Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Have Shias Ever Labeled Hadith Books as “Sahih”?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

No one says that all 6 books are sahih. They are called sihah sittah but the correct name was kutub sittah. 

And you are comparing apples with oranges. It is known on what basis did bukhari authenticated narration. His authentication was strict rijali based. But we don't know of kulayni. What do he even mean by when he called a hadith sahih? Since early scholars didn't wrote any books on their methodology or science of hadith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 hours ago, sunnism said:

No one says that all 6 books are sahih. They are called sihah sittah but the correct name was kutub sittah. 

So according to you the compilers of the 6 books didn't consider the content to be authentic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

So according to you the compilers of the 6 books didn't consider the content to be authentic?

Bukhari and muslim did. Other 4 doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam,

My dear brother,

In the past, even i used to be very unsure about this and question why on earth the early Shia scholars did not have a particular science of rijal, whereby they categorised ahadith into saheeh, hasan, dhai'f, hasan li gharyi etc.

However, it became clear to me that even among the Sunnis, the science of hadith has evolved majorly. In fact, so much so that there are wildly varying standards between the scholars. 

However, the most pertinent question is: Did the early and classical Shia scholars place emphasis on the Isnaad and show scholastic and critical analysis of the chains, such that they were aware of reliable narrators and they were also aware of the ghulat, liars, and weak narrators?

The answer is, absolutely yes.

Why is this important? The reason is, if they were aware of weak narrators, and reliable narrators and those where there was a grey area, they could then combine a Matn and Sanad approach in how they sifted through narrations and how they compiled other narrations.

It doesn't matter if they didn't grade a hadith Hasan, or Saheeh, for even in the Sunni school unless there's a contradiction you can generally act on both types. 

"Ruling: Like the sahih hadith, the fuqaha (jurists) and most of the muhadithun accept that the hassan hadith can also be used for evidence. For this reason, some Imams of hadith, such as al Hakim and Ibn Hibban include hassan ahadith with sahih hadith, while still acknowledging its lesser rank to the sahih." From: What Is the Difference Between a Sahih, Hassan and Da’if Hadith? - IslamQA

The arbitrary stratification and introduction of 'Hasan' does not materially or fundamentally change things. Scholars of the past were aware of authentic, and weak, and they were also aware of different levels of authenticity, and also the importance on also looking at the Matn and not just the Sanad.

Indeed, this may well explain why a weak chained report might well take precedence of an allegedly stronger chained report, because the authentic chain might contain detestable or weak content. Rijaal is a tool , it is based on degrees of speculation, it is not fool proof.

For example, Sufyaan Ath-Thawri  when he forbade transmitting the reports of Al-Kalbi. It was said to him, But you cite the reports transmitted by Al-Kalbi. He answered: "I can identify what is authentic and what is false of what he reports." Why Scholars narrated weak ahadeeth in the books? | Islam (systemoflife.com)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In fact, Abu Khadeejah , accused of being a Madkhali says regarding the Hasan hadith:

 

"Its ruling is the same as the hadeeth saheeh in evidence even if it is lesser than saheeh in strength [as far as the isnaad is concerned]. For this reason it is considered as a proof with the scholars, and they act upon it – likewise the vast majority of the hadeeth scholars consider it to be a proof, except a few in opposition from the harsh ones. And there were some who were too lenient and considered the hasan to be saheeh."

What Is the Difference Between a Sahih, Hassan and Da’if Hadith? - IslamQA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

In fact, Abu Khadeejah , accused of being a Madkhali says regarding the Hasan hadith:

 

"Its ruling is the same as the hadeeth saheeh in evidence even if it is lesser than saheeh in strength [as far as the isnaad is concerned]. For this reason it is considered as a proof with the scholars, and they act upon it – likewise the vast majority of the hadeeth scholars consider it to be a proof, except a few in opposition from the harsh ones. And there were some who were too lenient and considered the hasan to be saheeh."

What Is the Difference Between a Sahih, Hassan and Da’if Hadith? - IslamQA

Abu khadijah is talking about hasan li dhatihi not hasan li ghayrihi. But shiqshiqiyah's chains are so weak that even suyuti wouldn't consider it as hasan li Ghayrihi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, sunnism said:

Abu khadijah is talking about hasan li dhatihi not hasan li ghayrihi. But shiqshiqiyah's chains are so weak that even suyuti wouldn't consider it as hasan li Ghayrihi

This isn't about the sermon of Shaqshaqiyah.

Ali opposed Abu Bakr, and he was joined by Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Zubayr and many others and they did not render allegience for six months. 

That to me is a bigger statement than any sermon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, In Gods Name said:

This isn't about the sermon of Shaqshaqiyah.

Ali opposed Abu Bakr, and he was joined by Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Zubayr and many others and they did not render allegience for six months. 

That to me is a bigger statement than any sermon.

Lol. Ali and zubayr didn't oppose abu bakr. Umar thought they were, later they explained the situation. Ali and babu hashim although considered abu bakr as worthy, they thought banu hashim are more worthy than him. And they were angered that abu bakr didn't consulted them. That's why they didn't gave him bayyah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, sunnism said:

Lol. Ali and zubayr didn't oppose abu bakr. Umar thought they were, later they explained the situation. Ali and babu hashim although considered abu bakr as worthy, they thought banu hashim are more worthy than him. And they were angered that abu bakr didn't consulted them. That's why they didn't gave him bayyah. 

Let me not hijack or change the topic of the thread, but Abu Bakr had became the Caliph and nearly immediately, there were uprisings and mass apostasies from Munafiq tribes. Ali would not have , in the words of Umulmumineen Aisha in Bukhari, opposed Abu Bakr in such dire times unless he was against his caliphate.

Had Ali felt Abu Bakr was more worthy to caliphate than him, he would not have withheld his Bayyah just because he wasn't consulted, because he would have voted for Abu Bakr either way and agreed with it.

Rather, Ali and members of the Banu Hashim believed they were best placed to lead the Ummah after the Messenger of Allah, and Ali felt he was more worthy to Caliphate than Abu Bakr. Therefore he opposed him by not giving Bayah, and he was joined by Fatima, Zubayr, Hasan, Hussain and others.

He recognised Abu Bakr had merits, but believed he was not the man who should have led.

<>

However when it became clear that the interests of the unity of the Ummah and the preservation of Islam required him to mend relations and not go to war over it, he stepped to the side and gave Bayah.

<>

We side with Ali and the Banu Hashim. No doubt Abu Bakr and Umar had merits, but Ali was superior to them and the evidence is obvious. 

Edited by In Gods Name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, In Gods Name said:

Let me not hijack or change the topic of the thread, but Abu Bakr had became the Caliph and nearly immediately, there were uprisings and mass apostasies from Munafiq tribes. Ali would not have , in the words of Umulmumineen Aisha in Bukhari, opposed Abu Bakr in such dire times unless he was against his caliphate.

You have a comprehention problem, don't you? Ali didn't oppose him. He accepted that abu bakr is worthy of caliphate. Read the full narration of aisha in bukhari and you would know that. 

 

3 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Had Ali felt Abu Bakr was more worthy to caliphate than him, he would not have withheld his Bayyah just because he wasn't consulted, because he would have voted for Abu Bakr either way and agreed with it

Ali felt that he is more worthy of abu bakr. And if you are trying to say he didn't give him bayyah because he considered his caliphate to be illegitimate then it goes against you not us. Then why did he gave him bayyah after 6 months. Why not withheld from bayyah throughout his life like sad bin ubadah did. You know why. You cannot say they forced him because if they wanted to force him they would have forced him prior to 6 months and they would have forced sad bin ubadah too. 

 

10 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

However when it became clear that the interests of the unity of the Ummah and the preservation of Islam required him to mend relations and not go to war over it, he stepped to the side and gave Bayah.

All this are just assumptions and nothing else. If he wanted the preservation of ummah then he would have given bayyah the first day. Abu sufyan wanted to support him but we all know what ali said to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, sunnism said:

Ali felt that he is more worthy of abu bakr. And if you are trying to say he didn't give him bayyah because he considered his caliphate to be illegitimate then it goes against you not us. Then why did he gave him bayyah after 6 months. Why not withheld from bayyah throughout his life like sad bin ubadah did. You know why. You cannot say they forced him because if they wanted to force him they would have forced him prior to 6 months and they would have forced sad bin ubadah too. 

 

At minimum we can agree that Ali felt he was more worthy than Abu Bakr?

Do any other Sunni scholars agree with you about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

At minimum we can agree that Ali felt he was more worthy than Abu Bakr?

Do any other Sunni scholars agree with you about this?

There is a sound narration in baladhuri ansab ul ashraf and sunnah of abdullah bin ahmad, in which he considered himself worthier. That doesn't support you. Even though he himself to be worthier, he still considered abu bakr to be worthy of itit as it is clear in bukhari and other other multiple reports. 

Edited by sunnism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, sunnism said:

There is a sound narration in baladhuri ansab ul ashraf and sunnah of abdullah bin ahmad, in which he considered himself worthier. That doesn't support you. Even though he himself to be worthier, he still considered abu bakr to be worthy of it. 

Can you provide those ya Akhi along with who authenticates them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Can you provide those ya Akhi along with who authenticates them?

I don't have them currently. But revisitingthesalaf, a shi'i polemical site have quoted that narration and I checked the narrators and found them to be trustworthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, sunnism said:

I don't have them currently. But revisitingthesalaf, a shi'i polemical site have quoted that narration and I checked the narrators and found them to be trustworthy. 

Do you agree with Ali, that he on paper was the worthier candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, In Gods Name said:

Do you agree with Ali, that he on paper was the worthier candidate?

No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, sunnism said:

No. 

Ya Akhi,

Ali believed he was worthier to lead the Ummah, as did the entire family of the Prophet saw. A few months earlier, the Prophet held his hand and even according to you, showed the Ummah his status and then stated he is leaving behind the Quran and his Family, which if we hold onto we will never go astray. Even if you believe this is not a declaration , it is surely at worst a strong recommendation. 

This is the difference, we agree with Ali, and agree he was the best candidate to lead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Even i agree that Abu Bakr and Umar were knowledgeable, wise, respected and politically possibly viable candidates to lead. But there's no doubt Ali was superior, favoured by the Prophet saw, and there is no doubt the family of Rasulullah saw all believed Ali was worthier, as obviously did Ali.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Ya Akhi,

Ali believed he was worthier to lead the Ummah, as did the entire family of the Prophet saw. A few months earlier, the Prophet held his hand and even according to you, showed the Ummah his status and then stated he is leaving behind the Quran and his Family, which if we hold onto we will never go astray. Even if you believe this is not a declaration , it is surely at worst a strong recommendation. 

This is the difference, we agree with Ali, and agree he was the best candidate to lead. 

Ali isn't infallible. He can have his opinion and we are not obliged to follow which is in contrast with vast majority of companions. Prophet praised him at ghadeer as he did other companions. All the last sermons of prophets are mostly about abu bakr. As far as thaqalayn is considered, then it is not about following ahlul bayt. It is about holding onto quran and taking care of ahlul bayt. Read the authentic version of thaqalayn in sahih muslim. Quran commanded as to follow the muhajireen and ansar. And 99℅ of them considered abu bakr as more worthy that anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Even i agree that Abu Bakr and Umar were knowledgeable, wise, respected and politically possibly viable candidates to lead. But there's no doubt Ali was superior, favoured by the Prophet saw, and there is no doubt the family of Rasulullah saw all believed Ali was worthier, as obviously did Ali.

Abu bakr and umar were better candidates and better rulers than ali. Their khilafah is a solid proof of this. Whereas ali was better warrior than them. May allah be pleased with Abu bakr Umar and Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, sunnism said:

It is about holding onto quran and taking care of ahlul bayt. Read the authentic version of thaqalayn in sahih muslim.

I refuted the author of TSN , who by the way, was a brother called Hani, who again by the way, turned into a cross dresser. Are you aware of what he's become and the Fasiq behaviour he is involved in now?

Thaqalayn has authentic versions not just in Saheeh Muslim, even as per the standards of strict Rijalists like al-Albani.

The following ahadith has been graded Hasan Isnaad by al-Albani and al-Arnaut, and Saheeh Isnaad by ibn Hajar la-Asqanali in Sunan Abi Asim and Musnad ibn Rawayh:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt” [2-3]

حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي.

"If you hold onto them you will never go astray"

Al-Albani, one of the great modern day Sunni-Salafi scholars of Hadith : “What is specifically meant by the members of the household is the righteous scholars among them, who adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah.  Imam Abu Ja‘far at-Tahhaawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The “family” are the members of his household (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who adhere to his religion and follow in his footsteps. Conclusion: the mention, in this hadith, of the members of his household, alongside the Qur’an, is like the mention of the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs alongside the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the hadith: “I urge you to adhere to my way (Sunnah) and the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs…” Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (4/260).

 

"and they shall not separate until they meet at the Ḥawdh."

Ibn Taymiyyah:  “The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning his family: “They and the Book will never be separated until they both come to him at the Cistern.” And he is the most truthful one, so this indicates that the consensus of the (Prophet’s) family constitutes proof. This is the view of a number of our companions, and it was mentioned by al-Qaadi in al-Mu‘tamad.” Source: Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (7/395)

Al-Albani:  Interestingly, Al-Albani when discussing a version which has ‘Sunnah’ in place of Ahlulbayt, makes a very interesting admission:

“Rather, it is obligatory to consider the Book and the Sunnah as a single source, with no difference between them both, as indicated in the statement of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him: “I have been given the Qur’an and its likeness with it”, that is the Sunnah, and his statement:“Both shall never separate until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.” Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, al-Mujtaba min al-Sunan (Halab: Maktab al-Matbu’at al-Islamiyyah; 2nd edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 153, # 2736]]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

The following ahadith has been graded Hasan Isnaad by al-Albani and al-Arnaut, and Saheeh Isnaad by ibn Hajar la-Asqanali in Sunan Abi Asim and Musnad ibn Rawayh:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt

This report is weak. Katheer bin zaid is weak. He was weakened by abu hatim razi, ali bin madaini, ibn hibban, yaqub bin shaybah, nasai, abu zurah, ibn jareer. Ahmad, ibn adi, ibn ammar trusted him. Yahya bin maeen have mixed reviews about him. Ibn hajr amongst late scholars considered him saduq and dhahabi weakened him. 

Shuhayb arnaut himself weakens a chain because of him. 

1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

Ibn Taymiyyah:  “The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning his family: “They and the Book will never be separated until they both come to him at the Cistern.” And he is the most truthful one, so this indicates that the consensus of the (Prophet’s) family constitutes proof. This is the view of a number of our companions, and it was mentioned by al-Qaadi in al-Mu‘tamad.” Source

This is the view of some of the scholars, not all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

I refuted the author of TSN , who by the way, was a brother called Hani, who again by the way, turned into a cross dresser. Are you aware of what he's become and the Fasiq behaviour he is involved in now?

I saw a video of him. He probably bacame a homosexual. He was very rude when he used to talk about Ali. Allah punished him for it. Are you the guy called 'whoaretheshias' from forum twelvershia

Edited by sunnism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, sunnism said:

Bukhari and muslim did. Other 4 doesn't

didn’t*

And funnily enough, their books contradict each other. Just shows how authentic they really are. 

Edited by Shian e Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Shian e Ali said:

didn’t*

And funnily enough, their books contradict each other. Just shows how authentic they really are. 

You shouldn't even talk about contradictions. Should I show you how imams use to give contradictory fatwas to their own shia? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Shian e Ali said:

Oh, but I should, because you consider them authentic. 

You also call the imams the perfect guide to humanity. Funnily enough they use give contradictory fatwas to their shias. I don't even need to say anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, sunnism said:

You also call the imams the perfect guide to humanity. Funnily enough they use (missed a word?) give contradictory fatwas to their shias. I don't even need to say anything. 

So you’re unable to back up your claims, understood.
 

As someone who was born a Sunni, I should give a shout-out to Sahih Bukhari and Muslim to be so flawed that they were my first step towards Shi’ism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Shian e Ali said:

So you’re unable to back up your claims, understood.
 

As someone who was born a Sunni, I should give a shout-out to Sahih Bukhari and Muslim to be so flawed that they were my first step towards Shi’ism. 

Don't worry kid. Here it is. 

[3/75] الكافي: أحمد بن إدريس، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن الحسن بن علي، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون، عن زرارة بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني ثم جاء ه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من اهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة! إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لنا ولكن ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم قال: ثم قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الاسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين، قال: فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه

 

3. [3/75] al-Kafi: Ahmad b. Idris from Muhammad b. Abd al-Jabbar from al-Hasan b. Ali from Tha’laba b. Maymun from Zurara b. A’yan from Abi Ja’far عليه السلام, he (Zurara) said: I asked him about a matter so he answered me, then a man came to him and asked him about it so he answered him with a different answer to mine, then another man came so he answered him with a different answer to the one he gave me and the first man, so when the two men had exited I said: O the son of the messenger of Allāh – two men from the people of Iraq from among your followers came to ask you – but you answered each one of them with a different answer? He said: O Zurara, this is better and more safe for us and you, for if you were all to unite upon one position the people would believe you [in what you say] about us and that would be a threat to both our and your survival, he (Zurara) said: then I [later] said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: your followers – if you were to make them move in the face of arrows or on fire they would do it but they come out from you having differences! He said: so he answered me with the same reply as his father.

 

[4/76] علل الشرائع: أبي، عن سعد، عن محمد بن الوليد والسندي، عن أبان بن عثمان، عن محمد بن بشير وحريز، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: قلت له: إنه ليس شئ أشد علي من اختلاف أصحابنا، قال: ذلك من قبلي

 

4. [4/76] Ilal al-Sharai: My father from Sa’d from Muhammad b. al-Walid and al-Sindi from Aban b. Uthman from Muhammad b. Bashir and Hariz from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Hariz) said: I said to him: there is nothing more difficult for me [to bear] than the differences [that exists] between our fellows, he said: that is from me (I purposely caused that

And because of this many of your early forefathers left tashayyu

Tusi says in his Tahtheeb:

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

 

تهديب الأحكام،1/2

 

And among the Hadiths (narrated) by our companions (Shia scholars/companions of the Imams) are so many disparities, contrast, contravening and contradictions that you will not find a single report that we agree upon which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and not a single Hadith is safe from another which denies it. These (contradictions) are to such an extent that our opponents (the Muslims/Ahl Al-Sunnah) have used it as the biggest accusation/attack against our school and as a proof for the falsehood of our creed. (Until he said): ‘… and this is why a number (of Shias) have left the true creed and amongst them are the likes of Abu Al-Hassan Al-Harouni Al-Alawi, who used to be on the true creed, upon the creed of Imamah (Imamate), but he turned away from it when confusion overtook him due to the issue of the contradicting Hadiths. So he left the school (of Shiism) and attached himself to another (school), as he could not grasp the different understanding (of our text) and this is an indication that he did not embraced it (Shiism) without insight, rather based on Taqleed. Source: Tahtheeb Al-Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect alTusi.

 Ja’far al-Subhani says in “al-Rasael al-Arba’ah” pg.201:

 

عندما نطالع كتابي: الوسائل، والمستدرك مثلاً؛ نرى أنه ما من باب من أبواب الفقه إلا وفيه اختلاف في رواياته، وهذا مما أدى إلى رجوع بعض ممن استبصروا عن مذهب الإمامية

 

When we read the two books (of Hadith): Wasael al-Shia and Mustadrak al-Wasael for example, we see that there is NO chapter or Fiqhi section which is free from conflicting narrations, this has caused some of those who converted to the Imami Madhab to leave

Dildar Ali (renowned Shiite Mujtahid of India) states:

 

 

 

The ahadith that have been narrated from the Imams have great differences, there is not a hadith the opposite of which is not present, that is why it lead to the apostacy of the people weak in belief, as Shaikh ut taifa (Tusi) has mentioned in the beginning of “Tahdheeb” and “Istibsar”. (Asas ul Usool, p. 15p

 

 

Edited by sunnism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And if you didn't know.  Kafi, tahdheeb, and istibsar was written because of these contradition of the imams since shia of those times were confused and even apostasizing from religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, sunnism said:

And if you didn't know.  Kafi, tahdheeb, and istibsar was written because of these contradition of the imams since shia of those times were confused and even apostasizing from religion

I'd be interested to know why you think al-Kafi was written to deal with conflicting reports, the sources you cite don't say that and neither is that the format of al-Kafi. Read Tahdheeb closely, though he mentions this, the book aims at substantiating the views of Mufid's Muqni' more than anything else. Istibsar certainly was written to resolve contradictory reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, sunnism said:

This report is weak. Katheer bin zaid is weak. He was weakened by abu hatim razi, ali bin madaini, ibn hibban, yaqub bin shaybah, nasai, abu zurah, ibn jareer. Ahmad, ibn adi, ibn ammar trusted him. Yahya bin maeen have mixed reviews about him. Ibn hajr amongst late scholars considered him saduq and dhahabi weakened him. 

 

Hani claims Kathir b. Zayd is weak, but in reality, he isn't. This is not how the science of Ilm ul Rijaal works in the Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaah. Rather, what the Ulema do is they look at the various scholars who have given a narrator Tawtheeq etc, disparaged them, and then they take it all into summation. He has been given Tawthiq by Ibn ‘Ammar al-Musili and Ibn Hibban in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, viii, 300 and is classed as ‘Saduq (truthful) and makes mistakes’ (but reliable and accepted in Hadith) by Ibn Hajar.

Therefore the majority of the ahlus-sunnah would consider the Hasan grading by Isnaad of al-Albani, al-Arnaut,  and the saheeh grading of Ibn Hajar to carry far more weight than you, and far more weight than Hani, who sadly after writing that article many years later has turned into a cross dresser.

In fact, in their original article even TSN graded the hadith as Hasan, Hani was confronted by a Shia brother and he then went back on it. When told he is going against the views of al-Albani and al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, and many giants in the ahlus-sunnah he merely claimed he wasn't bothered about that.

<>

Verdict of Sunni scholars on the chain of the hadith (which would apply for both given they differ in one Thiqah narrator):

(1) Shu’ayb Arnaut states regarding the above tradition: إسناده حسن [The chain is Hasan [good]] [3.1]

(2) Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states: هذا إسناد صحيح [The chain is Saheeh] [3.2]

(3) Ahmad B. Abu Bakr b.Ismail Al Busri states : رواه إسحاق بسند صحيح [The chain is Saheeh] [3.3]

(4) Ali b. Husam al-Din al-Muttaqi al-Hindi states: ابن راهويه وابن جرير وابن أبي عاصم والمحاملي في أماليه وصححه [Narrated by (Ishaq) Ibn Rahwayh, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi ‘Asim, and by al-Muhamali in his Amali, and he (al-Muhamali) declared it Saheeh] [3.4]

(5) Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar of the well-respected Hadithanswers.com also grades the chain of narrators for this tradition as ‘Hasan’ and has written: “This is a narration from Kitabus Sunnah of Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (rahimahullah), hadith: 1563. The chain is sound (hasan).” 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

References for above

[3.1] Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Malik b. Salmah al-Azdi al-Hajari al-Misri al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar (Muasassat al-Risalah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 13, # 1760

[3.2] Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Matalib al-Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah; 1414 H) [annotator: Prof. Shaykh Habib al-Rahman al-A’zami], vol., 4, p. 65, # 3972

[3.3] Ahmad b. Abi Bakr b. Isma’il al-Busiri, Itihaf al-Khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-‘Ashra (Riyadh: Dar al-Watan; 1st edition, 1420 H), vol. 7, p. 210, # 6683

[3.4] ‘Ali b. Husam al-Din al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal fi Sunan al-Aqwal wa Af’al (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 1989 H), vol. 13, p. 121, # 36441

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

From: Grade of a Hadith on the importance of protecting the Quran and the Family of Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) – Hadith Answers

Question

I am very curious about the correct grading of the following chain:

حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي

 

Answer

This is a narration from Kitabus Sunnah of Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (rahimahullah), Hadith: 1563.

The chain is sound (hasan).

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...