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

Response To Narrator Criticism In Sunni Rijal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(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. Yahal-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 by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Vigilare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

1st 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 by Hannibal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

post-4-0-46891500-1374987864_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...