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

Sahih Al Kafi

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Ayatullah Bahboodi was very strict on authentication and classed 70% of Al kafi as weak..

Subsequently his book Sahih Al kafi and his methodology criticized.

Can someone shed light on what the exact critsicms were regarding his methods.?

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ethics said:

This is about Al kafi as in the hadith collection by Sheikh Kuleyni. I'm taking about a book by Ayatullah Bahboodi where he went through all the narrations in Al kafi and graded them. Then took the accepted narrations ( by his standard) and compiled it into a book called Sahih Al kafi. 

@AStruggler see above Muhammad Baqir Bahboodi is a contemporary scholar.

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/19/2020 at 5:17 PM, Warilla said:

Ayatullah Bahboodi was very strict on authentication and classed 70% of Al kafi as weak..

Subsequently his book Sahih Al kafi and his methodology criticized.

Can someone shed light on what the exact critsicms were regarding his methods.?

Salam at first he wasn’t an Ayatullah even his official site biography doesn’t use such title for him but he was an Islamic researcher that received studies in Hawza of Qom & Najaf  that had  hard standards for accepting hadiths secondly we don’t say that whole of Al-Kafi is Sahih like Sunnis say about their books . 

http://mbehboudi.org/biography/

http://tabadol-danesh.rozblog.com/post/4

http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa4308

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/19/2020 at 11:53 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam at first he wasn’t an Ayatullah.... secondly we don’t say that whole of Al-Kafi is Sahih like Sunnis say about their

Cool thanks for clearing that up. I know it's not called Sahih but I believe that was the title of his book.

As for the authenticity of Al kafi that's disputed in 12er as many Akhbari said all of Al kafi is 100% authentic. Where's as Usooli grade individual hadith.

Do you know why Bahboodi methodology was critised ? What aspect did. Scholars object to ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Do you know why Bahboodi methodology was critised ? What aspect did. Scholars object to ?

Salam  because his methodology mostly based on chains of narrations that just accepted chain of  narrations that ended with name of one of Imams although that some of chain of narrations in Kafi  not ended with name of Imams but mentioned by thrust worthy students of Imams  or referred to some Sunni sources that he excluded this narration from his book although this narration didn’t have contradiction with Quran & teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) but he brutally weakened  or not accepted theses narrations that majority of scholars objected his methodology  even his main teacher Ayatollah Khoei (رضي الله عنه) in preface of his rijal book from his master Sheikh Naeini (رضي الله عنه) said that such people that make doubts about authencity of Kafi Hadith are people that are weak in knowledge & understanding .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam  because his methodology mostly based on chains of narrations that just accepted chain of  narrations that ended with name of one of Imams although that some of chain of narrations in Kafi  not ended with name of Imams but mentioned by thrust worthy students of Imams  or referred to some Sunni sources that he excluded this narration from his book although this narration didn’t have contradiction with Quran & teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) but he brutally weakened  or not accepted theses narrations that majority of scholars objected his methodology  even his main teacher Ayatollah Khoei (رضي الله عنه) in preface of his rijal book from his master Sheikh Naeini (رضي الله عنه) said that such people that make doubts about authencity of Kafi Hadith are people that are weak in knowledge & understanding .

What you mentioned doesn't indicate necessarily he was wrong.

Doubting the weak hadith is not wrong as long it is based on strong logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, islam25 said:

What you mentioned doesn't indicate necessarily he was wrong.

Doubting the weak hadith is not wrong as long it is based on strong logic.

I didn’t say that he was wrong or not also he mentioned as a respectable researcher between shia scholars but his strong logic is very similar to logic of Ayt Kamal Heydari that his statements is conversational here in shiachat too . 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Warilla said:

Cool thanks for clearing that up. I know it's not called Sahih but I believe that was the title of his book.

As for the authenticity of Al kafi that's disputed in 12er as many Akhbari said all of Al kafi is 100% authentic. Where's as Usooli grade individual hadith.

Do you know why Bahboodi methodology was critised ? What aspect did. Scholars object to ?

Saying Al Kafi is 100% authentic is incorrect.

Reports are compared with Quran and Sunnah, if authenticated, then accepted (ignored by many scholors) else its checked by chain of narration.

Akhbaris just say all this non sense. When you use a hadith against them from Kafi etc. They start talking about narrators in chain and mention their weaknesses. I:E Zarq Naqvi etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
38 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Akhbaris just say all this non sense.

I think if you are a 12er it's unfair to call Akhbari position nonsense. As there were many of your great scholars Sheikh Bahrani , Astarobadi and even Kulayni himself.

The logic used is that Kulayni had his collection approved by Imam Mahdi through his deputies. Which for a 12er is a valid point.

I personally agree with you it's "nonsense" but I'm not approaching from a 12er position.

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
9 hours ago, Warilla said:

Ayatullah Bahboodi was very strict on authentication and classed 70% of Al kafi as weak..

Subsequently his book Sahih Al kafi and his methodology criticized.

Can someone shed light on what the exact critsicms were regarding his methods.?

I am not aware of the critique of his method. Allama Majlisi has also analyzed Al Kafi in his work Mirat al Uqool, if you have both copies available it would be interesting to check how his outcome compares to the analysis of Bahboudi. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
53 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

I am not aware of the critique of his method. Allama Majlisi has also analyzed Al Kafi in his work Mirat al Uqool, if you have both copies available it would be interesting to check how his outcome compares to the analysis of Bahboudi. 

 

No I couldn't find it. It's probably available online in Farsi

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam  because his methodology mostly based on chains of narrations that just accepted chain of  narrations that ended with name of one of Imams although that some of chain of narrations in Kafi  not ended with name of Imams but mentioned by thrust worthy students of Imams  or referred to some Sunni sources that he excluded this narration from his book although this narration didn’t have contradiction with Quran & teachings of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) but he brutally weakened  or not accepted theses narrations that majority of scholars objected his methodology  even his main teacher Ayatollah Khoei (رضي الله عنه) in preface of his rijal book from his master Sheikh Naeini (رضي الله عنه) said that such people that make doubts about authencity of Kafi Hadith are people that are weak in knowledge & understanding .

Brother I don't think any scholar in this day and age claims that the narrations compiled by Sheikh al Kulayni are 100 percent authentic. What Majlisi, Bahboudi and possibly others have done is to analyze the narrations, one by one. 

Saying that a narration is weak does not automatically mean you have rejected it. However, it does limit the conclusions one can draw from that one narration on its own. 

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, islam25 said:

What you mentioned doesn't indicate necessarily he was wrong.

Doubting the weak hadith is not wrong as long it is based on strong logic.

"Although in the method of identifying the correct hadiths and recognizing the tragic, weak and weak narratives, some innovative methods have been presented from him (behbbodi) , but his methods and criteria have been criticized by other scholars of theosophy. In addition, the origin of such a book has been criticized by some contemporary scholars.

Among the contemporaries of Ayatollah Seyyed Abolqasem Khoyi and his apprentice Moslem Davari, they have determined standards for the proper understanding of more narratives of al-ki’afi. This article tries to compare and criticize the main views of these three hadiths of contemporary scholars on the authenticity of sufficient hadiths."

http://maarefnet.ir/downloads/صحت-احادیث-الکافی/

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Warilla said:

I think if you are a 12er it's unfair to call Akhbari position nonsense. As there were many of your great scholars Sheikh Bahrani , Astarobadi and even Kulayni himself.

I used to be an Akhbari but no more.

With all due respect, saying any book other than Quran is authentic, is non-sense since you'll some hadiths that has dis-respect of Relatives of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and i have seen akhbaris refuting by proving chain weak. Also Imam (عليه السلام) told us to accept whatever that agrees with the book of Allah and reject whatever dis-agrees with it. So this hadith is enough to prove this stance non-sense.

2 hours ago, Warilla said:

The logic used is that Kulayni had his collection approved by Imam Mahdi through his deputies. Which for a 12er is a valid point

its not proven is it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Warilla said:

No I couldn't find it. It's probably available online in Farsi

http://alfeker.net/library.php?id=2471 

have it in arabic! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Musafir

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

You say you are no longer an akhbari, so what are you now? 

Secondly, what are your thoughts on this excerpt from a letter of Imam Zaman (a):

4 - Narrated to us Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Isaam Kulaini ((رضي الله عنه).): Narrated to us Muhammad bin Yaqoob Kulaini from Ishaq bin Yaqoob: “I asked Muhammad bin Uthman Amari ((رضي الله عنه).) to write to the Imam a letter containing questions that were difficult for me. The Imam sent the following reply:

...its a long letter you can find it in Kamal ul-Din, but this is the relevant part:

But as for the problems which will occur in the future, you should refer to the narrators of our traditions for their verdicts as they are my proofs to you, and I am Allah’s proof to them

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Guest Musafir said:

You say you are no longer an akhbari, so what are you now?

II cant really tell lol. I dis-agree with both groups on many things. I said, that because i accept taqleed of non-masoom as valid.

5 hours ago, Guest Musafir said:

But as for the problems which will occur in the future, you should refer to the narrators of our traditions for their verdicts as they are my proofs to you, and I am Allah’s proof to them

no one rejects that. it so obvious if i don't know something, i would refer to fuqaha of course. and i think its better than taqleed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/20/2020 at 7:43 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

.Akhbaris just say all this non sense. When you use a hadith against them from Kafi etc. They start talking about narrators in chain and mention their weaknesses. I:E Zarq Naqvi etc.

I found that is human nature. A rationalist will become a literalist and vice versa.

People just want to be right alot of the time.

I've discussed with many usooli scholars they choose to be rational and when you present a counter rational argument they go to hadith. (Btw I also do this as well ) it very hard to be unbiased. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The problem is with the "Sahih" chain method is that it reduces the authenticity of the hadith to the chain. This is a fatal error as clearly not all ahadith with "non-Sahih" chains are inauthentic - likewise not all ahadith with "Sahih" chains are authentic. Whilst outwardly it may seem like a good way to "clean up" the ahadith you are actually cutting a large part of valuable information out. This is the trap our Sunni brothers fell into and it is a great shame how the cunning Umayyads and Abbasids manage to concot ahadith with authentic chains, which eventually made their way into their "Sahih" collections.

Some ahadith are exaggerated but perhaps have authentic origins, many ahadith were created to counter claims made by other schools etc. In summary this chain method create a false sense of authenticity in my opinion..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I said, that because i accept taqleed of non-masoom as valid.

Okay mashaAllah. But just make sure that taqlid is only for furu e din, not usul e din. 

8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

no one rejects that. it so obvious if i don't know something, i would refer to fuqaha of course. and i think its better than taqleed.

Lol but when we do taqlid, we do taqlid of the fuqaha anyway don't we? That is what the taqlid is, referring to the most knowledgeable faqih in matters of the furu e din. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
43 minutes ago, AStruggler said:

Okay mashaAllah. But just make sure that taqlid is only for furu e din, not usul e din. 

Lol but when we do taqlid, we do taqlid of the fuqaha anyway don't we? That is what the taqlid is, referring to the most knowledgeable faqih in matters of the furu e din. 

There is a difference between ruju and taqleed.

And there is a lot of difference between yours concept of taqleed and mine.

In taqleed, you are bound to follow one scholor based on 4 conditions. Else taqleed becomes haram and that sort of taqleed is ibadah of scholor which is shirk.

While if you choose to refer to scholors, then you can refer to many and choose the best of rulings. Like i would go and ask many scholors on same matter, the one whos got strong evidence for his views, i choose to take that particular view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

.While if you choose to refer to scholors, then you can refer to many and choose the best of rulings. Like i would go and ask many scholors on same matter, the one whos got strong evidence for his views, i choose to take that particular view.

Very sensible approach. And inline with Qur'an and sunnah. Nowhere does it say we just follow a single fallible scholar for all rulings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/21/2020 at 3:01 PM, gharib570 said:

The problem is with the "Sahih" chain method is that it reduces the authenticity of the hadith to the chain. This is a fatal error as clearly not all ahadith with "non-Sahih" chains are inauthentic - likewise not all ahadith with "Sahih" chains are authentic. Whilst outwardly it may seem like a good way to "clean up" the ahadith you are actually cutting a large part of valuable information out. This is the trap our Sunni brothers fell into and it is a great shame how the cunning Umayyads and Abbasids manage to concot ahadith with authentic chains, which eventually made their way into their "Sahih" collections.

Some ahadith are exaggerated but perhaps have authentic origins, many ahadith were created to counter claims made by other schools etc. In summary this chain method create a false sense of authenticity in my opinion..

So what would you say is the best method for authenticating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 4/21/2020 at 9:01 AM, gharib570 said:

The problem is with the "Sahih" chain method is that it reduces the authenticity of the hadith to the chain. This is a fatal error as clearly not all ahadith with "non-Sahih" chains are inauthentic - likewise not all ahadith with "Sahih" chains are authentic. Whilst outwardly it may seem like a good way to "clean up" the ahadith you are actually cutting a large part of valuable information out. This is the trap our Sunni brothers fell into and it is a great shame how the cunning Umayyads and Abbasids manage to concot ahadith with authentic chains, which eventually made their way into their "Sahih" collections.

Some ahadith are exaggerated but perhaps have authentic origins, many ahadith were created to counter claims made by other schools etc. In summary this chain method create a false sense of authenticity in my opinion..

Brother, with due respect are you familiar with ilm ul hadith and ilm ur rijaal? 

There is no such thing as the 'sahih chain method'. Analyzing the sanad of a narration is one element of the overall study. There are other criteria which are also considered, including study of the content (matn) of the narration, the multiplicity (tawaatur) of the chains of narration and then several secondary indicators (qaraa'in). 

I don't mention this to offend you, but only to make sure that misinformation is not unintentionally spread on this forum.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/20/2020 at 8:31 AM, Mahdavist said:

I am not aware of the critique of his method. Allama Majlisi has also analyzed Al Kafi in his work Mirat al Uqool, if you have both copies available it would be interesting to check how his outcome compares to the analysis of Bahboudi. 

 

I think I made a thread about this but I don't remember: how can one trust Allama Majlisi's gradings if he himself believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an? Surely that means he believed those Hadith to authentic, so why should one selectively trust his gradings? Of course scholars make mistakes, but this wouldn't be an isolated Hadith we are talking about, since there are numerous on the matter of Tahreef...

Edited by Ar.alhindi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Ar.alhindi said:

I think I made a thread about this but I don't remember: how can one trust Allama Majlisi's gradings if he himself believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an? Surely that means he believed those Hadith to authentic, so why should one selectively trust his gradings?

even if he did, it was in terms of omission.
even you do believe if you dont neglect authentic traditions in your book.

lets prove it:

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5

 
Sunan Ibn Majah Hadith 1944 arabic 2020
 
Please show these verses from current Book.
If you say its abrogated in recitation, prove it from Hadith of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
 
Else we also shouldn't trust Hazrat Ayesha just like majlisi? Yes or no guys?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Ar.alhindi said:

how can one trust Allama Majlisi's gradings if he himself believed in Tahreef of the Qur'an?

but one can take hadiths from thiqa nasibis lol
salute!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Warilla said:

So what would you say is the best method for authenticating.

1. Authentication and Support by The Book of Allah
2. if not possible, then Hadith that opposes Ahle-Sunnah
3. If not then must check chains

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Ar.alhindi said:

In that order? Wow.

We have hadiths of Masoom Imams on these methods for authentication.
Unlike ones who got nothing besides rules established by fallibles by their own opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We have hadiths of Masoom Imams on these methods for authentication.
Unlike ones who got nothing besides rules established by fallibles by their own opinions.

Circular argument - how did you authenticate the hadith regarding the authentication methods?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Brother, with due respect are you familiar with ilm ul hadith and ilm ur rijaal? 

There is no such thing as the 'sahih chain method'. Analyzing the sanad of a narration is one element of the overall study. There are other criteria which are also considered, including study of the content (matn) of the narration, the multiplicity (tawaatur) of the chains of narration and then several secondary indicators (qaraa'in). 

I don't mention this to offend you, but only to make sure that misinformation is not unintentionally spread on this forum.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all. 

Salaam my brother,

You are correct - my understanding is that most early Sunni hadith studies were based primarily on establishing the authenticity of the chain rather than content. Was it not Imam Shafi' who said without the chain the hadith is worth nothing? This is what I meant by the "Sahih chain method". As we know this was then abused sometimes on a state level, as leaders simply paid "scholars" to concoct chains and hadiths to support their narrative - this is why most of our Sunni brothers believe what they believe and Allah knows how long it will take for them to discover Sahih al-Bukhari is simply not Sahih...

I would like to know brother what you think of scholars like Muhammad Baqir al-Behbudi who claim (as far as I am aware) that some our twelve imams hadiths have been concocted in the period of confusion (hayra)?

Jzk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...