Wasil

LOCKED Munazara: Farid vs Wasil (Walid)

412 posts in this topic

Bismilleh wassalatu wassalamu ala rasool allah wa ala aali baitihi al-tayibeen al-tahireen wa ala sahbihi al-muntajabeen al-ghur al-mayameen wa ala man ittab'ahom ila yawm iddin

brother Farid and all members and guersts salam alaykom warahmatullahi wabarakatu.

i take this opportunity to thank brother Farid and the Admins of this forum for giving us the opportunity to have this blessed debate. yes it will be blessed inshallah and free of any takfeer or insults or bad feelings.

Me and brother Farid are from two different schools in Islam that are considered enemies unfortunately and i blame our scholars for this both shia and salafis and i ask Allah to allow us to see al-haq as it is and batil as it is so that we follow haq and avoid batil inshallah.

I am not here to claim that i own the truth but to present what semms to me as the truth and i think brother farid will do the same. everyone of us has his own experience in life and pown intellect that led him to follow this school or the other. i am not here to belittle farid's manhaj or beliefs or to humiliate him ma'aazallah or to judge the sunni madhab as a whole as batil , on the contrary the sunni madhab is an other side of the truth but we consider ourselves as shia closer to the truth but not owners of the truth and i'm sure brother farid thinks thesame inshallah.

we saw many debates on TV channels and online which are disgusting to say the least. just accusations and ignorance and following of desires and fanaticism against the truth deliberately and out of bigotry and hatred and limited intellect.

inshallah we will all benefit from this and i'm sure we me and farid will be both winners inshallah.

ws
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bismillah wal salat wal salam ala rasoolillah,

Thank you Walid for your intro.

Brothers, as Walid has pointed out, our main goal is to all benefit from this discussion. May Allah guide us both.

The topic we are about to discuss is an important one. It revolves around two men that are so significant to each respective sect to the extent that you can rarely go through a couple of pages of hadith without running into them.

Yet, it was due to this that both narrators came under heavy fire by the opposing sect and even at times accused of fabricating reports. It is due to this that Walid and I choose to discuss this matter in a respectable fashion in order to settle this dispute.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313141632' post='96859']
Bismillah wal salat wal salam ala rasoolillah,

Thank you Walid for your intro.

Brothers, as Walid has pointed out, our main goal is to all benefit from this discussion. May Allah guide us both.

The topic we are about to discuss is an important one. It revolves around two men that are so significant to each respective sect to the extent that you can rarely go through a couple of pages of hadith without running into them.

Yet, it was due to this that both narrators came under heavy fire by the opposing sect and even at times accused of fabricating reports. It is due to this that Walid and I choose to discuss this matter in a respectable fashion in order to settle this dispute.
[/quote]

thank you farid. isnahllah akhair.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I believe you want to discuss wathaqa of ibrahim ibn hashim (ra) ? please tell us what is your objections to his wathaqa.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok until farid comes here i want to say that ibrahim ibn hashim is a pillar in hadith and he is our sheikh and our master (radhiallahu anh). I won't start by showing the usual arguments for his wathaqa and acceptance but i will only mention one great sign of his wathaqa and from mutaqaddimeen : He is thiqat according to ibn al-waleed and sheikh sadooq (radhiallahu anhuma) because sheikh ibn al-waleed didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah and you might ask what is his rule for this ??? well najashi in his rijel tells us what abul abbas ibn nooh (ra) believed:
وقد أصاب شيخنا أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد في ذلك كله وتبعه أبو جعفر بن بابويه رحمه الله على ذلك إلا في محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد فلا أدري مارابه فيه، لانه كان على ظاهر العدالة والثقة

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2320.html

see page 348 from rijel alnajashi

And our sheikh [u]was correct[/u] in all this ( meaning excluding some narrators from nawadir al-hikmah) and he was followed by abu jafar ibn babawaih(sadooq) about this but ( he means he is correct in all exclusions but one ) in mohamed ibn issa ibn ubaid as i don't know his opinion about him (in other words why he did this?) as he was upon apparent [u]"adalat"(up righteousness ) and "wathaqah" (trustworthiness)[/u]

now he is saying that ibn alwaleed and sadooq are both right to exclude many narrators and at the end he said that he didn't agree with ibn alwaleed and sadooq exclusion of mohamed ibn issa ibn ubaid because of what ???? because he thinks he is thiqat !!!! if the argument was about other than wathaqa(trustworthiness ) and weakness then why would he mention that mohamed ibn issa ibn ubaid is thiqat ??? obviously he knew that ibn alwaleed only excludes the weak and leaves the thiqat.

sheikh tusi hints to this in a great manner in his iddah when he said :

واستثنوا الرجال من جملة ما رووه من التصانيف في فهارسهم حتى أنّ واحداً منهم إذا أنكر حديثاً نظر في أسناده وضعَّفه بروايته

and they (the mutaqaddimeen before sheikh tusi ) excluded the rijel(narrators) from what they narrated ... to a point that when one of them rejects a hadith he looks into its ISNAAD and weakened it (the isnaad) with its riwayat.

ref: iddat al-usool 366

so this is the manhaj of ibn alwaleed and if ibn alwaleed felt that ibrahim ibn hashim (ra) (one of the narrators of nawadir al-hikmah) was weak he would have excluded him without a second thought but he didn't so we say ibrahim ibn hashim was beyond any doubt thiqat according to ibn alwaleed and sadooq (ridhwan allah alaihim)

ps: just edited the post to add references Edited by Walid
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before we carry on with ibrahim ibn hashim(ra) and if brother farid doesn't mind i want to clarify few things about my view about abu hurairah:

I am not accusing abu hurairah of being an evil liar who's aim is to undermine islam as many think because he was that way then he wouldn't be able to narrate all these hadiths while other sahabah are alive , even the criticism from some sahabah was about few hadiths of abu hurairah not all his hadiths and this means that in general his hadith was accepted in general. some say maybe because of the propaganda machine of bani umayyah that hid every criticism of abu hurairah by sahabah and they leveated his status deliberately ! i say maybe but i don't have proof for this even though i cannot deny it but i also cannot confirm it so it's not scientific to base my arguments on "dhan" and speculation. so i will only use what is available to me.

my criticism of abu hurairah is about few things : his hadith is not always pure (naqi) and there's sometimes doubts that he heard from rasool allah (saww) what he claimed that he heard directly from him(saww). he claimed to be in places and times that he cannot be there. and others things.

i think he was too eager to narrate hadith of rasool allah that he got carried away.

now back to ibrahim ibn hashim(ra) so i wait for brother farid
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]I won't start by showing the usual arguments for his wathaqa and acceptance but i will only mention one great sign of his wathaqa and from mutaqaddimeen : He is thiqat according to ibn al-waleed and sheikh sadooq (radhiallahu anhuma) because sheikh ibn al-waleed didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah and you might ask what is his rule for this ??? [/quote]

Ah, this is an interesting point. Before continuing, I would like to ask for proof that Ibrahim bin Hashim is one of the narrators of [i]Nawadir Al-Hikmah. [/i]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313181653' post='96897']
[quote]I won't start by showing the usual arguments for his wathaqa and acceptance but i will only mention one great sign of his wathaqa and from mutaqaddimeen : He is thiqat according to ibn al-waleed and sheikh sadooq (radhiallahu anhuma) because sheikh ibn al-waleed didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah and you might ask what is his rule for this ??? [/quote]

Ah, this is an interesting point. Before continuing, I would like to ask for proof that Ibrahim bin Hashim is one of the narrators of [i]Nawadir Al-Hikmah. [/i]
[/quote]

well tusi only has nawadir al-hikmah from the books of al-ash'ari ( see fehrest) so everything he narrated in [u]tahdheeb from al-ash'arai is from his book nawadir al-hikmah[/u] and there's narrations from al-ash'ari from ibrahim ibn hashim in tahdheeb. also sadooq only narrate from al-ash'ari (the writer of nawadir al-hikmah ) what was in nawadir al-hikmah as he himself said in " man la yahdhuruhu al-faqeeh"

sorry for late answer as i was watching a program on Tunisian TV ( it was rubbish anyway )

ps: edited to correct the underlined part Edited by Walid
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just to help readers understand better here's what sadooq (ra) said about the books he used in faqeeh :

وجميع ما فيه مستخرج من كتب مشهورة، عليها المعول وإليها المرجع، مثل كتاب حريز بن عبد الله السجستاني (2) وكتاب عبيد الله بن علي الحلبي (3) وكتب على بن مهزيار الاهوازي (4)، وكتب الحسين بن سعيد (5)، ونوادر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى (6)[u] وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران[/u] الاشعري

the underlined part he said: ..and the nawadir al-hikmah compiled by mohamed ibn ahmed ibn yahya ibn imran al-ash'ari

now we go to tusi where he said that he only have nawadir al-hikmah by al-ash'ari and none of his other books because this is the only book he mentioned :

محمد بن احمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري القمي، جليل القدر، كثير الرواية. له كتاب نوادر الحكمة، وهو يشتمل على كتب جماعة: اولها كتاب التوحيد، وكتاب الوضؤ، وكتاب الصلاة، وكتاب الزكاة، وكتاب الصوم، وكتاب الحج، وكتاب النكاح، وكتاب الطلاق، وكتاب الانبياء، وكتاب مناقب الرجال، وكتاب فضل العرب، وكتاب فضل العربية والعجمية، وكتاب الوصايا والصدقة، وكتاب النحل والهبات، وكتاب السكني، وكتاب الاوقات، وكتاب الفرائض، وكتاب الايمان والنذور والكفارات، وكتاب العتق والتدبير والولا والمكاتب وامهات الاولاد، وكتاب الحدود والديات، وكتاب الشهادات، وكتاب القضايا والاحكام، العدد اثنان و عشرون كتابا. [u]اخبرنا بجميع كتبه ورواياته[/u] عدة من اصحابنا، عن ابي المفضل، عن ابن بطة القمي، عن محمد بن احمد بن يحيى. واخبرنا بها ايضا الحسين بن عبيدالله وابن ابي جيد جميعا، عن احمد ابن محمد بن يحيى، عن ابيه، عن محمد بن احمد بن يحيى. واخبرنا بها جماعة، عن ابي جعفر ابن بابويه، عن ابيه و محمد بن الحسن، عن احمد بن ادريس ومحمد بن يحيى، عنه.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m020/23/no2324.html

here sheikh tusi said that he has the book of nawadir and this book is composed of 22 books . he didn't mention any other books. Edited by Walid
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's a narration from man layadhuruhu al-faqeeh where sadooq said:

وهذا الخبر[color="#FF0000"] في كتاب محمد بن أحمد يرويه عن إبراهيم بن هاشم[/color] باسناده يرفعه إلى أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام).

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0994.html

translation: and this khabar is [color="#FF0000"]in the book of mohamed ibn ahmed he narrated it from ibrahim ibn hashim[/color] with his isnaad raised till abu abdilleh.

see page 153

sorry about this. i think we need more time for editing posts!
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313194736' post='96912']
Interesting thoughts Walid.



[quote] well tusi only has nawadir al-hikmah from the books of al-ash'ari ( see fehrest) so everything he narrated in tahdheeb from al-ash'arai is from his book nawadir al-hikmah and there's narrations from al-ash'ari from ibrahim ibn hashim in tahdheeb.[/quote]



Honestly, this is a strange view to have as a Shi’ee, since it is hard to assume that all those narrators are accepted as [i]thiqaat[/i]. I mean, that would definitely include hundreds of narrators.



Hundreds of narrators including two of my favorite, [b]Anas bin Malik[/b] and [b]Abdullah bin Omar[/b].



See Tahtheebul Ahkaam 2/399 Hadith #305:



[b][u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى[/u][/b][b][size=4] عن أبي جعفر النحوي عن أبي الجوزاء عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن خلاد عن عاصم بن أبي النجود الاسدي عن [/size][/b][b][u][size=4]ابن عمر[/size][/u][/b][b][size=4] عن الحسن بن علي عليه السلام[/size][/b][b][size=4]...[/size][/b]



Rough translation: [u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u] from Abi Ja’afar Al-Nahawi from Abi Al-Jawz’a from Al-Hussain bin Ilwan from Amr bin Khalad from Asim bin Abi Najud from [u]Ibn Omar[/u] from Al-Hasan bin Ali…





Also, see Tahtheebul Ahkaam 6/1479 Hadith #15:



[right][b][u][size=4]عنه[/size][/u][/b][b][size=4] عن سلمة بن الخطاب عن علي بن سيف عن سليمان ابن عمرو بن ابي عياش عن [u]انس بن مالك[/u][/size][/b][b][size=4]...[/size][/b][/right]

[right][b][size=4] [/size][/b][/right]

[left][right]Rough translation: [u]From him (Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya)[/u] from Salama bin Al-Khataab from Ali bin Saif from Sulaiman bin Amr bin abi Ayyash from [u]Anas bin Malik[/u]...[/left][/right]
[b][size=4] [/size][/b]

Are you still sure that every narrator in that isn’t excluded from this book is a [i]thiqa?[/i]
[/quote]

hmm ok good strike farid :wink:

I was wrong in mentioning sheikh tusi because when i read carefully he said that he got[u] all[/u] the books [u]and narrations [/u] of mohamed ibn ahmed :

اخبرنا[u] بجميع[/u] كتبه و[u]رواياته
[/u]

he said we were informed about [u]ALL[/u] his books and [u]NARRATIONS[/u].
so he had access to more than just nawadir al-hikmah contrary to what i thought earlier.

Also najashi mentioned other books by al-ash'ari so if sheikh tusi said : all books then it means more than just nawadir and this is my mistake.
so our case lies completely with sadooq as he said clearly that he only used nawadir al-hikmah by al-ash'ari not any other book.

It was a good uppercut farid though!
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=4][quote][/size]
so our case lies completely with sadooq as he said clearly that he only used nawadir al-hikmah by al-ash'ari not any other book.[/quote]



This too isn’t necessarily correct. It is clear that Al-Saduq quoted from other books by Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya.



Notice the following chains that Al-Saduq uses in Al-Faqeeh:



See Mashyakhatul Faqeeh (p. 142, Darul Hadi):

وما كان فيه عن مروان بن مسلم، فقد رويته: عن أبي رضي الله عنه، عن محمد بن يحيى العطار[u]، عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، عن سهل بن زياد...[/u]



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Marwan bin Muslim, I’ve narrated through: My father from Mohammed bin Yahya Al-Attar from [b][u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u][/b][u] [/u]from[u] [b]Sahl bin Ziyad[/b]...[/u]



Then again (p. 197):

وما كان فيه عن عبد الله بن القاسم، فقد رويته عن الحسين بن أحمد بن إدريس رضي الله عنه، عن أبيه، عن [u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، قال: حدثنا أبو عبد الله الرازي[/u]...



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Abdullah bin Al-Qassim, I’ve narrated through: Al-Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idrees from his father from [u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u] from [b][u]Abu Abdullah Al-Razi...[/u][/b]



And one more time (p. 235):

وما كان فيه عن عبد الله بن الحكم فقد رويته عن الحسين بن أحمد بن إدريس رضي الله عنه، عن أبيه، عن [u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، عن سهل بن زياد...[/u]



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Abdullah bin Al-Hakam, I’ve narrated through: Al-Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idrees from his father from [u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u] from[u] [b]Sahl bin Ziyad...[/b][/u]



Keep in mind that both Sahl bin Ziyad and Abu Abdullah Al-Razi have been removed from Nawadir Al-Hikma according to Al-Tusi in his Fihrist (p. 175).
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313203920' post='96923']
[size=4][quote][/size]
so our case lies completely with sadooq as he said clearly that he only used nawadir al-hikmah by al-ash'ari not any other book.[/quote]



This too isn’t necessarily correct. It is clear that Al-Saduq quoted from other books by Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya.



Notice the following chains that Al-Saduq uses in Al-Faqeeh:



See Mashyakhatul Faqeeh (p. 142, Darul Hadi):

وما كان فيه عن مروان بن مسلم، فقد رويته: عن أبي رضي الله عنه، عن محمد بن يحيى العطار[u]، عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، عن سهل بن زياد...[/u]



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Marwan bin Muslim, I’ve narrated through: My father from Mohammed bin Yahya Al-Attar from [b][u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u][/b][u] [/u]from[u] [b]Sahl bin Ziyad[/b]...[/u]



Then again (p. 197):

وما كان فيه عن عبد الله بن القاسم، فقد رويته عن الحسين بن أحمد بن إدريس رضي الله عنه، عن أبيه، عن [u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، قال: حدثنا أبو عبد الله الرازي[/u]...



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Abdullah bin Al-Qassim, I’ve narrated through: Al-Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idrees from his father from [u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u] from [b][u]Abu Abdullah Al-Razi...[/u][/b]



And one more time (p. 235):

وما كان فيه عن عبد الله بن الحكم فقد رويته عن الحسين بن أحمد بن إدريس رضي الله عنه، عن أبيه، عن [u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى، عن سهل بن زياد...[/u]



Rough translation: Whatever I narrate from Abdullah bin Al-Hakam, I’ve narrated through: Al-Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idrees from his father from [u]Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya[/u] from[u] [b]Sahl bin Ziyad...[/b][/u]



Keep in mind that both Sahl bin Ziyad and Abu Abdullah Al-Razi have been removed from Nawadir Al-Hikma according to Al-Tusi in his Fihrist (p. 175).
[/quote]

no farid ! when sadooq says mohamed ibn yahya then he is narrating from nawadir al-hikmah only but this doesn't mean that he didn't have other books [u]by others[/u] that include mohamed ibn yahya as a narrator in their books, he himself said that[u] whatever he narrates FROM mohamed ibn ahmed ibn yahya[/u]meaning when the hadith in faqeeh starts with( mohamed ibn ahmed ) then it's from his father and[u] mohamed ibn al-hasan ibn al-waleed[/u] from mohamed ibn yahya al-attar and ahmed ibn idrees from [u]mohamed ibn ahmed ibn yahya al-ash'ari[/u]

here's the original text in arabic where he said this :

و[u]ما كان فيه عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران ، الأشعري[/u] :
فقد رويته عن أبي ، و[u]محمد بن الحسن[/u] ، رضي الله عنهما :
عن محمد بن يحيى العطار ، وأحمد بن إدريس :
جميعا : عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران ، الأشعري .

Now someone might ask : what if al-sadooq(ra) had the whole book of nawadir because there's his father also narrating it alongside ibn al-waleed then we say yes very probable but this doesn't change anything because sadooq can use weak hadiths that are in line with our beliefs as he sees them so he can use narrations of sahl ibn ziad and others that were excluded from nawadir al-hikmah by ibn al-waleed but this doesn't change the fact that he still believed they are weak because the list of exclusions of ibn al-waleed is well known and it's also well-known that sadooq agrees with ibn al-waleed on this.

our aim is to prove that ibrahim ibn hashim is in nawadir al-hikmah that's all and in faqih he said clearly that he is :

[quote]
here's a narration from man layadhuruhu al-faqeeh where sadooq said:

وهذا الخبر في[color="#FF0000"] كتاب محمد بن أحمد[/color] يرويه عن [color="#FF0000"]إبراهيم بن هاشم[/color] باسناده يرفعه إلى أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام).

http://www.yasoob.co.../09/no0994.html

translation: and this khabar is in [color="#FF0000"]the book[/color] of mohamed ibn ahmed [color="#FF0000"]he narrated it from ibrahim ibn hashim[/color] with his isnaad raised till abu abdilleh.

see page 153
[/quote]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to add that this argument about exclusion of ibn al-walid and their weight in tawtheeq( considering a narrator trustworthy and "tadh'eef "(considering a narrator weak ) is not just my brain child neither is the fact that Ibrahim ibn hashim is in nawadir al-hikmah so i give you view of some scholars who said this:

Noori al-Tabarasi
Khaatimah al-Mustadarak, vol 4 page 35 where he said about ibrahim ibn hashim :

ولم يستثنوه عن رواة كتابه نوادر الحكمة

and they didn't exclude him from narrators of his book nawadir al-hikmah.

Al-jawahiri said in jawahir al-kalam v 4 page 8 where he said :

، وعدم استثناء محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد إياه من رجال نوادر الحكمة في من استثنى

and that mohamed ibn alhassan ibn alwaleed didn't exclude him from rijel nawadir al-hikmah amongst those he excluded.

also bahr al-uloom and others held this view

just want readers to know that this is not something i dreamed or invented.

ws Edited by Walid
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to add more scholars view that are relevant to this issue :

al-Astarabaadee, alTaleeqah ala al-IstibSaar page 17
موسى بن جعفر البغدادى يروى عنه محمّد بن احمد بن يحيى كما هو طريق الشيخ اليه فى الفهرست و عدم ادخال محمّد بن الحسن بن الوليد إيّاه فى المستثنين من رجال نوادر
الحكمة يدلّ على كونه صحيح الحديث م ح ق.

translation: musa ibn jafar al-baghdadi from whom narrated MOHAMED IBN AHMED IBN YAHYA AL-ASH'ARI as it is tareeq sheikh to him in fehrest and the fact that mohamed ibn alhasan ibn al-waleed didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah is proof that he is sahih al-hadith ( his hadith is authentic.

al-Astarabaadee, alTaleeqah ala al-IstibSaar, page 34
و عمران بن موسى من النجاشي و عدم ادخاله فى المستثنين من رجال نوادر الحكمة يشهد بجلالته
imran ibn musa from najashi and the fact that he is not excluded from rijel nawadir al-hikmah is testomony for his greatness(or high status )


Sayyid aHmad al-Aamulee, Minhaaj al-Akhyaar, vol 1 page 85:
قال النّجاشى له كتاب نوادر و فى الفهرست ان محمّد بن احمد بن يحيى يروى عنه كتابه و على هذا فعدم استثنآء محمّد بن الحسن بن الوليد ايّاه من رجال نوادر الحكمة دليل جلالته
و على هذا فعدم استثنآء محمّد بن الحسن بن الوليد ايّاه من رجال نوادر الحكمة دليل جلالته و حسن حاله

najashi said he has book of nawadir (other than nawadir al-hikmah : the talk is about different book) and in "fehrest" that mohamed ibn ahmed ibn yahya narrated from his his book and the fact that mohamed ibn al-hassan ibn al-waleed didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah is proof for his "jalalah( greatness ) and goodness of his hadith.

al-Sabzawaaree, Dhakeerah al-Ma'aad, vol 2 page 191:
و في طريق هذه الرواية موسى بن جعفر البغدادي و هو غير موثق لكنه لم يستثن فيما استثنى من رجال نوادر الحكمة و لعل ذلك في إشعار بحسن حاله

al-Sabzawaaree, Dhakeerah al-Ma`aad, vol 2 page 233:
و الراوي عنه غير مصرّح بالتوثيق إلا أن له كتابا يرويه محمد بن علي بن محبوب و عدم استثنائه فيما استثنى من رجال نوادر الحكمة مشعر بحسن حاله

and the narrator is not muwathaq clearly but he has a book narrated by mohamed ibn ali ibn mahboob and he was not excluded from rijel nawadir al-hikmah gives a feeling about his goodness (in hadith )

al-WaHeed al-Bihbahaani, al-Haashiyyah `ala Madaarik al-aHkaam, vol. 2, pg. 334:
إلّا أنّه لم يستثن من رجال نوادر الحكمة، مع أنّه يروي عنه، و فيه شهادة على وثاقته

but he didn't (ibn al-waleed he means ) didn't exclude him from nawadir al-hikmah even though he narrates from him and this is testimony for his trustworthiness.

al-WaHeed al-Bihbahaani, MiSbaaH al-Dhulaam, vol 6 page 253:
مع أنّ الأصل و الظاهر عدم السقط في السند، و كذا عدم التحريف و الاشتباه، و غير ذلك، فتأمّل جدّا! مع أنّ محمّد المذكور ممّن يروي عنه في «نوادر الحكمة»، و لم يستثن القميّون رواياته عنه.
و هذا دليل على صحّة أحاديثه عندهم، بل و عدالته أيضا،

i translate the relevant part : even though this mohamed mentioned is from whom it was nararted in nawadir al-hikmah and the "qommis " didn't exclude him from his (mohamed ibn ahmed ) from him is proof of his trustworthiness but more than that : his "adalat" (justness)

MuHsin al-Hakeem, Mustamsak Urwah al-Wuthqa, vol 5 page 310:
في سنده من يتوقف منه عدا عمر بن علي بن عمر، و في رواية محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عنه مع عدم استثناء القميين روايته من كتاب نوادر الحكمة نوع شهادة على وثاقته.

mohsen alhakim agreed also here saying not excluding someone from nawadir is some sort of testimony for trustworthiness

MuHsin al-Hakeem, Mustamsak `Urwah al-Wuthqa, vol 8 page 80 ruling 49:
برواية الشيخ (ره) له عن كتاب نوادر الحكمة، و لم يستثن القميون من رواياته مثله، فدل ذلك على اعتمادهم عليه و كفى به مصححاً.

he (mohsen al-amin) also said that not excluding a narrator is enough sign of sihhat al-hadith

ps : This is manqool ( copied )so i only did translation so i welcome any correction be it in references or in translation Edited by Walid
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.