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

Ilm ur Rijaal - Challenge to Everyone Whos After Sahih Chains

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam

Many times i came across people establishing Hadiths based on x or y narrators are Thiqa then we would accept Hadeeth else no. And some then praising some Trash books like Rijal Ibn Ghadairi for which they can't even produce a chain upto ibn Ghadairi.

Point is, when ibn Ghadiri, or Najashi, or anyone else say x or y is weak like:

1 - أبان بن أبي عياش، واسم أبي عياش: فيروز. تابعي، روى عن أنس بن مالك. وروى عن علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام). ضعيف، لا يلتفت إليه. وينسب أصحابنا وضع "كتاب سليم بن قيس "إليه.

1 – Abān b. Abī ʿAyyāsh, Abī ʿAyyāsh’s name is Fayrūz. A tābiʿī, he narrated from Anas b. Mālik. And he narrated from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn عليه السلام . Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

What is the proof for that?

A person from 500s or 400s is talking about weakness in a narrator who was companion of Imams without any evidence.
And thats how authenticity of hadeeth is established?
Thats just non sense and self contradiction.

Whole purpose of Ilm-ur-rijal is pretty much destroyed with this single question.

If Najashi says X is weak, then has Najashi ever met that person? or seen him? or observed him?

I think referring to authenticity of chains of Hadeeth is useless

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Let us assume

1) We are on a Science Website. 

2) Most members/guests are middle school kids.

Now if someone writes and article debunking the Theory of special Relativity.

What is the prudent thing to do. 

Refer him to the Science Council or an Accredited Body of Expert's in that particular field to examine the claim. 

Why. Because middle school haven't got a clue either way. To prove or disprove something. 

I hope you get the message. 

You may send it to Najaf/qum or visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Salam

Many times i came across people establishing Hadiths based on x or y narrators are Thiqa then we would accept Hadeeth else no. And some then praising some Trash books like Rijal Ibn Ghadairi for which they can't even produce a chain upto ibn Ghadairi.

Point is, when ibn Ghadiri, or Najashi, or anyone else say x or y is weak like:

1 - أبان بن أبي عياش، واسم أبي عياش: فيروز. تابعي، روى عن أنس بن مالك. وروى عن علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام). ضعيف، لا يلتفت إليه. وينسب أصحابنا وضع "كتاب سليم بن قيس "إليه.

1 – Abān b. Abī ʿAyyāsh, Abī ʿAyyāsh’s name is Fayrūz. A tābiʿī, he narrated from Anas b. Mālik. And he narrated from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn عليه السلام . Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

What is the proof for that?

A person from 500s or 400s is talking about weakness in a narrator who was companion of Imams without any evidence.
And thats how authenticity of hadeeth is established?
Thats just non sense and self contradiction.

Whole purpose of Ilm-ur-rijal is pretty much destroyed with this single question.

If Najashi says X is weak, then has Najashi ever met that person? or seen him? or observed him?

I think referring to authenticity of chains of Hadeeth is useless

I was watching the lecture about the response of usuulis of these questions which seems also a reasonable response:

In Shia islam we have this wonderful system that even if the chains are authentic, It does not mean that the context is and the whole hadith could be fabrication. We are not like Sunnis who have such a strict system of ilm rijal, but look how they ended up to never critize the content with sahih chain. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

I remember the debates on ilm ur rijal that took place here, the Rijal Wars what we call them in jest. The final word was that ilm ur Rijal is just one tool in the tool box used by hadith scientists in our religion. We don't use it as end all be all unlike others. It is true some individuals go to far with it. One Such aindividual fell on his own sword and is Shia no more.

I remember my own argument against it:

- X was bad therefore he always lies.

- Y was good therefore he always speaks the truth. (Black and white assumptions, no shade of grey)

- The person telling these things about X and Y knows the truth about every narrator/transmitter. Like a divine authority. Does not carry personal bias. Is immaculately honest.

- Perhaps the most absurd of Rijalists: If there is no chain of narrators found, there is no weight in the content.

Obviously ilm ur rijal can not be relied upon as the only tool of inquiry.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

A person from 500s or 400s is talking about weakness in a narrator who was companion of Imams without any evidence.
And thats how authenticity of hadeeth is established?
Thats just non sense and self contradiction.

First, you're assuming, and this is a horrible assumption, that a scholar like Najashi simply labelled/ranked narrators, baselessly and randomly, without knowing anything about them. 

Second, you're assuming, another horrible assumption, that one must know a person, in-person, to be able to tell whether their narrations can be trusted or not. 

Third, you're assuming, your third horrible assumption, that the books we have with us today, are what Najashi had with him in his time. Therefore, if we can't find any evidence for his verdict, he must not have had any evidence at all either.

Three horrible assumptions → weak, unsound argument

You clearly don't understand how scientific frameworks are built and sustained.

There are other issues with your post. But these three issues are sufficient for now to reject your arrogant approach to a science, which has been constructed and revised and enhanced by numerous scholars throughout numerous centuries, to help us better understand our Deen. 

Some random dude, on Shiachat, with a weak post, isn't going to crumble a science built and sustained by devoted scholars throughout centuries.

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/9/2021 at 10:13 PM, SoRoUsH said:

First, you're assuming, and this is a horrible assumption, that a scholar like Najashi simply labelled/ranked narrators, baselessly and randomly, without knowing anything about them. 

Second, you're assuming, another horrible assumption, that one must know a person, in-person, to be able to tell whether their narrations can be trusted or not. 

Third, you're assuming, your third horrible assumption, that the books we have with us today, are what Najashi had with him in his time. Therefore, if we can't find any evidence for his verdict, he must not have had any evidence at all either.

Brothers, i didn't mean that.

You people know more how a hadeeth is authenticated using ilm ur rijal not by usoolis, but by ***some*** scholars (great ones) and majority of ordinary people.

I am not saying, that since we dont know why najashi called someone weak it means najashi issued that fatwa without any evidence.

Point and haqeeqat is, we have no idea about it. And in that case, it makes it useless to use such tawtheeq/ or fatwa of weakness to authentic a hadeeth. Thats all i said.

Now question was how would we determine who is shia , who is zaidi, who is nasibi.... etc.

Bro it depends? Like it can work upto some extent but for people from era of imams, same problem exists.

Like Ali Bin Abi Hamza he was labeled as waqifi right but narrated traditions with clear names of 12 imams from IMAMS who were also imams of waqifi people.

On top of that, he wasn't even thiqa, he's labled as Kazzab liar for narrating narration that Ali and his companions are like donkey نعوذبااللہ (Refer to Rijal Al Kashi)

Now what is this?

How can a waqifi narrate such a tradition for someone, who is considered as Ameer Al Momineen by waqifi themselves?

Second possibility is that he was doing taqqiyah to save his life. Makes sense, but that lifts fatwa of weakness on him clearly proves scholars relied on narrations like above to call him kazzab and never actually had chain to any scholar who lived in Ali bin Abi Hamzas era or observed him. Thay just formed an opinion about a person from avalible sources of hadeeth or type of hadeeth he narrated.

None personally met Ali bin abi hamza either.

Also he narrated hadeeths that has clear names of 12 imams clearly shows he wasn't from waqifi sect because waqifi Dont act upon such narrations.

So thats what i meant, Tusi said he is waqifi, tusi never met him. Tusi never had any chain to someome who knew him so its pointless to use such a system

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/9/2021 at 3:05 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Salam

Many times i came across people establishing Hadiths based on x or y narrators are Thiqa then we would accept Hadeeth else no. And some then praising some Trash books like Rijal Ibn Ghadairi for which they can't even produce a chain upto ibn Ghadairi.

Point is, when ibn Ghadiri, or Najashi, or anyone else say x or y is weak like:

1 - أبان بن أبي عياش، واسم أبي عياش: فيروز. تابعي، روى عن أنس بن مالك. وروى عن علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام). ضعيف، لا يلتفت إليه. وينسب أصحابنا وضع "كتاب سليم بن قيس "إليه.

1 – Abān b. Abī ʿAyyāsh, Abī ʿAyyāsh’s name is Fayrūz. A tābiʿī, he narrated from Anas b. Mālik. And he narrated from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn عليه السلام . Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

What is the proof for that?

A person from 500s or 400s is talking about weakness in a narrator who was companion of Imams without any evidence.
And thats how authenticity of hadeeth is established?
Thats just non sense and self contradiction.

Whole purpose of Ilm-ur-rijal is pretty much destroyed with this single question.

If Najashi says X is weak, then has Najashi ever met that person? or seen him? or observed him?

I think referring to authenticity of chains of Hadeeth is useless

I would like to add just this video to your discussion:

I don't have much knowledge on the issue. But I don't think Ilm ur Rijal is the best method to authenticate a hadith. The complexity of history is much more than the science of men.

There can be numerous reasons why a person said what he said. Not just that he is a Kazzab (lier).

We know what prices were payed by Mumineen for speaking the truth in history. Even the great companions of Aimmah (عليه السلام) and Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

A nation whose ruler kills the babies with name Ali, Hussan and Hussain, how can we expect that all being said would be plain and simple. I have seen Sunnis rejecting hadith by saying that 'The man was a shia therefore not accepted'.

Why we have books and books of Hadith of Imam Jafar (عليه السلام) while Sunnis rarely have anything in his name?  

Though they highly respect the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) so was there any problem taking hadith from Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام).

On a very neutral ground, a Sunni scholar, Imam Nasai was martyred brutally because he wrote a book of hadith praising Imam Ali (عليه السلام) (Khasais e Ali). So, the history has largely been unfair to us.

Further, even Imam ar Ridha (عليه السلام) and Imam as Sadiq (عليه السلام) never said to prefer Ilm ur Rijal while authenticating a hadith. They said to match it with Quran and established Sunnah.

One more thing is that, though it is 21st century and due to the gap of period, we are way ahead from that time to calculate the consistency of chains along with it's quality. But as time is passing, the human mind has advanced to a great extent. The narrations which were alien to us some 500 years back seem to make sense now. Even the unbelievers have started to understand The Noble Quran. So, I would say that a Hadith should be validated through Quran, Sunnah and logic to sone extent. While, Ilm ur Rijal should be the last resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Counter-rijalism

To Soroush

 

Apply your reasoning to Sunni rijal (which is far better developed, richer and older) and you'll see how your optimism about this "science" is just that. Optimism. An illusion. Your angry reaction suggests you sort of see the illusion and it unsettles you.

May Allah help you through this struggle to justify this "science". Unless you want to accept it as a revealed dogma, to be taken on trust. 

i bet the Sunnis feel the same way about their own "science".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Counter-rijalism

If we can trust Najashi for his gradings without a chain from him to the person who was contemporary of the narrator, why can't we trust Kulayni for his selection of a hadith for his major book of religion even though he gives us the chain??

Or let me put it differently. If we shouldn't trust a hadith in the early books unless we check the chains, why should we trust a grading from later books when they don't even have a chain to check?!

And whatever you answer, like that brother said above, apply it to hadith books from other sects.

Genuine research is a struggle. Finding knowledge of salvation is a struggle of honesty. This sort of sectarian wishful thinking won't wash. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/9/2021 at 10:43 PM, SoRoUsH said:

First, you're assuming, and this is a horrible assumption, that a scholar like Najashi simply labelled/ranked narrators, baselessly and randomly, without knowing anything about them. 

Second, you're assuming, another horrible assumption, that one must know a person, in-person, to be able to tell whether their narrations can be trusted or not. 

Third, you're assuming, your third horrible assumption, that the books we have with us today, are what Najashi had with him in his time. Therefore, if we can't find any evidence for his verdict, he must not have had any evidence at all either.

I don't think these are assumptions.

Assumption by definition means: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I think the OP is posing a simple question. I would like to make a counter argument in a similar tone:

1. 'Scholar like Najashi'. You are assuming that Rijal of Najashi is completely pure and a master piece and should be relied blindly. You should present proof for the question in place instead. I am not saying that it is baseless but it should be substantiated.

2. This is clearly not the assumption.

3. So, you are assuming that books at time of Najashi were different then now. In that case, the argument against Ilm ur Rijal becomes even stronger.  If you say then that 'those books with Najashi are not present or defected now', then how can you accept that Rijal of Najashi is itself not defected and purely a work of Najashi (رضي الله عنه)?

We are rejecting questions based on assumption. Assumptions are so ridiculous that 'A random Shiachat boy has no right to question or criticize'.

Quote

17:36) And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.

So, I don't think that such comments should come out if someone raises a question. We all are not wasting are time typing over here. We come here to gain something from these discussions. We are not master of any of the sciences and we all are struggling to learn in order to get inside 'Medinat ul Ilm' through it's 'baab'.

I am sorry if I sound offensive.

Wassalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bros thanks for the last three posts. You people may have explained it better than me.

Points i made were mis understood.

Problem is, 

If we go to Al-Kafi and we see a hadeeth, normally people rush for two main things:

1. Proof for Trustworthiness of narrators

2. Proof for connection of Narrators.

Like Manhaj of Sayed Al-Khoei etc and bunch of S.C members.

Now point is what do we have to establish those 2 points?

We have opinions of scholars right? Like Najashi said X is thiqa or Weak. Sadooq said X is thiqa or weak, Kulayni also had a book that was lost. (Except for Rijal Al-Kashi)

My question was, how can we establish first 2 points by opinions of scholars, that are disconnected? It doesn't make sense because at the same time, you aren't willing to trust them when they narrate hadtith in their books and say Book is Hujjah ( Sadooq in Al-Faqih ), Compare narrations with Quran and Sunnah ( Kulayni ) I narrate from thiqa companions and isnad have no weakness ( Kamil Al-Ziaraat ) etc

But all of a sudden their Mursal opinions on narrators become Hujjah?

If you point to contradictions in hadeeth, then remember, there are way more contradictory opinions in books of Rijal than contradictions in Hadeeth.

As for sunnis, they have same problem. Maybe worse. Because they never apply their rijal rules to Companions. If they do so, their entire system falls apart.

In short we are using disconnected, un-reliable and un established opinions to prove reliability and connection of narrators in hadeeths. Thats what i said.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/2/2021 at 1:18 PM, Zainuu said:

A random Shiachat boy has no right to question or criticize'.

Its not me only though. Brother should know that Akhbari scholars like Hur Amili also spoke against using Ilm Al Rijal like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

I see ilm ul-rijal as an anchor that grounds us within an epistemological framework. 

Without it, we will end up following our desires and volitions, since we're not anchored by any criteria, other than the ones we make for ourselves.

We'll end up accepting the narrations that we like, and reject the narrations that we don't. 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

I see ilm ul-rijal as an anchor that grounds us within an epistemological framework. 

Without it, we will end up following our desires and volitions, since we're not anchored by any criteria, other than the ones we make for ourselves.

We'll end up accepting the narrations that we like, and reject the narrations that we don't. 

You have made a good point there.

I am not saying that completely reject all chains and all ilm-ur-rijal or throw it away.

I just wanted to say, the way we use it today is not correct and it makes no sense to use it this way.

Also criteria for accepting / Rejecting hadeeths have been given to us by Aima (عليه السلام) and it should be given higher priority than authenticity of Isnad themselves.

Like Matching it with Quran / Sunnah and whatever agrees with it is Authentic full stop.

Whatever contradicts Quran / Sunnah should be thrown away full stop.

And Imam (عليه السلام) also told us that in case of contradictory narrations, use the ones that opposes Ahle Sunnah as in it would be guidance.

Using Tawtheeq also makes sense if you accept the books claimed by their authors to be authentic as authentic.

Like Sadooq said Al-faqih is Hujjah. its enough for authenticity of the book and narrations should only be checked as per laws given by Aima (عليه السلام) not that a,b or c is majhool etc because at the same time you trust sadooq on his mursal opinions like when he says Sayyari is weak etc

If we rely on Usool Al Hadith given by Aima (عليه السلام), it solves nearly every problem that i see shias have while debating others.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Counter-rijalism

Ilm rijaal is no anchor though. It's as much an anchor as Christian canonization of New Testament is an anchor. It's a sectarian illusion. The way out for the Christian is to read the Old Testament intelligently and then anything which confirms the principles of the Old Testament accept it and anything which contradicts the principles reject it and anything which is obscure to interpret it as close as possible to the Old Testament and anything which is dubious to put it aside.

 

وإذ قال عيسى ابن مريم يابني إسرائيل إني رسول الله إليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التوراة

 

Like the brother above said, that's the guidance given by aimma of Ahl bait.

If Kulayni can select a hadith which is weak and narrated by people with hawaa then Najashi can also give a grading based on reports narrated by people with hawaa. The difference is 1. Kulayni intended his book to be a collection of good hadith and he recommended us to check it with the Qur'an (and not Najashi or Tusi or ibn ghadaairee) and 2. at least Kulayni gave us chains to show us the origin of the hadith. Najashi or Tusi or ibn ghadaairee don't even tell us that much. 

To make it this "science" a criterion is to delegate to people you don't know (because the rijal writers didn't tell us) and who might have been acting on hawaa when discussing reputation of narrators, delegating to them the power to decide what is sound. 

 

Just look at sectarian hawaa in Sunni jarh and tadeel. Just look at some of the reports in Kashi about how different Imami groups were slandering each other and attributing it to an imam. 

 

It's an anchor to jahl just like the Council of Nicea and the consensus it created is an anchor to jahl. 

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

Like Matching it with Quran / Sunnah and whatever agrees with it is Authentic full stop.

Whatever contradicts Quran / Sunnah should be thrown away full stop.

This isn't as easy as you may think. We come to know the proper understanding of the Qur'an through narrations of our Imams (عليه السلام). 

There are many narrations that interpret Qur'anic verses in ways that a reader would never ordinarily do so. 

Here's the problem:

To accept or reject narrations based on the Qur'an, we first need to know what the Qur'an states. However, to properly understand what the Qur'an says, we need the narrations of our Imams (عليه السلام) telling us what the Qur'an is saying. 

8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Like Sadooq said Al-faqih is Hujjah. its enough for authenticity of the book and narrations should only be checked as per laws given by Aima (عليه السلام) not that a,b or c is majhool etc because at the same time you trust sadooq on his mursal opinions like when he says Sayyari is weak etc

Let's think about this:

How did you learn about the laws given by our Imams (عليه السلام)? Through their narrations. 

How did you come to accept those narrations in the first place? Through the criteria of ilm ul-rijal. 

Do you see the problem with your approach?

8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

at the same time you trust sadooq on his mursal opinions like when he says Sayyari is weak etc

Why do you think his opinion is mursal? How do you think he came up with such an opinion? 

Do you think all scientific opinions, about anything, that are not originated in our narrations are mursal? If a researcher, through his/her research, concludes X, do you think his/her opinion about X is mursal and should be rejected?

8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

If we rely on Usool Al Hadith given by Aima (عليه السلام),

Again, you learn about these Usools by relying on Ilm ul-rijal, first. You don't just accept anything and everything that is attributed to our Imams (عليه السلام), because you know some of those narrations could be lies and fabrications.

See the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Tawtheeq is only one element of ilm ur rijal, and is in fact supported by the Qur'an (refer to Suratul Hujuraat). 

There are various other elements to be accounted for (tawatur, missing links, unknown narrators, impossible links between narrators who never met etc).

The opinion of a biographer on a narrator is not hujjah, it is simply an indication of what was known about someone (were they companions of the aimmah? Where they from the supporters or the opponents? Were they known to lie and exaggerate?)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

 

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

This isn't as easy as you may think. We come to know the proper understanding of the Qur'an through narrations of our Imams (عليه السلام). 

There are many narrations that interpret Qur'anic verses in ways that a reader would never ordinarily do so. 

Here's the problem:

To accept or reject narrations based on the Qur'an, we first need to know what the Qur'an states. However, to properly understand what the Qur'an says, we need the narrations of our Imams (عليه السلام) telling us what the Qur'an is saying. 

Yes. That's true. We need Aima's Hadeeths to know Quran but i may question if this doesn't make sense, why would Imam order to do so in first place?

It definitely makes sense because a hadeeth CAN contradict Quran and Sunnah. Interpretations from Aima (عليه السلام) are no doubt, needed to understand the true meaning of verses but hadeeths shouldn't just go 180 degree against Quran.

Like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is known to have said: I am Ma'bood (Ref: Mashariq Al-Anwaar). Now this is a clear contradiction and there is no room for interpretation.

Therefore, we can always spot narrations completely opposite to verses and reject them.

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Let's think about this:

How did you learn about the laws given by our Imams (عليه السلام)? Through their narrations. 

How did you come to accept those narrations in the first place? Through the criteria of ilm ul-rijal. 

Do you see the problem with your approach?

That's something i never claimed.

We came to know about them through our scholars transmitting them over the years via Books.

We dont really have any Rijal book in first place. The Rijal of Najashi is Fehrist Asmaa Muthanifeen Al-Shia  (names of authors of shia books) and same goes for Fehrist of Tusi.

Rijal Al-baraqi has no jarah wa tadeel and no more info other than names, same goes with Rijal Al-Tusi.

So all the people, who were only Narrators, would never be included in such books hence scholars would label them as Majhool.

We accept it because we know they've been written down at times of Aima (عليه السلام) and transmitted to us by Shia Scholars via books.

And Jarh wa tadeel over them is baseless because its not proven. it has no proof for it.

5 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Why do you think his opinion is mursal? How do you think he came up with such an opinion? 

Do you think all scientific opinions, about anything, that are not originated in our narrations are mursal? If a researcher, through his/her research, concludes X, do you think his/her opinion about X is mursal and should be rejected?

Bruh. It was my response to you people. come on. I never said Mursal Hadiths should be rejected in case of people who had access to earlier sources and actually received old books.

You people need to evaluate of chains of narrations in four books right? but how? Via Mursal opinions of same scholars who authored those books? Then why not accept their entire books as reliable when same scholars claimed them to be reliable?

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

hadeeths shouldn't just go 180 degree against Quran.

Can you think of narration with an authentic sanad that goes 180 degrees against the Qur'an?

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We came to know about them through our scholars transmitting them over the years via Books.

How did our scholars come to know about the laws given by the Imams (عليه السلام)? Via books? Narrations? 

Were everything in the books taken as true? If so, how was it known that everything in those books were true? 

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Via Mursal opinions of same scholars who authored those books?

Mursal opinions? Do you mean their scientific opinions based on their comprehensive research? 

4 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

why not accept their entire books as reliable when same scholars claimed them to be reliable?

Because in those same books, you can see clear inconsistent and contradictory statements. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

Can you think of narration with an authentic sanad that goes 180 degrees against the Qur'an?

5 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Sahih:

Narration of Masada Bin Sadqah that states Imam Ali (عليه السلام) thought of Muawiyah as a brother. It has a Saheeh Chain.

Narration of Marriage of Umme Kulthum Bint Ali (عليه السلام) with Umar. It has a Saheeh Chain.

Narration that says As-Salat-o-khairum-minan-nawm is Azaan is Sunnah. It has a Mawthaq Chain (goes against established Sunnah)

Weak:

All narrations on Birth of 12th Imam (عليه السلام) are weak.

37 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

How did our scholars come to know about the laws given by the Imams (عليه السلام)? Via books? Narrations? 

Were everything in the books taken as true? If so, how was it known that everything in those books were true? 

These hadiths were transmitted to us by Imamiyah scholars who compiled several books of people before them into their own books.

Hadiths were written down by Companions of Aima (عليه السلام) and scholars coming after them compiled them into their own books and their documentation can be found in the books of Tusi and Najashi. Who gave list of authors of Shia Imamiyah. yes those books do have Jarah wa tadeel on people mentioned in them, but again that is of least significance because it is not in connected or proven in most of the cases. Secondly, determining religion of a person, is totally different than knowing him what kind of person he actually was. You might say that I trust them in believing those authors were Shia or maybe hadith itself is transmitted via Ilm-Ur-Rijal because it literally translates to knowledge of men, thats a different thing. I did make it clear in one of my posts that this thread is meant to discuss significance of Jarah Wa tadeel.

So point is, i never said our scholars aren't reliable or can't be relied upon. I said, when same scholars make some comments about trustworthiness or weakness of narrator, they in most cases aren't connected and mostly form opinions based on content that was transmitted by particular author. Not because they met him.

Determining mathab is however different. Like no person on earth would've any doubts that Sistani isn't a twelver shia. yes you may not know about a random person on S.C if he's pretending to be a shia or not, but in current case, i repeat again we have LIST OF AUTHORS of shias not narrators. and one needs to be qualified to author books it isn't a childs play. They were well-known as a SHIA which is proven and accepted by Najashi and Tusi themselves. and not only ordinary shia, but compiler of books.

Therefore we accept narrations from them because they were relied upon by different scholars even if some called them weak or whatever.

Like If Najashi says some X.Y.Z narrator is weak and he appears in Al-Faqih, he at the same time has tawtheeq from Sadooq. So its pointless to dis regard his narrations because we don't know why najashi said he's weak or liar and we don't even know what proof najashi had for it.

So in the end, i think one should give the Usool Al-hadith mentioned in hadiths top priority.

37 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

Mursal opinions? Do you mean their scientific opinions based on their comprehensive research? 

5 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Sorry but none of Mutaqaddimeen followed this science in the way today people follow it.

37 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

Because in those same books, you can see clear inconsistent and contradictory statements. 

How can you say that when books of Rijal have way more contradictory opinions as compared to ahadeeth? Then why do you follow books of Rijal with way more contradictions instead of books of hadeeth?

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Sahih:

Narration of Masada Bin Sadqah that states Imam Ali (عليه السلام) thought of Muawiyah as a brother. It has a Saheeh Chain.

Narration of Marriage of Umme Kulthum Bint Ali (عليه السلام) with Umar. It has a Saheeh Chain.

Narration that says As-Salat-o-khairum-minan-nawm is Azaan is Sunnah. It has a Mawthaq Chain (goes against established Sunnah)

Post their isnad please. 

 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I said, when same scholars make some comments about trustworthiness or weakness of narrator, they in most cases aren't connected and mostly form opinions based on content that was transmitted by particular author. Not because they met him.

This is how science works. New knowledge builds on previous knowledge. New research is built on preceding research. Scientists (should) trust each other.

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

one needs to be qualified to author books it isn't a childs play.

The extremists could have authored books. No? People with inaccurate and false beliefs could've authored book. No? 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Therefore we accept narrations from them because they were relied upon by different scholars even if some called them weak or whatever.

This is a weak approach. It's like saying, person A is really smart, and has done some excellent work. Therefore, everything he writes must be correct. 

This is not the right approach. People make mistakes. When people write or make claims, they could be wrong. 

We don't just assume anything and everything that a scholar writes is correct. 

We respect them, but check their works, too. 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Like If Najashi says some X.Y.Z narrator is weak and he appears in Al-Faqih, he at the same time has tawtheeq from Sadooq. So its pointless to dis regard his narrations because we don't know why najashi said he's weak or liar and we don't even know what proof najashi had for it.

If there's a disagreement between Najjashi and Saduq, then you have to further research to find out why. It's lazy and ignorant to just say the whole science and system is useless or pointless. 

You can be consistent and either always choose Saduq over Najjashi or Najjashi over Saduq. 

What you need to be careful about is to not let your own wishes and desires dictate what you should believe. 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

none of Mutaqaddimeen followed this science in the way today people follow it.

Sure. Science refines itself. It's a self-enhancing system. It builds on itself. 

 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

How can you say that when books of Rijal have way more contradictory opinions as compared to ahadeeth? Then why do you follow books of Rijal with way more contradictions instead of books of hadeeth?

Ultimately, you should always examine everything case by case. Examine each narrator, case by case. Examine each narration, case by case. 

It's lazy and weak to accept or reject everything in one book or by one author. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
26 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

Post their isnad please. 

 

First:

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ وَحَمَّادٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ (عَلَيْهِ السَّلام) فِي تَزْوِيجِ أُمِّ كُلْثُومٍ فَقَالَ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ فَرْجٌ غُصِبْنَاهُ.

1. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, about the marriage of ‘Umm Kulthum has said, ‘It was a rape we suffered.”’

Al-Kafi V5 Chapter of Marriage of Umme Kulthum

Chain: Ali Bin Ibrahim -> Ibrahim Bin Hashim -> Ibn Abi Umair -> from Hisham Bin Salim and Hammad Bin Isa from Zurarah from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)

Second:

10 - عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري في (قرب الإسناد) عن هارون بن مسلم، عن مسعدة بن زياد، عن جعفر، عن أبيه ان عليا عليه السلام لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق، ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.

Ali never accused the ones with whom he fought of Shirk (i.e polytheism) or hypocrisy, rather he would say , they are our brothers who  rebelled against us.

Hur Amili also dis regarded this rijal system.

وسائل الشيعة (الإسلامية) - الحر العاملي - ج ١١ - الصفحة ٦٢

 

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

This is how science works. New knowledge builds on previous knowledge. New research is built on preceding research. Scientists (should) trust each other.

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Then why not Trust them when they declare their books authentic?

1 hour ago, SoRoUsH said:

The extremists could have authored books. No? People with inaccurate and false beliefs could've authored book. No? 

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Bhai point is whats the proof for that? How has it been established that X or Y narrator is Fasid Al-Mazhab? None.

1 hour ago, SoRoUsH said:

If there's a disagreement between Najjashi and Saduq, then you have to further research to find out why. It's lazy and ignorant to just say the whole science and system is useless or pointless. 

You can be consistent and either always choose Saduq over Najjashi or Najjashi over Saduq. 

What you need to be careful about is to not let your own wishes and desires dictate what you should believe. 

The words you posted look so fancy don't they? But in reality you are keeping yourself in a delusion.

Best way is to bring some narrator here, and discuss about him. Then you'll know what you wrote sadly has no basis.

1 hour ago, SoRoUsH said:

Sure. Science refines itself. It's a self-enhancing system. It builds on itself. 

 

Acha.

Science does refine itself. True. Lemme give you an example.

Earth has existed for many years right. Some scientist had theories 1000s of years ago out of which some remained correct and some got proved wrong and were refuted with proofs and more accurate theories came to being.

Awesome man. Thus it proves science refines itself.

But lets imagine if something was researched 1400 years ago, and we don't have a trace of that thing left today except for theories of scientists. How would the science improve itself in that case? its impossible. 

Thats the case with ilm ur Rijal.

All you have done to imporve is by weakening more and more narrations over the years

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 (عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري في (قرب الإسناد)

What's the sanad in قرب الاسناد? Since the original narration comes from that book. 

 

3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, about the marriage of ‘Umm Kulthum has said, ‘It was a rape we suffered.”’

Is there another narration that directly contradict s this narration?

 

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said: "Call of Tathweeb in Azaan is from Sunnah." Majlisi said: Mawthaq

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

Are there saheeh narrations that contradict this mawthaq narration on tathweeb? 

 

More importantly, do these three narrations "180 degrees" contradict the Qur'an?

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Then why not Trust them when they declare their books authentic?

Are they asking us to blindly accept everything in their books? We can trust people and still read their books carefully and critically.

 

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

whats the proof for that? How has it been established that X or Y narrator is Fasid Al-Mazhab? None.

Researches of Rijal scientists. Do you not accept them as scientists? Do you assume that they made such claims carelessly and without research?

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

How would the science improve itself in that case? its impossible.

Present alternative theories that answer more questions and present less problems. Bring something better and stronger than what we have in place now. You can't and shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. 

If the current system has problems, find solutions to those problems. If the system is flawed, present better alternatives. 

We can say ilm al-rijal has problems. Sure. What we can't do is throw it all out because of those problems. It is the best option that we have at this point. It keeps us grounded and safe (to a degree) from following our own wishes and desires. 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Counter-rijalism

If a person can lie about a hadith, a person can also lie about a person's reputation. 

If a hadith without a chain is by default weak until strengthened with external evidence, a report without a chain on a narrator's reputation is also by default weak until strengthened with external evidence. 

I get it. It's obvious that Kulayni or Sadooq has some problematic hadiths and we can't rely on it one hundred percent. Some of the chains are weak, especially when they have gaps in their sanads.

But everything shows that relying on gradings from Najashi and Tusi's later books is even weaker because they have no chains leaving gaps of centuries.

Whoever says we should trust rijal "scientists" should start trusting Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani. And a long list of Sunni "scientists". Seriously!

There's more science in astrology than in rijaalism. At least they get the Zodiac constellations from actual evidence. The rijaalists only rely on opinions way after the evidence is lost. And then they pretend to themselves that somehow also this is reliable. But they're not willing to give the same courtesy to Sunni Muslims. Double standards, eh?

The weakness of rijaalism is so obvious.

Funny how Imam says check with Qur'an as a proper methodology and then someone implies that the methodology Imam has given us is inadequate. Shameful really.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Guest Counter-rijalism said:

Funny how Imam says check with Qur'an as a proper methodology and then someone implies that the methodology Imam has given us is inadequate. Shameful really.

The same Qur'an instructs us to investigate a report if it is brought to us (specifically, if an evil doer brings it to us).

The principle of investigating narrators therefore is a quranic principle. 

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

The same Qur'an instructs us to investigate a report if it is brought to us (specifically, if an evil doer brings it to us).

The principle of investigating narrators therefore is a quranic principle

Agree. And Imams (عليه السلام) have explained in detail how to do so.

I don't think that in the entire discussio, anyone has denied Ilm ur Rijal as a method itself. The only question raised is about priorities. 

When a hadith is recieved by an expert. There is not only ilm ur rijal which is used to verify it but many other sciences.

The point is that Ilm ur Rijal should be the last resort. Before that, Quran and established Sunnah should be thoroughly visited and revised. 

That's it. It would be foolish to reject Ilm ur Rijal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
43 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

When a hadith is recieved by an expert. There is not only ilm ur rijal which is used to verify it but many other sciences.

The point is that Ilm ur Rijal should be the last resort

Indeed, ilm ul hadith extends beyond ilm ur rijaal. There are various other indicators to evaluate as well.

However I wouldn't describe it as a last resort. It is very much an essential part of the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Counter-rijalism

Mahdavist - That's for investigating the veracity of a report when a known faasiq brings it. It clearly implies that you have the means to verify a person's fisq and you can further investigate the report by asking other contemporary individuals or by checking the facts yourself. 

But after all these centuries, you don't even know if these narrators are faasiq to begin with and you have no way of investigating them or their reports and you can't directly check the facts either because you don't have access to Imam. All you have is opinions that come two or more centuries later and you have no way of investigating or verifying these very late opinions. They are weaker than a mursal hadith in Sadooq or Kulayni because at least these guys were trying to compile a book that is hujjah. Najashi and Tusi were just writing fihrists and giving their own or other people's opinions about the narrators, none of which we can know for sure or investigate.

You're clutching at straws with the ayah. It's important to remember the context of the ayah which is about investigating false accusations by unreliable people. The Prophet then decided to send people to check if the accusation was correct and it turned out that it was false. The argument that this somehow justifies strengthening or weakening hadith narrators on the basis of unverifiable and occasionally contradictory opinions some centuries later is manifestly fallacious. It's as fallacious as the Sunni jarh and tadeel which at least is older and has more information (some of it contemporary or near contemporary) then Shi'i rijaal. 

 

As for better methods in Shi'i history, I suggest two different ones. One is Sadooq who took from the oldest usool he had at his disposal. The other is Sayid Murtada who relied on the mashhoor and preferred positions in the maddhab and discarded the rest of hadeeth. Either of these or a combination of both and judged by the criterion of Qur'an are surer methods than relying on Najashi and Tusi and Ibn ghadaairee. Because we at least know the methodology of Sadooq or Sayid Murtada and we can rationally and historically justify them. But there's no way we can rationally or historically justify relying on two or three centuries later opinions in books lacking chains or even a methodology of grading. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/7/2021 at 5:05 AM, Guest Counter-rijalism said:

As for better methods in Shi'i history, I suggest two different ones. One is Sadooq who took from the oldest usool he had at his disposal. The other is Sayid Murtada who relied on the mashhoor and preferred positions in the maddhab and discarded the rest of hadeeth. Either of these or a combination of both and judged by the criterion of Qur'an are surer methods than relying on Najashi and Tusi and Ibn ghadaairee. Because we at least know the methodology of Sadooq or Sayid Murtada and we can rationally and historically justify them. But there's no way we can rationally or historically justify relying on two or three centuries later opinions in books lacking chains or even a methodology of grading

Absolutely yes!!

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...