Hannibal]

Great work, but I believe it's Yahya b. Ma'een, not Mu'ayn.

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

Jazakallah for this, very insightful. Its amazing that these people have the audacity to repeatedly claim that their Hadith science is one of the most sophisticated and exemplary systems in place, while the Shia have nothing of the sort! But in reality they just have a 'mind boggling' system that seeks to legitimise why their narrations are filled with manifest enemies of the AhlulBayt (as)!!

 

On a side note, they say that we have ourselves strengthened narrators even though they were Nasibi's, and therefore we are being hypocritical. An example of this claim is provided below:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015528-those-who-love-me-to-much-will-be-ruined-ali-as/#entry2608800

 

Is there any truth to this claim? And if true, is the difference that they strengthen Nasibi's for being Nasibi's, while our scholars have deemed them reliable for other reasons (if they have at all that is!!).

 

Yes, I implore and warn those amongst our brothers in this 'amr to not be envious and glorify their rijal system, it's a piece of manure. They may have more "information," but the rijali gradings are based on accepting those narrating their doctrines and filtering out Shi'ism, for the most part. 

 

As for us accepting narrations from a Nasibi. Ahmad b. Hilal is not a "nasibi" as we use the term today or that which is common. If you study the narrations regarding Ahmad b. Hilal, the nasb attributed to him is because he rejected the appointment of the Sufaraa' of the 12th Imam [as] (he did not believe they actually were appointed). It is not conventional "nasb" it was him fighting the nass of the Ma`sum [as]'s sufaraa'. On the other hand, there is ikhtilaf on his accusations, Tusi says he is accused of ghuluw. It cannot be said that He was a ghaali who became a Nasibi because tusi says explicitly that the Taa'ifa differentiated between what Ahmad b. Hilal narrated in his state of istiqaama and his period of misguidance - you cannot have been a ghaali and then called "mustaqeem."

 

 

Great work, but I believe it's Yahya b. Ma'een, not Mu'ayn.

 

I had previously had Ma`een, but then did Mu`ayn cause I heard/saw it elsewhere. Oh well.

 

في أمان الله

Edited July 21, 2013 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Hannibal]

(bismillah)

 

Yes, I implore and warn those amongst our brothers in this 'amr to not be envious and glorify their rijal system, it's a piece of manure. They may have more "information," but the rijali gradings are based on accepting those narrating their doctrines and filtering out Shi'ism, for the most part. 

 

As for us accepting narrations from a Nasibi. Ahmad b. Hilal is not a "nasibi" as we use the term today or that which is common. If you study the narrations regarding Ahmad b. Hilal, the nasb attributed to him is because he rejecting the appointment of the Sufaraa' of the 12th Imam [as] (he did not believe they actually were appointed). It is not conventional "nasb" it was him fighting the nass of the Ma`sum [as]'s sufaraa'. On the other hand, there is ikhtilaf on his accusations, Tusi says he is accused of ghuluw. It cannot be said that He was a ghaali who became a Nasibi because tusi says explicitly that the Taa'ifa differentiated between what Ahmad b. Hilal narrated in his state of istiqaama and his period of misguidance - you cannot have been a ghaali and then called "mustaqeem."

 

 

 

I had previously had Ma`een, but then did Mu`ayn cause I heard/saw it elsewhere. Oh well.

 

في أمان الله

Edited July 21, 2013 by Hannibal

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

 

Also, Ahmad b. Hilal also spent most of his life with the Imami community without a problem. This indicates that even if he had some deviant beliefs (which manifested later), they weren't that significant to the community, relatively speaking. 

 

This is correct. I just looked into this actually...

 

The major occultation occurred in 260 AH. The disagreement that Ahmad b. Hilal had was with the second Safeer's appointment, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Uthman al-`Amri, and his father passed away in 265 AH. Ahmad b. Hilal died 267 AH. There were only 2 years of his period of inhirāf... while he was born in 190 AH. So out of the total 77 years he lived, 75 he was mustaqīm and the last 2 he became someone misguided.

 

في أمان الله

[IbnSohan]

Ahmed b Hilal Al'Eberta'ee?

He was cursed by Imam Al'askari.

Edited July 21, 2013 by IbnSohan

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

Ahmed b Hilal Al'Eberta'ee?

He was cursed by Imam Al'askari.

 

The narrations indicate the la`n coming from Imam al-Qā'im عليه السلام rather than al-`Askarī عليه السلام. You can see his entry in Mu`jam here

 

The part in particular to see is that the la`n is coming from a Tawqī` from al-`Amrī and then:

 

ووقف على أبي جعفر، فلعنوه وتبرأوا منه، ثم ظهر التوقيع، على يد أبي القاسم حسين ابن روح، بلعنه، والبراءة منه

 

"He ceased upon Abī Ja`far so they [the Tā'ifa] cursed him and dissociated from him. Then the letter come forward on the hand of Abī al-Qāsim al-Husayn b. Rūh with his cursing and the dissociation from him"

 

 

Anyway, this isn't a topic about Ahmad b. Hilal, if you want to discuss this further, we can do it somewhere else. Let's stick to the main topic: Sunni rijal being a load of manure.

 

في أمان الله

Edited July 21, 2013 by Dar'ul_Islam

[IbnSohan]

you are correct, i got that part confused wuth this:

وقد روى فيه ذموم من سيدنا أبي محمد العسكري (ع)

[Vigilare]

To be honest this uses material that can only be used in anti-sunni rhetoric.  It's not a balanced view, and I'm sure someone will post a 'refutation of this refutation' fairly soon.

 

 

1 - `Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa (trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام

 

Just to address this point, from what I know, the thiqah grading is based on the fact that the very few narrations ibn Sa'd did narrate weren't lies and were before Karbala so if he narrated truthfully then he's thiqah in relation to those narrations. Odd the way it works but there you go. 

 

Also, given that Yahya bin Ma’een is mentioned elsewhere in the article, what's his view of ibn Sa'd? If all sunni rijalists held the same view about him then there would be a case to put forward but there should be at least a balanced view of what sunni scholars say about ibn Sa'd, not just cherry picking the ones that suit the shia agenda.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Vigilare

[Abul Hussain Hassani]

To be honest this uses material that can only be used in anti-sunni rhetoric.  It's not a balanced view, and I'm sure someone will post a 'refutation of this refutation' fairly soon.

 

 

Here:

 

[URL Edited]/index.php?showtopic=20419

[Hannibal]

Here:

 

[URL Edited]/index.php?showtopic=20419

 

I don't have time to go through the post at this point (I can leave that for brother Dar), but the 'Umar ibn Sa'ad part of Farid's post caught my eye:

 

I say: Al-Sanad has left out an important opinion, which is that of Yahya bin Ma’een, arguably the greatest of all the rijalis, in which he says: How can the killer of Al-Hussain be thiqa? (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb) Why didn’t Al-Sanad quote the opinion of Yahya bin Ma’een? Perhaps it is because it will destroy his very argument that the Sunni system revolves around Nasb.

 

 

and

 

1^st Mistake: He said: Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام

I say: Ibn Hajar said no such thing in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.

 

 

The central position in Ibn Hajar's text is that he is thiqah, that's what the actual position in the entry is.

 

1) If you look at Ibn Hajar's own abridgment of the Tahdheeb, Taqrib al-Tahdheeb, you will see that Ibn Hajar himself considers him trustworthy:

 

عمر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص المدني نزيل الكوفة صدوق ولكن مقته الناس لكونه كان أميرا على الجيش الذين قتلوا الحسين بن علي

 

Umar ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas al-Madani, settler in Kufa, he is trustworthy (saduq) although people have hated him for being the leader of the army that killed Husayn b. Ali.

 

Here you can see that al-Sanad is understanding Ibn Hajar's quotation of al-Ijli in the Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb very well given it is an expression of his own view which is confirmed by his own Taqrib (al-Dhahabi also seems to agree with Ibn Hajar's opinion in his Mizan al-'Itidal)

 

2) Finally, Sanad is not trying to argue that there was a fully directed and especially consorted conspiracy by all Sunni rijalists. He's trying to argue that there was a general tendency with many of the hadith experts and rijalists to create some kind of an artificial system that confirmed their own religious views through various filterings, censorings and dismissals. Although there was no consorted effort in doing so on a case by case basis (which is why you can see different opinions), but as a whole you see the enterprise largely (although not absolutely) functioning this way. This happens through accrediting butchers and haters of Ahl al-Bayt, dismissing Shia narrators wholesale (minor view), or the much much more popular custom of accepting the reports of Shias when it agrees with their views, and dismissing them when it doesn't. 

 

So even if we say ibn Ma'een opinion is that he was not thiqah at all (I don't find his statement to be fully clear), it does nothing to refute Sanad's thesis. Most Sunni rijalists have opted for considering him trustworthy, which makes his view of secondary importance in the broader context of things.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Hannibal

[Hannibal]

There was a response to what I said by Farid:

 

I say: Hannibal is incorrect in translating the term saduq as "trustworthy". The word should be literally translated as "truthful". There is a notable difference between the two words. 

Sure, it is possible for one to hold extremely negative qualities and yet be truthful, which was the case with Omar bin Sa'ad.

 

 

I say: that is not entirely correct. Saduq is different from thiqah depending on how the narrator in question is qualified in Ibn Hajar's Taqreeb. Sure the two terms can be different as in one may be saduq but make mistakes (khata') in transmission, or awhaam, and thus not be fully trustworthy, or have other flaws like some forms of tashayu' (there is a plethora of examples of this where the qualifications are included, see entries for Ali b. Abi Talha or Ali b. Asim al-Wasiti, or Ali b. 'Ala al-Thalabi, Ali b. Mas'adah etc. - I gave you names under one alphabetic section so it wouldn't be too hard to check them up). But when they are unqualified like Umar ibn Sa'ad, it usually implies that one is trustworthy or thiqah. This is the reason I chose to translate it as trustworthy instead of truthful. Perhaps he chose saduq (which in his nuzhat al-nadhr can be one level lower than thiqa, but then again, it usually qualified when it is the case) because of people having mixed feelings about what he did in karbala, so he is perhaps trying to compromise with their feelings ... but it is without a doubt that he considered him trustworthy in the end. I have not seen evidence to the contrary so far.

 

Now imagine this was someone who killed Abu Bakr or Umar, I'd like to see what Ibn Hajar would have to say about him.

 

Also note that Yahya bin Ma'een did not accuse Omar bin Sa'ad of lying. He didn't do this, nor did any Sunni OR Shia scholar. Now, is it a form of Nasb for one to consider the killer of Al-Hussain as truthful? Or is it obligatory for this person to hold all the negative qualities known to man, like being a cowardly fornicating drunkard who happens to be a transvestite that is a pathological liar?

 

 

I say: what Sanad is saying is that hypocrisy and double standards are nasb. That is, to weaken a narrator because he goes against some of the sahaba without any reason yet on the other hand doing tawtheeq of people who curse and kill members of Ahl al-Bayt. 

 

Actually, Al-Sanad is arguing for this. Notice what he says:

But every that narrator increases in this [opposing them and their followers] then it is said that he is firm in the Sunna, while everything coming from those narrating in their favor is passion (hawā), affection, love (muwadda) for the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and inclining towards them, they criticized attributing to them weakness, innovation, and attacks.

He also says:

Ibn Hajr makes it very clear in this discussion that the practice of the master of Jarh and Ta`dīl of the Sunnis was that they would mostly give tawthīq to the Nāsibī and weaken the Shī`ah absolutely and this reporting from him about methodology of the people in Jarh and Ta`dīl and that it is explicitly being in opposition to the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام not regarding honesty of tongue or the lack of it.

These are two clear-cut quotes from him that show that he believes that rijali standards mainly revolve around the tashayyu and nasb of a narrator. Inshallah the brother will realize this now and stop defending the position of Al-Sanad, for his cause is lost. In the first post above, it is clear from some of the examples, like the example of Ubaidullah bin Musa, that the majority of the Sunni scholars accepted the Shia thiqaat. So no, there were no tendencies against thiqaat from the Shia.

 

 

I say: the problem is not strictly tashayyu', tashayyu' is a wide term that includes various shades of what rijalists would consider Shi'ism, the most popular of these simply being a diet coke version of shi'ism-light like considering Ali to be superior to Uthman, or loving Ali more than the shaykhayn whilst still accepting the khulafa as legitimate successors of the Prophet (s) and not cursing or insulting them. What Sanad is talks about most the time is our current conception of Shi'ism, that is, Rafd, where individuals were actual staunch Shi'is and religiously opposed the shaykhayn, uthman and mua'wiyah.  Notice Sanad keeps saying those who do "sabb" of the sahaba. What generally happens, according to Sanad, is that many of these people will be uncritically rejected for attacking a sahabi many times which no other reason is offered for rejection such individuals. Or at other times, you may see narrations accepted when they agree with sunni or proto-sunni preconceptions, but rejected in other places when there is disagreement. 

 

This is what Sanad says was a major facet of the Sunni rijal system (but not the only facet however, he has not said that). His problem with the system is that of hypocrisy and double standards which acts as an Achilles heel for this enterprise given that a large portion of it is based on filtering out what it doesn’t like instead of seeking the truth.

 

I have attached the relevant Arabic passage of the book to this post.

 

[IbnSohan]

In Sunni Rijal system, any narration that record an incident of hatred or insult to any of Ahlulbayt by a certain narrator, this incident will be perceived by Sunni scholars as a merit to the narrator. He will be either more jealous on Islam than the prophet himself, or he was caring about the prophet so he said do not over burden him by the pen and paper or that killing Imam Husain just proves that I bn Sa'ad was strong in faith that he fought against the outlaws and the dichotomy in the ummah, he kept its unity etc of the excauses that are made for those Sahabis

 

On the other hand, when someone from that era, be it  a sahabi or a tabe'i, belongs to the other camp (that claim that  khilafah is tawqeef from Allah and not Shura, who do not consider the first three as infallible or holy figures or at least, do  consider Ali to have merits that non of the sahabah has)

Those who belong to this camp had been moved by hawa (opinions, likings etc) not trustworthy.

 

It all gets down to the hadith that hatred of Imam Ali is the measure of hypocrisy, most hypocrites do not see this hadith to hold value in terms of rijals, they may think that prophet was speaking in metaphor.

[Vigilare]

In Sunni Rijal system, any narration that record an incident of hatred or insult to any of Ahlulbayt by a certain narrator, this incident will be perceived by Sunni scholars as a merit to the narrator. He will be either more jealous on Islam than the prophet himself, or he was caring about the prophet so he said do not over burden him by the pen and paper or that killing Imam Husain just proves that I bn Sa'ad was strong in faith that he fought against the outlaws and the dichotomy in the ummah, he kept its unity etc of the excauses that are made for those Sahabis

 

 

That statement is so beyond ridiculous it's redonkulous.

 

[IbnSohan]

 

That statement is so beyond ridiculous it's redonkulous.

 

 

I'd like to see you ridicule it practically

[Kazmi_202]

Im suprised the guys on that terrorist forum follow our posts so attentively!

 

Looks like they are looking for excuses and making up scenarios for why they have narrated from those who openely had 'bughz' of Ali (as).

 

They can find a million and one reasons for why the narrations of such people are acceptable, but anyone who curses Abu Bakr & Umar, well thats a different story. Hypocrocy at its finest.

[IbnSohan]

يقول الحافظ الذهبى :
كما تقرر عن الكف عن كثيرٍ مما شجر بين الصحابة وقتالهم رضي الله عنهم أجمعين .
وما زال يمر بنا ذلك في الدواوين والكتب والأجزاء ولكن أكثر ذلك منقطع وضعيف ، وبعضه كذب ، وهذا فيما بأيدينا وبين علمائنا ، فينبغي طيه وإخفاؤه ، بل إعدامه لتصفو القلوب ، وتتوفر على حب الصحابة والترضي عنهم ، وكتمان ذلك متعين عن العامة وآحاد العلماء ، وقد يرخص في مطالعة ذلك خلوة للعالم المنصف العري من الهوى بشرط أن يستغفر لهم سير اعلام النبلاء 10\92

 

Alhafiz Althahabi in Seyer A'alaam Annubalaa said : As it has been established that we should not discuss the dispute between the companions and their fights may Allah be pleased with all of them. These incidents can be found through out our books  but most of them have interrupted chains or weak chains or simply a fabrication, but regarding those that we confirmed (of these historical events) we must hide , no, we must destroy them so the hearts will be clear (from hatred) instead hearts will be full of love to companions, this act of hiding of these events is a must on the general population and on the individual scholars, it will be allowed for a scholar to read these events under conditions : he must be free from hawa and he must pray for forgiveness   for all of them (the companions)

[Muslim2010]

يقول الحافظ الذهبى :

كما تقرر عن الكف عن كثيرٍ مما شجر بين الصحابة وقتالهم رضي الله عنهم أجمعين .

وما زال يمر بنا ذلك في الدواوين والكتب والأجزاء ولكن أكثر ذلك منقطع وضعيف ، وبعضه كذب ، وهذا فيما بأيدينا وبين علمائنا ، فينبغي طيه وإخفاؤه ، بل إعدامه لتصفو القلوب ، وتتوفر على حب الصحابة والترضي عنهم ، وكتمان ذلك متعين عن العامة وآحاد العلماء ، وقد يرخص في مطالعة ذلك خلوة للعالم المنصف العري من الهوى بشرط أن يستغفر لهم سير اعلام النبلاء 10\92

 

Alhafiz Althahabi in Seyer A'alaam Annubalaa said : As it has been established that we should not discuss the dispute between the companions and their fights may Allah be pleased with all of them. These incidents can be found through out our books  but most of them have interrupted chains or weak chains or simply a fabrication, but regarding those that we confirmed (of these historical events) we must hide , no, we must destroy them so the hearts will be clear (from hatred) instead hearts will be full of love to companions, this act of hiding of these events is a must on the general population and on the individual scholars, it will be allowed for a scholar to read these events under conditions : he must be free from hawa and he must pray for forgiveness   for all of them (the companions)

 

This is called hypocracy and hiding the truth in the religion.

[AbuMuhsin]

(salam)

 

I just put this album together of screenshots from two important books that address relevant topics: Religion and Politics Under the Early Abbasids and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

 

The main points to takeaway from the scored sections are that: (1) the majority of the Sunni elite in the early period were opposed to accepting Ali (as) as a righteous caliph alongside Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman; (2) Yahya ibn Main, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others in their group went back and forth on Ali's (as) relative position to Uthman if he was to be included at all; (3) significant variations are recorded in their positions, which can be contradictory; (4) the bias against Ali (as) rears its ugly head given that Abu Bakr and Umar remain untouchable whereas the preference of Ali (as) even to Uthman, Talha and al-Zubayr and sometimes Muawiyah was potentially problematic yet they are all companions of the Prophet (pbuh).

 

Some quotes and references are included in these works as well. I'm pouring through my library to find others, but, in summary, Ali's (as) inclusion at the very least in the list of righteous caliphs was an open question for these scholars while the exclusion of others who are traditionally included in that list was inconceivable. Given this tension, talking about his relative merit becomes a more distant issue that one has to have the intellectual maturity to address. Clearly, this is not the case for the scholars in question here, and their hesitation or, to use the term of our opponents, "caution" about Ali (as) naturally complements their nasb and dislike for tashayyu and rafdh.

 

(wasalam)

Edited July 30, 2013 by AbuMuhsin

[Vigilare]

I'd like to see you ridicule it practically

Don't you need to substantiate it first?

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

صلى الله على محمد وآله

 

Words you may not know:

 

Jarh and Ta`dīl - the whole system of praising and criticizing narrators

manākīr - plural for munkar, meaning denied thing, rejected thing (infinite form - inkār)

istiqrā’ - in these contexts it means to evaluate by reading the content the put forward

thiqa - reliable (honest and accurate narrator)

sadūq - trustworthy (narrator is honest)

tawthīq - ruling someone to be thiqa

tasdīq - ruling someone to be sadūq

a priori - something assumed before hand / pre-established truth

tashayyu` - Shi’ism

Mutaqaddim(īn) - ancient predecessor(s)

bātil (pl. abātīl) - false thing(s)

`adāla - justice, uprightness (something like taqwā)

 

 

Our opponents have responded to Sh. al-Sanad’s حفظه الله discussion mistaking the brief article’s intent and pulling it out of context. The Shaykh did not intend  absolutes. The text is based on a lecture or part of a lecture where he was teaching primarily about the shī`ī rijāl system. In this lecture, he brought forward a handful of examples and sayings from Sunni scholars to get his point across to a Shi`ah audience. It was not an in-depth nor complete refutation of the entire system of Jarh and Ta`dīl. It was there to reflect the apparent bias in the sources and the fragility of the explanations related to the Shi`ah and Nasiba. The examples brought forth were few and sufficient to make an Imami understand. They reflect a pattern that can be seen, and no patterns are absolute, there are always exceptions.

 

Sh. al-Sanad’s discussion tried to get across another very important point that has been missed: the basis for Jarh and Ta`dīl was not absolutely based upon the character of the narrators and their moral actions; rather, there were other means in addition to this that were completely subject to the preconceived doctrines and historical views of proto-Sunni scholarship. This fact thereby casts aside groups that disagreed with their tenets as corrupted innovators a priori.

 

Inshā’ Allah, we will elaborate upon the esteemed Shaykh’s points with information and material he did not present in his discussion. Although, there is no doubt that a full discussion and investigation by his pen would be more thorough and voluminous.

 

These points may be difficult for literal textualists to comprehend and grasp, but with Allah’s permission, we will proceed, anyway. We will begin by addressing our opponent’s response:

 

Our Opponent said: Al-Sanad has left out an important opinion, which is that of Yahya bin Ma’een, arguably the greatest of all the rijalis, in which he says: How can the killer of Al-Hussain be thiqa? (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb) Why didn’t Al-Sanad quote the opinion of Yahya bin Ma’een? Perhaps it is because it will destroy his very argument that the Sunni system revolves around Nasb.

 

We say: Yahyā b. Ma`īn’s statement does not nullify nor contradict the fact that other scholars authenticated `Umar b. Sa`d with knowledge of his crime. For example:

 

 وقال العجلي : روى عنه الناس ، تابعي ثقة وهو الذي قتل الحسين ]عليه السلام[

 

The fact of the matter is that even later scholars who surveyed all the information still chose to authenticate his narrations and give him tasdīq. Brother Hannibal has already stated that Ibn Ma`īn’s view is unclear and that his opinion did not stop the likes of Ibn Hajr from being among those who accepted his narrations. This man’s crime is inconceivable, yet his honesty is somehow proven.

 

Our Opponent said: A man who isn’t accused of lying is not necessarily considered reliable. We find in Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban: It appears as though he was disobedient to Allah, and there is a consensus upon the scholars to avoid using those that appear to be in a state of disobedience of Allah as evidence.

 

We say: Neither statement calls him a liar. The statement of Ahmad b. Sālih actually implies that he was honest. However, his actions negate his `adālah without doubt. I will elaborate a little bit, inshā’ Allah.

 

Our Opponent said: Also note that Yahya bin Ma'een did not accuse Omar bin Sa'ad of lying. He didn't do this, nor did any Sunni OR Shia scholar. Now, is it a form of Nasb for one to consider the killer of Al-Hussain as truthful? Or is it obligatory for this person to hold all the negative qualities known to man, like being a cowardly fornicating drunkard who happens to be a transvestite that is a pathological liar?

 

We say: This is one of the roots of the problem. The actions of these two individuals, and any other mujrim (criminal) for that matter, compromise their `adālah absolutely. Ignorance cannot be argued for such people and crimes. How is their honesty being established from this point? Honesty is not something that is physically observed from a person in and of itself. It can only be assumed with certain external indicators (qarā’in) that would lead one to believe such an individual is trustworthy. However, when the `adāla of a person is disproven or unproven, how can his honestly be established? His actions have proven otherwise, already. The only way such people could possibly be authenticated after this is by doing istiqrā’. Judgements made through his practice are inherently subjected to the doctrine and personal views of the scholar.

 

This is where the problem arises - when the criteria was no longer proving the narrator’s `adāla. Rather, the criteria became “honesty in Hadith” specifically, but what is really meant by this is “correct Hadith” which cannot be separated from matan criticism. The Qur’an says - paraphrasing - that we must not accept the report of the evil-doer (fāsiq). This is the very same verse used to argue that `ilm al-rijāl is a command from Allah. These people, these criminals, are the pinnacle of fisq. These people justified and rationalized to themselves their evil actions. What makes it so hard to imagine that they could not rationalize a justification to lie?

 

Our Opponent said: Al-Sanad assumes that Sunnis weaken narrators due to narrations of praise towards Fatima and Ali, and yet, our Saheehain include such narrations. However, these two specific narrations do not come to us through those that have been deemed as trustworthy, but rather, through a man who is known to have attributed lies to scholars of hadith.

 

We say: The presence of “praises” for Ahl al-Kisā’ عليهم السلام in the Sahīhayn does not remedy the issue at hand.  Having praise is not the point. Rather, it is something expected and preconceived by all Muslims, including the proto-Sunni scholars, that they would have some level of praise. The debate from there is to what level of praise do they have (rather, should they have) and what are the implications of these praises.

 

The example of al-`Abbās b. Bakkār is very explicit in revealing istiqrā’ whereby the narrator is criticized based on the content of his narration(s). His entry shows that the majority of the criticisms are due his narrations being manākīr. For example, al-`Uqayli states, “the majority of his narrations are delusions and manākīr” (الغالب على حديثه الوهم والمناكير). al-Dārqutnī’s accusation of lying is likely a result of his istiqrā’.

 

As it were, al-Zhahabī explains for us the more vague statements of his predecessors and presents us the with examples of his narrations that the proto-Sunni scholars did not favor. These narrations reflect Imami ideology (or in that age “extreme tashayyu`”) and al-Zhahabī notes that he is accused by this narration of his. Accusation (ittihām) in this context implies fabrication and it just so happens the narration in question praises Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. The other narration brought forward is of the same orientation and al-Zhahabī comments that is from his falsehoods (abātīl). Why is it false and rejected? Because the content does not fit harmoniously with the doctrine and historical views they have pre-established. The tashayyu` of the Hadith is too strong.

 

Let us continue further.

 

Our Opponent said: The other view that Al-Sanad does not want to share is that the majority of the scholars of hadith have accepted the narrations of Ubaidullah bin Musa and hold it to the highest regard, even with his tashayyu. He is a major narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and is praised by Yahya bin Ma’een (as Al-Sanad shows), Ibn Adi, Ibn Sa’ad, Ibn Qani’, Al-Saji, Al-Ijli, and Abu Hatim.

 

We say: The point has been missed entirely. al-`Absī’s trustworthiness according to the majority is not contrary to the issue brought forward by this incident. It reveals that Ahmad, and his companions, were filtering and condemning narrators via istiqrā’. Where from among the criteria was criticizing Sahaba, which is something key in the orthodoxy he and others, like Yahyā b. Ma`īn, were trying to enforce in their time. It reveals that the practice of these Mutaqaddimīn that Sh. al-Sanad had argued for: Jarh and Ta`dīl was at the mercy of their kalām and doctrinal views.

 

Our Opponent said: Al-Sanad though is isolation Al-Imam Ahmad and making it seem as though this is a part of his agenda against Shias. However, when we go to Bahr Al-Dam by Ibn Abdul Hadi we find that Al-Imam Ahmad had an issue with his narrations, not his tashayyu.

 

We say:  This is a deceptive and inaccurate statement. The last statement’s logic implies that criticism of doctrine and narrations are mutually exclusive. However, they are not mutually exclusive; rather, Ahmad or any other scholar can reject a person's narrations because that person is known to be a rāfidī/extreme in tashayyu` or he can weaken that person because his narrations exhibit rafd/extreme tashayyu`. This illustrates that rafd/tashayyu` can always be part of Jarh and Ta`dīl, even if it is not stated to be explicitly.

 

It is not that Ibn Hanbal had a problem with al-`Absī’s moral character nor his ability to narrate. It was his narrations themselves and his religious affiliation tied to those narrations. What did Ahmad find wrong with him and his narrations? Rafd and tashayyu`. His narrations were used as a gauge. If they breach a certain level of manākīr, he would be abandoned entirely.

 

As for Yahyā b. Ma`īn’s reply, it reveals to us that there was a strata of inkār and sectarianism that would determine the abandonment of a narrator. In the examples used here, al-`Absī and al-San`ānī, both were extremely important in their sheer number of narrations and how much they were relied upon by others. Ahmad only says that criticisms were given (tanāwul), where as what Ibn Ma`īn said was regarding anyone who vilifies (shatm) a companion (he is a dajjāl). So it had not reached that threshold to where the narrator would be abandoned.

 

However, Ahmad went further than this, in this particular example. We find this in al-Sunna by al-Khallāl:

 

 سمعت محمد بن عبيدالله بن يزيد المنادي يقول كنا بمكة في سنة تسع وكان معنا عبيدالله بن موسى فحدث في الطريق فمر حديث لمعاوية فلعن معاوية ولعن من لا يلعنه قال ابن المنادي فأخبرت أحمد بن حنبل فقال متعدي يا أبا جعفر فأخبرني محمد بن أبي هارون أن حبيش بن سندي حدثهم أن أبا عبدالله ذكر له حديث عبيدالله بن موسى فقال ما أحسب هو بأهل أن يحدث عنه وضع الطعن على أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولقد حدثني منذ أيام رجل من أصحابنا أرجو أن يكون صدوقا أنه كان معه في طريق مكة فحدث بحديث لعن فيه معاوية فقال نعم لعنه الله ولعن من لا يلعنه فهذا أهل يحدث عنه علي الإنكار من أبي عبدالله أي إنه ليس بأهل يحدث عنه

 

I heard Muhammad b. `Ubayd Allah b. Yazīd al-Munādī saying: We were in Makka in the 9th year with `Ubayd Allah b. Mūsā. So we related to one another narrations on the journey. When a narration from Mu`āwiya was mentioned, al-`Absī cursed him and cursed those who refuse to curse him.

 

Ibn al-Munādī said: Then I reported this to Ahmad b. Hanbal, to which he said: Be attentive, O Abā Ja`far!

 

Then Muhammad b. Abī Hārūn reported to us that Hubaysh b. Sindī told them that Ahmad mentioned a hadith of al-`Absī in his possession, then he said: I do not deem it appropriate to narrate from him, he lays down attacks against the Companions of Allah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله. A man from our companions, whom I hope is truthful, told me some days ago that he was with him on the path to Makka...(the remainder is Ahmad repeating the incident and his view)

 

The book’s Muhaqqiq, Dr. `Atiyya al-Zahrānī, graded this report as hasan. There  are similar accounts repeated, in any case.

 

The various tawthīq al-`Absī receives is irrelevant to the fact that the denial of his narrations in this instance from Ibn Hanbal was due to him cursing Mu`āwiya. Also, something to take notice to is that all those who praise al-`Absī and give him tawthīq do not mention anything about rafd or mention anything beyond simple tashayyu`. In fact, only Ahmad mentioned his “extremist tashayyu`” and that his narrations are a mixture of good and bad (صاحب تخليط), although he mentions al-`Absī’s worship and asceticism. The other critic of al-`Absī, Ya`qūb b. Sufyān, says his narrations are denied (منكر الحديث), but he also says elsewhere, “If someone where to inform me that [al-`Absī] was a rāfidī, I would not deny it” (إن قال قائل رافضي لم أنكر عليه).

 

Our Opponent said: Abu Hatim Al-Razi has said that there is nothing authentic about him cursing Ali. Yazeed bin Harun, his student, said that he never heard him say that he doesn’t love Ali. Ali bin Ayyash said that Hareez denied cursing Ali. It is very possible that each of these three scholars held the same view, which is that Hareez never committed this sin. Al-Bukhari though, in Al-Tareekh Al-Kabeer quotes Abu Al-Yamaan who implied that this is Hareez’s old view, and that he left it.

 

We say: This does not exonerate those who gave him tawthīq and authenticated his narrations while they recognized him as a nāsibī, like Ibn Hanbal, al-Jīlī, etc. al-Zhahabī says explicitly “trustworthy and he was a nāsibī.” I have not seen such strong tawthīq before from the likes of Ahmad. His triple tawthīq (ثقة ثقة ثقة) and Ma`āzh al-`Anbarī said, “I do know know if I have ever seen anyone more virtuous than him from the people of Greater Syria” (لا أعلم أني رأيت أحداً من أهل الشام أفضل عليه) 

 

As to his potential repentance, the Nasiba are hypocrites. The definition of a hypocrite is one who says one things and believes another, says one things and does another. What is important to notice is that there is simultaneous recognition of nasb and tawthīq by an individual Mutaqaddim. While for the Rafida, this is largely untrue.

 

Our Opponent said: Let me quote a narration that Al-Thahabi in Mizan Al-I’itidal quoted in order to prove that this man was a liar. He fabricated a narration where the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) looked at Ali and said: This man is in heaven,and his Shia are a people that claim Islam but have nabz, they are called the Rafidha, if you see them then kill them, for they are Mushrikoon. Subhanallah. Rahimakallah ya Al-Thahabi. You criticize a narrator for fabricating a narration that is in your favour. This is the objectivity of Ahlulsunnah.

 

We say: First, this only reconfirms our point about istiqrā’. Second, it brings to light the weakness of such scholarship. Anyone who thinks a rāfidī would narrate such a thing needs to adjust their rational faculties. A more likely explanation would that the narration was falsely attributed to Talīd. However, that would be difficult for some people after the scholars have opined that the narrators leading up to him are thuqāt.

 

A complete chain can be seen here from Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-`Ilal. 

 

الحديث الثالث انبأنا ابن خيرون عن الجوهري عن الدارقطني عن ابي حاتم بن حبان قال انا محمد بن يوسف قال نا ابو سعيد الأشج قال انا تليد ابن سليمان المحاربي عن ابي الجحاف داؤد بن ابي عوف عن محمد بن عمرو الهاشمي عن زينب بنت علي عن فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قالت نظر النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم الى إلي فقال هذا في الجنة وان من شيعته قوما يعطون الإسلام فيلفظونه لهم نبز يسمون الرافضة من لقيهم فليقتلهم فإنه مشركون

 

That Muhammad b. Yūsuf [b. Matīr] (d. 320 AH) only has tawthīq from al-Zhahabī (d. 748 AH) and Ibn Ma`ād al-Hanbalī (d. 1089). Neither of them even close to being contemporaries with Talīd.

 

There are many thing out there that expose al-Zhahabī, trust me. “The heart bears witness to it.”

 

Our opponent said: The statement that the Sunnis give tawtheeq to Nawasib is true. However, they are not given tawtheeq due to their nasb, but due to their truthfulness. On the other hand, there are those that are Nawasib that have been rejected by Sunni scholars, since they were known to have lied or are weak in hadith. (See Al-Salt bin Dinar’s biography in Taqreeb Al-Tahtheeb) Furthermore, as we have demonstrated above, we do not weaken Shias absolutely, and Al-Sanad is clearly not being truthful about this.

 

We say: He is not arguing that the proto-Sunni scholars have given the Nasiba tawthīq because they are nawāsib. That is not it at all. Sh. al-Sanad is only re-iterating what Ibn Hajr himself noticed with the addition that such a pattern of Jarh and Ta`dīl is something that is in opposition to Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. Recall that nawāsib are recognized and given tawthīq while this is mostly untrue for the Rafida. Such a pattern is suspicious and upon investigation shows there was something going on behind what is apparent in the Jarh and Ta`dīl enterprise, which we are seeking to reveal, inshā’ Allah with His tawfīq.

 

Also, it also important to realize context. Sh. al-Sanad is giving this lecture to students in the Hawza. These students are what the proto-Sunni scholars would class as extremist Shi`ah and rawāfid. So the term Shi`ah used here is such. As for the usage of “absolute” in reference to weakening the Shi`ah, that is the same word Ibn Hajr uses that the shaykh is simply repeating.

 

Our Opponent said: This is correct, and there shouldn’t be anything confusing about this, nor does this have anything to do with the biases of Sunnis. This is an objective observation by our hadith scholars. The corruptness of a sect does not necessarily make them liars. A good example of this are the Khawarij, who believe that lying is a major sin that leads to hellfire. Due to this belief, the Khawarij, as vile as they were, were very cautious about lying. They were even more cautious than those that ascribed themselves to Ahlulsunnah. However, certain sects that fell under the umbrella of Rafdh believed in the permissibility of lying in order to hide one’s point of view. It is natural for Sunni hadith scholars to be more cautious of the Rafidha than the Khawarij, even if we agreed that the Khawarij are worse than the Rafidha in general.

 

We say: The “extreme honesty” of the Kharija is non-unique, especially if the real criteria is honesty in relating Hadith. All Muslims uphold that anyone who willfully attributes falsehood to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله is worthy of Hellfire. In addition to this, all Nasiba are not khawārij. Taqiyya was not practiced in such a way (to lie as narrator), but to conceal ideology and belief. As it were, many of the rawāfid did not practice taqiyya (at least well) as they have been identified as such and/or as “extremist Shi`ah.” This is also probably from investigating the content of their narrations.

 

Prior to the explanation by Sh. al-Sanad حفظه الله, the quotation of Ibn Hajr reveals an important point that our opponent did not address: in seeking to explain that pattern that Ibn Hajr had found, he justifies the nasb of the Nasiba as being a tenet consistent within their own religious framework. Thereby their nasb is excused as a flaw in regards to Hadith transmission. However, this justification is not given to the Rafida, that their rafd is consistent with their own religious framework. The hypocrisy of the matter is that nasb was not viewed, at least to the same extent, as black mark on a narrator; in fact, there is claim that it strengthens them. Where as rafd, tashayyu`, etc. were viewed as defects without doubt.

 

The mere existence of principles such as rejection of anyone who vilifies a Sahabi is a dajjāl, etc. makes it very clear that they were making judgements based on their preconceived worldview. Anything that conflicted with that worldview was denied as false.

 

Let us return back to my reiterated point that there is a lack of narrators being identified as rawāfid and given tawthīq by the same individual. This may occur from a later scholar, such as Ibn Hajr, but that revision. What we are most interested in are the views of the Mutaqaddimīn. Of the narrators mentioned as rawāfid or accused of rafd, we have found only two that can be argued to conflict with the pattern. However, these two examples are not complete and fall short.

 

1. `Amr b. Abī al-Miqdām - Abū Dāwūd remarks that he is a “rāfidī, wicked man, malignant except that he is sadūq in Hadith.”

This example does not do much in contradicting my point. As we have seen, istiqrā’ has been one of the major tools for narrator criticism. Abū Dāwūd’s comment show that his rafd was not in his narrations, but only his personal qualities. Thus, he was an evil, wicked person (supposedly), but he was honest in Hadith. What we are looking for are rawāfid who are recognized to narrate mathālib and are given tawthīq after this recognition. 

 

1. `Abd al-Rahmān b. Sālih al-Azdī - We find in Lisān al-Mīzan the following:

 وقال موسى بْن هارون : شاعي محترق ، خرقت عامة ما سَمِعْتُ منه ، يروى أحاديث سوء فِي مثالب أصحاب رَسُول اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وسَلَّمَ # وقال فِي موضع آخر : كان ثقة ، وكان يحدث بمثالب أزواج رَسُول اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وسَلَّمَ وأصحابه

Mūsā b. Hārūn said: shā`ī (this may be an error for shī`ī) consumed by fire. The majority his Hadith that I heard from him exceed proper limits [i.e. they are manākīr]. He narrates vile narrations defiling the Companions. In another place, he said: He was trustworthy and he would tell about defects of the wives and companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله.

 

We see here that this Mūsā b. Hārūn al-Hammāl has had two views. Notice that while al-Azdī is simply informing or telling about the defects (mathālib) of Companions, he is thiqa. However, when he narrates these things, the tawthīq is not mentioned and criticisms of him and his narrations surfaces. This examples, too, falls short due to the same reason. In fact, it can be argued that it supports our point because he previously thought him thiqa until narration about defects surfaced, then he was rejected. Also, this critic is not as grand as other, such Ahmad and others.

 

Many others have given this same narrator tawthīq, but none identify him as a rāfidī narrating mathālib, except for Abū Dāwūd, he states, “I do not deem it permissible to write Hadith from him. He fabricated a book of mathālib regarding the Companions.” Abū Dāwūd, obviously, does not give tawthīq.

 

These are just two examples that fall short. In addition to the second coming from a lesser Mutaqaddim in comparison the likes of Ibn Hanbal and the others. Many examples would be necessary to prove objectivity or nullify the pattern. If there more, I doubt they raise to any significant level. Here are just a few rawāfid that have praise:

 

1. Jābir b. Yazīd al-Ju`fī - Sufyān al-Thawrī and Wakī` give strong tawthīq

 

2. `Abbād b. Ya`qūb - Abū Hātim al-Rāzī and Ibn al-Khuzayma giave tawthīq. However, the latter abandons him afterwards.

 

3. Abū al-Salt al-Harawī - Ibn Ma`īn gives him tawthīq

 

4 .Sadīr b. Hukaym al-Sayrafī - Ibn Ma`īn gives tawthīq

 

5. Humrān b. A`yun - Abū Hātim says he is sālih

 

However, none of the above ever receive praise and identification of rafd from the same person. What is interesting is that one of the previous examples, Talīd b. Sulaymān, gets two opinions from Ibn Hanbal. First it is, “He was a shī`ī in belief, but we have not seen a problem with him” (كان مذهبه التشيع ولم نر به بأساً). However, then [later] he says, “he would lie, according to me” (هو عندي كان يكذب). I think the reason for the sudden change of heart is obvious.

 

This pattern is in great distinction to the numerous nawāsib identified and given tawthīq, very strong authentication, from the same rijālī that identified their nifāq of hate for Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه أفضل الصلاة والسلام.

 

Let us examine the narrator Wadāh b. `Abd Allah, famously known as Abū `Awāna. As you can see, he receives tawthīq from most of the scholars. He narrates approximately a hundreds times in both al-Bukhārī and Muslim. Even Ahmad b. Hanbal said he was thiqa, or at least he did...

 

أخبرنا عبدالله بن أحمد قال سمعت أبي يقول سلام بن أبي مطيع من الثقات من أصحاب أيوب وكان رجلا صالحا حدثنا عنه عبدالرحمن بن مهدي ثم قال أبي كان أبو عوانة وضع كتابا فيه معايب أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وفيه بلايا فجاء إليه سلام بن أبي مطيع فقال يا أبا عوانة أعطني ذلك الكتاب فأعطاه فأخذه سلام فأحرقه إسناده صحيح 

 

`Abd Allah b. Ahmad [b. Hanbal] reported to me. He said: I heard my father saying: Salām b. Abī Mutī` is from the thuqāt of Ayyūb's companions. He was a righteous man. Abd al-Rahmān b. Mahdī narrated to us from him. 

 

Then my father said: Abū Awāna fabricated a book with defects of the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وآله Companions in it. In it there is calamity. So then Salām b. Abī Mutī` came to him and said: O Abū Awāna give me that book! So then he gave it to him. So Salām took the book and burned it. (Chain is Sahīh)

 

This shows the precedence that narration content had over the narrator’s personal trustworthiness and reliability. In fact, his trustworthiness (wathāqa) was attacked due to manākīr, even if he was famous for his piety and wathāqa. There was almost no tolerance for the Rafida and the proof for their doctrine.

 

Ahmad b. Hanbal is central to the entire movement of Ahl al-Hadith and subsequently the system of jarh and ta`dīl, along with figures like Ibn Ma`īn and the rest of the rijalīs. It is unlikely to imagine that the methods of every single one of these scholars, who were contemporary with one another or successors to previous rijālis, were very different and unrelated. The consistency of istiqrā from the opinions of these scholars can be found plainly in the entries of narrators. The pattern of the Shi`ah and Rafida being attacked for their doctrine and narrations is present. The biased approach of these scholars is clear from this pattern, as well as their very own statements.

 

There are several examples of people whose narration content - usually related to their tashayyu` and rafd - has been used to discredit them. Subsequently they are thrown into the weak category, such as: Jābir b. Yazīd al-Ju`fī, Hammād b. `Īsā, `Abd al-Salām b. Sālih al-Harawī, `Īsā b. `Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. `Umar b. `Alī b. Abī Tālib عليه السلام, Humrān b. A`yun, Zurāra b. A`yun, Abū Hamza al-Thumālī... (Don’t these names look familiar)...and the list continues.

 

al-Zhahabī quotes Ibn Hibbān in the entry of `Īsā b. `Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. `Umar b. `Alī b. Abī Tālib عليه السلام stating thathe narrates “fabricated things” from his fathers.:

 

وبه من زعم انه يحبنى وابغض عليا فقد كذب وبه من صنع إلى أحد من أهل بيتي يدا كافيته عنه يوم القيامة وبه حق علي على كل المسلمين كحق الوالد على الولد

 

And by [his chain to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله through his fathers], he said: “One who claims love me while he hates `Alī has surely lied!” and “It is sufficient for a man on the Day of Resurrection that he gave from his hand to a member of my Household” and “The right of `Alī upon all Muslims is like the right of the father upon the son”

 

This entry also reveals that accusations of fabrication were based on critiquing the content of narrations. Only a very basic level of praise for Imam Ali عليه السلام was accepted as the maximum level of praise for him. This is demonstrated by the rejection of the following narration, which Ibn Hibbān denigrates: “One who claims to love me while he hates `Alī has surely lied!” No sensible Muslim would deny this fact, but we find proto-Sunni scholars who have rejected this narration and others like it, declaring them to be fabrications. It is quite possible that the narration would have been accepted if it was about Abū Bakr or `Umar, instead.

 

This leads us into the discussion regarding an important principle of the Sunni establishment: the Hadith of innovators is rejected when the Hadith under suspicion supports their innovation even if they are trustworthy. This statement is clear in proving that doctrines were decided prior to the compilation of Hadith and elaboration of the system of authentication. The principle pre-establishes what is correct and incorrect, which is epistemologically problematic. The Hadith sciences, at this point, merely become a tool for substantiating and justifying our own desires and whims (hawā) about what Islam should and should not be.

 

We find Mīzān al-I`tidāl by al-Zhahabi:

 

قلت: قد اختلف الناس في الاحتجاج برواية الرافضة على ثلاثة أقوال

: أحدها - المنع مطلقا.

الثاني - الترخص مطلقا إلا فيمن يكذب ويضع.

الثالث - التفصيل، فتقبل رواية الرافضى الصدوق العارف بما يحدث، وترد رواية الرافضى الداعية ولو كان صدوقا.

 

 

The community disagreed about accepting the narration of Rafida as proof with three opinions:

1 - Accepting is absolutely forbidden

2 - Aside from the liar and fabricator, we are to accept their narrations absolutely

3 - Differentiation - this means to accept the narration of the honest rāfidī who is careful of what he relates and to reject the narration of the proselytizing rāfidi even if he is truthful.

 

This, my brothers, is the height of double standards. The claim made is that the system of jarh and ta`dīl is objective with the criteria for a narrator’s acceptance is truthfulness and accuracy. Clearly that is a fantasy. So the rāfidī is careful when he does not narrate what they disapprove of and he is only proselytizing when he narrates what they disapprove of. In other words, the differentiation here is based upon their own whims. The condition of the proselytizer to his doctrine only further proves that the system is based on rejecting whatever and whomever disagrees with preconceived doctrines. This principle shows without a doubt that there was a pre-establishment of “correct” doctrine and that the system was not going to allow the belief of others to have an affect on what would be the authenticated corpus of Hadith.

 

Ibn Hajr elaborates slightly upon this in his Lisān al-Mīzān:

 

قال اشهب سئل مالك رحمه الله عن الرافضة فقال لا تكلمهم ولا ترو عنهم فإنهم يكذبون وقال حرملة سمعت الشافعي يقول لم أر اشهد بالزور من الرافضة - وقال مؤمل بن أهاب سمعت يزيد بن هارون يقول يكتب عن كل صاحب بدعة إذا لم يكن داعية الا الرافضة فإنهم يكذبون وقال محمد بن سعيدالأصفهاني سمعت شريكا يقول احمل العلم عن كل من لقيت الا الرافضة فإنهم يضعون الحديث ويتخذونه دينا هذا آخر كلامه * قلت * فالمنع من قبول رواية المبتدعة الذين لم يكفروا ببدعتهم كالرافضة والخوارج ونحوهم ذهب إليه مالك وأصحابه والقاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني واتباعه - والقبول مطلقا الا فيمن يكفر ببدعة والا فيمن يستحل الكذب ذهب إليه أبو حنيفة وأبو يوسف وطائفة وروي عن الشافعي أيضا واما التفصيل فهو الذي عليه أكثر أهل الحديث بل نقل فيه ابن حبان اجماعهم - ووجه ذلك أن المبتدع إذا كان داعية كان عنده باعث على رواية ما يشيد به بدعته

 

 

Ashhab said: Mālik [b. Anas] was asked about the Rafida so he said: Do not speak to them and do not narrate from them, for they will undoubtedly be lying. 

 

Harmala said: I heard al-Shāfi`ī saying: I do not accept the lying testimonies of the Rafida.

 

Mu’ammal b. Ahhāb said: I head Yazīd b. Hārūn saying: Write from every innovator as long he does not proselytize except for the Rafida. Verily they will lie.

 

Muhammad b. Sa`īd al-Isbahānī said: I heard Shurayk saying: Take knowledge from anyone you meet, except for the Rafida because they fabricate Hadith and take it as religion.

 

Mālik, his companions, Qādī Abū Bakr al-Bāqalānī, and his followers all forbade accepting the narration of the innovator [absolutely, even if] their innovation did not make them disbelievers like the Rafida and Kharija.

 

Abū Hanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, a group and it is also attributed to al-Shāfi`ī that they believed in accepting the narrations of the innovators absolutely so long as their innovation did not make them disbelievers nor do they legalize lying.

 

The Ahl al-Hadith distinguished between the proselytizer and the non-proselytizer. In fact, Ibn Hibbān reports consensus among them on this issue. That means the innovator that proselytizes has a motive to spread the narrations that support his innovation.

 

وقال كثير من العلماء يقبل أخبار غير الدعاة من أهل الأهواء فأما الدعاة فلا يحتج بأخبارهم وممن ذهب إلى ذلك أبو عبدالله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل

 

al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī : Many of the scholars agree with accepting the reports of the innovator that does not proselytize. As for the proselytizer, his report is not used as evidence. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal was from among those who affirmed this doctrine.

 

 

جعفر بن سليمان من الثقات المتقنين في الروايات غير أنه كان ينتحل الميل إلى أهل البيت ولم يكن بداعية إلى مذهبه وليس بين أهل الحديث من أئمتنا خلاف أن الصدوق المتقن إذا كان فيه بدعة ولم يكن يدعو إليها أن الاحتجاج بأخباره جائز فإذا دعا إلى بدعته سقط الاحتجاج بأخباره ولهذه العلة ما تركوا (8) حديث جماعة ممن كانوا ينتحلون البدع ويدعون إليها وإن كانوا ثقات واحتججنا بأقوام ثقات انتحالهم كانتحالهم سواء غير أنهم لم يكونوا يدعون إلى ما ينتحلون وانتحال العبد بينه وبين ربه إن شاء عذبه وإن شاء عفا عنه وعلينا قبول الروايات عنهم إذا كانوا ثقات على حسب ما ذكرناه في غير موضع من كتبنا

 

Ibn Hibbān: Ja`far b. Sulaymān is from the trustworthy and precise narrators, even though inclined to the superiority the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. However, he did not proselytize his beliefs.

 

There leaders of Ahl al-Hadith consensually deem permissible using the narrations of truthful and precise innovators as proof as long as he does not proselytize his innovation. However, if he proselytized his innovation, then his narrations are void.

 

For this reason, they would abandon the narrations of deviated groups that proselytized, even if they were thuqāt. However, we have accepted the narrations of thuqāt innovators with the same innovation because they did not proselytize.

 

The servant’s innovated doctrine is between him and his Lord. If He so desires, he will punish him. If He so desires, he will pardon him. However, it is our duty to accept the narrations from him if they are thuqāt according to what we have mentioned on more than one occasion from our books.

 

It is clear that this was the dominant and mainstream view amongst the Ahl al-Hadith, who were the ones that collected narrations and developed the system of jarh and ta`dīl. The opinion of group two who would accept an innovator’s Hadith regardless, such as Abú Hanīfa, is irrelevant. They were not important to the preservation of Hadith and the elaboration of `ilm al-rijāl. The first group, the group of Mālik b. Anas, showed there was a strong rejection and bias against the Rafida from among the jurists.

 

Therefore, the narrator is thiqa and it is permissible to take his Hadith as long as the innovator was just narrating proto-Sunni content with nothing that distinguished him from them (although he has already been identified as deviant). However, if he is found narrating things they rejected and it was in line with the “innovation,” then he will be dismissed - full stop.

 

 الذهبي في « ميزان الاعتدال: قد يقول قائل : كيف ساغ توثيق مبتدع وحد الثقة العدالة والإتقان ؟ وجوابه : أن البدعة على ضربين :

1- فبدعة صغرى كغلو التشيع أو كالتشيع بلا غلو ولا تحرف فهذا كثير في التابعين وتابعيهم مع الدين والورع والصدق فلو رد حديث هؤلاء لذهب جملة من الآثار النبوية وهذه مفسدة بينة 

2- بدعة كبرى : كالرفض الكامل والغلو فيه والحط على أبي بكر وعمر والدعاء إلى ذلك فهذا النوع لا يحتج بحديثهم ولا كرامة 

al-Zhahabī in “Mīzān al-I`tidāl:”

 

One may say: How is the tawthīq for the innovator acceptable and stray from the proper measure of trustworthiness, justice, and precision? 

 

The response - Innovations are of two types:

1 - Lesser innovations, such as exaggeration in Tashayyu` or tashayyu` without exaggeration and corruption, were phenomena adhered to by many the Tabi`in and their successors. They were religious, pious, and honest. If their narrations were rejected, then a large number of prophetic reports would be lost. That would be a ruinous outcome.

2 - Greater innovations, such as complete, exaggerated rafd, disparaging Abū Bakr and `Umar, and proselytizing this, are innovations of those whose Hadith are not accepted, there is no value in them.

 

al-Zhahabi’s statement is clear: The proto-Sunni scholars were accepting the narrations of the “lesser innovators” simply because their corpus of usable of narrations would be significantly less if they were rejected. This implies that they would be rejected if it were possible to sufficiently function without their narrations. Again, we see that an individual’s creed and views were a major factoring in accepting them and their narrations. When they narrated by their “innovation,” disagreeing with proto-Sunni doctrine(s), they were rejected. Otherwise, they were acceptable. This is the objectivity of “Ahl al-Sunna.”

 

However, some may ask: Why do they have many presumably shī`ī narrations in their reliable books, such the Sahīhayn?

 

Some of these narrators were not even identified as part of this or that sect by every scholar. So they would not reject a Hadith from them that would lean towards an innovation that was not, in a particular scholars’s view, ascribed to by the narrator in question. Every scholar did not possess every single narration of each narrator. So they would not be able to find potential manākīr or reports that prove a person’s school of thought. Each individual scholar had their own particular tolerance or threshold to what they would perceive as “too shī`ī” or the like. As such, they would not identify it as problematic in relation to their doctrine, while another might. For example, al-Nasā’ī and al-Hākim al-Nīsābūrī were both accused of tashayyu` by others. At the same time, there was no doubt that the status of certain Shi`ah were too grand to deny.

 

These scholars did not always recognize a Hadith to have certain implications, just as their successors to this day argue about particular narrations about Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام. In addition, some of these narrations had become so widespread, denying them would be completely unfathomable. In fact, some of these very famous narrations they would narrate without understanding:

 

 وَأَخْبَرَنِي زَكَرِيَّا بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَنَّ أَبَا طَالِبٍ حَدَّثَهُمْ، أَنَّهُ سَأَلَ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، " عَنْ قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ -ص- لِعَلِيٍّ: مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلاهُ، مَا وَجْهُهُ؟ قَالَ: لا تَكَلَّمْ فِي هَذَا، دَعِ الْحَدِيثَ كَمَا جَاءَ "

 

Zakariyyā b. Yahyā reported to us that Abā Tālib narrated to them that he asked Abā `Abd Allah [Ahmad] about the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله to `Alī عليه السلام: “Whomsoever I am his mawlā then `Alī is his mawlā.” What does it mean? He [Ahmad] said: Do not talk about this! Just narrate the Hadith the way it comes.

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Matr narrated it also from Abā Tālib.

 

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ الْمَرُّوذِيُّ، قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ -ص- لِعَلِيٍّ: " أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى، أَيْشِ تَفْسِيرُهُ؟ قَالَ: اسْكُتْ عَنْ هَذَا، لا تَسْأَلْ عَنْ ذَا الْخَبَرِ، كَمَا جَاءَ "

 

Abū Bakr al-Marūzhī reported to us. He said: I asked Abā `Abd Allah about the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله saying to `Alī: “You have the status with me like the status of Hārūn with Mūsā,” What is its explanation? He said: Be silent abouy this! Do not ask about this report. Just narrate as it comes.

 

The Muhaqqiq of al-Khallāl’s al-Sunnah authenticated these narrations. 

 

This is to say that these early scholars did not perceive many things as threats to their ideology and were perfectly alright with passing it on. The narrations are not overtly - at least to their mind - proving tashayyu` and/or rafd. It is just some casual virtue of `Alī عليه السلام. Perhaps reflection on these narrations was discouraged due to their fear of one coming a shī`ī.

 

In addition to these titans of Ahl al-Hadith, the famous scholar Ibn Qutayba bears witness to this bias and pre-conception of doctrine with its subsequent effects on `ilm al-rijāl. He says in the introduction of Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-Hadīth:

 

The People of Hadith unanimously agree that whatever Allah wills happens and whatever He does not will does not happen. And (they agree) that He is the Creator of good and evil. And (they agree) that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah – it is not created. And they agree that Allah will be seen on the Day of Judgement. They agree on giving precedence to Abū Bakr and `Umar. They unanimously agree on affirming the punishment of the grave. They do not differ in these fundamental issues. So whoever opposes them in any of these matters, then they reject and hate him, and declare him to be an innovator, cutting themselves off from him.

 

Aside from the atrocious theological statements in this excerpt, Ibn Qutayba explicates that the Ahl al-Hadith had come to an agreement on doctrine and would use this as a basis for criticizing narrators. He mentions clearly the issue of Shaykhayn’s precedence as a fundamental issue. Therefore, the Shi`ah and the Rafida have fundamentally deviated.

 

At least they considered us Muslims... or maybe not:

 

أخبرنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال: سألت أبي عن رجل شتم رجلاً من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله فقال: ما أراه على الإسلام

 

`Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal reported to us. He said: I asked my father about a man that vilifies anyone from the Companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله so he said: I do not believe he is upon Islam.

 

أخبرنا يوسف بن موسى أن أبا عبد الله سئل وأخبرنا علي بن عبد الصمد قال: سألت أحمد بن حنبل عن جار لنا رافضي يسلم عليّ ، أردّ عليه؟ قال: لا.

 

Yūsuf b. Mūsā reported to us that Abā `Abd Allah [Ahmad] was asked. AND `Alī b. `Abd al-Samad reported to us, he said: I asked Ahmad b. Hanbal about a rāfidī neighbor we had. He would greet me with salām, do I return it? He said: No.

 

(authenticated by the muhaqqiq of al-Sunna by al-Khallāl)

 

The brief examples presented by Sh. al-Sanad دام ظلّه and what we have gathered here reveals a pattern and a tendency in the Sunni sphere of narrator criticism. You must be able to read between the lines and see social dynamics of the human beings behind the system. Mā Shā’ Allah, Ibn Hajr saw a pattern, but then merely reconciled it with his set framework of orthodoxy. 

 

You see, all of these qarā’in indicate towards what Sh. Sanad has pointed out in his brief lecture. Istiqrā’ had a major role to play in the judgement of narrators and may even have had the final say - especially in cases of the Shī`ah and Rafida. The Nasiba were not seen as nearly as suspicious - if at all. It is clear from the statements and incidents presented above that their preconceived doctrines had a large role to play in their assessment of narrators. It was the foundations of that istqrā’. When something became to explicit and heavy with tashayyu` and narrating of mathālib, accusations would be made (of various kinds, not necessarily always lying).

 

Absolutes do not occur in social sciences and the pattern presented may have exceptions. However, it proves, at the very least, the presence of a subconscious bias. Although, it seems to be beyond that with a conscious effort. Whenever a Nāsibī was weakened, it would be because his weakness in himself, perhaps. However, when a rāfidī was weakened, it was on account of his religion and his narrations, not his character. In the event that an “extremist” shī`ī/rāfidī will get authentication, almost nothing of the narrations that appeal to his doctrine really survive. In fact, they were destroyed and deliberately left to be lost in history.

 

The explicit statements, mustlahāt [technical jargon], brevity of decisions, etc. of biographical entires are all easy to manipulate and stand as authoritative especially when trust and authority is given to their authors, almost without question. However, the external qarā’in are beyond all this and are hard to manipulate, forge, or explain away.

 

As for the (cheap) attacks on Sh. al-Sanad حفظه الله himself, it should be noted that the work quoted from were not written by him personally. They are discussions taken from his lectures compiled by a few students. Also, a few errors like this are not an anomaly nor do they take away from the overall point of the discussion. Although, It is clear that the point was missed entirely.

 

 

Our Opponent said:

The brother does not believe in Shia rijal himself, not only that, but he does not know how to follow tashayyu since he has no standards except for his hawa.

 

We Say:

 

والله أعلم بصواب الأمور

في أمان الله والسلام على من اتّبع الهدى
اللهم صلّ على محمد وآله محمد وعجّل فرجهم

والعن أعداءهم أجمعين

Edited June 14, 2014 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Kazmi_202]

Jazakallah for this detailed reply!! There is a lot to digest there, and some valuable references.

 

In essence, my reading of the above concludes that you make up a system that you like and agree on, then you proceed to praise and criticise narrators based on the level of their narrations conforming with your 'already established truth'.  If a Shia somehow manages to get through the multiple filters invented to block him, he is then confronted with the principle that anything he narrates that proves his belief is automatically to be rejected!! They have no problems with his ability to narrate, with his worship, with his relations with others, the only thing that makes him an automatic 'liar' is when his narrations dont fit the already agreed belief system. But as for a Nasibi, he walks through every filter smiling with a huge card proclaiming his Nasb, and gets a pat on the back too!!

 

Someone who insults Abu Bakr and Umar is to be rejected and is labelled a Dajjal, but the person who is from the KILLERS of the Grandson of the Prophet (saaw) is reliable and narrates in Bukhari!!! And what's worse is that instead of admitting a huge error with such a system, they proceed to justify it even today!! As pointed out quite effectively in the post, they have no understanding of the concept of 'Adalah'.

 

If nothing else, making a rebuttal to this rebuttal should keep those dudes on the Terrorist Forum busy for a while :) 

[AbuMuhsin]

http://www.worldcat.org/title/atb-al-jamil-ala-ahl-al-jarh-wa-al-tadil/oclc/768702401?referer=di&ht=edition

 

Here's a book by Sheikh Muhammad b. Aqil al-Alawi, who is a Sunni scholar from the Ba'Alawi family of Tarim, Yemen, that largely argues what Sheikh al-Sanad argues: partisanship towards the Umayyads encouraged a mainstream Sunni tendency to criticize pro-Alid predecessors as untrustworthy and appraise anti-Alid predecessors as reliable. 

 

This scholar has also written two books defaming Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan as an enemy of God and encouraging Sunni scholars to reject him as such. The first book garnered severe criticism from the Wahhabi establishment, and the second book was produced in response to this criticism. His teacher Sayyid Abu Bakr b. Ibn Shihab, also from the Ba'Alawi family, wrote a supplementary book to support al-Alawi's arguments.

 

Of course, this will all be very hard to digest for our opponents whose staunch textualism aided by a general incompetency with basic rules of logic removes any possibility for them to be objective in their search for religious truth and causes them to resort to personal attacks against scholars and censorship. Congratulations to all of you for you are surely the sons of Muawiyah!

[Hannibal]

Great work Dar, that's a lot of great research and material you presented there.

[TheIslamHistory]

Well Structured and Answered, Jazak Allah Kheir Mod.

[Abu Nur]

Very informative brother, JazakAllah Kheir.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Dhulfikar

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

We Say: I actually do not care if the concept of "deviant belief" is invoked my our scholarship in rijāl. I am aware of Sh. al-Tūsī's statements in al-`Udda where he says the narration of the people holding deviant doctrines (Fathiyya, Wāqifiyya, `Āmmiyya, etc.) is deferred away from in cases of conflict with "tariīq al-haqq." Or al-Sadūq not giving fatwā by the narration of some of the Wāqifa. Even the era of al-`Allam al-Hillī where they rejected any and all non-Imamis (with some exceptions like Ashāb al-Ijmā`). I'd also notice that these are in the cases fiqh and ahkām.

 

The only people whose books and narrations were destroyed (arguably), and they were being accused harshly based on beliefs, where the "ghullāt," but they are "extremists" from our own sect. Besides, many and most scholars today will disagree and criticize these accusations. Especially the accusations and istiqrā' from al-Fadl b. Shāzhān, Ibn al-Ghadā'irī, and al-Najāshī.

 

The "you too" (tu quoque) fallacy does not solve the issue hand nor absolve your scholars from their bias and sectarianism. I am not arguing, at this moment, that our rijāl system is better or unbiased. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The enterprise of rijāl, jarh and ta`dīl, from any sect, is a self-serving system. 

 

في أمان الله

Edited August 3, 2013 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Ethics]

They are so predictable. Always using baby tactics and not refuting the actual points made.

Thanks for your research Dar, great work.

[Hannibal]

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

We Say: I actually do not care if the concept of "deviant belief" is invoked my our scholarship in rijāl. I am aware of Sh. al-Tūsī's statements in al-`Udda where he says the narration of the people holding deviant doctrines (Fathiyya, Wāqifiyya, `Āmmiyya, etc.) is deferred away from in cases of conflict with "tariīq al-haqq." Or al-Sadūq not giving fatwā by the narration of some of the Wāqifa. Even the era of al-`Allam al-Hillī where they rejected any and all non-Imamis (with some exceptions like Ashāb al-Ijmā`). I'd also notice that these are in the cases fiqh and ahkām.

 

The only people whose books and narrations were destroyed (arguably), and they were being accused harshly based on beliefs, where the "ghullāt," but they are "extremists" from our own sect. Besides, many and most scholars today will disagree and criticize these accusations. Especially the accusations and istiqrā' from al-Fadl b. Shāzhān, Ibn al-Ghadā'irī, and al-Najāshī.

 

The "you too" (tu quoque) fallacy does not solve the issue hand nor absolve your scholars from their bias and sectarianism. I am not arguing, at this moment, that our rijāl system is better or unbiased. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The enterprise of rijāl, jarh and ta`dīl, from any sect, is a self-serving system. 

 

في أمان الله

 

I would expand your point by saying that the Imami Shi'a often dealt with people of their own sect (ghulat) or close to it (like the Waqifiya) more harshly than they did with proto-Sunnis narrators. There are of course exceptions at times, but this is the general pattern I have observed.

 

On the other hand, Sunnis did not do the same with the nasibis of their own sect. So although the Shia system of jarh and ta'dil was not objective and was self-serving and no one can dispute it, it seems to be less dogmatic and less self-serving than that of the Sunnis, at least on this particular issue that we are discussing.

 

But I know this is beyond the point of the post, so I'll leave it at that.

 

The main point is that Farid claimed that what Sanad said was false and was a baseless theory. It's a bit ironic that Farid seems to be acknowledging it now and playing the "you too" card :D

 

Again, great work Dar.

 

---

I would also like to add this. There has been a claim going around that some how the Sunni rijal system is objective self-critiquing enterprise. Dar's post showed otherwise, that it was far from being so. It was not interested with truth or history, but more interested in being self-serving. 

 

If the Shia did this, it doesn't mean that the above premise is false. So it's about time that some of our so-called Imamis woke up and smell the coffee and stop being fascinated by an illusion.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Hannibal

[Kazmi_202]

Thanks for explaining that guys.

 

So in laymen terms for people like me, we can basically expect a response that says 'look, you have done this too, look here and here....' instead of them defending their original stance which was a categoric 'you are lying about our methodology!!'.

 

So in the end we have to choose between 2 self-serving systems (of different degrees). From these 2, one group has narrated and authenticated Ahadith that state enmity with Ali (a) is a sign of Hypocrisy, and then proceeded to narrate from numerous Munafiqs lol They then topped this extraordinary feat of Nasb off by authenticating the killer of the Prince of Paradise (as)!!

 

I dont know about anyone else, but the Shia system could narrate from dolphins and bumblebees, and it still would be far more appealing then the alternative.

[Hannibal]

Thanks for explaining that guys.

 

So in laymen terms for people like me, we can basically expect a response that says 'look, you have done this too, look here and here....' instead of them defending their original stance which was a categoric 'you are lying about our methodology!!'.

 

So in the end we have to choose between 2 self-serving systems (of different degrees). From these 2, one group has narrated and authenticated Ahadith that state enmity with Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is a sign of Hypocrisy, and then proceeded to narrate from numerous Munafiqs lol They then topped this extraordinary feat of Nasb off by authenticating the killer of the Prince of Paradise (as)!!

 

I dont know about anyone else, but the Shia system could narrate from dolphins and bumblebees, and it still would be far more appealing then the alternative.

 

Please remember that despite the problems, there are still methods in deriving, objectively speaking, what the Imams taught historically. We can't do this with everything in Shi'ism, but we can do enough to derive the core tenets of Shi'ism (this includes law, theology, ethics, school doctrines etc.)

Edited August 4, 2013 by Hannibal

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

 

Our Opponent said:  I'll respond later and demonstrate how the views that you are sharing are far from your shaikhs views.

 

 

I have misread this, I believe. He is trying to say that what I have argued and what al-Sanad حفظه الله have argued are not the same. This is an unimportant point (and untrue). To understand al-Sanad حفظه الله's statements of exaggeration (a common arabic literary device) as mutlaq is illogical (especially in the introduction). His point was that the Sunni system of narrator criticism is controlled by their kalām and doctrine and not about truthfulness and accuracy absolutely. This phenomena is especially true when it came to the Shi`ah and Rafida while the Nasiba were not scrutinized with the same intensity, if at all. Yes, I have elaborated and expanded the arguments beyond what al-Sanad has said. However, his discussion was aimed to show that the Sunni system is not objective, but very biased due to their criticisms stemming from their `aqida and kalam. The point about Nasb [opposing the Shia/supporting nawasib is a form of nasb] against these people is from a fascist Imami perspective as this discussion's audience were Imami students.

 

We have mentioned many examples of this that the criticisms they have applied and ruled for a narrator are based on their principles of theology and the Rijālī scholar used them in giving opinions on a narrator by investigating their narrations or the teachers of the narrator that they would seek out to study and narrate from.

The Arabic:

 

وقد ذكرنا أمثلة ونماذج كثيرة من أن مستنداتهم في الجرح والتعديل إنما هي قواعد ومبان كلامية يستند إليها الرجالي في تقييم ومحاكمة الرواي من خلال مذهبه الإعتقادي بتوسط مضامين الروايات التي يرويها أو مشايخ الرواي الذين ينتمي إليهم في التتلمذ والرواية

 

 

 

The Conclusion: The matter of Jarh and Ta`dīl is subjected to the ijtihād of the rijāli according it was grounded in from inquiries of belief so his conclusions that he put out were nothing but his fatāwā, meaning his ijtihād and the majority of the matter is not grounded in assessing the moral behavior of the narrator.

 

المحصل: أن الجرح والتعديل خاضع الإجتهاد صاحب الجرح والتعديل الخبير الرجالي حسب ما يتبنى من المسائل الإعتقادية فنتائجه التي يبرزها ليست إلا فتاواه وإجتهاداته وليست في غالب الأمر مستندة إلى السلوك الأخلاقي للراوي

 

في أمان الله

Edited August 9, 2013 by Dar'ul_Islam

[Muhammad Faysal Ali]

To increase knowledge of All Brothers

Ayatollah Sayyid Saeed AL hakim in his book FI RIJABU AQIDAH has dedicated 250 pages on this issue , that how sunni scholars used to weak narrator on basis on personal problems with them , or they don't have same beliefs regarding Quran is created or preexisting , how they try to weak the ahadith which contain merits of Imam Ali p.b.u.h and lot more

I read this book two times it is one of best

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Ahlul bayt a.s

[TheIslamHistory]

To increase knowledge of All Brothers

Ayatollah Sayyid Saeed AL hakim in his book FI RIJABU AQIDAH has dedicated 250 pages on this issue , that how sunni scholars used to weak narrator on basis on personal problems with them , or they don't have same beliefs regarding Quran is created or preexisting , how they try to weak the ahadith which contain merits of Imam Ali p.b.u.h and lot more

I read this book two times it is one of best

May Allah bless who follow Qur'an and Ahlul bayt a.s

 

Your right. I was reading Mustadrak al Hakim. It Suprisingly most of the Hadith about Ahlulbayt (as) where rejcted and on the footnotes he only says:

"A lier! who ever Manupliated..."???