Top shia narrators and their credibility

Fahad Sani · September 5, 2016

:bismillah:

:salam:

Jabir bin Yazid Al-Joufy

Al-Hur Al-Amili in Wasael Al-Shia 20/151 says:

He narrated 70,000 Hadeeths from Al-Baqir (peace be upon him) and 140,000 from other Imams. It appears that he didn’t narrate through dictation from the Imams.

But he met Imam Baqir (rah) only once and never met Imam Jafar (rah):

Narrated by Zurarah ibn A’yan: I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about the hadiths of Jabir Al-Jafy, he replied: I saw him only once with my father and he never met me.[Rijal Kashi p:191]

Zurarah ibn Ayan

Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)

Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.

Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)

On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:

By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)

Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams.

Muhammad ibn Muslim

Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Muslim, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by al-Kashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394).

Abu Basir al-Muradi

In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)

However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:

Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)

Al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar

Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy).

But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows:

‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [imam Ja‘far said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:

Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”

[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu ‘Abdillah [imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which al-Mufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.

**Qa'im** · September 5, 2016

This silly copy-paste argument resurfaces every year. Firstly, in Shi`a books, no less than two thousand individuals narrate from al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, so our literature does not all come from five individuals. On the topic of Imamate alone, hundreds of reliable and trustworthy narrators have transmitted and written thousands of ahadith. Some of these narrators accompanied multiple Imams - for example, Abu Hamza al-Thumali studied under Imam Zayn al-`Abideen, Imam al-Baqir, Imam as-Sadiq, and Imam al-Kadhim (possibly even Hasan and Husayn too) - why would the Imams surround themselves with those who would lie about them and their forefathers and espouse extremist ideas?

On the other hand, Sunni books rarely quote these Imams, and Bukhari did not include a single narration from Imam Ja`far. Malik narrates very few hadiths from Imam Ja`far (I think 17 in total), and most of the other hadiths are in the Musannafayn related by Sufyan al-Thawri. In other words, you cannot reconstruct the school of Ahl al-Bayt using Sunni sources; only a few one-off positions here and there. Most of the students of the Imams were considered by Sunnis to be rawafid, ghulat, etc. Giants like Hisham b. Salim, Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman, Muhammad b. Muslim, Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr, `Ali b. Ja`far, `Ali b. Ri'ab, Fadl b. Shadhan, and many others studied under many Imams. It makes you wonder, what if the Imams really taught these things?

As for the narrators you have mentioned: al-Kashi also records many of the Imams' praises of Jabir, Zurara, Muhammad b. Muslim, and Abu Baseer. The information above does not reflect the consensus of our rijal scholars, and it has been picked out to present a dishonest reading of our sources. Here are the hadiths of Kashi you did not include, which exonerate these four:

حمدويه و إبراهيم، قالا حدثنا محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن زياد بن أبي الحلال، قال : اختلف أصحابنا في أحاديث جابر الجعفي، فقلت لهم أسأل أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) ، فلما دخلت ابتدأني، فقال رحم الله جابر الجعفي كان يصدق علينا، لعن الله المغيرة بن سعيد كان يكذب علينا

حمدويه، قال حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد و يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن أبي العباس البقباق، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) أنه قال : أربعة أحب الناس إلي أحياء و أمواتا، بريد بن معاوية العجلي و زرارة بن أعين و محمد بن مسلم و أبو جعفر الأحول، أحب الناس إلي أحياء و أمواتا

حدثني محمد بن قولويه، قال حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله القمي، عن محمد بن عبد الله المسمعي و أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن أسباط، عن الحسين بن زرارة، قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) إن أبي يقرأ عليك السلام و يقول لك جعلني الله فداك إنه لا يزال الرجل و الرجلان يقدمان فيذكران أنك ذكرتني و قلت في، فقال أقرئ أباك السلام و قل له أنا و الله أحب لك الخير في الدنيا و أحب لك الخير في الآخرة، و أنا و الله عنك راض فما تبالي ما قال الناس بعد هذا

حدثني حمدويه، قال حدثني يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، عن سليمان بن خالد الأقطع، قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) يقول ما أحد أحيا ذكرنا و أحاديث أبي (عليه السلام) إلا زرارة و أبو بصير ليث المرادي و محمد بن مسلم و بريد بن معاوية العجلي و لو لا هؤلاء ما كان أحد يستنبط هذا، هؤلاء حفاظ الدين و أمناء أبي (عليه السلام) على حلال الله و حرامه، و هم السابقون إلينا في الدنيا و السابقون إلينا في الآخرة

حدثني إبراهيم بن محمد بن العباس الختلي، قال حدثني أحمد بن إدريس القمي، قال حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن أبي الصهبان أو غيره، عن سليمان بن داود المنقري، عن ابن أبي عمير، قال : قلت لجميل بن دراج، ما أحسن محضرك و أزين مجلسك فقال إي و الله ما كنا حول زرارة بن أعين إلا بمنزلة الصبيان في الكتاب حول المعلم

حدثني حمدويه بن نصير، قال حدثني يعقوب بن يزيد و محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن محمد بن أبي عمير، عن إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد و غيره، قالوا : قال أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام) رحم الله زرارة بن أعين لو لا زرارة بن أعين لو لا زرارة و نظراؤه لاندرست أحاديث أبي (عليه السلام

قال محمد بن مسعود، حدثني علي بن محمد، قال حدثني محمد بن أحمد، عن عبد الله بن أحمد الرازي، عن بكر بن صالح، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، قال : أقام محمد بن مسلم بالمدينة أربع سنين يدخل على أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) يسأله، ثم كان يدخل على جعفر بن محمد يسأله، قال أبو أحمد فسمعت عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج و حماد بن عثمان يقولان ما كان أحد من الشيعة أفقه من محمد بن مسلم، قال، فقال محمد بن مسلم سمعت من أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) ثلاثين ألف حديث، ثم لقيت جعفرا ابنه فسمعت منه أو قال سألته عن ستة عشر ألف حديث أو قال مسألة

You may even be surprised to hear that Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju`fi finds some praise in Sunni rijal literature: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017635-jabir-ibn-yazid-al-jufi/

As for Mufaddal b. `Umar, his reliability is disagreed upon. You could weaken all of his hadiths, it won't change anything.

Fahad Sani · September 6, 2016

You are right. These are not the only five popular shia narrators who were cursed by Imams, in fact the list is big.

Moreover the number of narrations showing curse are no less than the narrations in praise. Number is almost equal. And all are in same book Rijal Kashhi. This creates serious doubts on their credibility. On the other hand twelver shias reject narrations of majority of Prophet's sahabah, who are only praised by the Prophet s.a.w.w and never cursed.

All who are mentioned in OP had many false and corrupt beliefs, its not about only belief of Raja etc.

Here is more truth about Jabir bin Yazib Jufi.

Haimi · September 6, 2016

1 hour ago, Fahad Sani said:

You are right. These are not the only five popular shia narrators who were cursed by Imams, in fact the list is big.

Moreover the number of narrations showing curse are no less than the narrations in praise. Number is almost equal. And all are in same book Rijal Kashhi. This creates serious doubts on their credibility. On the other hand twelver shias reject narrations of majority of Prophet's sahabah, who are only praised by the Prophet s.a.w.w and never cursed.

All who are mentioned in OP had many false and corrupt beliefs, its not about only belief of Raja etc.

Here is more truth about Jabir bin Yazib Jufi.

didn't you said that you're gonna leave the forum? or maybe you gonna say: i said Probably?

AbbaJaan · September 6, 2016

21 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Most of the students of the Imams were considered by Sunnis to be rawafid, ghulat, etc. Giants like Hisham b. Salim, Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman, Muhammad b. Muslim, Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr, `Ali b. Ja`far, `Ali b. Ri'ab, Fadl b. Shadhan, and many others studied under many Imams. It makes you wonder, what if the Imams really taught these things?

حكى السيد رحمه الله من كتاب أحمد بن محمد بن خالد البرقي في حال هشام انه قال: هشام بن الحكم، مولى بني شيبان كوفي، تحول من الكوفة إلى بغداد، وكنيته أبو محمد، وفي كتاب سعد: له كتاب، وكان من غلمان أبي شاكر الزنديق، جسمي رؤيي (2). قلت: ذكر المرتضى رضي الله عنه في كتاب الشافي جوابا لرمي هشام بالتجسيم ما هذا لفظه: فأما ما رمي به هشام بن الحكم رحمه الله من القول (3) بالتجسيم فالظاهر من الحكاية عنه القول بجسم لا كالاجسام، ولا خلاف في أن

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

and it was narrated by Sayeed (may Allah forgive him) from the book of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi about Hisham: Hisham ibn Hakam, Mawla of Banu Shayban Kufi, moved from al-Kufa to Baghdad, and his kunya was Abu Muhammad, and in the book of Sad: He (Hisham) has a books, and was from servants of Abu Shakeer HERETIC, (HISHAM) HOLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC VIEWS. I say: Al-Murtada (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned in his book ash-Shafe answer to the accusation of Hisham in anthropomorphism, with this words: As for accusation of Hisham ibn Hakam (may Allah forgive him) in anthropomorphism then what is apparent from what was narrated from him, he use to say (that Allah has) body not like (all) bodies, AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE VIEWS THAT THIS SAYING IS NOT LIKENING (Allah TO THE CREATION).

Hasan b. al-Shaheed al-Thani, “Tahrir at-Tawusi” (p 594

**Qa'im** · September 6, 2016

34 minutes ago, AbbaJaan said:

حكى السيد رحمه الله من كتاب أحمد بن محمد بن خالد البرقي في حال هشام انه قال: هشام بن الحكم، مولى بني شيبان كوفي، تحول من الكوفة إلى بغداد، وكنيته أبو محمد، وفي كتاب سعد: له كتاب، وكان من غلمان أبي شاكر الزنديق، جسمي رؤيي (2). قلت: ذكر المرتضى رضي الله عنه في كتاب الشافي جوابا لرمي هشام بالتجسيم ما هذا لفظه: فأما ما رمي به هشام بن الحكم رحمه الله من القول (3) بالتجسيم فالظاهر من الحكاية عنه القول بجسم لا كالاجسام، ولا خلاف في أن

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

and it was narrated by Sayeed (may Allah forgive him) from the book of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi about Hisham: Hisham ibn Hakam, Mawla of Banu Shayban Kufi, moved from al-Kufa to Baghdad, and his kunya was Abu Muhammad, and in the book of Sad: He (Hisham) has a books, and was from servants of Abu Shakeer HERETIC, (HISHAM) HOLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC VIEWS. I say: Al-Murtada (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned in his book ash-Shafe answer to the accusation of Hisham in anthropomorphism, with this words: As for accusation of Hisham ibn Hakam (may Allah forgive him) in anthropomorphism then what is apparent from what was narrated from him, he use to say (that Allah has) body not like (all) bodies, AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE VIEWS THAT THIS SAYING IS NOT LIKENING (Allah TO THE CREATION).

Hasan b. al-Shaheed al-Thani, “Tahrir at-Tawusi” (p 594

Yes, Hisham b. al-Hakam believed that Allah had a body but that it was unlike any other body, which is the standard belief in Sunnism. Hisham has been criticized for this position in our books. He is a trustworthy narrator nonetheless. Many of our narrators were Sunni or Zaydi too.

3 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Moreover the number of narrations showing curse are no less than the narrations in praise. Number is almost equal. And all are in same book Rijal Kashhi. This creates serious doubts on their credibility. On the other hand twelver shias reject narrations of majority of Prophet's sahabah, who are only praised by the Prophet s.a.w.w and never cursed.

Have you read the Arabic in my previous post? That is simply not true, there are far more narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt on the praise of Zurara, Abu Baseer, and Muhammad b. Muslim. Their praises are narrated in Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada'iri, Najashi, Tusi, and their narrations have been included in all of the books of our scholars. Again, had they been cursed liars with crazy beliefs, then why were they allowed to study under multiple Imams? Why are they the primary students and transmitters of their madhhab? If the Imam Ja`far taught thousands of students openly in Masjid al-Nabawi, why did the Sunnis only take a few narrations from 3 or 4 students, and Bukhari took 0? We take hadiths and books from thousands of students of the Ahl al-Bayt who received their repeated praise, so our claim to them has far more tawatur and turuq than yours does. The 12 Imams altogether lived for 300 years, and our narrations do not depend on only a handful of individuals.

Here are the reliable hadiths on Imamate from al-Kafi and Kamal ad-Deen, you might as well start reading. If only one of them is true, then Imamate is true:
http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/usul-kafi/book-4
http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/kamal-deen

**Panzerwaffe** · September 6, 2016

So major narraters from sunni and shia have mixed reviews from both sides ....why am I not surprised

Why don't we talk about those narraters on whom both shia sunni agree as reliable ?

Fahad Sani · September 7, 2016

12 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Have you read the Arabic in my previous post? That is simply not true, there are far more narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt on the praise of Zurara, Abu Baseer, and Muhammad b. Muslim. Their praises are narrated in Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada'iri, Najashi, Tusi, and their narrations have been included in all of the books of our scholars. Again, had they been cursed liars with crazy beliefs, then why were they allowed to study under multiple Imams? Why are they the primary students and transmitters of their madhhab? If the Imam Ja`far taught thousands of students openly in Masjid al-Nabawi, why did the Sunnis only take a few narrations from 3 or 4 students, and Bukhari took 0? We take hadiths and books from thousands of students of the Ahl al-Bayt who received their repeated praise, so our claim to them has far more tawatur and turuq than yours does. The 12 Imams altogether lived for 300 years, and our narrations do not depend on only a handful of individuals.

Here are the reliable hadiths on Imamate from al-Kafi and Kamal ad-Deen, you might as well start reading. If only one of them is true, then Imamate is true:
http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/usul-kafi/book-4
http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/kamal-deen

Here is the reality about twelver shia narrations from the great one, Shaikh Toosi, author of two of the four major twelver hadith compilations of all time, namely Tahzib and Istibsar. Just read the introduction of both these books. In sha Allah your all doubts and misconcepts will be removed.

Below is one paragraph from Tehzib.

ويقول شيخ الطائفة الطوسي في تهذيبه: إن أحاديث أصحابنا فيها من الاختلاف والتباين والمنافاة والتضاد حتى لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده، ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابلته ما ينافيه حتي جعل مخالفونا ذلك من أعظم الطعون على مذهبنا وتطرقوا بذلك إلى إبطال معتقدنا، إلى أن قال: أنه بسبب ذلك رجع جماعة عن اعتقاد الحق ومنهم أبوالحسين الهاروني العلوي حيث كان يعتقد الحق ويدين بالإمامة فرجع عنها لما إلتبس عليه الأمر في اختلاف الأحاديث وترك المذهب ودان بغيره لما لم يتبين له وجوه المعاني فيها، وهذا يدل على أنه دخل فيه على غير بصيرة واعتقد المذهب من جهة التقليد

تهديب الأحكام،1/2

And the Shaykh of the sect (Al-Ta’efa/Shiism) says in his Tahtheeb:

And among the Hadiths (narrated) by our companions (Shia scholars/companions of the Imams) are so many disparities, contrast, contravening and contradictions that you will not find a single report that we agree upon which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and not a single Hadith is safe from another which denies it. These (contradictions) are to such an extent that our opponents (the Muslims/Ahl Al-Sunnah) have used it as the biggest accusation/attack against our school and as a proof for the falsehood of our creed.

Haimi · September 7, 2016

4 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

Here is the reality about twelver shia narrations from the great one, Shaikh Toosi, author of two of the four major twelver hadith compilations of all time, namely Tahzib and Istibsar. Just read the introduction of both these books. In sha Allah your all doubts and misconcepts will be removed.

Below is one paragraph from Tehzib.

ويقول شيخ الطائفة الطوسي في تهذيبه: إن أحاديث أصحابنا فيها من الاختلاف والتباين والمنافاة والتضاد حتى لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده، ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابلته ما ينافيه حتي جعل مخالفونا ذلك من أعظم الطعون على مذهبنا وتطرقوا بذلك إلى إبطال معتقدنا، إلى أن قال: أنه بسبب ذلك رجع جماعة عن اعتقاد الحق ومنهم أبوالحسين الهاروني العلوي حيث كان يعتقد الحق ويدين بالإمامة فرجع عنها لما إلتبس عليه الأمر في اختلاف الأحاديث وترك المذهب ودان بغيره لما لم يتبين له وجوه المعاني فيها، وهذا يدل على أنه دخل فيه على غير بصيرة واعتقد المذهب من جهة التقليد

تهديب الأحكام،1/2

And the Shaykh of the sect (Al-Ta’efa/Shiism) says in his Tahtheeb:

And among the Hadiths (narrated) by our companions (Shia scholars/companions of the Imams) are so many disparities, contrast, contravening and contradictions that you will not find a single report that we agree upon which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and not a single Hadith is safe from another which denies it. These (contradictions) are to such an extent that our opponents (the Muslims/Ahl Al-Sunnah) have used it as the biggest accusation/attack against our school and as a proof for the falsehood of our creed.

How you can still be here and post your words? Are you a lier?

twoblade · September 7, 2016

Quote

Yes, Hisham b. al-Hakam believed that Allah had a body but that it was unlike any other body,

which is the standard belief in Sunnism.

That's not true. The view you're referring to is to acknowledge any saying from Qur'an and authentic hadith. So, yad not like any yad since we have yad Allah in Qur'an and ahadith for instance.

There is no authentic text which says that Allah is a body or a thing (and than interpreted as a body not like any body). And you'll be hard pressed to find any Sunni scholar holding the view of Hisham that you're saying is a "standard belief" for Sunnis. Hisham made an inference without text to come to that conclusion.

Quote

Have you read the Arabic in my previous post? That is simply not true, there are

far more narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt on the praise of Zurara, Abu Baseer, and Muhammad b. Muslim. Their praises are narrated in Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada'iri, Najashi, Tusi, and their narrations have been included in all of the books of our scholars.

The problem isn't that Zurara and friends lack praises. It's that the same Imams supposedly praising them are also cursing them and criticizing them.

Quote

Again, had they been cursed liars with crazy beliefs, then why were they allowed to study under multiple Imams? Why are they the primary students and transmitters of their madhhab?

That's not an exoneration or a means of establishing reliability. That they studied under an Imam at any length, and the length of their relationship to an Imam is through their own words. We assume so-and-so studied under Jafar because he quotes Jafar and was alive before Jafar died. There are other irrefutably established liars who claimed to narrate from multiple Imams and you can use the same reasoning to elevate them to being trust-worthy - I don't think that's a reliable means of establishing credibility.

Quote

If the Imam Ja`far taught thousands of students openly in Masjid al-Nabawi, why did the Sunnis only take a few narrations from 3 or 4 students, and Bukhari took 0?

Maybe the same reason there are more ahadith recorded through Imam Baqir in Muslim than there is through Abu Bakr? You have to be narrating ahadith, not simply making jurispudential statements to land in Sahiheen.

Abu Hanifa taught thousands of students openly as well. How many ahadith do Sunnis narrate through Imam Abu Hanifa? Being a teacher of fiqh doesn't mean you're going to have a lot of narrations in Sahiheen. The Imam had to be narrating with a chain back to the Prophet to be quoted in those books. As far as Imam Jafar having ahadith, than his status is the same as Abu Hanifa. He was a mujtahid, known for his jurisprudence - not for his transmission of ahadith.

And Shi'i literature doesn't even support that he regularly did that since your established view is that the Imams words were implicitly ahadith without a connected chain for each statement. So it conforms with the Sunni view that he wasn't narrating substantial ahadith that would fit the bill to land in Sahiheen anyways...

Edited September 7, 2016 by twoblade

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

18 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Yes, Hisham b. al-Hakam believed that Allah had a body but that it was unlike any other body, which is the standard belief in Sunnism.

May God forbids! No needs for such baseless accusations my dear brother in Islam.

It is haram to attribute a form to Allah (swt)

At-Tahawiy said in his book at-Tahawiyah: "Allah is supremely clear of all boundaries, extremes, sides, organs and instruments. The six directions do NOT contain Him--these are attributed to all created things."

Sheikh of hanafis in his time, Imam Abul Ikhlas ash-Shurunbulali said in "Maraqil saadat" (p 27):

"Anyone that ascribes a human characteristic to Allah Most High has disbelieved".

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

On 9/5/2016 at 8:43 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Abu Basir al-Muradi

In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)

However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:

Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)

Very good points my dear brother.

Let me add one testimony from this famous shia narrator. Abu Basir himself testified that he was a liar.

as-Saduq in his “Maanil Akhbar” (p 165) narrated:

١ – أبي – رحمه الله – قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن
أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن منصور بن يونس، عن أبي بصير، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال:
سمعته يقول: الكذبة تفطر الصائم. قال: فقلت له: هلكنا، قال: لا، إنما أعني الكذب
على الله عز وجل وعلى رسوله صلى الله عليه وآله وعلى الأئمة عليهم السلام.

(Chain till) Abu Basir which said that he heard Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: “The one who lies broke his fast”. (Abu Basir said) I said to him: “We have perished”. Imam said: “No I mean lie upon Allah AzWajal and upon the prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa alihi) and upon Imams (alaihuma salam).

http://www.shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1148_معاني-الأخبار-الشيخ-الصدوق/الصفحة_259

Chain till Abu Basir is sound in accordance to shia standarts:

1-st narrator is father of Saduq – Ali ibn Al-Husayn ibn Babaweyh. Muhadith, faqih and shaykh as he was described by Noore.
2-nd one is Sad ibn Abdullah, he was shaykh of taifa as he described by Najashi.
3-rd one is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid, he was thiqah as said Hilli in “Hulasah”
4-th narrator Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi was disputed. Hilli and Tusi praised him, and Najashi and ibn al-Ghadairi weakened him, as it is in “Hulasa”.
5-th is Ibn Abu Umayr, he was from companions of ijma, some shia scholars said that if chain authentic till them, report is upright.
Last one is Mansur ibn Yunus – thiqat and waqifi as it is in “Hulasah”

:
Brief discussion. Imam said that lie is breaking the fast. And one of the top shia narrators said after this – WE HAVE PERISHED. Sure he didn’t mean Imam, but he mean himself and his fellows. If this isn’t clear confession in lie, then what is?

**ShiaMan14** · September 7, 2016

We do not have sahih books. All narrations are vetted on their own for authenticity and accuracy.

Shall we discuss Abu Huraira and their likes?

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

55 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

We do not have sahih books. All narrations are vetted on their own for authenticity and accuracy.

Shall we discuss Abu Huraira and their likes?

I can't discuss and defend my religion, let us discuss yours. :clap:

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

57 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Duplicated, please delete this one.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Abu_Rumaysah

**ShiaMan14** · September 7, 2016

1 hour ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

I can't discuss and defend my religion, let us discuss yours.

I can do both at the same time - discuss mine and attack yours.

Our discussion was brief - we do not have sahih books, therefore you can attack the credibility of any source and we are okay with it. If anything, I will thank you if you eliminate another faulty source - survivial of the best type approach.

But then when it comes to you, you are stuck because while you say Bukhari and Muslim are sahih, there are plenty of dubious ahadith within it which exposes the errors of your ways. The basic problem is you try to mask your errors and mistakes by attacking shias. Your kind has been doing that for 1,400 years and not having much success but we shall strive on...

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

So, the question is not, if you have saheeh books or not. And just for your info, some of your scholars said: You do have.

Question is, how can you trust to your ahadeth narrators, that confessed that they are liars?

**ShiaMan14** · September 7, 2016

5 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

So in a nutshell, between the occurrence of inter-Ithnā’ `Asharī disputes on whether al-Kāfīis entirely correct or not, the fact remains that al-Kulaynī himself declared, and thus believed in, the authenticity of the narrations found in his book.

Great job with the cut'n'paste.

Kulayni complied a book of what he thought were authentic ahadith. If he did not think they were authenntic, what would be the point of including them in his book. It is up to the scholars that follow to vet each narration - ilm-e-rijal, etc.

Lol. You are funny.

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

19 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

we do not have sahih books

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) and al-Kāfī

al-Kāfī fī `Ilm al-Ĥadīth of the major Shī`ī scholar Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī is the most authoritative and renowned compilation of the Four Books. The author of this work, al-Kulaynī, believed that all the narrations in his work are authentic and correct, and that is the reason why he actually compiled it.

In the introduction of al-Kāfī, he explicitly said:

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها يؤدي فرض الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book 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.

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.’”

· al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

Following this, he said:

وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.”

· al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 9 [Tehran]

This is an explicit confirmation from al-Kulaynī that the reason he compiled al-Kāfī was so he can provide Shī`īs with a book of authentic narrations that is sufficient for them—i.e. his book only contained correct reports according to him.

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

وقد جمع رحمه الله في موسوعته هذه ما صح لديه من أحاديث الأئمة الهداة عليهم السلام

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

· Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Baytincluded in the introduction.

Furthermore, Āyat Allāh Abū Ţālib al-Tajlīl al-Tabrīzī, author of the famous booklet translated as ‘Spurious Arguments about the Shia,’ confirms this declaration of al-Kulaynī in the introduction to his book known as Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāwī.

He writes about al-Kulaynī and his al-Kāfī:

وقد صرح في مقدمته بصحة أحاديثه حيث قال وقلت تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام . . . . إلى أن قال وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, when he said: ‘Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book 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)…’ to: ‘Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.’”

· Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

This declaration of al-Kulaynī was so influential in history that it even led a group of Ithnā’ `Asharī Shī`ī scholars to use it as an argument for their belief in the immaculacy of the contents of al-Kāfī. Among them is al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), a major Shī`ī scholar of that group and an expert in the field of narrations, who staunchly believed in the correctness of all the narrations in al-Kāfī.

He states about the declaration of al-Kulaynī cited above:

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.”

· Khātimat Tafşīl Wasā’il al-Shī`a ilá Taĥşīl Masā’il al-Sharī`a, of al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), volume 30, page 196 [Qum]

Note: What al-Ĥurr means by “the terminology of later scholars” are the terminologies introduced with the categorization of narrations, in terms of their authenticity, that was not invented until the end of the 7^th Islamic century. Before this categorization, the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars viewed the narrations to be either şaĥīĥ or not şaĥīĥ. This will be further elaborated in this writing.

Opposing the view of this group of Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Mujāhid al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242) replied to this argument in the following words:

إن إخبار الكليني بصحة ما دونه في الكافي كما يمكن أن يكون باعتبار علمه بها وقطعه بصدورها عن الأئمة عليهم السلام فيجوز الاعتماد عليها والحال هذه كسائر أخبار العدول كذلك يمكن أن يكون باعتبار اجتهاده وظهورها عنده ولو بالدليل الظني فلا يجوز إذن الاعتماد عليه فإن ظن المجتهد لا يكون حجة على مثله كما هو الظاهر من الأصحاب بل ومن العقلاء وحيث لا ترجيح للاحتمال الأول وجب التوقف به لأن الشك في الشرط يوجب الشك في المشروط فيلزم التوقف

“Indeed, the testimony of al-Kulaynī concerning the authenticity of (the narrations) he has recorded in al-Kāfī, just as it is possible that it is in consideration of his knowledge and certainty of their issuance from theImāms (as), in which case it is permissible to depend upon them and its status will be the same as of all the reports of just individuals, it is (also) possible that it is in consideration of his independent judgment [ijtihād] and their appearance to him on the basis of conjectural proof. In this case it is impermissible to depend upon them, for the conjecture of a scholar capable of independent judgment [mujtahid] is not proof for those of the same stature, as it is obvious from other scholars, in fact, even from those with intellect.

And when there is no preference for the first possibility, it is incumbent to desist from holding on it because doubt about the condition necessitates doubt about what the condition is applied upon. Therefore, desistance is incumbent.”

· Mafātīĥ al-Uşūl, of al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242), page 332 [Tehran]

Whereas Grand Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī leaves out al-Ţabāţabā’ī’s analogical justifications and puts it in simple words:

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!”

· Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123 [Tehran]

So in a nutshell, between the occurrence of inter-Ithnā’ `Asharī disputes on whether al-Kāfīis entirely correct or not, the fact remains that al-Kulaynī himself declared, and thus believed in, the authenticity of the narrations found in his book.

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

Abū Ja`far ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, the famous Shī`ī scholar known as al-Shaykh al-Şadūq, also believed that all the narrations he has recorded in his compilation Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh are all authentic and correct. In fact, just as al-Kulaynī, he has himself declared their authenticity while mentioning the reason why he compiled the work.

Ibn Bābawayh explicitly mentions in the introduction to Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh that he has compiled this work on narrations because another Shī`ī scholar of his era, Sharaf al-Dīn Ni`ma, requested him to author a condensed work dealing with jurisprudence, Islamic laws and the permitted and prohibited.

He writes:

وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الأسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه وإن كثرت فوائده ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“I have compiled this book for him without chains of transmission, so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are abundant. I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, exalted is His power.”

· Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 2-3 [Qum]

· Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 3 [Lucknow]

These words of Ibn Bābawayh are extremely obvious and show that he believed that all the narrations in his book are authentic and correct.

Contemporary Shī`ī scholar and intellectual, Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, writes after quoting these words of Ibn Bābawayh:

ونصه هذا واضح وصريح في أنه يعتقد بصحة ما في كتابه ويراه حجة بينه وبين الله تعالى

“This explicit statement of his is clear and unequivocal in showing that he believes in the authenticity of what is in his book, and views it to be proof between himself and Allāh the Exalted.”

· Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 217 [Beirut]

This is further confirmed by al-Tabrīzī, who states about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

وقد صرح لصحة أحاديثه بقوله في مقدمته قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction,with his statement: ‘I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is a proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord.’”

· Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

Another thing worthy of mention here is what is mentioned in the transcribed lectures of the contemporary Grand Āyat Allāh `Alī al-Sīstānī about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

إنه قدس سره قد شهد في مقدمة كتابه بصحة جميع ما رواه فيه حيث قال ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه إنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“Verily, he—may Allāh sanctify his secret—has certified the authenticity of all that he has narrated in it, in the introduction, when he said: ‘I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, sacred is His mention and exalted is His power.’”

· Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār, of `Alī al-Sīstānī, page 87 [Qum]

As it is obvious from Ibn Bābawayh’s own words, the reason why he removed the chains of transmission from Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh is because he did not want to present any narration that was not authentic or proof [ĥujja] according to him, like other scholars usually did in their compilations. And since Ibn Bābawayh was one of the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars and there were no terminologies of the later scholars during his time, it can easily be understood from his authentication that he viewed the narrations to be şaĥīĥ.

The major Shī`ī scholar Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), who was admired as the “teacher of all” by even the top scholar-marionettes of the Safavids, states in his Mashriq al-Shamsayn:

وقد جرى رئيس المحدثين ثقة الإسلام محمد بن بابويه قدس الله روحه علىمتعارف المتقدمة في إطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن إليه ويعتمد عليه فحكم بصحة جميع ما أورده من الأحاديث في كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه

“The head of the scholars of narrations [muĥaddithīn], the trustworthy of Islam, Muĥammad ibn Bābawayh—may Allāh sanctify his soul—has taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ.’ Thus, he has ruled the correctness of all the narrations he has mentioned in the book Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh.”

· Mashriq al-Shamsayn wa Iksīr al-Sa`ādatayn, of Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), page 269-270 [Qum]

Another Shī`ī scholar of high stature and author of over a hundred texts, Muĥammad Muĥsin al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091), also writes something fairly close in his voluminousal-Wāfī:

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-Wāfī, of al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1034), volume 1, page 23 [Esfahan]

These quotes sufficiently demonstrate that like al-Kulaynī, Ibn Bābawayh too declared the authenticity of the narrations found in his book in the introduction, while being on the course of the early Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars.

al-Ţūsī (d. 460) and his Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār

This just leaves the last two of the Four Books. Our respected Shī`ī brothers may find this hard to assimilate, but al-Ţūsī also confirmed the authenticity of these compilations of his.

al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī states in al-Wāfī:

أن مدار الأحكام الشرعية اليوم على هذه الأصول الأربعة وهي المشهود عليها بالصحة من مصنفها

“These four key books are the pivot of legal rulings today, and they are testified as correct by their compilers.”

· al-Wāfī, of al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1034), volume 1, page 24 [Esfahan]

Similarly, the famous Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186) also states while objecting about the opposing group of scholars from his own Ithnā’ `Asharī school:

أن التوثيق والجرح الذي بنوا عليه تنويع الأخبار إنما أخذوه من كلام القدماء وكذلك الأخبار التي رويت في أحوال الرواة من المدح والذم إنما أخذوها عنهم فإذا اعتمدوا عليهم في مثل ذلك فكيف لا يعتمدون عليهم في تصحيح ما صححوه من الأخبار واعتمدوه وضمنوا صحته كما صرح به جملة منهم كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ ديباجتي الكافي والفقيه وكلام الشيخ في العدة وكتابي الأخبار

“The narrator commendation and condemnation, on which the categorization of reports was based, is obtained from the statements of the early scholars. Similarly, the reports that are related concerning the conditions of narrators in terms of praise and dispraise are (also) obtained from them.

If they have relied upon them [i.e. the early scholars] concerning a matter such as that, how is it that they do not rely upon them concerning the authenticity of the reports that they deemed correct, relied upon and ensured to be authentic as a score of them have (even) explicitly declared—something not hidden to he who has observed the introductions of al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, and the words of al-Shaykh [al-Ţūsī] in al-`Udda and the two books of reports [i.e. Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār].”

· al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira, of Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186), volume 1, page 16 [Qum]

· al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira, of Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186), volume 1, page 5 [Iran]

These strong words of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, that were only uncovered due to the fiery disputes that occurred between them concerning the categorization of narrations in terms of their authenticity, make the stance of the author of the four most authoritative books of narrations very clear—i.e. they viewed the narrations in their works to be authentic and correct.

However, it should be noted here that no one is arguing that what was considered a şaĥīĥ or correct narration among these four scholars is equivalent to what is defined as “şaĥīĥ” according to the Shī`ī scholars today, for it is a known fact that the categorization of narrations followed by the majority of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharīs today was not introduced until long after these four individuals and thus, as quoted from al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī and Bahā’ al-Dīn, they were on the traditional course of Shī`ī scholars concerning the categorization of narrations—i.e. it is either şaĥīĥ and not şaĥīĥ.

That being said, it has been evidently shown that these four scholars believed the narrations in their books to be correct or as they believed, “şaĥīĥ.” And what is being demonstrated here is their own view of the narrations in their books, not how Shī`ī scholars, who took the other course, understand them.

Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī writes while representing the Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī sect in his alleged dialogue with one of the Grand Imāms of al-Azhar, Salīm al-Bishrī (d. 1335):

نبغ من أصحاب الصادق جم غفير وعدد كثير كانوا أئمة هدى ومصابيح دجى وبحار علم ونجوم هداية والذين دونت أسماؤهم وأحوالهم في كتب التراجم منهم أربعة آلاف رجل من العراق والحجاز وفارس وسوريا وهم أولو مصنفات مشهورة لدى علماء الإمامية ومن جملتها الأصول الأربعة مئة وهي كما ذكرناه سابقا أربع مئة مصنف لأربع مئة مصنف كتبت من فتاوى الصادق عليه السلام على عهده فكان عليها مدار العلم والعمل من بعده حتى لخصها جماعة من أعلام الأمة وسفراء الأئمة في كتب خاصة تسهيلا للطالب وتقريبا على المتناول وأحسن ما جمع منها الكتب الأربعة التي هي مرجع الإمامية في أصولهم وفروعهم من الصدر الأول إلى هذا الزمان وهي الكافي والتهذيب والاستبصار ومن لا يحضره الفقيه وهي متواترة ومضامينها مقطوع بصحتها والكافي أقدمها وأعظمها وأحسنها وأتقنها

“A great portion and large number from the companions of al-Şādiq (as) achieved ultimate wisdom. They became leaders [imāms] of right path, lanterns in darkness, oceans of knowledge, and stars of guidance. Among those, who have their names and conditions recorded in biographical texts, are four thousand men from Iraq, the Ĥijāz, Persia, and Syria. They are authors of famous works, which include the four hundred Uşūls of the Imāmīs.

These (Uşūls)—as we mentioned earlier—are four hundred compilations authored by four hundred authors, which were written during the time of al-Şādiq (as) and contained his verdicts. They were the axis of knowledge and practice after him, to such an extent that a group of eminent scholars of this nation and ambassadors of the Imāms rendered them into books as a facilitation and summarization for the seeker and deriver of knowledge.

The best of what was compiled from the (Uşūls) are the Four Books, which are sources for the Imāmīs in referring to their roots and branches of religion, from their earliest period to this era. These are: al-Kāfī, al-Tahdhīb, al-Istibşār and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh. They are transmitted consecutively and their contents are undoubtedly authentic, and al-Kāfīis the oldest, the greatest, the best and the most accurate among them.

· al-Murāja`āt, of `Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī (d. 1377), page 419 [Beirut]

On the other hand, Grand Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr even went to the extent of explicitly stating in his book entitled al-Shī`a:

أن الشيعة وإن كانت مجمعة على اعتبار الكتب الأربعة وقائلة بصحة كل ما فيها من روايات غير أنها لا تطلق عليها اسم الصحاح كما فعل ذلك إخوانهم أهل السنة

“The Shī`a, even though they are unanimous upon the reliability of the Four Books and believe in the authenticity of all the narrations in them, do not name them ‘Şiĥāĥ’ as their Ahl al-Sunna brothers did.”

· al-Shī`a, of Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr (d. 1419), page 127 [Tehran]

And last but not least, a scholar before these two individuals who also held that all the narrations in al-Kāfī are correct, was one of the renowned Shī`ī jurisprudents of his time, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Mīrzā Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī (d. 1355). His belief in the correctness of the narrations in al-Kāfī reached such a degree that he declared checking their chains of transmission to be a waste of time.

His student, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412) writes:

وقد ذكر غير واحد من الاعلام أن روايات الكافي كلها صحيحة ولا مجال لرمي شئ منها بضعف سندها وسمعت شيخنا الأستاذ الشيخ محمد حسين النائيني قدس سره في مجلس بحثه يقول إن المناقشة في إسناد روايات الكافي حرفة العاجز

“More than one of the eminent scholars have mentioned that all the narrations of al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ, and there is no room for putting away anything from it due to its weak chain of transmission. I heard our master and teacher Shaykh Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī—may Allāh sanctify his secret—say in one of his gatherings of discussion: ‘Verily, arguing about the chains of transmission of the narrations in al-Kāfī is the vocation of an incompetent!’”

· Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt, of Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412), volume 1, page 81 [Qum]

It becomes crystal clear from all the quotes cited above that a prominent amount of Shī`īscholars consider all the narrations in the Four Books authentic and şaĥīĥ. Specially the narrations found in the most authoritative of the four, al-Kāfī.

al-Kaf`amī (d. 905) and al-Mişbāĥ

Texts on narrations and commentaries aside, even compilations of supplications have been confirmed to be entirely authentic by some Shī`ī scholars. Taqī al-Dīn al-Kaf`amī, a well-known and respected Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar, has compiled a book of narrated supplications that is famously known as al-Mişbāĥ.

Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī writes about it while citing it as a proof for his arguments:

ما ذكره الشيخ الكفعمي المتوفي سنة ٩٠٥ ه‍ ق في كتابه المصباح الذي جمعه من حوالي مئتين وأربعين كتابا وقال إنه جمعه من كتب معتمد على صحتها مأمور بالتمسك بوثقى عروتها ولا يغيرها كر العصرين ولا مر الملوين كتب كمثل الشمس يكتب ضوؤها ومحلها فوق الرفيع الأرفع

“10: What is mentioned by Shaykh al-Kaf`ami (d. 905) in his book titledal-Mişbāĥ which he compiled from about two hundred and forty books. He said that he compiled it ‘from books the authenticity of which is reliable and upholding them mandated, and this cannot be altered by the evil efforts of time or by the endeavour of those with twisted minds. Books, like the sun, whose light—is written above the most high of the height.’”

· Ma’sāt al-Zahrā’ Shubhāt wa Rudūd, of al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī, volume 2, page 44 [Beirut]

**ShiaMan14** · September 7, 2016

1 minute ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) and al-Kāfī

al-Kāfī fī `Ilm al-Ĥadīth of the major Shī`ī scholar Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī is the most authoritative and renowned compilation of the Four Books. The author of this work, al-Kulaynī, believed that all the narrations in his work are authentic and correct, and that is the reason why he actually compiled it.

In the introduction of al-Kāfī, he explicitly said:

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها يؤدي فرض الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book 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.

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.’”

·         al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

Following this, he said:

وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.”

·         al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 9 [Tehran]

This is an explicit confirmation from al-Kulaynī that the reason he compiled al-Kāfī was so he can provide Shī`īs with a book of authentic narrations that is sufficient for them—i.e. his book only contained correct reports according to him.

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

وقد جمع رحمه الله في موسوعته هذه ما صح لديه من أحاديث الأئمة الهداة عليهم السلام

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

·         Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Baytincluded in the introduction.

Furthermore, Āyat Allāh Abū Ţālib al-Tajlīl al-Tabrīzī, author of the famous booklet translated as ‘Spurious Arguments about the Shia,’ confirms this declaration of al-Kulaynī in the introduction to his book known as Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāwī.

He writes about al-Kulaynī and his al-Kāfī:

وقد صرح في مقدمته بصحة أحاديثه حيث قال وقلت تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام . . . . إلى أن قال وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, when he said: ‘Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book 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)…’ to: ‘Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.’”

·         Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

This declaration of al-Kulaynī was so influential in history that it even led a group of Ithnā’ `Asharī Shī`ī scholars to use it as an argument for their belief in the immaculacy of the contents of al-Kāfī. Among them is al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), a major Shī`ī scholar of that group and an expert in the field of narrations, who staunchly believed in the correctness of all the narrations in al-Kāfī.

He states about the declaration of al-Kulaynī cited above:

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.”

·        Khātimat Tafşīl Wasā’il al-Shī`a ilá Taĥşīl Masā’il al-Sharī`a, of al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), volume 30, page 196 [Qum]

Note: What al-Ĥurr means by “the terminology of later scholars” are the terminologies introduced with the categorization of narrations, in terms of their authenticity, that was not invented until the end of the 7^th Islamic century. Before this categorization, the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars viewed the narrations to be either şaĥīĥ or not şaĥīĥ. This will be further elaborated in this writing.

Opposing the view of this group of Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Mujāhid al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242) replied to this argument in the following words:

إن إخبار الكليني بصحة ما دونه في الكافي كما يمكن أن يكون باعتبار علمه بها وقطعه بصدورها عن الأئمة عليهم السلام فيجوز الاعتماد عليها والحال هذه كسائر أخبار العدول كذلك يمكن أن يكون باعتبار اجتهاده وظهورها عنده ولو بالدليل الظني فلا يجوز إذن الاعتماد عليه فإن ظن المجتهد لا يكون حجة على مثله كما هو الظاهر من الأصحاب بل ومن العقلاء وحيث لا ترجيح للاحتمال الأول وجب التوقف به لأن الشك في الشرط يوجب الشك في المشروط فيلزم التوقف

“Indeed, the testimony of al-Kulaynī concerning the authenticity of (the narrations) he has recorded in al-Kāfī, just as it is possible that it is in consideration of his knowledge and certainty of their issuance from theImāms (as), in which case it is permissible to depend upon them and its status will be the same as of all the reports of just individuals, it is (also) possible that it is in consideration of his independent judgment [ijtihād] and their appearance to him on the basis of conjectural proof. In this case it is impermissible to depend upon them, for the conjecture of a scholar capable of independent judgment [mujtahid] is not proof for those of the same stature, as it is obvious from other scholars, in fact, even from those with intellect.

And when there is no preference for the first possibility, it is incumbent to desist from holding on it because doubt about the condition necessitates doubt about what the condition is applied upon. Therefore, desistance is incumbent.”

·        Mafātīĥ al-Uşūl, of al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242), page 332 [Tehran]

Whereas Grand Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī leaves out al-Ţabāţabā’ī’s analogical justifications and puts it in simple words:

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!”

·        Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123 [Tehran]

So in a nutshell, between the occurrence of inter-Ithnā’ `Asharī disputes on whether al-Kāfīis entirely correct or not, the fact remains that al-Kulaynī himself declared, and thus believed in, the authenticity of the narrations found in his book.

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

Abū Ja`far ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, the famous Shī`ī scholar known as al-Shaykh al-Şadūq, also believed that all the narrations he has recorded in his compilation Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh are all authentic and correct. In fact, just as al-Kulaynī, he has himself declared their authenticity while mentioning the reason why he compiled the work.

Ibn Bābawayh explicitly mentions in the introduction to Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh that he has compiled this work on narrations because another Shī`ī scholar of his era, Sharaf al-Dīn Ni`ma, requested him to author a condensed work dealing with jurisprudence, Islamic laws and the permitted and prohibited.

He writes:

وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الأسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه وإن كثرت فوائده ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“I have compiled this book for him without chains of transmission, so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are abundant. I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, exalted is His power.”

·         Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 2-3 [Qum]

·         Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 3 [Lucknow]

These words of Ibn Bābawayh are extremely obvious and show that he believed that all the narrations in his book are authentic and correct.

Contemporary Shī`ī scholar and intellectual, Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, writes after quoting these words of Ibn Bābawayh:

ونصه هذا واضح وصريح في أنه يعتقد بصحة ما في كتابه ويراه حجة بينه وبين الله تعالى

“This explicit statement of his is clear and unequivocal in showing that he believes in the authenticity of what is in his book, and views it to be proof between himself and Allāh the Exalted.”

·         Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 217 [Beirut]

This is further confirmed by al-Tabrīzī, who states about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

وقد صرح لصحة أحاديثه بقوله في مقدمته قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction,with his statement: ‘I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is a proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord.’”

·        Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

Another thing worthy of mention here is what is mentioned in the transcribed lectures of the contemporary Grand Āyat Allāh `Alī al-Sīstānī about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

إنه قدس سره قد شهد في مقدمة كتابه بصحة جميع ما رواه فيه حيث قال ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه إنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“Verily, he—may Allāh sanctify his secret—has certified the authenticity of all that he has narrated in it, in the introduction, when he said: ‘I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, sacred is His mention and exalted is His power.’”

·         Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār, of `Alī al-Sīstānī, page 87 [Qum]

As it is obvious from Ibn Bābawayh’s own words, the reason why he removed the chains of transmission from Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh is because he did not want to present any narration that was not authentic or proof [ĥujja] according to him, like other scholars usually did in their compilations. And since Ibn Bābawayh was one of the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars and there were no terminologies of the later scholars during his time, it can easily be understood from his authentication that he viewed the narrations to be şaĥīĥ.

The major Shī`ī scholar Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), who was admired as the “teacher of all” by even the top scholar-marionettes of the Safavids, states in his Mashriq al-Shamsayn:

وقد جرى رئيس المحدثين ثقة الإسلام محمد بن بابويه قدس الله روحه علىمتعارف المتقدمة في إطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن إليه ويعتمد عليه فحكم بصحة جميع ما أورده من الأحاديث في كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه

“The head of the scholars of narrations [muĥaddithīn], the trustworthy of Islam, Muĥammad ibn Bābawayh—may Allāh sanctify his soul—has taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ.’ Thus, he has ruled the correctness of all the narrations he has mentioned in the book Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh.”

·         Mashriq al-Shamsayn wa Iksīr al-Sa`ādatayn, of Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), page 269-270 [Qum]

Another Shī`ī scholar of high stature and author of over a hundred texts, Muĥammad Muĥsin al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091), also writes something fairly close in his voluminousal-Wāfī:

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-Wāfī, of al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1034), volume 1, page 23 [Esfahan]

These quotes sufficiently demonstrate that like al-Kulaynī, Ibn Bābawayh too declared the authenticity of the narrations found in his book in the introduction, while being on the course of the early Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars.

al-Ţūsī (d. 460) and his Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār

This just leaves the last two of the Four Books. Our respected Shī`ī brothers may find this hard to assimilate, but al-Ţūsī also confirmed the authenticity of these compilations of his.

al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī states in al-Wāfī:

أن مدار الأحكام الشرعية اليوم على هذه الأصول الأربعة وهي المشهود عليها بالصحة من مصنفها

“These four key books are the pivot of legal rulings today, and they are testified as correct by their compilers.”

·         al-Wāfī, of al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1034), volume 1, page 24 [Esfahan]

Similarly, the famous Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186) also states while objecting about the opposing group of scholars from his own Ithnā’ `Asharī school:

أن التوثيق والجرح الذي بنوا عليه تنويع الأخبار إنما أخذوه من كلام القدماء وكذلك الأخبار التي رويت في أحوال الرواة من المدح والذم إنما أخذوها عنهم فإذا اعتمدوا عليهم في مثل ذلك فكيف لا يعتمدون عليهم في تصحيح ما صححوه من الأخبار واعتمدوه وضمنوا صحته كما صرح به جملة منهم كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ ديباجتي الكافي والفقيه وكلام الشيخ في العدة وكتابي الأخبار

“The narrator commendation and condemnation, on which the categorization of reports was based, is obtained from the statements of the early scholars. Similarly, the reports that are related concerning the conditions of narrators in terms of praise and dispraise are (also) obtained from them.

If they have relied upon them [i.e. the early scholars] concerning a matter such as that, how is it that they do not rely upon them concerning the authenticity of the reports that they deemed correct, relied upon and ensured to be authentic as a score of them have (even) explicitly declared—something not hidden to he who has observed the introductions of al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, and the words of al-Shaykh [al-Ţūsī] in al-`Udda and the two books of reports [i.e. Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār].”

·         al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira, of Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186), volume 1, page 16 [Qum]

·         al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira, of Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186), volume 1, page 5 [Iran]

These strong words of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, that were only uncovered due to the fiery disputes that occurred between them concerning the categorization of narrations in terms of their authenticity, make the stance of the author of the four most authoritative books of narrations very clear—i.e. they viewed the narrations in their works to be authentic and correct.

However, it should be noted here that no one is arguing that what was considered a şaĥīĥ or correct narration among these four scholars is equivalent to what is defined as “şaĥīĥ” according to the Shī`ī scholars today, for it is a known fact that the categorization of narrations followed by the majority of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharīs today was not introduced until long after these four individuals and thus, as quoted from al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī and Bahā’ al-Dīn, they were on the traditional course of Shī`ī scholars concerning the categorization of narrations—i.e. it is either şaĥīĥ and not şaĥīĥ.

That being said, it has been evidently shown that these four scholars believed the narrations in their books to be correct or as they believed, “şaĥīĥ.” And what is being demonstrated here is their own view of the narrations in their books, not how Shī`ī scholars, who took the other course, understand them.

Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī writes while representing the Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī sect in his alleged dialogue with one of the Grand Imāms of al-Azhar, Salīm al-Bishrī (d. 1335):

نبغ من أصحاب الصادق جم غفير وعدد كثير كانوا أئمة هدى ومصابيح دجى وبحار علم ونجوم هداية والذين دونت أسماؤهم وأحوالهم في كتب التراجم منهم أربعة آلاف رجل من العراق والحجاز وفارس وسوريا وهم أولو مصنفات مشهورة لدى علماء الإمامية ومن جملتها الأصول الأربعة مئة وهي كما ذكرناه سابقا أربع مئة مصنف لأربع مئة مصنف كتبت من فتاوى الصادق عليه السلام على عهده فكان عليها مدار العلم والعمل من بعده حتى لخصها جماعة من أعلام الأمة وسفراء الأئمة في كتب خاصة تسهيلا للطالب وتقريبا على المتناول وأحسن ما جمع منها الكتب الأربعة التي هي مرجع الإمامية في أصولهم وفروعهم من الصدر الأول إلى هذا الزمان وهي الكافي والتهذيب والاستبصار ومن لا يحضره الفقيه وهي متواترة ومضامينها مقطوع بصحتها والكافي أقدمها وأعظمها وأحسنها وأتقنها

“A great portion and large number from the companions of al-Şādiq (as) achieved ultimate wisdom. They became leaders [imāms] of right path, lanterns in darkness, oceans of knowledge, and stars of guidance. Among those, who have their names and conditions recorded in biographical texts, are four thousand men from Iraq, the Ĥijāz, Persia, and Syria. They are authors of famous works, which include the four hundred Uşūls of the Imāmīs.

These (Uşūls)—as we mentioned earlier—are four hundred compilations authored by four hundred authors, which were written during the time of al-Şādiq (as) and contained his verdicts. They were the axis of knowledge and practice after him, to such an extent that a group of eminent scholars of this nation and ambassadors of the Imāms rendered them into books as a facilitation and summarization for the seeker and deriver of knowledge.

The best of what was compiled from the (Uşūls) are the Four Books, which are sources for the Imāmīs in referring to their roots and branches of religion, from their earliest period to this era.  These are: al-Kāfī, al-Tahdhīb, al-Istibşār and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh. They are transmitted consecutively and their contents are undoubtedly authentic, and al-Kāfīis the oldest, the greatest, the best and the most accurate among them.

·         al-Murāja`āt, of `Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī (d. 1377), page 419 [Beirut]

On the other hand, Grand Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr even went to the extent of explicitly stating in his book entitled al-Shī`a:

أن الشيعة وإن كانت مجمعة على اعتبار الكتب الأربعة وقائلة بصحة كل ما فيها من روايات غير أنها لا تطلق عليها اسم الصحاح كما فعل ذلك إخوانهم أهل السنة

“The Shī`a, even though they are unanimous upon the reliability of the Four Books and believe in the authenticity of all the narrations in them, do not name them ‘Şiĥāĥ’ as their Ahl al-Sunna brothers did.”

·         al-Shī`a, of Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr (d. 1419), page 127 [Tehran]

And last but not least, a scholar before these two individuals who also held that all the narrations in al-Kāfī are correct, was one of the renowned Shī`ī jurisprudents of his time, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Mīrzā Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī (d. 1355). His belief in the correctness of the narrations in al-Kāfī reached such a degree that he declared checking their chains of transmission to be a waste of time.

His student, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412) writes:

وقد ذكر غير واحد من الاعلام أن روايات الكافي كلها صحيحة ولا مجال لرمي شئ منها بضعف سندها وسمعت شيخنا الأستاذ الشيخ محمد حسين النائيني قدس سره في مجلس بحثه يقول إن المناقشة في إسناد روايات الكافي حرفة العاجز

“More than one of the eminent scholars have mentioned that all the narrations of al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ, and there is no room for putting away anything from it due to its weak chain of transmission. I heard our master and teacher Shaykh Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī—may Allāh sanctify his secret—say in one of his gatherings of discussion: ‘Verily, arguing about the chains of transmission of the narrations in al-Kāfī is the vocation of an incompetent!’”

·         Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt, of Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412), volume 1, page 81 [Qum]

It becomes crystal clear from all the quotes cited above that a prominent amount of Shī`īscholars consider all the narrations in the Four Books authentic and şaĥīĥ. Specially the narrations found in the most authoritative of the four, al-Kāfī.

al-Kaf`amī (d. 905) and al-Mişbāĥ

Texts on narrations and commentaries aside, even compilations of supplications have been confirmed to be entirely authentic by some Shī`ī scholars. Taqī al-Dīn al-Kaf`amī, a well-known and respected Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar, has compiled a book of narrated supplications that is famously known as al-Mişbāĥ.

Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī writes about it while citing it as a proof for his arguments:

ما ذكره الشيخ الكفعمي المتوفي سنة ٩٠٥ ه‍ ق في كتابه المصباح الذي جمعه من حوالي مئتين وأربعين كتابا وقال إنه جمعه من كتب معتمد على صحتها مأمور بالتمسك بوثقى عروتها ولا يغيرها كر العصرين ولا مر الملوين كتب كمثل الشمس يكتب ضوؤها ومحلها فوق الرفيع الأرفع

“10: What is mentioned by Shaykh al-Kaf`ami (d. 905) in his book titledal-Mişbāĥ which he compiled from about two hundred and forty books. He said that he compiled it ‘from books the authenticity of which is reliable and upholding them mandated, and this cannot be altered by the evil efforts of time or by the endeavour of those with twisted minds. Books, like the sun, whose light—is written above the most high of the height.’”

·         Ma’sāt al-Zahrā’ Shubhāt wa Rudūd, of al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī, volume 2, page 44 [Beirut]

2 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Great job with the cut'n'paste.

Kulayni complied a book of what he thought were authentic ahadith. If he did not think they were authenntic, what would be the point of including them in his book. It is up to the scholars that follow to vet each narration - ilm-e-rijal, etc.

Lol. You are funny.

Abu_Rumaysah · September 7, 2016

13 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Great job with the cut'n'paste.

Kulayni complied a book of what he thought were authentic ahadith. If he did not think they were authenntic, what would be the point of including them in his book. It is up to the scholars that follow to vet each narration - ilm-e-rijal, etc.

Lol. You are funny.

Thanks. I knew you would like it.

So what was your point when you said: We don't have saheeh books?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Abu_Rumaysah

janbiya · September 8, 2016

oh no, is this going to be one of those thread where shia say "not all in al kafi are authentic", but won't actually say if the hadith mentioned is authentic or not?

**Aabiss_Shakari** · September 8, 2016

4 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

I can't discuss and defend my religion, let us discuss yours.

Usual Sunni approach. People ask me to argue with Sunnis but i reply that i am not an expert in religious dialogue hence i do not want to do this but on the other hand Sunnis are always ready to pose their nose in the matters they know little. You know famous "Shia Kafir" fatwa found on toilet walls of the city are artistic work of Sunnis like these.

**Aabiss_Shakari** · September 8, 2016

47 minutes ago, janbiya said:

oh no, is this going to be one of those thread where shia say "not all in al kafi are authentic", but won't actually say if the hadith mentioned is authentic or not?

Probably you are talking about SIHAH E SITTA.

janbiya · September 8, 2016

6 minutes ago, Aabiss_Shakari said:

Probably you are talking about SIHAH E SITTA.

no sane sunni will say sahih tirmidzi, sahih abu dawood etc. My point still stands, when shia don't like a particular hadith, it's always "not all ahadith in al kafi are authentic", but won't say which one which. Get it amigo?

**ShiaMan14** · September 8, 2016

2 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Thanks. I knew you would like it.

So what was your point when you said: We don't have saheeh books?

That Quran is the only Sahih book and nothing else is.

The funny thing is if we said Sahih-Kukayni, you would say we are doing kufr since Quran is the only Sahih book.

59 minutes ago, janbiya said:

oh no, is this going to be one of those thread where shia say "not all in al kafi are authentic", but won't actually say if the hadith mentioned is authentic or not?

Oh no, this is going to be one if those threads where sunnis are going to tell me what I believe.

janbiya · September 8, 2016

12 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Oh no, this is going to be one if those threads where sunnis are going to tell me what I believe.

Nope, just about the beliefs of who you take your religion from

Edited September 8, 2016 by janbiya

**ShiaMan14** · September 8, 2016

15 minutes ago, janbiya said:

Nope, just about the beliefs of who you take your religion from

Oh then it will be a very short discussion. I take my beliefs from Allah and the Prophet.

Why don't you?

janbiya · September 8, 2016

8 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Oh then it will be a very short discussion. I take my beliefs from Allah and the Prophet.

Why don't you?

you mean from qummi who claimed to take it from the Prophet saaw?

Abu_Rumaysah · September 8, 2016

47 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

The funny thing is if we said Sahih-Kukayni, you would say we are doing kufr since Quran is the only Sahih book.

If you will name that book - Saheeh Kukayni. Or other book Saheeh ibn Babuweyh. I will not care a bit. Just FYI.

**ShiaMan14** · September 8, 2016

14 hours ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

If you will name that book - Saheeh Kukayni. Or other book Saheeh ibn Babuweyh. I will not care a bit. Just FYI.

but we wont name it as such because only the Quran is saheeh. You do kufr when you call Bukhari sahih.

AbbaJaan · September 16, 2016

Qa'im said:

Quote

Most of the students of the Imams were considered by Sunnis to be rawafid, ghulat, etc. Giants like Hisham b. Salim, Hisham b. al-Hakam, Yunus b. `Abd ar-Rahman, Muhammad b. Muslim, Muhammad b. Abi `Umayr, `Ali b. Ja`far, `Ali b. Ri'ab, Fadl b. Shadhan, and many others studied under many Imams. It makes you wonder, what if the Imams really taught these things?

On 6/9/2016 at 6:16 PM, AbbaJaan said:

حكى السيد رحمه الله من كتاب أحمد بن محمد بن خالد البرقي في حال هشام انه قال: هشام بن الحكم، مولى بني شيبان كوفي، تحول من الكوفة إلى بغداد، وكنيته أبو محمد، وفي كتاب سعد: له كتاب، وكان من غلمان أبي شاكر الزنديق، جسمي رؤيي (2). قلت: ذكر المرتضى رضي الله عنه في كتاب الشافي جوابا لرمي هشام بالتجسيم ما هذا لفظه: فأما ما رمي به هشام بن الحكم رحمه الله من القول (3) بالتجسيم فالظاهر من الحكاية عنه القول بجسم لا كالاجسام، ولا خلاف في أن

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

and it was narrated by Sayeed (may Allah forgive him) from the book of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi about Hisham: Hisham ibn Hakam, Mawla of Banu Shayban Kufi, moved from al-Kufa to Baghdad, and his kunya was Abu Muhammad, and in the book of Sad: He (Hisham) has a books, and was from servants of Abu Shakeer HERETIC, (HISHAM) HOLD ANTHROPOMORPHIC VIEWS. I say: Al-Murtada (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned in his book ash-Shafe answer to the accusation of Hisham in anthropomorphism, with this words: As for accusation of Hisham ibn Hakam (may Allah forgive him) in anthropomorphism then what is apparent from what was narrated from him, he use to say (that Allah has) body not like (all) bodies, AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE VIEWS THAT THIS SAYING IS NOT LIKENING (Allah TO THE CREATION).

Hasan b. al-Shaheed al-Thani, “Tahrir at-Tawusi” (p 594

Qa'im Said:

Quote

Yes, Hisham b. al-Hakam believed that Allah had a body but that it was unlike any other body, which is the standard belief in Sunnism. Hisham has been criticized for this position in our books. He is a trustworthy narrator nonetheless. Many of our narrators were Sunni or Zaydi too.

I responded you with the evidence of Hisham bin al Hakam holding anthropomorphic beliefs, because in your post you raised the point that Sunnis deemed certain Giant students of Imams a Ghulat or rafidi, etc. So, the point was that being student of Imam doesn't gives immunity. A student is still liable to hold heretic beliefs, as we saw in the example. So, your argument against Sunni scholars is invalid.

Also, here is some info about two of the other Giants you mentioned.

Hisham bin Salim al-Jawaliqi said Allah is not a body but is black light in the image of a human, he possesses five senses, is composed of a hand, a foot and an eye but not made from flesh and blood. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/108, Al-Milal 1/185, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 95, Sharh al-Nahj 1/194, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/218,al-Khitat 3/293]

Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Qummi, the servant of `Ali bin Yaqtin, he said Allah’s upper body is hollow while the lower half is full. He also said that the angels carry Allah and that they are able to do so even if He is too great the same way a rooster’s small thin legs can support its larger body. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/110, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/188, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 98]

Abu_Rumaysah · October 17, 2016

as salam alaykum.

Just would like to add some information about Zurara.

Do you know that this man doubted knowledge imam Jafar?

Al-Kashshī has reported (page 158 sub-note: 261):

حدثني محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني جبرئيل بن أحمد قال : حدثني محمد بن عيسى عن يونس عن ابن
مسكان قال سمعت زرارة يقول : كنت أرى جعفراً أعلم ممن هو وذاك يزعم إنه سأل أبا عبد الله عن رجل
من أصحابنا مختفٍ من غرامه فقال : أصلحك الله أن رج من أصحابنا كان مختفياً من غرامه فإن كان هذا
الأمر قريباً صبر حتى يخرج مع القائم وإن كان فيه تأخير صالح غرامه فقال أبو عبد الله يكون إن شاء الله
تعالى فقال زرارة : يكون إلى سنة ؟ فقال أبو عبد الله: يكون إن شاء الله فقال زرارة : فيكون إلى سنتين ؟
فقال: أبو عبد الله: يكون إن شاء الله، فخرج زرارة فوطن نفسه على أن يكون إلى سنتين فلم يكن فقال:
ما كنت أرى جعفراً إلا أعلم مما هو
Ibn Maskān narrates that he heard Zurārah say: “I used to regard Jaʿfar to be more knowledgeable than what he actually is.” The reason for this is that he once asked Imām Jaʿfar about one of our companions, who had concealed himself on account of his fines. He asked: “May Allah elevate you! One of our companions has concealed himself on account of his fines; if this matter will be resolved quickly then he will be patient and come forth with al-Qāʼim and if this matter is going to be delayed then attend to his fines.” Imām Jaʿfar replied: “It will happen, Allah willing.” Zurārah asked: “Will it happen in a year?” Imām Jaʿfar replied: “It will happen, Allah willing.” Zurārah asked: “Will it happen in two years?” Imām Jaʿfar again replied: “It will happen, Allah willing.” Zurārah then left and decided for himself that it will happen in two years but it did not, he thus said: “I used to regard Jaʿfar to be more knowledgeable than what he actually is.”

Abu_Rumaysah · October 17, 2016

And another one, that Zurara use to belie as-Sadiq (alaihi salam):

On page 158 (sub-note 262) of Rijāl al-Kashshī it is mentioned:

محمد بن مسعود قال : كتب إليه الفضل بن شاذان يذكر عن ابن أبي عمير عن إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد عن عيسى بن أبي منصور وأبي أسامة الشحام ويعقوب الأحمر قالوا : كنا جلوساً عند أبي عبد الله )ع( فدخل عليه زرارة فقال : إن الحكم بن عيينة حدث عن أبيك إنه قال : “ صل المغرب دون المزدلفة فقال له أبو عبد الله أنا تأملته: ما قال أبي هذا قط كذب الحكم على أبي قال : فخرج زرارة وهو يقول: ما أرى الحكم كذب على أبيه
ʿĪsā ibn Abī Manṣūr, Abū Usāmah al-Shiḥām and Yaʿqūb al-Aḥmar narrated that they were sitting with Imām Jaʿfar, when Zurārah entered and said: “Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUyaynah has reported that your father said: “Perform your Maghrib ṣalāh elsewhere than Muzdalifah.” Imām Jaʿfar replied: “I have reflected upon this; my father has never said this. al-Ḥakam has lied upon my father.” Zurārah then left and he was saying: “I do not see that al-Ḥakam has lied upon his father.”

Most certainly Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq has spoken the truth when he said: We the Ahl al-Bayt are all truthful and have not been spared from liars who fabricated against us and tarnish our honesty with their falsehood. And amongst those guilty of this, is this narrator (Zurārah).

Edited October 17, 2016 by Abu_Rumaysah

Abu_Rumaysah · October 17, 2016

Do you know that Zurara use to spy on imam al-Baqir?

In Kashi's book, on page 140, it is reported that Hishām ibn Sālim said:

حمدويه بن نصير قال : حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن الوشا عن هشام بن سالم عن زرارة قال : سألت أبا
جعفر عن جوائز العمال ؟ فقال : لا بأس به قال ثم قال : إنما أراد زرارة أن يبلغ هشاماً إني أحرم أعمال
السلطان
Zurārah said that he asked Imām al-Bāqir about the stipends of those who perform tasks for the government and he said it is not a problem.” Imām al-Bāqir then said: “Zurārah’s intention is to inform Hishām (who was the khalīfah) that I have ruled the stipends of the khalīfah to be ḥarām.”

And do you know that Zurara use to make things halal or haram based on his own opinion.

It is reported in Rijāl al-Kashshī (page 156, sub-note: 257) on the authority of Ibn
Maskān:

حدثني محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني جبرئيل بن أحمد قال حدثني العبيدي عن يونس عن ابن مسكان قال
تذاكرنا عند زرارة في شيء من أمور الحلال والحرام فقال قولاً برأيه فقلت أبرأيك هذا أم برواية ! فقال
إني أعرف أو ليس رب رأي خير من أثر
We were discussing some aspects pertaining to ḥalāl and ḥarām in the presence of Zurārah when he expressed his own opinion regarding it. I asked him: “Is this based upon your own opinion or narration?” he replied: “I know better! Are not some opinions better than narration?”

Jafar as-Sadiq exposed lies of Zurarah.

In Rijal of Kashi, page 145 sub-note: 228:

حدثنا محمد بن مسعود قال:حدثنا جبرئيل بن أحمد الفاريابي قال:حدثني العبيدي محمد بن عيسى عن
يونس بن عبد الرحمن عن ابن مسكان قال : سمعت زرارة يقول: رحم الله أبا جعفر وأما جعفر فإن في
قلبي عليه لفتة فقلت له: وما حمل زرارة على هذا ؟ قال : حمله على هذا أن أبا عبد الله أخرج مخازيه
Ibn Maskān narrates that heard Zurārah saying: “May Allah have mercy upon Abū Jaʿfar (Imām al-Bāqir)! As for Jaʿfar, verily my heart has turned away from him.” I asked what has caused Zurārah to make such a statement and I was told: “Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Jaʿfar) has exposed his lies, this is what has
prompted him to say this.”

In gereral reports on Zurarah could be divided.

The author of the sub-notes of Khātimah al-Wasāʼil (20/196) says:

والروايات التي ذكرها الكشي في شأن زرارة تنقسم إلى قسمين ، فبعض منها فيه المدح والثناء له والإشارة
بمكانته السامية ومنزلته العظيمة عند الإمام الصادق وأبيه وتقدمه على أصحابه في العلم والمعرفة وحفظ
أحاديث أهل البيت عن الضياع والتلف، وبعض منها يدل على عكس ذلك وأن الرجل كان كذاباً وضاعاً
مرائياً داساً في الأحاديث
The narrations reported by al-Kashshī regarding Zurārah can be divided into two categories. Some contain praise and commendation for him, and an indication of his elevated status and noble rank in the eyes of Imām al-Ṣādiq and his father (al-Bāqir), as well as his superiority over his companions in knowledge, recognition, and protecting the ḥadīth of the Ahl al-Bayt from being emaciated and lost. While some (narrations) prove the opposite; that he was a liar, fabricator, hypocrite and an interpolator
in ḥadīth.

Sign In

Top shia narrators and their credibility

Recommended Posts

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

So in a nutshell, between the occurrence of inter-Ithnā’ `Asharī disputes on whether al-Kāfīis entirely correct or not, the fact remains that al-Kulaynī himself declared, and thus believed in, the authenticity of the narrations found in his book.

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) and al-Kāfī

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

al-Ţūsī (d. 460) and his Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār

al-Kaf`amī (d. 905) and al-Mişbāĥ

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) and al-Kāfī

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

al-Ţūsī (d. 460) and his Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār

al-Kaf`amī (d. 905) and al-Mişbāĥ

هذا القول ليس بتشبيه

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics