Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why do we even have unauthentic Hadith?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam un Alaykum,

Often times we see traditions in books like Al Kafi, Tabari, Bihar Al Anwar, and Tafsirs such as Suyuti, Tabari, Qummi, etc.(You get the point) but point is sometimes these Hadiths turn out to be unauthentic, and the authors usually state at the start of their books, that they don't vouch for the authenticity of these traditions (Bukhari and Muslim are exceptions), so it leaves me to wonder why didn't the compilers just leave out those unauthentic traditions, because lay people like me don't really know Ilm Ul Rijal so it would hard for people like me to gain Authentic Ilm from those books, also these unauthentic traditions are a basis for propoganda against both sects for laymen people who don't really know much about Hadiths sciences at all, and can serve as the basis for hate, anyways enough of me I would like to and invite all brothers and sisters to bring forth your opinions and thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Walaikum as salam brother

The objective of many compilers was to collect whichever reports they could find. One can not instantly attribute a certain degree of authenticity to a narration. Rather they are studied in detail, compared with one another, screened for their narrators (who were they, where did they live, who did they narrate from, etc). One cannot do this analysis without first having the material which is being analyzed. Even after this, there is not always a consensus on the status of a narrator or a narration, nor on their meaning or implication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Walaikum as salam brother

The objective of many compilers was to collect whichever reports they could find. One can not instantly attribute a certain degree of authenticity to a narration. Rather they are studied in detail, compared with one another, screened for their narrators (who were they, where did they live, who did they narrate from, etc). One cannot do this analysis without first having the material which is being analyzed. Even after this, there is not always a consensus on the status of a narrator or a narration, nor on their meaning or implication. 

Is there Hadith books that just have the authentic? Like ones that have been studied and put into a new one with just authentic hadiths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
48 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

Is there Hadith books that just have the authentic? Like ones that have been studied and put into a new one with just authentic hadiths?

Mira't al Uqul of Allamah Majlisi provides gradings for Al Kafi. I think someone may have also compiled 'saheeh al kafi' but I need to check this again in case I'm mistaken. Keep in mind that even in grading there is not necessarily always a consensus. 

Some believe that tafsir al askari is from the imam (عليه السلام), other's dont. Same for whether tafsir al qummi is from ali ibn ibrahim or not, and whether ibn al ghadairi really wrote kitab al dhuafaa or not. It's not always clear if the books we have today are really from a certain author and this can influence how one considers certain sources. 

In general I would say that we should familiarize ourselves with the Qur'an, continuously, with the different tafaseer, with the different narrations. With time one can see what is conventional and what isn't, which concepts are widely supported and which one's aren't, where there is ijma and where there isn't etc.

Learning is a lifelong journey. 

 

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It is actually better to collect all kind hadiths than collect only what is supposed to be sahih. People tend to have this mentality that if it is sahih then it must be truth, when in reality this is not sometimes the case. This leads to problematic closed mindness of people who will stuck on such a books and not question that perhaps some of the narrations in these sahih books are not correct. The most extremist of them are those who compere their work of authenticity with same than Qur'an.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

People tend to have this mentality that if it is sahih then it must be truth, when in reality this is not sometimes the case.

Similarly just because a chain is incomplete or a narrator is unknown it doesn't necessarily imply that the hadith is fabricated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

People tend to have this mentality that if it is sahih then it must be truth, when in reality this is not sometimes the case.

سلام

Why shouldn't we consider a saheeh narration as true? 

Can you provide a few examples of saheeh narrations that are false? 

 

If saheeh can be false, and non-saheeh can be true, then we'll encounter the problem of cherry-picking. 

We need to have robust foundations and principles, unchangeable and absolute, that we can rely on. We can't have relative "principles" that ultimately depend on people's wishes and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The criteria of authenticity is not an objective science, it is highly subjective. If you understand that you will realize that no hadeeth are authentic from the objective point of view because all hadeeth are hearsay. The rest of the juristic world does not even consider hearsay as admissible evidence in law, religious jurists. Oral tradition is hearsay. The Prophet and Imams did not physically write any document that we are certain of. That would be objective evidence. Your writing with your signature with witnesses is objective evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
27 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

سلام

We need to have robust foundations and principles, unchangeable and absolute, that we can rely on. We can't have relative "principles" that ultimately depend on people's wishes and opinions.

Salaam Aleikum,

We do and we should never base on our own opinion. As for doubtful sahih, just look at the Sunnis Sahih Sittah. These people hold them as authentic than Qur'an, and we know there are contradictions and wrong principles these hadith are based.

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 minutes ago, pantheistica said:

The criteria of authenticity is not an objective science, it is highly subjective. If you understand that you will realize that no hadeeth are authentic from the objective point of view because all hadeeth are hearsay. The rest of the juristic world does not even consider hearsay as admissible evidence in law, religious jurists. Oral tradition is hearsay. The Prophet and Imams did not physically write any document that we are certain of. That would be objective evidence. Your writing with your signature with witnesses is objective evidence. 

This is just a negative way of seeing things when things are not that negative. There is certainty knowledge from Prophet and Imams in hadiths. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Is not hadeeth hearsay? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

All "evidence" that we have from the Prophet and Imams are hadeeth, not books or signed documents. It is all hearsay without a single exception.

Have you ever seen a document written by the any of the Imams with their signature and/or with witnesses?

All we know about the Prophet and Imams is hearsay. To have certainty you must have objective evidence.

A single piece of objective evidence is worth more than a hundred subjectives. Even a thousand subjectives can not amount to the certainty a single piece of

objective evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

All "evidence" that we have from the Prophet and Imams are hadeeth, not books or signed documents. It is all hearsay without a single exception.

So if one hears from the Imams directly and writes it, is it defined as hearsay? When we look at the evidence from past, we don't base them on possible authority writings only, but also from all possibility sources. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't like to make assumptions but let us make a few to show a point.

1.The Imams cared a lot about Muslims.

2.The Imams saw themselves as authorities in making laws for this religion.

Now unless you were illiterate, if you really cared about humans and you knew you were the greatest living authority of Islam in your time, would you not write legal edicts with your own hands, sign it and have witnesses sign and promulgate it 1st hand? Even a scribe taking dictation or a someone writing what he saw is a 100 times weaker evidence then a man who writes with his own hand and signs it with witnesses.

Now look at hadeeth chains. They are not first hand events written by a scribe. They are oral traditions with perhaps 5 or even more intermediate people between when it was finally written down and the authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, pantheistica said:

Now look at hadeeth chains. They are not first hand events written by a scribe. They are oral traditions with perhaps 5 or even more intermediate people between when it was finally written down and the authority. 

Actually a lot of our narrations were written by companions of the aimmah (عليه السلام) and then copied down in records from one transmitter of hadith to the next before being compiled in larger collections which are the ones we refer to today.

More info here:

https://www.al-islam.org/prohibition-recording-hadith-sayyid-ali-al-shahristani/four-hundred-principles-al-usul-al-arbami’ah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

JzkAllah for your inputs everybody!

5 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

People tend to have this mentality that if it is sahih then it must be truth, when in reality this is not sometimes the case

Hmm... That's interesting, I've heard that before, but what if there is a Hadith that has a Sahih chain but the text contridicts our beliefs

For example, I have seen many anti-Shia websites pull out Hadith from let's say Al Kafi with a Sahih chain, and they use this against us, what would the ruling on those traditions be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

JzkAllah for your inputs everybody!

Hmm... That's interesting, I've heard that before, but what if there is a Hadith that has a Sahih chain but the text contridicts our beliefs

For example, I have seen many anti-Shia websites pull out Hadith from let's say Al Kafi with a Sahih chain, and they use this against us, what would the ruling on those traditions be?

It is not even necessary contradiction but lack of understanding of it or make fun out of it. If hadith with sahih chain but the context contradict the Qur'an then it is not sahih. Because Imams (عليه السلام) and Prophet (saws) sayings can not contradict the Qur'an. What happens usually is that people lacks knowledge and understanding, so usually common people make fun out of the hadith. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
56 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

It is not even necessary contradiction but lack of understanding of it or make fun out of it. If hadith with sahih chain but the context contradict the Qur'an then it is not sahih. Because Imams (عليه السلام) and Prophet (saws) sayings can not contradict the Qur'an. What happens usually is that people lacks knowledge and understanding, so usually common people make fun out of the hadith. 

JzkAllah for the answer, but I was asking about the traditions that don't necessarily contridict the Quran, but instead contridicts earlier statements of The Imams(عليه السلام), for example I saw this one such Hadith in which Imam Jafar e Sadiq(عليه السلام) supposedly "praising" some people with question marks on their resume ( Abu Baker, umar, etc), and I saw a couple of traditions which indicate that there would be 13 Imams(nauzibillah), could this be perhaps a mistake of the scribes? What would the ruling on these traditions be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
3 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

JzkAllah for the answer, but I was asking about the traditions that don't necessarily contridict the Quran, but instead contridicts earlier statements of The Imams(عليه السلام), for example I saw this one such Hadith in which Imam Jafar e Sadiq(عليه السلام) supposedly "praising" some people with question marks on their resume ( Abu Baker, umar, etc), and I saw a couple of traditions which indicate that there would be 13 Imams(nauzibillah), could this be perhaps a mistake of the scribes? What would the ruling on these traditions be?

For such, read this in detail:

https://www.iqraonline.net/did-the-imams-praise-abu-bakr-and-umar/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Actually a lot of our narrations were written by companions of the aimmah (عليه السلام) and then copied down in records from one transmitter of hadith to the next before being compiled in larger collections which are the ones we refer to today.

More info here:

https://www.al-islam.org/prohibition-recording-hadith-sayyid-ali-al-shahristani/four-hundred-principles-al-usul-al-arbami’ah

I have never seen a hadeeth that is considered Sahih by the majority of Shia jurists that has no one in the chain of narrators except the scribe who allegedly recorded the hadeeth. Show me. Give me an examples. 
And even if you can, explain to me why we have no record of any of the Imams writing any book at all, not even a few pages.
Your whole religion, the hadeeth part, is manufactured from hearsay by fallible men.
You have no objective verifiable evidence that a single Imam wrote anything at all.
One infallible Imam's written sentence is worth more than a thousand non-infallibles relying on hearsay (oral tradition/hadeeth), but you don't even have that.
All you have is attributions to the Imam, loads and loads of attributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The original Islam of the Ahlul-Bayt is not Qur'an and Hadeeth based. It is Qur'an and 'Aql based. It was Shaykh Tusi who changed that. The majority of of Shia scholars before Tusi said relying on solitary to  make laws in Islam is haraam.

That makes perfect sense to me because if the Ahlul-Bayt intended Islam to be Qur'an and Hadeeth based they would have done a better job in writing and compiling their sayings. On the contrary Muslims have Zero writing of any of the infallibles. All they have is hearsay hadeeth compiled centuries after the demises of the infallibles.

Modern shia scholars who are overwhelming followers of Shaykh Tusi use these solitary hadeeth to tell you what God demands. It is the goof of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@pantheistica like I already mentioned above (elaborated further in the link that I provided), the teachings were recorded by scribes (which was the normal way of recording speech in those days). The four famous compilations of hadith are based on these recorded usul which were written by companions of the aimmah (عليه السلام) and then copied down from one transmitter to the next. 

Your second comment regarding Sheikh Tusi: he is actually among the earlier scholars, so I don't know which early scholars you are referring to. Please be more specific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

@pantheistica like I already mentioned above (elaborated further in the link that I provided), the teachings were recorded by scribes (which was the normal way of recording speech in those days). The four famous compilations of hadith are based on these recorded usul which were written by companions of the aimmah (عليه السلام) and then copied down from one transmitter to the next. 

Your second comment regarding Sheikh Tusi: he is actually among the earlier scholars, so I don't know which early scholars you are referring to. Please be more specific. 

If what you say is correct, those sayings of the Imams that were recorded first hand by scribes would not be called hadeeth but imla إملاء. If you still don't accept what I am saying give me a few examples of saying that have no intermediary narrators between them and are not classified as Mursal, but Sahih by Shia jurists. I have not seen a single example of that all my life so please educate me.

As for the literature on what happened to shia islam with the rise of Shaykh Tusi just google it. Here is a good starting point.

It should be noted that despite the presence of biographical works at this point, the
science of hadith criticism had yet to be fully developed amongst the Shi‘is. Infact, most
Shi‘i jurists before the time of Tusi did not accept the validity of singular traditions
(khabar al-wahid) as a source of law. For example, Tusi’s teacher, Muhammad b.
Muhammad al-Nu‘man al-Mufid (d. 1022) argued that such traditions could only be
accepted if they agreed with reason, the Qur’an, or another well-authenticated tradition.18

Al-Mufid’s student, Sharif al-Murtada (d. 1044) was even more critical of khabar
al-wahid. He said that practice based on this genre of traditions was invalid since it led
only to preponderant possibility (zann). Legal decisions, he insisted, must be based on
certainty (qat‘). Al-Murtada also claimed that earlier Shi‘i scholars had agreed on
prohibiting the usage of single traditions in deducing the law.19 For khabar al-wahid to be
valid, al-Murtada maintained that they must be accompanied by other forms of
corroboration.20 Thus, instead of discussing the character and trustworthiness of a
transmitter, al-Murtada stresses the qara’in (concomitant factors) that would have to
accompany a tradition for it to be accepted as reliable. 
http://www.ltakim.com/Origins.pdf

To me this is the most tragic incident in Shia history akin to the tragedy of the Council of Nicaea in Christian history where Arius was kicked out.

I stand by my statement, the original Islam of the Ahlul-bayt was not Qur'an and Hadeeth based but Qur'an and 'Aql based. If it was hadeeth based you would

see a lot more effort of the Imams in writing books first hand and promulgating those teaching. Instead you see zero effort. Why? Is it because they didn't care?

No, it is because their Islam was not hadeeth based. Sunni Islam was hadeeth based. Tusi wanted to compete with the Sunnis so he developed all this 'ilm al Rijal and Usul al-Fiqh stuff, turning shia islam 180 degrees away from the majority view of shia scholars before him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
55 minutes ago, pantheistica said:

To me this is the most tragic incident in Shia history akin to the tragedy of the Council of Nicaea in Christian history where Arius was kicked out.

You seem to have misunderstood what you quoted. Sharif al Murtadha and Sheikh al Mufeed were obviously not against the hadeeth. In fact al Mufeed's work Al Amali consists entirely of ahadith. 

What you have quoted refers to their position on solitary narrations (akhbar al ahad) as opposed to mutawatir (multiple) narrations as well as the requirement to strengthen solitary narrations with additional indicators (Qaraa'in). This essentially is ilm ul hadith so when you say ilm ur rijaal and ilm ul hadith was a 180 degree turn, I think you have completely missed the point that Mufeed and Murtada (both of who were Sheikh Tusi's teachers) were themselves applying principles of ilm ul hadith. 

1 hour ago, pantheistica said:

If it was hadeeth based you would

see a lot more effort of the Imams in writing books first hand and promulgating those teaching. Instead you see zero effort. Why? Is it because they didn't care?

Again, this is why I shared the previous article with you. The 400 usul are exactly what you are describing: books that were written by scribes in order to preserve the words and teachings of the aimmah (عليه السلام). 

Link to comment
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...