Al-Kulaynī's Belief In The Authenticity Of Al-Kāfī

[Shia Defence]

Yes it is true that al-Kulyani considred al-Kafi 100% authentic but other ullema didn't agree on his view

Let me share what Sayyed al-Khoi says about the book al-Kafi

And what we say that all the narrations of al-Kafi are not Sahih(authentic) , Sheikh Sadooq r.a and His Sheikh Muhammad bin Hassan r.a too didn't considered all narrations of al-Kafi as Sahih(authentic) this is to verified this act, because some of narrations in al-Kafis are dhaef(weaks)

Muj'am ul Rijal ul Hadith Vol 1 Page 92

let me add the grading of Ayatullah al-udhma Aqae Buzraq Tehrani

He says there are 34 books in al-Kafi and 323 chapters and total hadith are 16,000 near about, on which 5072 are Sahih 144 are Hassan ,178 are Muthwiq , 302 are Qowi(strong) and 9485 are dhaef(weaks)

My comment

It is our belief that Jamhoor Ullema(i,e Muqdmeen and Muthakhreen) didn't considred any book Sahih expect Quran

on the other hand ahulsunnah's Uleema of Muqdmeen and Muthakhreen belived their Bukhari and Muslim are 100% authentic and often they do taweel of quranic verses to defend their writers

[Islamic Salvation]

Yes it is true that al-Kulyani considred al-Kafi 100% authentic but other ullema didn't agree on his view

Akhi, this is also debatable, infact I think the more correct view is that al-Kulayni himself did not consider all of what he included as Sahih.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Rasul]

Salam,

But they do not say that al-Kulayni (ra) believed that - all hadith where authentic in al-Kafi...

[Kai]

Salam,

But they do not say that al-Kulayni (ra) believed that - all hadith where authentic in al-Kafi...

Al-Kulayni, in his introduction of Al-Kafi, wrote:

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book (Al-Kafi) which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled."

Taken from this article: http://www.sunnidefe...ity-their-texts

Edited December 31, 2012 by Kai

[Rasul]

Al-Kulayni, in his introduction of Al-Kafi, wrote:

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book (Al-Kafi) which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled."

Taken from this article: http://www.sunnidefe...ity-their-texts

Salam,

This is from Sunni website. I don't trust them.

[Kai]

Salam,

This is from Sunni website. I don't trust them.

Brother, all they did was quote Al-Kulayni from Al-Kafi and translate it. Do you want a scan of the book?

Edited December 31, 2012 by Kai

[Shia Defence]

Akhi have you any proof that al-Kulyani didn't considred all of narrations as Sahih ?

[Ethics]

It says by "deriving" sahih, not by sahih, meaning to find sahih..... I think the English to Arabic is different or wrong, someone find the Arabic intro

[Islamic Salvation]

Well, as-Sayyid al-Khoei said:

أولا : إن السائل إنما سأل محمد بن يعقوب تأليف كتاب مشتمل على الآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين سلام الله عليهم ، ولم يشترط عليه أن لا يذكر فيه غير الرواية الصحيحة ، أو ما صح عن غير الصادقين عليهم السلام ، ومحمد بن يعقوب قد أعطاه ما سأله ، فكتب كتابا مشتملا على الآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام في جميع فنون علم الدين ، وإن إشتمل كتابه على غير الآثار الصحيحة عنهم عليهم السلام ، أو الصحيحة عن غيرهم أيضا إستطرادا وتتميما للفائدة

Firstly: what the questioner (who prompted the writing of the book) had asked of Muhammad b. Yaqub was the authorship of a book which encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, and he did not put forth as a condition that it should not contain any Athar which are not Sahih from as-Sadiqayn, NOR that all the Athar should only be from as-Sadiqayn, and Muhammad bin Yaqub gave him what he asked for, so he wrote a book that encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn in all aspects of Ulum al-Diin, but he did not burden himself with ONLY Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn OR only narrating from Sadiqayn, and what proves what we have just pointed out is the fact that Muhammad b. Yaqub narrates alot in al-Kafi from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn (i.e. in other words, if he can narrate from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn, then he can also narrate what is not Sahih, that is, he did not bind himself with ONLY including Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, as his practise in narrating from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn shows).

But apart from this

Look at just this small Bab in al-Kafi about Fast of Ramadhan, In the main Bab al-Kulayni includes these Hadith that are clear that Fasting is based on cresecent.

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه ; ومحمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد جميعا، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن حماد بن عثمان، عن الحلبي، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: إنه سئل عن الاهلة فقال: هي أهلة الشهور فإذا رأيت الهلال فصم وإذا رأيته فأفطر

6314 1[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] Ali bin Ibrahim from his father (Ibrahim bin Hashim) AND Muhammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Muhammad all together from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hammad bin Uthman from (Ubaydullah bin Ali) al-Halabiy from Abi Abdillah (ع), said (al-Halabiy): He was asked about the crescents, so He said: it is the crescents (or the new moons) of the months, so if you see the crescent (new moon) then fast, and if you see it then break your fast. (Sahih)

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن سيف ابن عميرة، عن الفضل بن عثمان قال: قال أبو عبدالله (ع): ليس على أهل القبلة إلا الرؤية، ليس على المسلمين إلا الرؤية

6318 5[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] A number of our companions from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa from Ali bin Hakam from Sayf bin Umayra from Fadhl bin Uthman who said: Abu Abdillah (ع) said: there is nothing for the people of the Qibla except the sighting (of the moon), there is nothing for the Muslims except the sighting (of the moon). (Sahih)

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن حماد، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: إذا رأوا الهلال قبل الزوال فهو لليلته الماضية وإذا رأوه بعد الزوال فهو لليلته المستقبلة

6323 10[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] Ali bin Ibrahim from his father (Ibrahim bin Hashim) from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hammad (bin Uthman) from Abi Abdillah (ع) who said: if they see the (crescent of the) new moon before noon then it is of the previous night, and if they see it after noon, then it is for the coming night. (Hasan)

أحمد بن محمد، عن بكر ; ومحمد بن أبي صهبان، عن حفص، عن عمر [و] بن سالم ; ومحمد بن زياد بن عيسى (2)، عن هارون بن خارجة قال: قال أبو عبدالله (ع): عد شعبان تسعة وعشرين يوما فإن كانت متغيمة فأصبح صائما فان كانت صاحية وتبصرته ولم تر شيئا فأصبح مفطرا

[Muhammad bin Yaqub from a number of our companions from] Ahmad bin Muhammad from Bakr AND Muhammad bin Abi Suhban (Muhammad bin Abdil Jabbar) from Hafs from Amr(u) bin Salim AND Muhammad bin Ziyad bin Isa (Ibn Abi Umayr) from Harun bin Kharijah who said: Abu Abdillah (ع) said: count the Sha'ban twenty nine days, so (on the twenty ninth night) if it is cloudy then wake up fasting, and if it (the night) is clear and you looked for it but did not see anything then wake up not fasting. (Majhul - Sahih ala Dhahir)

Then, in Bab al-Nawadir, right under the above chapter - he includes the following

علي بن محمد، عن صالح بن أبي حماد، عن ابن سنان، عن حذيفة بن منصور عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: شهر رمضان ثلاثون يوما لا ينقص أبدا (3). وعنه عن الحسن بن الحسين، عن ابن سنان، عن حذيفة مثله

6326 1[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] Ali bin Muhammad from Salih bin Abi Hammad from Ibn Sinan from Hudhayfa bin Mansur from Abi Abdillah (ع) who said: the month of Ramadhan is thirty days, it never decreases ever.

[and from him (Ali bin Muhammad) from Hasan bin Husayn from Ibn Sinan from Hudhayfa its like] (both Asanid Dhaif since Ibn Sinan is Muhammad)

عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن بعض أصحابه، عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى خلق الدنيا في ستة أيام ثم اختزلها (5) عن أيام السنة والسنة ثلاثمائة وأربع وخمسون يوما شعبان لا يتم أبدا رمضان لا ينقص والله أبدا ولا تكون فريضة ناقصة إن الله عزوجل يقول: "و لتكملوا العدة (1) " وشوال تسعة وعشرون يوما وذوالعقدة ثلاثون يوما لقول الله عزوجل: " وواعدنا موسى ثلاثين ليلة وأتممناها بعشرفتم ميقات ربه أربعين ليلة (2) " وذو الحجة تسعة وعشرون يوما والمحرم ثلاثون يوما، ثم الشهور بعد ذلك شهر تام وشهر ناقص

6327 2[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] A number of our companions from Sahl bin Ziyad from Muhammad bin Ismail from some of his companions from Abi Abdillah (ع) who said: Indeed Allah - glorified and sanctified - created the earth in six days, then he divided it up into the days of the year, and the year is three hundred and forty five days, the days of Sha'ban never complete (i.e. reach thirty), and the days of Ramadhan by Allah never decrease ever (i.e. from thirty), and the Faridha (i.e. of Sawm) is never deficient, Allah عزوجل says: "And that you may complete the number" (2:181), and Shawal is twenty nine days, and Dhul Qa'da is thirty days - by the saying of Allah عزوجل "And we promised Moses thirty nights and we completed it by ten, so it finished the meeting of your lord (with him) forty days" (7:142), and Dhul Hijjah is twenty nine days, and Muharram is thirty days, then the months after that are complete months and deficient months (alternatingly).(Dhaif alal Mashur and in it is Sahl and it is also Mursal)

محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن ابن سنان، عن حذيفة بن منصور، عن معاذ بن كثير، عن أبى عبدالله (ع) قال: شهر رمضان ثلاثون يوما لا ينقص والله أبدا

6328 3[Muhammad bin Yaqub from] Muhammad bin Yahya from Muhammad bin Husayn from Ibn Sinan from Hudhayfa bin Mansur from Ma'adh bin Kathir from Abi Adillah (ع) who said: the month of Ramadhan is thirty days, it never decreases by Allah (ever). (Dhaif alal Mashur)

[Ignore al-Majlisi's gradings]

--> Now can we say that al-Kulayni, believes that the Ahadith that he includes that say Ramadhan is always 30, and the Ahadith that he included initially (and more numerously) that point to it depending on the sighting of the moon [and thus Ramadhan can be 29 or 30] ARE BOTH SAHIH - This contradiction cannot be said of the ordinary laity so what of someone of al-Kulayni's calibre.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Rasul]

I don't see clear evidences - that al-Kulayni (ra) believed: ''All hadith that he collected were ''Sahih'' in al-Kafi. I am sure that if it where so - then he would have called his book ''Sahih al-Kafi'' like Sheikh al-Bahbudi did :)

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rasul

[Kai]

Here are the views of some notable Shi'a scholars about Al-Kulayni's belief in the absolute authenticity of Al-Kafi:

Al-Faydh Al-Kashani says:

وقد جرى صاحبا كتابي الكافي والفقيه على متعارف المتقدمين في اطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن اليه ويعتمد عليه فحكما بصحة جميع ما أورداه في كتابيهما من الأحاديث وإن لم يكن كثير منه صحيحا على مصطلح المتأخرين

“The authors of the two books, al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, have taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ.’ Thus, they have ruled the correctness of all the narrations they have mentioned in their books, even though many of them are not şaĥīĥ according to the terminology of the later scholars.”

-Al-Hurr Al-Amili says:

وهو صريح أيضا في الشهادة بصحة أحاديث كتابه لوجوه منها قوله بالآثار الصحيحة ومعلوم أنه لم يذكر فيه قاعدة يميز بها الصحيح عن غيره لو كان فيه غير صحيح ولا كان اصطلاح المتأخرين موجودا في زمانه قطعا كما يأتي فعلم أن كل ما فيه صحيح باصطلاح القدماء بمعنى الثابت عن المعصوم بالقرائن القطعية أو التواتر

“This is also an explicit declaration of authenticity of the narrations in his book due to various points.

One of these points is: His statement: ‘Authentic narrations.’ It is well-known that neither did he mention a rule that distinguishes the rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] narration from the other categories in (the book), even if there is a non-şaĥīĥ narration in it, nor were the terminologies of the later scholars absolutely present during his time, as it will be further explained.

Thus, it is known that all the narrations in it are correct [şaĥīĥ] by the terminology of the early scholars, with the meaning of being proven from the infallible on the basis of categorical indications or consecutiveness.”

-Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Al-Muntadhari says:

واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا

“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!”

(Taken from the same article as before)

Grand Ayatollah Muhammed Sa'id Al-Hakim also says:

أن مؤلفه (قدس الله تعالى روحه) قد صرح في مقدمته بأنه قد توخى جمع الأخبار الصحيحة عن المعصومين (عليهم أفضل الصلاة والسلام

ولا يريد بصحة أخباره أنه رواها بطرق صحيحة كل رجالها ثقات

Edited December 31, 2012 by Kai

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

The belief of Kulyani [ra] regarding the correctness of the ahadeeth of al-Kafi can be limited to the main tenets of the mathhab found in the Usool and then for the Furu3 al-Kafi. You can put aside things like the Abwab al-Nawadir, that's kind of earmarking it as "here's some weird stuff I found that I'm just including for the sake of completeness."

في امان الله

[Rasul]

He wrote:

"You wanted a book to be handy, to be comprehensive and to be inclusive of all knowledge about your religion (Islam) — a book on which a student of religion could safely rely, to which the seeker of light and guidance should turn and from which a student seeking the knowledge of religion should derive full benefit and act on the traditions of the truthful Imãms (p.b.u.t.)."

He doesn't say ''it is 100% Sahih''

[Kai]

He wrote:

"You wanted a book to be handy, to be comprehensive and to be inclusive of all knowledge about your religion (Islam) — a book on which a student of religion could safely rely, to which the seeker of light and guidance should turn and from which a student seeking the knowledge of religion should derive full benefit and act on the traditions of the truthful Imãms (p.b.u.t.)."

He doesn't say ''it is 100% Sahih''

That's not the most accurate translation.The Arabic version contains the word, "Saheeh". Regardless, I have already showed you the opinions of other Shia scholars on Al-Kulayni's belief.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Kai

[Rasul]

That's not the most accurate translation.The Arabic version contains the word, "Saheeh". Regardless, I have already showed you the opinions of other Shia scholars on Al-Kulayni's belief.

''Translation from Sunni website'' does not prove that he (ra) believed al-Kafi to be 100% Sahih.

And the rest what you quote (again from ''Sunni website'') must be checked + does not prove that he (ra) believed al-Kafi to be 100% Sahih

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rasul

[Kai]

''Translation from Sunni website'' does not prove that he (ra) believed al-Kafi to be 100% Sahih.

And the rest what you quote (again from ''Sunni website'') must be checked + does not prove that he (ra) believed al-Kafi to be 100% Sahih

I don't know why you would be so skeptical about the translation of the website, and of Al-Kulayni's belief. I have read the Arabic text, and I think that they are accurately translated. Why don't you read the Arabic text yourself, and tell me what you think of it.

[Rasul]

If someone want to prove that al-Kulayni (ra) believed al-Kafi to be 100% Sahih - then quote his statement where he say ''This book consist only of Sahih hadith''

[Islamic Salvation]

by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as)

Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, where as-Sadiqayn are al-Baqir and as-Sadiq.

Now the question is, did al-Kulayni only narrate from as-Sadiqayn?, the answer is NO, he also narrates from other than as-Sadiqayn from the Imams, and EVEN from non-Ma'sumin, so again, I repeat, he did what he was asked of, he included Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, but he did not limit himself to this, and went beyond, and there is nothing from his words that can prove that he considered all of his work as Sahih.

And the best proof for that is that al-Kulayni himself brings some rules of how to resolve contradictions, and to sift between authentic material and otherwise in the very same Muqadima.

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك الله أنه لا يسع أحدا " تمييز شئ مما اختلف الرواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السلام برأيه، إلا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السلام: " اعرضوها على كتاب الله فما وافى كتاب الله عز وجل فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردوه " و قوله عليه السلام: " دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم " وقوله عليه السلام " خذوا بالمجمع عليه، فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه " ونحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلا أقله ولا نجد شيئا " أحوط ولا أوسع من رد علم ذلك كله إلى العالم عليه السلام وقبول ما وسع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السلام: " بأيما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم

Know O brother, may Allah grant you guidance, that there is no other way to sort out the confusion that comes from the variation of the narrations from the Ulama (i.e. Imams) except by the help of the principles that the Alim (i.e. Imam of Ahlulbayt) had set when he said - "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

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

Also what he has said of his words - "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

And we are only able to apply such principles except to very few of such cases. And we do not find any thing better and more precautionary (when dealing with the majority of cases) other than to refer all these cases to the Imam and accept that which is within the limit of his words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

al-Kulayni is laying down some principles for resolving variation in Hadith by looking at what the Imams had to say about it, thus:

1. "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

2. "Leave alone what agrees with the views of the others because the right is in what is opposite to them."

3. "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

He then says 'We are only able to apply such principles to very few of such cases'.

Thus, we do not find any thing better and more precautionary than:

4. "Which ever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

And note that even if you belive that al-Kulayni has included all Sahih material in his book, then he himself declares:

وقد يسر الله - وله الحمد - تأليف ما سألت، وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت فمهما كان فيه من تقصير فلم تقصر نيتنا في إهداء النصيحة

And Allah has made it easy for me - and to Him belongs all praise - writing what you asked for, and I hope that it conforms to what you wished for - SO WHATEVER IS IN IT WHICH IS BELOW THE MEASURE (TAQSIR) - THEN THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY TAQSIR IN OUR INTENTION (NIYYAH) TO PROVIDE COUNSEL (NASIHA).

Edited January 1, 2013 by Islamic Salvation

[Kai]

Thank you for the clarification.

[Rasul]

@Islamic Salvation

Excellent!

May Allah bless you!

[Cake]

(salam)

Perhaps a moderator should split the posts regarding shaykh al-Kulayni's belief in the authenticity, or lack of, of al-Kafi.

Well, as-Sayyid al-Khoei said:

أولا : إن السائل إنما سأل محمد بن يعقوب تأليف كتاب مشتمل على الآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين سلام الله عليهم ، ولم يشترط عليه أن لا يذكر فيه غير الرواية الصحيحة ، أو ما صح عن غير الصادقين عليهم السلام ، ومحمد بن يعقوب قد أعطاه ما سأله ، فكتب كتابا مشتملا على الآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام في جميع فنون علم الدين ، وإن إشتمل كتابه على غير الآثار الصحيحة عنهم عليهم السلام ، أو الصحيحة عن غيرهم أيضا إستطرادا وتتميما للفائدة

Firstly: what the questioner (who prompted the writing of the book) had asked of Muhammad b. Yaqub was the authorship of a book which encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, and he did not put forth as a condition that it should not contain any Athar which are not Sahih from as-Sadiqayn, NOR that all the Athar should only be from as-Sadiqayn and Muhammad bin Yaqub gave him what he asked for, so he wrote a book that encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn in all aspects of Ulum al-Diin, but he did not burden himself with ONLY Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn OR only narrating from Sadiqayn, and what proves what we have just pointed out is the fact that Muhammad b. Yaqub narrates alot in al-Kafi from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn (i.e. in other words, if he can narrate from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn, then he can also narrate what is not Sahih, that is, he did not bind himself with ONLY including Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, as his practise in narrating from Ghayr as-Sadiqayn shows).

[...]

Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, where as-Sadiqayn are al-Baqir and as-Sadiq.

Now the question is, did al-Kulayni only narrate from as-Sadiqayn?, the answer is NO, he also narrates from other than as-Sadiqayn from the Imams, and EVEN from non-Ma'sumin, so again, I repeat, he did what he was asked of, he included Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, but he did not limit himself to this, and went beyond, and there is nothing from his words that can prove that he considered all of his work as Sahih.

Was the introduction written before or after the kitab?

Shaykh al-Kulayni wrote his introduction to kitab al-Kafi after its writing, thus we cannot say - as we can for rijal at-Tusi - that he went against his introduction. This is indicated by things such as his speech in the past tense, his description of kitab al-Hujjah being longer, his stated intention to compile a larger book, etc. Therefore, if Kulayni wrote in the introduction that he considers al-Kafi sahih, then we cannot dismiss this by arguing that he went against it.

Even if we find dha`if hadiths within it, this does not mean that he does not consider it sahih, as sahih is not restricted to the meaning of a hadith with a sahih chain for the muttaqaddimeen, and they had qara'in to also authenticate hadiths with.

Sadiqeen versus Sadiqayn

One of the arguments is that Kulayni said he would give hadiths from the Sadiqayn (i.e. the two Sadiqs, peace be upon them), as opposed to the Sadiqeen (all of the truthful ones, peace be upon them), and that he gives other hadiths, which shows he went against his introduction.

However, Kulayni, as stated previously, wrote the introduction previous to the book. Also, the argument is also usually made that Kulayni did not say that he exclusively giving sahih hadiths; similarly, we can argue that Kulayni wrote Sadiqayn, but did not mean that he restricted himself to their narrations, but rather would also include the narrations of the other Aimmah, but wrote Sadiqayn as the narrations of the 2 outweigh the narrations of the others (and many of the narrations from the Prophet and Imam Ali come through them too).

The tashkeel is not present in the introduction. Perhaps we can refer to the grammar of the salutations upon them to determine what Kulayni meant. Mazandarani (d. 1081) says:

به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين ( عليهما السلام ) والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل

But others say:

Muhammad Baqir al-Hussaini al-Astarabadi (d. 1041) in الرواشح السماوية:

قوله : ( بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين ( عليهم السلام ) ) .

Muhammad bin Haydar an-Na'ini (d. 1072) in الحاشية على أصول الكافي:

به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين ( عليهم السلام ) والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل

al-Fadhil at-Tuni/at-Tawni (d. 1071) in الوافية:

بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام

Hurr al-Amili says the same, as does Mirza Nuri. Of course it is possible that all of these salutations are from the publisher, and it is also possible that alayhim refers to two. However, this demonstrates the grammar of the salutations does not prove it refers to as-Sadiqayn either.

So it is unproven that it is as-Sadiqayn instead of as-Sadiqeen. It seems more rational to interpret it as Sadiqeen, surely, since the narrations of the other Imams are just as weighty as the narrations of the Sadiqayn, if not more so. For example, the hadiths say that the qawl of the later Imam can abrogate the qawl of the previous Imam. Also, the narrations of the later Imams are more easily authenticated due to their being later and closer to the time of Kulayni and Saduq. In other words, if we are to interpret it as Sadiqayn, then Kulayni is giving a preference to their narrations to the narrations of the Prophet and the other Imams. Why might he do this? The only likely explanation is, as I said earlier, that their narrations are many. However, this does not mean that the narrations of the other Imams, even if few and they are not few*, should not be given equal importance, just because their quantity is lesser.

* = The rough estimate for the number of hadiths per Imam in al-Kafi:

Prophet 1695

Imam Ali 1086

al-Hasan 43

al-Hussain 32

Ali bin al-Hussain 1082

Baqir 3394

Sadiq 12471

Kadhim 1065

Ridha 928

Jawad 201

Hadi 163

Askari 104

al-Mahdi 56

(peace be upon them all)

So the rough total of narrations from the Imams after as-Sadiqayn are 2517, which is much closer to the narrations of al-Baqir than the narrations of al-Baqir are to as-Sadiq, aleyhum assalam. So their narrations - and this is not even including the narrations of the Imams previous to as-Sadiqayn - are plentiful.

So it is not proven that it is as-Sadiqayn. Indeed, since the introduction is written after, it more likely refers to Sadiqeen.

Look at just this small Bab in al-Kafi about Fast of Ramadhan, In the main Bab al-Kulayni includes these Hadith that are clear that Fasting is based on cresecent.

[...]

Then, in Bab al-Nawadir, right under the above chapter - he includes the following

[...]

--> Now can we say that al-Kulayni, believes that the Ahadith that he includes that say Ramadhan is always 30, and the Ahadith that he included initially (and more numerously) that point to it depending on the sighting of the moon [and thus Ramadhan can be 29 or 30] ARE BOTH SAHIH - This contradiction cannot be said of the ordinary laity so what of someone of al-Kulayni's calibre.

This does not prove anything. The placing of the hadiths regarding shahr Ramadhan being 30 days in bab an-nawadir and the other hadiths on the number of days of that month in a "main" chapter indicates that he does not act upon the hadiths about shahr Ramadhan always being 30 days. It does not prove that the hadiths about it being 30 days are not sahih. The Imams issued hadiths that contradicted each other for the sake of taqiyyah. So, their mere irreconcilable contradiction does not prove one set of hadiths false. Kulayni has other hadiths in al-Kafi which contradict each other. He even advises the reader on the methods for dealing with contradicting hadiths.

[...]so again, I repeat, he did what he was asked of, he included Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqayn, but he did not limit himself to this, and went beyond, and there is nothing from his words that can prove that he considered all of his work as Sahih.

And the best proof for that is that al-Kulayni himself brings some rules of how to resolve contradictions, and to sift between authentic material and otherwise in the very same Muqadima.

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك الله أنه لا يسع أحدا " تمييز شئ مما اختلف الرواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السلام برأيه، إلا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السلام: " اعرضوها على كتاب الله فما وافى كتاب الله عز وجل فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردوه " و قوله عليه السلام: " دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم " وقوله عليه السلام " خذوا بالمجمع عليه، فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه " ونحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلا أقله ولا نجد شيئا " أحوط ولا أوسع من رد علم ذلك كله إلى العالم عليه السلام وقبول ما وسع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السلام: " بأيما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم

Know O brother, may Allah grant you guidance, that there is no other way to sort out the confusion that comes from the variation of the narrations from the Ulama (i.e. Imams) except by the help of the principles that the Alim (i.e. Imam of Ahlulbayt) had set when he said - "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

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

Also what he has said of his words - "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

And we are only able to apply such principles except to very few of such cases. And we do not find any thing better and more precautionary (when dealing with the majority of cases) other than to refer all these cases to the Imam and accept that which is within the limit of his words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

al-Kulayni is laying down some principles for resolving variation in Hadith by looking at what the Imams had to say about it, thus:

1. "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

2. "Leave alone what agrees with the views of the others because the right is in what is opposite to them."

3. "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

He then says 'We are only able to apply such principles to very few of such cases'.

Thus, we do not find any thing better and more precautionary than:

4. "Which ever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

That is not about the authenticity of the hadiths in the book. Kulayni is only telling the reader how to deal with contradictions between the hadiths. I have underlined and bolded the key phrase.

In support to this, qarina #2 arguably has nothing to do with determining authenticity.

And note that even if you belive that al-Kulayni has included all Sahih material in his book, then he himself declares:

وقد يسر الله - وله الحمد - تأليف ما سألت، وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت فمهما كان فيه من تقصير فلم تقصر نيتنا في إهداء النصيحة

And Allah has made it easy for me - and to Him belongs all praise - writing what you asked for, and I hope that it conforms to what you wished for - SO WHATEVER IS IN IT WHICH IS BELOW THE MEASURE (TAQSIR) - THEN THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY TAQSIR IN OUR INTENTION (NIYYAH) TO PROVIDE COUNSEL (NASIHA).

This is merely his disclaimer - a statement of modesty and admittance of his fallibility. It is by no means an argument that Kulayni did not try to only include sahih hadiths. Even Bukhari - recognised as one of the best Sunni hadith scholars ever and whose Sahih is said to have had the strictest acceptance criteria - slipped up and included hadiths which were not technically sahih according to some scholars. Kulayni goes onto say that the book that the questioner desired had been made possible; if he had failed to achieve the desired specifications, he could not say that.

I think the question of whether Kulayni considered al-Kafi sahih truly rests on the interpretation of the words:

ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها

Rough translation: And one can take from it - whoever wants - knowledge of the Deen and (knowledge of) the practice in it, by/with/from the authentic narrations from the truthful ones, peace be upon them, and the upright sunan (i.e. the proven practices), which can be acted on and...

One might argue that it is to be interpreted to mean that one can take knowledge and practice of the Deen from sahih narrations, in the sense that there will also be non-sahih narrations present.

Or one might argue that it is to be interpreted to mean that one can take knowledge and practice of the Deen with sahih narrations, in the sense that the book is only (or perhaps mostly) comprised of sahih narrations.

However, considering things such as:

In his introduction, he tells the readers - he clearly expects them to include the non-experts when one reads more of the intro - how to deal with contradicting hadiths but does not tell them how to determine the authentic hadith from the inauthentic. Indeed, considering the audience comprising of laypeople, then why would he give instructions on how to deal with contradictions (which are found in the hadiths in his first volume of al-Kafi anyways) and not how to determine the authentic narration from the false if the book was only for fellow hadith experts? It is worse to act on the inauthentic hadith than to choosing the wrong hadith to act from two contradicting authentic hadiths. He says:

وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

He also says one can taken from it, whoever wishes, the knowledge of the Deen. Does this mean that it contains knowledge that is irrelevant to the Deen? No. It is a book of hadiths all related to Islam in some fashion.

His intention to compile a larger book and the desire for the book to be sufficient for the Deen, rather than comprehensive of all narrations.

He speaks of how the questioner complains of confusing variants hadiths etc.

You (the interrogator) have spoken of matters that are difficult for you. Your main difficulty is that you do not know the truth because of the conflicting versions of traditions coming from different narrators. And you know that conflicting versions of traditions have their own causes and effects. Further, your problem is that you do not find whether any expert knowledge (of the authenticity of narrators) can be

So I am inclined to interpret his words as meaning that his book is sahih-only or sahih-mostly. And there are scholars who have interpreted it as such.

(wasalam)

Edited January 2, 2013 by Cake

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

^^ brother cake salamalaikum that was icing on the cake. Sahih to them was dependable for religious needs and yes many agree that with all the available methods of rijaal of classical and modern scholars the result is overall mutabar on ninety percent of the issues atleast

[Cake]

He speaks of how the questioner complains of confusing variants hadiths etc.

You (the interrogator) have spoken of matters that are difficult for you. Your main difficulty is that you do not know the truth because of the conflicting versions of traditions coming from different narrators. And you know that conflicting versions of traditions have their own causes and effects. Further, your problem is that you do not find whether any expert knowledge (of the authenticity of narrators) can be

I can no longer edit my post. I am correcting this part of my post. It should be:

He speaks of how the questioner complains of contradicting hadiths etc.

Furthermore if the questioner cannot deal with contradicting hadiths, how will he know how to determine the authentic from the inauthentic? It seems irresponsible for Kulayni to write a book that contained false hadiths, that the questioner would not know how to determine.

[Islamic Salvation]

Was the introduction written before or after the kitab?

Shaykh al-Kulayni wrote his introduction to kitab al-Kafi after its writing, thus we cannot say - as we can for rijal at-Tusi - that he went against his introduction. This is indicated by things such as his speech in the past tense, his description of kitab al-Hujjah being longer, his stated intention to compile a larger book, etc. Therefore, if Kulayni wrote in the introduction that he considers al-Kafi sahih, then we cannot dismiss this by arguing that he went against it, even if we find dha`if hadiths within it, as sahih is not restricted to the meaning of a hadith with a sahih chain for muttaqaddimeen, and they had qara'in to also authenticate hadiths with.

I do not have any problem in accepting that the introduction was written after al-Kafi itself was composed, and indeed this is the more correct view.

Sadiqeen versus Sadiqayn

One of the arguments is that Kulayni said he would give hadiths from the Sadiqayn (i.e. the two Sadiqs, peace be upon them), as opposed to the Sadiqeen (all of the truthful ones, peace be upon them), and that he gives other hadiths, which shows he went against his introduction.

However, Kulayni, as stated previously, wrote the introduction previous to the book.

Also, the argument is also usually made that Kulayni did not say that he exclusively giving sahih hadiths; similarly, we can argue that Kulayni wrote Sadiqayn, but did not mean that he restricted himself to their narrations, but rather would also include the narrations of the other Aimmah, but wrote Sadiqayn as the narrations of the 2 outweigh the narrations of the others (and many of the narrations from the Prophet and Imam Ali come through them too).

Whether it is Sadiqayn or Sadiqin, does not make a difference, the point remains - he narrates EVEN from the Non-Ma'sumin.

As al-Khoei says: he did what was asked of him, he wrote a book that encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqin, but he did not limit himself to this, and also included what is not from as-Sadiqin.

Now if he can narrate from the Non-Sadiqin, then that is enough proof that this statement of his is not a Statement of Hasr (i.e. delimitation of what he is going to do), but rather a statement of preponderance, that is --> most of what I am going to do is include (what I think are) Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqin.

This leaves the room open for him to include what falls short from his definition of Sahih [esp. in Abwab of matters of Ta'rikh, Rawdha, misc. etc.]

In other words, if he can include what is from the Non-Sadiqin, what prevents him from lowering his standards and including what is not Sahih (according to him).

This does not prove anything. The placing of the hadiths regarding shahr Ramadhan being 30 days in bab an-nawadir and the other hadiths on the number of days of that month in a "main" chapter indicates that he does not act upon the hadiths about shahr Ramadhan always being 30 days. It does not prove that the hadiths about it being 30 days are not sahih. The Imams issued hadiths that contradicted each other for the sake of taqiyyah. So, their mere irreconcilable contradiction does not prove one set of hadiths false.

How far are we going to play the Taqiyyah card Akhi, and even if we agree to that, the presence of Ahadith that he does not act upon is enough to cast doubt upon the whole enterprise.

Sahih according to al-Kulayni but not to be acted upon is a new category which we will have to add into al-Kafi.

Having said this, it should be noted that there also occurs contradictions within the main Bab itself.

That has nothing to do with the authenticity of the hadiths in the book. Kulayni is only telling the reader how to deal with contradictions between the hadiths. I have underlined and bolded the key phrase in my quote of you.

In support to this, qarina #2 arguably has nothing to do with determining authenticity.

The point of me also providing this part of the introduction is to point towards one fact, and this is that al-Kulayni had the following belief:

"And we are only able to apply such principles except to very few of such cases. And we do not find any thing better and more precautionary (when dealing with the majority of cases) other than to refer all these cases to the Imam and accept that which is within the limit of his words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

--> This means that he belived that whichever Hadith attributed to the Imam if it is followed in submission - then it is enough as an excuse, even if the Imam did not actually order it, and this is a belief not shared by us.

And this gives him much leeway, and upon it he can be justified to include most of what we would shudder to even think of.

I think the question of whether Kulayni considered al-Kafi sahih truly rests on the interpretation of the words:

ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها

One might argue that it is to be interpreted to mean that sahih narrations can be taken from it, in the sense that there will also be non-sahih narrations present.

Or one might argue otherwise.

As the basic principle of Usul al-Fiqh states, when there is more than one possibility, take the one that is less dangerous and which is more precautionary.

And after we ascertain the presence of liars and fabricators in his chain, and when more than half of what he includes is Rijal-wise weak, we would have to believe that he had Qarain for them, and if we do so, this is what al-Khoei says about that:

ومن البعيد جدا وجود أمارة الصدق في جميع هذه الموارد

And the possibility that all these Ahadith had Qarain of Sidq in them is quite less (i.e. it is a very distant possibility).

However, considering things such as:

In his introduction, he tells the readers - he expects them to include the non-experts - how to deal with contradicting hadiths but does not tell them how to determine the authentic hadith from the inauthentic. Indeed, considering the audience comprising of laypeople, then why would he give instructions on how to deal with contradictions (which are found in the hadiths in his first volume of al-Kafi anyways) and not how to determine the authentic narration from the false if the book was only for fellow hadith experts? It is worse to act on the inauthentic hadith than to choosing the wrong hadith to act from two contradicting authentic hadiths. He says:

وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

He also says one can taken from it, whoever wishes, the knowledge of the Deen. Does this mean that it contains knowledge that is irrelevant to the Deen? No. It is a book of hadiths all related to Islam in some fashion.

His intention to compile a larger book and the desire for the book to be sufficient for the Deen, rather than comprehensive of all narrations.

All this can be explained away by his major rule to deal with contradictions, that is, whatever is followed in submission acts as an excuse, this is a very low standard that he has set for himself.

So that means anything they follow which is attributed to the Imam, it becomes an excuse to them, since they could not ascertain what was the actual position, by this rule he could justifiably include almost anything attributed to them.

So I am inclined to interpret his words as meaning that his book is sahih-only or sahih-mostly. And there are scholars who have interpreted it as such.

as al-Khoei says

أنه يوجد في الكافي روايات شاذة لو لم ندع القطع بعدم صدورها من المعصوم عليه السلام فلا شك في الاطمئنان به.

There are in al-Kafi narrations that are Shadh, if we do not claim Qat (absolute knowledge) that they were never uttered by the Masum, we can say without any doubt that we have Itminan that they were not said by them.

But I agree with your Sahih-mostly statement, and once we do that i.e. allow some not to be, then that is against the claim that he included only what was Sahih.

And in the end, I have no doubt that he cosidered MOST of what he included Sahih by the Qarain he had available to him, but what qualifies as a Qarina to him we do not know.

Add to that, what he might have considered a Qarina to establish a Hadith's Sihha might not be regarded as the having the same effect by us, that is - if we had access to the same Qarina.

And since we do not have the Qarain which were available to him, and furthermore, since we know that his this statement is not that of Hasr, but rather preponderance, the presence of some Dhaif Hadith is definite or at the least possible, and upon that, since we cannot differentiate what he considered Sahih and what fell short of the mark, then such blanket statements cannot be made.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Islamic Salvation

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

This means that he belived that whichever Hadith attributed to the Imam if it is followed in submission - then it is enough as an excuse, even if the Imam did not actually order it, and this is a belief not shared by us.

^^ bro Islamic salvation. It would mean that the methods to understand contradictory ahadees are limited to many but not all and the mukallaf may not be able to differentiate between the hadees said in taqiyya from the hadees not said in taqiyya hence even if a person acts on a hadees based on taqiyya then he is alright as long as his intention is following the imams a.s.

And he wouldn't mean by that the ahadees not said by masoomeen a.s because if he knew for sure that something is surely not from imams a.s he wouldn't include it in his book at all. And the agreement of all shias on kutub arabaa at that time and kulayni taking from it is itself deemed a reliable approach and it is not ijtehadi because the books existed back in the time of imams a.s and people followed them. It is just that we don't have them as individual usool

And a very valid point is why did he include non masoom ahadees at all?

The answer would be available if we question to ourselves.

1. Did he divide his book as usool and furoo?

2. Did he use them in matters related to aqaid alone and if he has then has he presented only ahadees from non masoom on a given issue or has he quoted it with what is in synchrony with ahadees of masoomeen ?

3. Did he quote non masoom on an issue of halal and haram and if so are they the only source for a hukm? And if not how did he use their saying with the saying of masoom ?

[Cake]

Whether it is Sadiqayn or Sadiqin, does not make a difference, the point remains - he narrates EVEN from the Non-Ma'sumin.

As al-Khoei says: he did what was asked of him, he wrote a book that encompasses the Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqin, but he did not limit himself to this, and also included what is not from as-Sadiqin.

Now if he can narrate from the Non-Sadiqin, then that is enough proof that this statement of his is not a Statement of Hasr (i.e. delimitation of what he is going to do), but rather a statement of preponderance, that is --> most of what I am going to do is include (what I think are) Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqin.

This is difficult to answer. However it does not, I believe, settle the argument.

Kulayni does not include many athar. By this reasoning, the dha`if hadiths in al-Kafi would also be few.

Perhaps I can make the argument that: the athar, that I can think of, are all relevant. He gives athar that affect the authenticity of hadiths, athar on people who saw the Imam, and mawquf athar for fiqh. He included sahih hadiths, but he included athar that he felt were necessary: the athar that affect the authenticity (I am thinking of Attar from Saffar about Barqi on the Khidhr hadith) was necessary to assure the reader of the authenticity of the previous hadith, the athar on people seeing the Imam were necessary because there was doubt on his existence (and fits in well with the problems that the people/questioner had that Kulayni mentioned), and mawquf fiqhi athar are quite likely to be based on the aqwal of the Aimmah (such as Zurara's summary about how the women is to pray - most of which is already found in hadiths from the Imams). Whereas there was no need for shaykh al-Kulayni to include dha`if hadiths; especially when we consider the factor that the readers needed to be told how to deal with contradictions (I mention this in more detail elsewhere). Perhaps it is noteworthy that he says "athar" in the introduction instead of "hadith"; an uncommon choice of terminology.

Much of al-Kafi is acceptable by matn. And it can be verified by the likes of bringing shawahid from other books. Wasa'il is an excellent book to see where there are plenty of hadiths supporting a hadith in al-Kafi (mostly applicable to Furu' al-Kafi), or no shawahid.

Add to that, what he might have considered a Qarina to establish a Hadith's Sihha might not be regarded as the having the same effect by us, that is - if we had access to the same Qarina.

The speculation that the evidence that Kulayni used to ascertain the authenticity of hadith might have been insufficient in our eyes, and then using that as a reason to disregard Kulayni's tashih holds little weight. At the end of the day, we know there existed (and still to some extent exist) multiple turuq, alternative sahih turuq, etc. for hadiths that have a single, dha`if sanad, and there were (other) qara'in. Kulayni is described with high praise. He was obviously a great scholar. I think it is an injustice to his station to use this argument. Yes he likely made mistakes - due to his fallible nature and indeed he himself points out his fallibility - but the majority of Kafi would surely be sahih (if, for the sake of argument, he believed in its sihhat) as otherwise he would just be an incompetent/incomplete hadith scholar. It would be better, surely, to depend on the ijtihad of a classical scholar who had access to the original usul, than to depend on the ijtihad (in determining the authenticity) of a modern scholar, especially when that modern scholar is probably saying that checking the chain is dhanni, and yet heavily utilises it.

How far are we going to play the Taqiyyah card Akhi,

You know the hadiths for taqiyyah. The Imams created ikhtilaf for the sake of creating ikhtilaf for the purposes of taqiyyah. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination to think that the Imam also said that shahr Ramadhan is always 30 days.

and even if we agree to that, the presence of Ahadith that he does not act upon is enough to cast doubt upon the whole enterprise.

No it is not. We are talking of authentic hadiths (in his opinion, for the sake of argument). Kulayni actually does the reader a favour here actually. He includes the 30 day hadiths indicating that he was aware of them, and he places them in bab an-nawadir, and so indicates that they are not to be acted upon even though authentic (in his view).

Sahih according to al-Kulayni but not to be acted upon is a new category which we will have to add into al-Kafi.

See previous. There is no problem with a hadith being sahih (authentic) but not acted upon. Don't we believe that the Imam issued hadiths in taqiyyah, afterall? That taqiyyah might be over-used by scholars to explain contradictions is not relevant to this discussion.

Having said this, it should be noted that there also occurs contradictions within the main Bab itself.

As there are in other abwab. The presence of contradictions proves nothing in regard to Kulayni's view of the authenticity of his book. The shaykh did say that we cannot use those 3 principles to solve most of the contradictions and that we either act on precaution or pick whichever.

The point of me also providing this part of the introduction is to point towards one fact, and this is that al-Kulayni had the following belief:

"And we are only able to apply such principles except to very few of such cases. And we do not find any thing better and more precautionary (when dealing with the majority of cases) other than to refer all these cases to the Imam and accept that which is within the limit of his words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you."

--> This means that he belived that whichever Hadith attributed to the Imam if it is followed in submission - then it is enough as an excuse, even if the Imam did not actually order it, and this is a belief not shared by us.

?

As stated, what he is actually saying is that using the 3 principles issued by the Imams, we cannot determine the corrects hadiths for acting upon when there is ikhtilaf. This portion of the introduction is not about the authenticity of the text. I used to think that it was about the authenticity too, but upon a more careful re-reading, I noticed he was only talking about the ikhtilaf in the riwayat.

As the basic principle of Usul al-Fiqh states, when there is more than one possibility, take the one that is less dangerous and which is more precautionary.

A principle that is applied inconsistently by the contemporary ulama.

And after we ascertain the presence of liars and fabricators in his chain, and when more than half of what he includes is Rijal-wise weak, we would have to believe that he had Qarain for them,

There are also additional turuq, including sihhat, for some hadiths in al-Kafi, and Kulayni did not include them.

Also, you are interpreting his words to mean that every single hadith in al-Kafi is sahih. Notice that Kulayni includes multiple hadiths that say the same thing, or sometime have an identical matn. Perhaps he is providing them as shawahid.

and if we do so, this is what al-Khoei says about that:

ومن البعيد جدا وجود أمارة الصدق في جميع هذه الموارد

And the possibility that all these Ahadith had Qarain of Sidq in them is quite less (i.e. it is a very distant possibility).

Speculation. We had a long list of (potential) qara'in in our last conversation that the classical scholars could have used.

All this can be explained away by his major rule to deal with contradictions, that is, whatever is followed in submission acts as an excuse, this is a very low standard that he has set for himself.

So that means anything they follow which is attributed to the Imam, it becomes an excuse to them, since they could not ascertain what was the actual position, by this rule he could justifiably include almost anything attributed to them.

Pardon me, could you please explain how this "explains away" the factors that I gave?

For example, why did Kulayni tell the reader how to deal with contradictions but not how judge the authenticity of hadiths? This seems like a strange thing to do if the questioner was so ignorant that he could not deal with contradictions. if the questioner cannot deal with contradicting hadiths, how will he know how to determine the authentic from the inauthentic? It seems irresponsible for Kulayni to write a book that contained false hadiths, that the questioner would not know how to determine.

as al-Khoei says

أنه يوجد في الكافي روايات شاذة لو لم ندع القطع بعدم صدورها من المعصوم عليه السلام فلا شك في الاطمئنان به.

There are in al-Kafi narrations that are Shadh, if we do not claim Qat (absolute knowledge) that they were never uttered by the Masum, we can say without any doubt that we have Itminan that they were not said by them.

But I agree with your Sahih-mostly statement, and once we do that i.e. allow some not to be, we open up a can of worms.

Significant amount of contemporary ulama also say that ilm ar-rijal is not qat. So now what is the solution? To use one dhanni argument - that of rijal and dirayah - to give us certainty in their utterance by the Imam?

(wasalam)

Edited January 2, 2013 by Cake

[Abu_Muslim]

The Sahihayn have sahih chains. Scholars differ on the texts of a few individual hadiths but Sunni ilm ar-Rijal is defininitely consistent. On the contrary, I see many Shias declare unauthentic many hadiths based on the text alone while the chains tend to be authentic and vice versa. What is worse that, sometimes, the classical Shia scholars have declared certain narrations authentic due to their strong chains but nowadays we see people reject them based on text alone. I don't buy this simple Shia concept that is known as "If it contradicts the Qur`an don't take it and if it doesn't contradict the Qur`an take it" - If it contradicts the Quran why even record it in the first place? Ahadith have to be accepted and rejected on their chains - not just because it agrees or disagrees with our opinion

Edited January 2, 2013 by Abu_Muslim

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Abu_Muslim let all the sunni scholars from east to west gather in a desperate rooms in a big palace and ask them to comment under each hadees of sahihain whether it contradicts the quran or not if so with which ayat.

And gather all scholars from east to west in a similar manner and ask them to comment under each hadees of Al kafi if it agrees with quran or not if so with which ayat

You will find that they will come up with so much ikhtelaaf in their views that you will lose faith in islam. It is not because there aren't any sahih ahadees in such and such books but due to their misconnection from Allah azwj. They have to be infallible and it is only rasool Allah saww and his aal (Fatima zahra s.a and the 12 imams a.s) and they are among who are the leaders of paradise. You don't belief in them to be your leader here then you won't get them there Inshallah.

[Cake]

The Sahihayn have sahih chains.

There are criticisms of some hadiths in the Sahihayn. Not by nobodies either. Great scholars like Daraqutni have weakened hadiths in the Sahihayn. One example is the hadith in Sahih Muslim which says that Abu Hurayrah said that the Prophet said the Earth was created in six days, whereas it is actually a statement of Ka'ab (Bukhari says this). I am not providing references or quotes because it is not my concern. You can go ask Sunni brothers for this information.

Scholars differ on the texts of a few individual hadiths but Sunni ilm ar-Rijal is defininitely consistent.

What do you mean by consistent?

On the contrary, I see many Shias declare unauthentic many hadiths based on the text alone while the chains tend to be authentic and vice versa.

If these are random Imamis, then pay no heed. If these are scholars, then read the reasoning before judging. Thiqat can make mistakes. Hadiths that appear to be sahih can actually have `ilal, etc.

What is worse that, sometimes, the classical Shia scholars have declared certain narrations authentic due to their strong chains but nowadays we see people reject them based on text alone. I don't buy this simple Shia concept that is known as "If it contradicts the Qur`an don't take it and if it doesn't contradict the Qur`an take it" - If it contradicts the Quran why even record it in the first place?

I don't see what is wrong with the concept. The Quran is to be trusted, right? So if a hadith irreconcilably contradicts the Quran, then we should, at the very least, be hesitant with it and not act upon it.

As for recording them, the Sunnis have recorded books dedicated to fabricated hadiths. There is no problem with collecting weak hadiths.

Ahadith have to be accepted and rejected on their chains - not just because it agrees or disagrees with our opinion

That is one methodology. There are other methodologies amongst the Imami scholars for determining hadith authenticity.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Cake

[Islamic Salvation]

This is difficult to answer. However it does not, I believe, settle the argument.

Kulayni does not include many athar. By this reasoning, the dha`if hadiths in al-Kafi would also be few.

This could be taken as Qiyas Akhi, in that if the Athar from Non-Sadiqin are few in number, then the Ahadith included by al-Kulayni that are not to the standard of Sihha according to him - will also be few.

It should be remembered at this point that what we are discussing is whether al-Kulayni witnessed to the Sihha of all that he included in his book or not.

We are not discussing whether most of al-Kafi was Sahih to him or not, nor whether we should consider most of it Sahih or not.

To the first question I say - most of it was Sahih to him, to the second, I am still hesitant, depend only on Ilm ar-Rijal - since Hujiyyah is only scientifically demonstrated by this method in the current age, or take the plunge and depend on their (i.e. the Qudama's) pre-filtering exercise (i.e. the question that arises here is where should we draw the line).

Perhaps I can make the argument that: the athar, that I can think of, are all relevant. He gives athar that affect the authenticity of hadiths, athar on people who saw the Imam, and mawquf athar for fiqh.

He included sahih hadiths, but he included athar that he felt were necessary: the athar that affect the authenticity (I am thinking of Attar from Saffar about Barqi on the Khidhr hadith) was necessary to assure the reader of the authenticity of the previous hadith, the athar on people seeing the Imam were necessary because there was doubt on his existence (and fits in well with the problems that the people/questioner had that Kulayni mentioned), and mawquf fiqhi athar are quite likely to be based on the aqwal of the Aimmah (such as Zurara's summary about how the women is to pray - most of which is already found in hadiths from the Imams).

Whereas there was no need for shaykh al-Kulayni to include dha`if hadiths; especially when we consider the factor that the readers needed to be told how to deal with contradictions (I mention this in more detail elsewhere). Perhaps it is noteworthy that he says "athar" in the introduction instead of "hadith"; an uncommon choice of terminology.

While this might be true and beneficial (i.e. what you have come up with here), it remains that al-Khoei's argument is not answered.

That is, if al-Kulayni can include what is from Non-Sadiqin, then he can also include that whose Sihha is not proven to him.

And the reason according to al-Khoei is that his statement is not that of Hasr (explict delimitation of what he is to include) but of preponderance.

He argues that if we take the statement to be of Hasr then since the statement is a two-sided coin, if one of it is demonstratedly proven as untrue, then the other one falls as well.

But if we take it to be of preponderance, what al-Kulayni meant is that he would include Sahih Athar from as-Sadiqin - and this he did do indeed without any doubt, and that he did not limit himself to that (and that is why Riwayah from Non-Sadiqin also feature).

Much of al-Kafi is acceptable by matn. And it can be verified by the likes of bringing shawahid from other books. Wasa'il is an excellent book to see where there are plenty of hadiths supporting a hadith in al-Kafi (mostly applicable to Furu' al-Kafi), or no shawahid.

Indeed, much of al-Kafi (esp. Furu as you say) has Shawahid, and Itmi’nan in authenticity of Matn is also a Dalil Aqli which gives any Hadith Hujiyyah according to some.

The speculation that the evidence that Kulayni used to ascertain the authenticity of hadith might have been insufficient in our eyes, and then using that as a reason to disregard Kulayni's tashih holds little weight. At the end of the day, we know there existed (and still to some extent exist) multiple turuq, alternative sahih turuq, etc. for hadiths that have a single, dha`if sanad, and there were (other) qara'in. Kulayni is described with high praise. He was obviously a great scholar. I think it is an injustice to his station to use this argument. Yes he likely made mistakes - due to his fallible nature and indeed he himself points out his fallibility - but the majority of Kafi would surely be sahih (if, for the sake of argument, he believed in its sihhat) as otherwise he would just be an incompetent/incomplete hadith scholar. It would be better, surely, to depend on the ijtihad of a classical scholar who had access to the original usul, than to depend on the ijtihad (in determining the authenticity) of a modern scholar, especially when that modern scholar is probably saying that checking the chain is dhanni, and yet heavily utilises it.

I can see your point here, the camp that does not wish to depend on the Ijtihad of the Qudama is basing its decision upon a very sophisticated but shallow Usul al-Fiqh principle like – just the Ihtimal (possibility) that some of the Qarain that the Qudama used were erroneous (and since we do not know which Qarain were used for which Hadith) then doing Taqlid of their decisions of declaring mass bodies of Ahadith as Sahih is under question.

In other words, we know that they used Qarain, and we know that Sahih to them did not revolve only around the Isnad, but they have not explained their decisions in case to case basis of why they consider a Hadith Sahih (i.e. what external indicators pointed them that way - as to merit us believing in its content and acting upon its directives).

According to these scholars - it is much better to use Ilm ar-Rijal and Dirayah which we can understand and employ to decide Hujiyyah for Hadith.

It's like beginning from scratch and not giving any weight to the pre-filtering done by Ulama who had more resources and info. than us.

You know the hadiths for taqiyyah. The Imams created ikhtilaf for the sake of creating ikhtilaf for the purposes of taqiyyah. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination to think that the Imam also said that shahr Ramadhan is always 30 days.

I do not know of any of the Ammah who had such a belief, so Taqiyyah in such a case would be quite contrary to the principle of Taqiyyah – since majority of the Ammah believe that Ramadhan is established by moon sighting.

No it is not. We are talking of authentic hadiths (in his opinion, for the sake of argument). Kulayni actually does the reader a favour here actually. He includes the 30 day hadiths indicating that he was aware of them, and he places them in bab an-nawadir, and so indicates that they are not to be acted upon even though authentic (in his view).

Know that these Ahadith are the ones that are chosen by as-Saduq as the actual position of the Imams (i.e. Ramadhan is always thirty) [and he bases it on the principle of acting against the Ammah], but al-Mufid is quite clear in his Risala that all the Ahadith of this import are weak, and he goes through them one after the other showing their respective weaknesses – and concludes that not one of them is Sahih, so if indeed al-Kulayni had Qarain to include them as Sahih, al-Mufid who is close in age to him would also have them under purvue, but he dismisses them all as weak.

See previous. There is no problem with a hadith being sahih (authentic) but not acted upon. Don't we believe that the Imam issued hadiths in taqiyyah, afterall? That taqiyyah might be over-used by scholars to explain contradictions is not relevant to this discussion.

So is he including them for the sake of completeness?

Once you realize that this is not the actual position of the Imams what is the room for inclusion?

Another argument that al-Khoei brings is that both as-Saduq and at-Tusi did not consider all of al-Kafi as Sahih, and he brings indicators for this i.e. as-Saduq and at-Tusi criticizing some Ahadith in al-Kafi.

As there are in other abwab. The presence of contradictions proves nothing in regard to Kulayni's view of the authenticity of his book. The shaykh did say that we cannot use those 3 principles to solve most of the contradictions and that we either act on precaution or pick whichever.

The existence of all contradictions cannot be said to be coming from Taqiyyah or reporter mistakes in understanding, there are contradictions that arise due to fabricators, liars and weak reporters.

In such cases, what is al-Kulayni’s methodology – Rijal? Qarain? Or is he using his final card when the three principles do not apply.

?

As stated, what he is actually saying is that using the 3 principles issued by the Imams, we cannot determine the corrects hadiths for acting upon when there is ikhtilaf. This portion of the introduction is not about the authenticity of the text. I used to think that it was about the authenticity too, but upon a more careful re-reading, I noticed he was only talking about the ikhtilaf in the riwayat.

I also initially thought that the introduction is only talking of correcting the Ikhtilaf (mainly due to Taqiyyah), but upon careful re-reading I have begun to believe that it is about sifting the authentic from the non-authentic, can it be imagined that the Imams taught something that went against the Qur’an for al-Kulayni to propose the following - "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected", clearly the one that goes against the Qur’an did not originate from the Aimmah (and is therefore un-authentic).

Also, why does he give as one of the principle to resolve conflict - Shuhra (fame) of the Riwayah, and know that if he thought that all of his narrations are Sahih (i.e. originated from the Aimmah) then what is the need to rule in favour of the one which is famous.

As al-Khoei says about this

وهذا الكلام ظاهر في أن محمد بن يعقوب لم يكن يعتقد صدور روايات كتابه عن المعصومين عليهم السلام جزما ، وإلا لم يكن مجال للاستشهاد بالرواية على لزوم الاخذ بالمشهور من الروايتين عند التعارض ، فان هذا لا يجتمع مع الجزم بصدور كلتيهما ، فإن الشهرة إنما تكون مرجحة لتمييز الصادر عن غيره ، ولا مجال للترجيح بها مع الجزم بالصدور.

And these words from al-Kulayni (about judging for Shuhra in case of Ikhtilaf) are clear in proving that Muhammad bin Yaqub did not believe that all his Ahadith actually and certainly orginated from the Ma’sumin, and if that were the case, there would be no reason for him to quote the Riwayah that obligates taking what is Mashur (famous) from two conflicting Riwayat (in his introduction), for this does not equate with the belief that both the conflicting Riwayat originated from the Ma’sumin, since Shuhra (fame) is only a distinguishing factor to discover what actually originated from them and what did not, and there is no way to use Shuhra to choose one when both of them originated from the Imam.

Note also that al-Kulayni then says that these principles can be used to correctly discover the rightful position except only in a few cases, and in the majority we have to return it back to the Imams [Tawaquf], and also take shade in their edict – ‘whatever you act with in submission is enough as an excuse for you’.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Islamic Salvation

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

As al-Khoei says about this

وهذا الكلام ظاهر في أن محمد بن يعقوب لم يكن يعتقد صدور روايات كتابه عن المعصومين عليهم السلام جزما ، وإلا لم يكن مجال للاستشهاد بالرواية على لزوم الاخذ بالمشهور من الروايتين عند التعارض ، فان هذا لا يجتمع مع الجزم بصدور كلتيهما ، فإن الشهرة إنما تكون مرجحة لتمييز الصادر عن غيره ، ولا مجال للترجيح بها مع الجزم بالصدور.

And these words from al-Kulayni (about judging for Shuhra in case of Ikhtilaf) are clear in proving that Muhammad bin Yaqub did not believe that all his Ahadith actually and certainly orginated from the Ma’sumin, and if that were the case, there would be no reason for him to quote the Riwayah that obligates taking what is Mashur (famous) from two conflicting Riwayat (in his introduction), for this does not equate with the belief that both the conflicting Riwayat originated from the Ma’sumin, since Shuhra (fame) is only a distinguishing factor to discover what actually originated from them and what did not, and there is no way to use Shuhra to choose one when both of them originated from the Imam.

Note also that al-Kulayni then says that these principles can be used to correctly discover the rightful position except only in a few cases, and in the majority we have to return it back to the Imams [Tawaquf], and also take shade in their edict – ‘whatever you act with in submission is enough as an excuse for you’.

I don't think that is necessarily true and the assumption is being made that the hadith in taqiyya can only be identified via opposition to the `Awam. I say that the other steps and tools al-Kulayni refers to in his muqaddima are also ways to sift through hadith that are taqiyya/non-taqiyya. Indeed al-Kulayni [ra], and the rest of our Qudamaa, were not looking for sihha of sudur from the Imams [as] in all or most cases. Rather they were looking for hujjiyya and what they could use an excuse on Qiyama to say "This is why we acted in such and such a way." So generally speaking, historical truthfulness of the reports was not their game, rather what was to be acted upon. And so al-Kulayni [ra] says to use these tools to sift for hujjiyya and when all them fail (even Ihtiyaat) you just pick one. This is actually the Usul of the Akhbaris, though they look at these things differently epistemelogically speaking.

It's like beginning from scratch and not giving any weight to the pre-filtering done by Ulama who had more resources and info. than us.

I'd just like to point out this statement and see if this makes actually any real sense to anyone.

في امان الله

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Salamalaikum,

I have read all arguments again and again and looked at this part of muqaddama again which is

فاعلم يا أخي أرشدك الله أنه لا يسع أحدا " تمييز شئ مما اختلف الرواية فيه عن العلماء عليهم السلام برأيه، إلا على ما أطلقه العالم بقوله عليه السلام: " اعرضوها على كتاب الله فما وافى كتاب الله عز وجل فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردوه " و قوله عليه السلام: " دعوا ما وافق القوم فإن الرشد في خلافهم " وقوله عليه السلام " خذوا بالمجمع عليه، فإن المجمع عليه لا ريب فيه " ونحن لا نعرف من جميع ذلك إلا أقله ولا نجد شيئا " أحوط ولا أوسع من رد علم ذلك كله إلى العالم عليه السلام وقبول ما وسع من الأمر فيه بقوله عليه السلام: " بأيما أخذتم من باب التسليم وسعكم

Know O brother, may Allah grant you guidance, that there is no other way to sort out the confusion that comes from the variation of the narrations from the Ulama (i.e. Imams) except by the help of the principles that the Alim (i.e. Imam of Ahlulbayt) had set when he said - "Compare a narration with the text of the Holy Quran. Whatever agrees with the Holy Quran is acceptable and what does not agree is rejected."

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

Also what he has said of his  words -  "Follow what is unanimously agreed upon because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed upon."

And we are only able to apply such principles except to very few of such cases. And we do not find any thing better and more precautionary (when dealing with the majority of cases) other than to refer all these cases to the Imam and accept that which is within the limit of his words, "Whichever you would follow in submission and obedience is excusable for you.

Comparing with quran is a very general principle which every shia Sunni believes in. Let's say Al kulayni was implying that compare the ahadees in my book with quran and as pointed by bro Islamic salvation that why would he say that if he believed it all sahih. Mirza Mohammad akhbari had pointed this out in one of his works.

"He said: If a hadees is sahih according to the ilm amr rijaal of the moderns but it turns out that the hadees was really said by imams a.s but was said in taqiyya" so he questions . Will you then follow this sahih hadees knowing that it was based on taqiyya?

And let us now compare this same example. Al kulayni puts in sahi ahadees in his book according to the qarain available to him and the usool that were agreed upon by the shias and after so much asks us go compare with quran; does it make sense? He says to compare with quran even though he has compiled sahih just because there are sahih ahadees which were said in taqiyya , there are sahi ahadees which are now mansukh and acting on it would be a biddat however he continues and explains the rule of looking at what the later imam a.s said regarding it. And in the above paragraph says to look at the majority belief based on maqbula hanzala and then concludes that in many cases "to find out what is mansukh, nasikh, choice,taqiyya" we will sstill have to refer back to imams a.s and then if "none of them is possible" act on any of the ahadees to the limit of the word of imam a.s with the intention of itaat. This process could be continued through ahadees wherein the imam as sadiq a.s says: It is obligatory for you to ask the imam of time and he will remove you from biddat if you were mistakenly committing it and he will fill defiencies in your worship if there are any ...so on so forth.

[Islamic Salvation]

I don't think that is necessarily true and the assumption is being made that the hadith in taqiyya can only be identified via opposition to the `Awam. I say that the other steps and tools al-Kulayni refers to in his muqaddima are also ways to sift through hadith that are taqiyya/non-taqiyya. Indeed al-Kulayni [ra], and the rest of our Qudamaa, were not looking for sihha of sudur from the Imams [as] in all or most cases. Rather they were looking for hujjiyya and what they could use an excuse on Qiyama to say "This is why we acted in such and such a way." So generally speaking, historical truthfulness of the reports was not their game, rather what was to be acted upon. And so al-Kulayni [ra] says to use these tools to sift for hujjiyya and when all them fail (even Ihtiyaat) you just pick one. This is actually the Usul of the Akhbaris, though they look at these things differently epistemelogically speaking.

So the Mashur opinion is the one that is not based on Taqiyyah?

I'd just like to point out this statement and see if this makes actually any real sense to anyone.

This is how al-Muhsini explains it [Note: he is for the sake of discussion assuming that al-Kulayni has declared all the Ahadith he included as Sahih]

If it is said that al-Kulayni believed in the Sihha of all his narrations, it is answered:

Sihha to the Qudama was more wider than Sihha to the Muta’akhirin, for the Qudama - Sihha was established by Qarain and Imarat, and among the multiplicity of these Qarain and Imarat only one was the Wathaqa of the narrators, therefore the Tashih of al-Kulayni is not enough for us.

Why?

There is no doubt in the Hujiyyah of every Hadith that is accompanied by a Qarina which leads us to Itmi’nan that the Hadith originated from the Aimmah, but the problem is that we do not have any Qarain left with us (which the Qudama had access to) except for the Wathaqa of the narrators, and we do not rely on the witness of al-Kulayni and his like about the presence of those Qarain for every Hadith – which would mean that all the Ahadith they include becomes a Hujjah, and this is because the Qarain that lead to Itmi’nan are not fixed, countable, well-defined, and agreed upon by all, rather the Qarain are numerous, divergent and dependent upon personal opinion and background, thus their witness is not based on Hiss for it to be followed, rather based on Hadas, and since the Taqlid of a Mujtahid is not allowed for another Mujtahid, and indeed this is more so if the Mujatahid to be followed is dead, thus we cannot depend on the Fatwa of al-Kulayni that all his Ahadith are Sahih.

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

^^ brother does the modern system give itminaan. If the 400 usool were weak to the extent that there was no itminaan don't you think an imam a.s who knows what's going to happen in the future stop shias from following such usools? However we have ahadees that imams a.s suggested people to follow those books and many died with itminaan on those books with the belief of itaat of imams a.s. and Al kafi is from those usool.

Now let's say if it is ijtehaad of kulayni r.a then do the moderns give us ilm in their system of rijaal or each scholar giving a different judgment on every other hadees gives itminaan? Whereas even if an unbiased approach of the modern system of ilm e rijaal is applied to Al kafi it still will pass the test and you will atleast find one sahi hadees in 9 out of every 10 chapters. And let's say that sahi hadees is a famous taqiyya report; will the moderns apply it as mohkam or act on the dhaeef ahadees which are mohkam based on its comparison with quran or from a later imam a.s etc?

Not to mention the reliance of moderns on zaeef ahadees for hundreds of fatwas. And the result is what? A mujtahid does taqleed of najashi or tusi or another rijaal scholar to get an ijtehadi opinion from them on every individual and why ? Only Allah azwj knows

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

So the Mashur opinion is the one that is not based on Taqiyyah?

Most probably, yes.

This is how al-Muhsini explains it [Note: he is for the sake of discussion assuming that al-Kulayni has declared all the Ahadith he included as Sahih]

If it is said that al-Kulayni believed in the Sihha of all his narrations, it is answered:

Sihha to the Qudama was more wider than Sihha to the Muta’akhirin, for the Qudama - Sihha was established by Qarain and Imarat, and among the multiplicity of these Qarain and Imarat only one was the Wathaqa of the narrators, therefore the Tashih of al-Kulayni is not enough for us.

Why?

There is no doubt in the Hujiyyah of every Hadith that is accompanied by a Qarina which leads us to Itmi’nan that the Hadith originated from the Aimmah, but the problem is that we do not have any Qarain left with us (which the Qudama had access to) except for the Wathaqa of the narrators, and we do not rely on the witness of al-Kulayni and his like about the presence of those Qarain for every Hadith – which would mean that all the Ahadith they include becomes a Hujjah, and this is because the Qarain that lead to Itmi’nan are not fixed, countable, well-defined, and agreed upon by all, rather the Qarain are numerous, divergent and dependent upon personal opinion and background, thus their witness is not based on Hiss for it to be followed, rather based on Hadas, and since the Taqlid of a Mujtahid is not allowed for another Mujtahid, and indeed this is more so if the Mujatahid to be followed is dead, thus we cannot depend on the Fatwa of al-Kulayni that all his Ahadith are Sahih.

None of this follows and it seems al-Muhsini is merely copy-pasting from the words of al-Khui [ra]. First of all, the Wathaqa of narrators is also a ijithadi process and the words of Ibn al-Waleed, Saduq, Najashi, Tusi, Mufeed, etc are all based upon their own opinions. Yes, they probably had turuq and shahada behind these decisions, but in the end it is their assessment we are relying on and their final judgement of the sources they had that we do not. So it makes little sense for us to accept their final decisions upon wathqa or dhi`f of ruwat and not their final verdict on sihha or hujjiyya of akhbar - even if we do not have the evidences for their decision behind it all.

And, yes, it is true that Qudamaa' themselves had disagreements and their use of the Qara'in was upon their own ijtihad, but I do not think anyone is advocating absolute acceptance of all akhbar and affirming their hujjiyya. Rather, it is that the imarah of deference to the Shuhra of the Qudamaa and their fatawa is missing from the Usool of many fuqahaa. Rather than approaching the akhbar as reliable and actionable until proven suspicious, to them the akhbar are all devoid of hujjiyya until proven through a single certain means (i3tibar of isnad) - when this is ignoring the fact of Qara'in altogether.

في امان الله