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

Is Farid a liar? Hadith e Kisa in Shia Books

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Translation (of the chain and the red highlighted portion): Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn Isa, from Yunus, and Ali ibn Muhammad, from Sahl ibn Ziyad Abi Sa’id, from Muhammad ibn Isa, from Yunus, from Ibn Muskan, from Abi Basir, he said I asked Aba Abdillah Posted Image…..”Rather Allah (azza wa jall) narrated it to him in his true book to his Prophet (saww): ‘Allah intends only to remove impurity from you, Oh People of the House, and purify you with a purification’ (33:33), so it (Ahlul-Bayt) was Ali, and Al-Hasan, and Al-Hussain, and Fatima Posted Image, and The Messenger of Allah (saww) entered them into a cloak in the house of Umm Salamah, and then said: ‘Allahuma, verily to every Prophet there was a family and a weight (thaql), they are the People of my Household, and my gravity.’ So Umm Salamah said: ‘Am I not from your family?’ So he said: ‘Verily to you is goodness, but these are my family and my weights.'”

Kitab Al-Kafi volume 1 page 149 hadith 1 

Allama Majlisi: Authentic by its chain (Mir’at Al-Uqul volume 3 page 213)
Shaykh Marja Jawad Tabrizi: Sahih (Risalah Mukhtasarah Fi Al-Nusus Al-Sahiha Ala Imama Al-A’ima Al-Ithna Ashar page 12)

The narration comes from the path of Mohammad bin Eisa bin Yunus who has been weakened by several early Shia scholars and thus the narration is weak.

https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/is-hadith-al-kisa-cloak-authentic-in-shia-books/.

if i am not wrong, i see Muhammad Bin Isa from Yonus not Muhammad Bin Isa Bin Yonus 

image.thumb.png.4ec7a8024a5186fb1234a136ebde1343.png

And Muhammad Bin Isa Bin Yonus is no where to be found how come he got weakened by Shia Rijal Scholors? If i am wrong please correct me.

The person from whom Sahl Bin Ziyad narrates is Muhammad Bin Isa Bin Ubaid

11517 - 11513 - 11540 - محمد بن عيسى العبيدي: روى 25 رواية، منها عن أبي الحسن (ع) - وهو محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين " الثقة المتقدم 11513 ".

11513 - 11509 - 11536 - محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين: بن موسى من أصحاب الرضا، والهادي، والعسكري (ع) - ظاهر العدالة جليل ثقة - كثير الرواية روى عن أبي جعفر الثاني (ع). قاله النجاشي - روى في التهذيب ومشيخة التهذيب وكامل الزيارات - طريق كل من الشيخ والصدوق اليه صحيح - وروى بعنوان محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد اليقطيني عن أبي الحسن علي بن محمد العسكري (ع) في الفقيه - تقدمت له روايات في سابقه - وتأتي له روايات بعنوان محمد بن عيسى العبيدي " في 11517 " وبعنوان محمد بن عيسى اليقطيني " في 11521 "

المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٥٦٤

He narrated in Kamil Al-Ziaraat thus another tawtheeq by a classical scholar.

And In Rijal Najashi:

قال النجاشي: " محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد بن يقطين بن موسى، مولى أسد ابن خزيمة، أبو جعفر: جليل في أصحابنا، ثقة، عين، كثير الرواية، حسن التصانيف، روى عن أبي جعفر الثاني عليه السلام مكاتبة ومشافهة.

معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ١٨ - الصفحة ١١٩

And the person Yonus he narrates from is Yonus Bin Abdur Rehman who is famous thiqa.

Now one thing that is mentioned with respect to this is:

وقال أبو جعفر بن بابويه: سمعت ابن الوليد (رحمه الله) يقول: كتب يونس بن عبد الرحمن التي هي بالروايات كلها صحيحة يعتمد عليها، إلا ما ينفرد به محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن يونس، ولم يروه غيره، فإنه لا يعتمد عليه ولا يفتى به "

Sadooq heard Ibn Walid making an exception for narrations via this path: Muahmmad Bin Isa Bin Ubaid from Yonus

While discussing this, Khoie says: 

وهذا الوجه مبني على اجتهاد ابن الوليد ورأيه، ووجهه عندنا غير ظاهر

Trans: This view is based on Ibn Al-Walid's ijtihaad, and the reason is unknown (not apparent)

Therefore there is no evidence to weaken this path. The reason Allamah Majlisi called this Hadith Sahih

 So what's the problem with this? If i am wrong please correct me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother, don't waste your time with these self proclaimed "academics", they have their own agenda, and twist and turn the tool of Rijal to thier vile needs and to cause doubts into the hearts of laymen, and sometimes even straight up lies, this is only one example of their deception, they tried to weak this tradition, this is what they stated:

"Abu Barza (رضي الله عنه) said: ‘The people that Holy Prophet (asws) hated the most were the Banu Umaya, Thaqif and Banu Hanifa"

Al-Hakim is incorrect in saying that this narration is upon the conditions of the two shaikhs, since Abu Hamza, the neighbour of Shu’ba, does not narrate in Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Furthermore, he only has one narration in Saheeh Muslim, which is a report from Anas, not the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam).

 

Abu Hamza, the neighbour of Shu’ba, did not receive any praise or any statements that implied his reliability in hadith from the classical hadith scholars.

 

In conclusion, the Hadith is weak

 

Now any unbiased viewer reading this will realize the clear cut deception of this writer when he says: "Furthermore, he only has one narration in Saheeh Muslim" So basically he is trying to weaken a narrator that has narrated in Sahih Muslim, so Imam Muslim thought of him to be Sahih, and to defend his argument he uses his favorite Rijal card "no sufficient praise", not even bringing a single scholar that weakens him, or as to a reason why Imam Muslim included him in his book, Clear Deception!

 

Another example would be:

14798 – Narrated Abil-Tufayl, who said [as follows]: ‘Hassan bin Alee bin Abi Taalib gave a sermon, he praised Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and he mentioned the Commander of the faithful, Alee ((رضي الله عنه)), the seal of the awsiyah, and the successor of the Prophets, and the [most] honest of the truthful and the martyrs.

 

This narration is weak as it was only narrated through Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh and Ibn Ma`een weakened him.

 

The author tries to weaken Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh(a narrator in Bukhari AND Muslim mind you), even though they use his tradition on the same website:

 

In Sahih al-Bukhari 1/217 we read:

 

حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى عَنْ مَعْرُوفِ بْنِ خَرَّبُوذٍ عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ بِذَلِكَ

 

[`Ubaydullah bin Musa told us, from Ma`rouf bin Kharaboudh, from abi al-Tufayl, from `Ali with it…]

 

There double standards fall upon themselves!

For further deceptions of Farid and friends, you can check this video that completely destroys his biased argument: https://youtu.be/apLbQJMhGI4

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If Sahl ibn Ziyad is in the narration, it is most definitely weak. He has been weakened by many prominent Shi'i scholars.

Ahmad b. 'Ali al-Najashi: "Weak in Hadith, non-relied upon - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa was bearing witness to his exaggeration and lying."
فهرست اسماء مصنفی الشیعة 

Al-Tusi: "Weak, corrupt in aqeedah [belief system]."
فِهْرِسْت کُتُب الشیعة وَ أصولِهِم وَ أسْماء المُصَنِّفین وَ أصْحابِ الأصول
ٱلْٱسْتِبْصَار

Al-Ghadai'ri (prominent Shi'i muhaddith, specialized in rijal sciences, teacher of Al-Tusi and al-Najashi): "Very weak, corrupt in [his] deen and narrations."
رِجال إبن غَضائِری

The list goes on, but the idea is still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

If Sahl ibn Ziyad is in the narration, it is most definitely weak. He has been weakened by many prominent Shi'i scholars.

Ahmad b. 'Ali al-Najashi: "Weak in Hadith, non-relied upon - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa was bearing witness to his exaggeration and lying."
فهرست اسماء مصنفی الشیعة 

Al-Tusi: "Weak, corrupt in aqeedah [belief system]."
فِهْرِسْت کُتُب الشیعة وَ أصولِهِم وَ أسْماء المُصَنِّفین وَ أصْحابِ الأصول
ٱلْٱسْتِبْصَار

Al-Ghadai'ri (prominent Shi'i muhaddith, specialized in rijal sciences, teacher of Al-Tusi and al-Najashi): "Very weak, corrupt in [his] deen and narrations."
رِجال إبن غَضائِری

The list goes on, but the idea is still there.

He didn't even talk about Sahl Bin Ziyad plus Sahl was weakened due to Ghuluw which doesn't affect his hadith transmission this is why Tusi called him Weak by mention of corrupted beliefs but said thiqa in Rijal e Tusi.

Rijal Ibn Ghadairi isn't authentic. If it is then show me chain to the book.

Also T.S .net mentioned many narrations from shia books that has Sahl Bin Ziyad in it. Allah Majlisi authenticated Sahls hadiths in Mirat Ul Uqool.

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

He didn't even talk about Sahl Bin Ziyad plus Sahl was weakened due to Ghuluw which doesn't affect his hadith transmission this is why Tusi called him Weak by mention of corrupted beliefs but said thiqa in Rijal e Tusi.

Rijal Ibn Ghadairi isn't authentic. If it is then show me chain to the book.

Also T.S .net mentioned many narrations from shia books that has Sahl Bin Ziyad in it. Allah Majlisi authenticated Sahls hadiths in Mirat Ul Uqool.

Al-Sistani considers it authentic and so does Muhammad al-Bahraini. Of course, naturally, there is dispute over it. The science of men did not come for the Shi'a until Al-Hilli, so there will be doubts cast over it. Even with Al-Hilli's criteria, it is extraordinarily difficult to trace almost anything back to it's original source, including Rijal ibn Ghada'iri.

You failed to mention al-Najashi and Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa both considering him an exaggerator, weak in hadith, not being relied upon and a liar, by the way.

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

You failed to mention al-Najashi and Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa both considering him an exaggerator, weak in hadith, not being relied upon and a liar, by the way

Yes thats true brother.

But Its related with Ghuluw only. And Ghuluw means there is a problem with Aqeedah not that he is a liar (He was called liar due to Ghuluw which can be been in comments of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa). I am not saying ke when classical scholors say ghali weak, it has no basis. I'm just saying since we have tawtheeq for him, and reason of weakness isn't apparent, then we shouldn't reject his hadiths. 

Plus even Farid didn't weaken this narration due to Sahl-bin-ziyad. Which would've been better than lying.

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

The science of men did not come for the Shi'a until Al-Hilli, so there will be doubts cast over it. Even with Al-Hilli's criteria, it is extraordinarily difficult to trace almost anything back to it's original source, including Rijal ibn Ghada'iri.

Had he not introduced new standards in the shias? So did Modern scholors.

And that wouldn't be found among classical scholors Ofcourse.

The differentiation between thiqa-non thiqa people did start in times of Imam Jafer (عليه السلام) according to authentic Akhbaar.

I heard from some people that Rijal Ibn Ghadairi was passed down with no chain. And khoei etc didn't trust it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Is hadith Kisa authentic in Shia books"

Farid is being very petty. It's a pointless article. Let's say for arguments sake the chains are not valid in 12er books.So what ?

It's so widely narrated among all groups Sunni, Shia, zaidi, Sufi finding a invalid chain does very little to dicredit hadith kisa. And anyone is free to use any hadith they deem reliable.

Also he shows his lack of understanding of hadith from a Shia position. He is simply trying to apply his man made Sunni system to authenticate.

All in all a pointless article by him.

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

Had he not introduced new standards in the shias? So did Modern scholors.

And that wouldn't be found among classical scholors Ofcourse.

The differentiation between thiqa-non thiqa people did start in times of Imam Jafer (عليه السلام) according to authentic Akhbaar.

I heard from some people that Rijal Ibn Ghadairi was passed down with no chain. And khoei etc didn't trust it either.

Yes, and that is what I mean. He was the one who introduced and revised criteria for the Ilm Ar-Rijal. The problem with this is that anything prior cannot be properly examined as authentic or weak because many things have gone missing in-between, and transmitters cannot be examined properly for this reason - anything can be said to anyone.

Quote

Yes thats true brother.

But Its related with Ghuluw only. And Ghuluw means there is a problem with Aqeedah not that he is a liar (He was called liar due to Ghuluw which can be been in comments of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa). I am not saying ke when classical scholors say ghali weak, it has no basis. I'm just saying since we have tawtheeq for him, and reason of weakness isn't apparent, then we shouldn't reject his hadiths. 

Plus even Farid didn't weaken this narration due to Sahl-bin-ziyad. Which would've been better than lying.

Yes, they were mentioning his exaggeration (ghuluu), but it was stated word for word that he was weak in hadith in his Firhist. You can have tawtheeq for him, but this is problematic as people who existed at his time did not trust him. It is the equivalent of us trusting Al-Waqidi or Muhammad bin Bashir, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
46 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

he was weak in hadith in his Firhist.

It was تابعى ضعيف 


قال النجاشي: ضعيفاً في الحديث ، غير معتمد عليه وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى يشهد عليه بالغلو والكذب

Nijashi said Weak in Hadith based upon statement of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa who witnessed his Ghuluw and lies.

Tusi Again mentioned him weak with respect to Beliefs as:

قال في الإستبصار: ضعيف ، فاسد المذهب

Thus it is clear Tusi considered him weak due to his Ghuluw (beliefs)

But Tusi in his Rijal said he is ثقة

 This implies to his trustworthiness in hadith transmission. This view was adopted by Majlisis etc and is more logical since there are many non shia (i:e corrupted beliefs) narrtors authenticated by scholars. Thus in presence of Tawtheeq, such comments cannot weaken him.

Also Farid* didn't weaken this narration due to Sahl-bin-ziyad 

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

It was تابعى ضعيف 


قال النجاشي: ضعيفاً في الحديث ، غير معتمد عليه وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى يشهد عليه بالغلو والكذب

Nijashi said Weak in Hadith based upon statement of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa who witnessed his Ghuluw and lies.

Tusi Again mentioned him weak with respect to Beliefs as:

قال في الإستبصار: ضعيف ، فاسد المذهب

Thus it is clear Tusi considered him weak due to his Ghuluw (beliefs)

But Tusi in his Rijal said he is ثقة

 This implies to his trustworthiness in hadith transmission. This view was adopted by Majlisis etc and is more logical since there are many non shia (i:e corrupted beliefs) narrtors authenticated by scholars. Thus in presence of Tawtheeq, such comments cannot weaken him.

Also Farid* didn't weaken this narration due to Sahl-bin-ziyad 

Yes, al-Tusi mentioned him as weak due to ghulu, but the other did not, aside from Muhammad bin 'Isa.

As for Farid, I will show it to him and ask him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

If Sahl ibn Ziyad is in the narration, it is most definitely thiqah. He has been praised by many prominent Shi'i scholars.

Ahmad b. 'Ali al-Najashi: "Best in Hadith, always relied upon - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa was bearing witness to his piety and truth. My great grandfather heard that."
فهرست اسماء مصنفی الشیعة 

Al-Tusi: "What a great man, solid in aqeedah [belief system]. He came centuries before me but I know, and I have told Farid so believe him."
فِهْرِسْت کُتُب الشیعة وَ أصولِهِم وَ أسْماء المُصَنِّفین وَ أصْحابِ الأصول
ٱلْٱسْتِبْصَار

Al-Ghadai'ri (prominent Shi'i muhaddith, specialized in rijal sciences, teacher of Al-Tusi and al-Najashi): "Very thiqah, exemplary in [his] deen and narrations. After many centuries Farid will come and you must trust him too."
رِجال إبن غَضائِری

The list goes on, but the idea is still there.

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

but the other did not

Najashi called him weak in hadith based upon statement of Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa who criticized him over ghuluw. Thus in the end, weak in hadith due to ghuluw again which isn't acceptable. Since aqeedah alone has nothing to do with trustworthiness of a person who was heavily relied upon and was considered thiqa as well.

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

@Nightclaw Did Farid say anything about it?

 

On 11/16/2020 at 8:28 PM, MaisumAli said:

Br. @Nightclaw, any word on Farid yet?

Assalamu 'alaykum. He states that you should contact him via his Twitter for the questions/inquires you have:

twitter.com/farid_0v

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...