Wasil

LOCKED Munazara: Farid vs Wasil (Walid)

412 posts in this topic

[quote] just want readers to know that this is not something i dreamed or invented.[/quote]



I will admit that you are correct about that. You aren’t the first to argue the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibrahim bin Hashim due to his existence in Nawadir Al-Hikma. However, I don’t think that there is anyone that has argued that we can only know the chains of Al-Nawadir through Al-Saduq alone. If you are going to continue with this argument, that the narrators of Nawadir Al-Hikma are all acceptable, then I would like you to present proof that the scholars only relied on Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh for this.



You see, even the scholars that you quoted in your favour contradict you in your understanding of this rule.



You said:



[quote] 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 )[/quote]



Imran bin Musa didn’t narrate hadiths in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but he narrated hadiths in Tatheebul Ahkaam and Al-Istibsaar.



[quote]
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.[/quote]



Al-Waheed is talking about Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi, another narrator that isn’t in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but rather, in Tahtheebul Ahkaam and Al-Istibsaar, from the narration of Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya.



[quote] 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[/quote]



Muhsin Al-Hakeem also says:

[size=4] [/size]

[b][size=4]والتوقف فيه لان في سنده محمد بن أحمد العلوي غير ظاهر، لتصحيح العلامة حديثه فيما عن المختلف والمنتهى، وعدم إستثناء القميين حديثه من كتاب نوادر الحكمة[/size][/b][size=4][/size]



Rough translation: And stopping because of the inclusion of Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi isn’t acceptable, due to Al-Alamah strengthening him, and because he wasn’t excluded from Nawadir Al-Hikma.



It goes without saying that Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi isn’t in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but rather, in Al-Istibsaar and Tahtheebul Ahkaam.

So, I conclude this point, once again, by saying that your understanding of this rule conflicts with the understanding of the scholars that you quoted. They believe that the existence of these narrators in the chains of Al-Tusi in Al-Tahtheeb and Al-Istibsaar is sufficient to assume that these narrators are from Nawadir Al-Hikma.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SALAM ALAYKOM

Jazakallah khiaran for the effort . i am now a bit busy with something and i will answer all your points inshallah later on tonight or tomorrow. it depends!

tc for now
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313267272' post='96967']
[quote] just want readers to know that this is not something i dreamed or invented.[/quote]



I will admit that you are correct about that. You aren’t the first to argue the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibrahim bin Hashim due to his existence in Nawadir Al-Hikma. However, I don’t think that there is anyone that has argued that we can only know the chains of Al-Nawadir through Al-Saduq alone. If you are going to continue with this argument, that the narrators of Nawadir Al-Hikma are all acceptable, then I would like you to present proof that the scholars only relied on Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh for this.



You see, even the scholars that you quoted in your favour contradict you in your understanding of this rule.



You said:



[quote] 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 )[/quote]



Imran bin Musa didn’t narrate hadiths in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but he narrated hadiths in Tatheebul Ahkaam and Al-Istibsaar.



[quote]
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.[/quote]



Al-Waheed is talking about Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi, another narrator that isn’t in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but rather, in Tahtheebul Ahkaam and Al-Istibsaar, from the narration of Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya.



[quote] 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[/quote]



Muhsin Al-Hakeem also says:

[size=4] [/size]

[b][size=4]والتوقف فيه لان في سنده محمد بن أحمد العلوي غير ظاهر، لتصحيح العلامة حديثه فيما عن المختلف والمنتهى، وعدم إستثناء القميين حديثه من كتاب نوادر الحكمة[/size][/b][size=4][/size]



Rough translation: And stopping because of the inclusion of Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi isn’t acceptable, due to Al-Alamah strengthening him, and because he wasn’t excluded from Nawadir Al-Hikma.



It goes without saying that Mohammed bin Ahmad Al-Alawi isn’t in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, but rather, in Al-Istibsaar and Tahtheebul Ahkaam.

So, I conclude this point, once again, by saying that your understanding of this rule conflicts with the understanding of the scholars that you quoted. They believe that the existence of these narrators in the chains of Al-Tusi in Al-Tahtheeb and Al-Istibsaar is sufficient to assume that these narrators are from Nawadir Al-Hikma.
[/quote]

salam alaykom

the scholars i quoted is just to show the weight of exclusions and non-exclusions of narrators from nawadir al-hikmah by ibn al-waleed NOT that i agree that whatever is narrated in other books is all from nawadir al-hikmah by mohamed ibn ahmed ibn issa because it's a fact that mohamed ibn ahmed had other books that were narrated and other narrations. I din't say alfaqeeh is the only source of nawadir al-hikmah but it is the clear-cut proof that whatever is in alfaqeeh from mohamed ibn yahya is from nawadir al-hikmah.

for other books and without the narrators or compilers saying clearly : this is from nawadir al-hikmah because otherwise nobody can prove that the narration of moahmed ibn ahmed is from nawadir al-hikmah. it's obvious that some of our scholars fell into the same mistake i did in the beginning by assuming that whatever is in tahdheeb for instance from mohamed ibn yahya is from nawadir al-hikmah. this mistake can be made because there's some ambiguity in the words of sheikh tusi in his feshrest as he said mentioned in the beginning that only nawadir al-hikmah then he said : i was informed of [u]ALL HIS BOOKS AND NARRATIONS [/u](books and narrations of mohamed ibn ahmed the writer of nawadir) . also tusi said : the book nawadir al-hikmah is formed of 22 BOOKS so it's easy to assume that the books he said he was informed about later on in the paragraph refer only to these books of nawadir al-hikmah but when reading carefully he said: All his book not all THESE BOOK or just this book(nawadir al-hikmah).

but in man layadhuruhu alfaqeeh sadooq only reported hadith mohamed ibn ahmed in nawadir al-hikmah by mentioning this because there's other narrations from mohamed ibn ahmed from other books by other writers and narrators.

So without the narrators saying : this is from nawadir al-hikmah from mohamed ibn ahmed otherwise you and even our scholars cannot prove that such and such hadith is from nawadir al-hikmah because the book is not available to muta'akhireen (the later scholars ).

this confusion led some scholars to not rely on the way of ibn alwaleed in dealing with narrators of nawadir al-hikmah because of the same mistake of thinking tusi is only relying on nawadir al-hikmah when narrating from mohamed ibn ahmed when he has tareeq to a narrator that goes through mohamed ibn ahmed etc ..

as for this argument of yours :

[quote]
Anyways, I carry on with my criticism surrounding this rule.



One of those cases of your rule of Nawadir Al-Hikmah being the narrations of Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya in Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh includes Mohammed bin Sinan.



In Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh (1/252) we find the following:



في كتاب محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الأشعري عن إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن محمد بن سنان



Rough translation: In the book of Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin Imran Al-Ash’ari from Ibrahim bin Hashim from Mohammed bin Sinan…



As you are aware, Mohammed bin Sinan is one of the weakest narrators around. He has been accused of lying by more than one scholar, like Ibnul Ghadha’iri and Al-Fadhl bin Shathaan. Of course, he has been unanimously declared weak by your other scholars.

Plus, there is a statement by Al-Saduq himself in Uyoon Akhbar Al-Redha in which he implies that the hadith is a fabrication by Mohammed bin Sinan.



He says (p. 453):

روي هذا الحديث كما حكيت وأنا بريء من عهدة صحته



Rough translation: “This hadith is narrated like this and I am free from its authenticity.”



Of course, we can assume that this hadith is weak due to Ibrahim bin Hashim instead of Mohammed bin Sinan, if you’d like. You know that option will always be on the table.



Plus, there are other narrators that have been condemned that can be found in Nawadir Al-Hikma:



Al-Ardabeeli said in I’ilaam Al-Wara:



وروى محمد بن أحمد ين يحيى في كتاب نوادر الحكمة عن موسى بن جعفر عن أمية بن علي



Ummayah bin Ali was weakened by Ibn Al-Ghadha’iri and Al-Najashi.



It is due to these conflicts that the other scholars of Shia hadith sciences said the following:


Mohammed Salih Al-Tabrizi said in his Buhooth fi Mabani Ilmul Rijal (p. 145):



والصحيح أنه لا دلالة لعدم الإستثناء على التوثيق



Rough translation: And it is true that not excluding (from Nawadir Al-Hikma) implies strengthening (a narrator).



Al-Khoei said in his Mu’jam (15/54):



بأن إعتماد ابن الوليد لا يكشف عن حسن هؤلاء، فضلًا عن وثاقتهم، إذ لعله كان يبني على أصالة العدالة والعمل برواية كل شيعي لم يظهر منه فسق.



Rough translation: Ibn Al-Waleed including them doesn’t imply their goodness or their trustworthiness, for he may have been doing this upon the concept of asl al-adala (that every Muslim is acceptable unless proven otherwise) and to accept the narration of every Shi’ee that doesn’t appear to be corrupt.



Al-Mazindari agreed in Miqyas Al-Ruwat (p. 166):

والظاهر أن كلامه متين وإشكاله في محله. فإن استثناء ابن الوليد بعض رجال النوادر، لما ثبت له من جرحهم أو لقرائن موجبة لسقوط رواياتهم عن الاعتبار عنده، ليس بمعنى شهادته على وثاقة ساير رجاله.



Rough translation: And his (Al-Khoei’s ) words seem good and in its place. For Ibnul Waleed excluding people from Al-Nawadir, due to their weakness, or other reasons that cause their hadiths to not be accepted, does NOT mean that the rest are authentic.



In other words, a narrator is excluded due to clear weakness.

Does his inclusion make him trustworthy?

No, it doesn’t, since he can still be an anonymous narrator, since anonymity does not equate weakness.[/quote]

Now farid this doesn't show anything apart from that ibn sinan as weak as he is was considered thiqat by ibn al-waleed . this is not just ibn al-waleed but even al-mufeed (ts) [u]in one of his sayings [/u] considered mohamed ibn sinan thiqat and even above wathaqa.

But this doesn't mean mohamed ibn sinan is thiqat but he is weak and a liar but obviously not according to ibn al-waleed unfortunately .

this is common in your school of thought : look at the narrators abu salt alharawi

he was accused of lies and was called impure rafidhi and weak by most but one of sunni sultans of rijel yahya ibn mu'een disagreed with them and even visited him in his house as said abu dawood al-sijistani.

I can give countless examples where sunni narrators or narrators found in sunni books of hadiths with almost an ijma'a upon their weakness but a big scholar or tow say : no he is thiqat.

was ibn alwaleed wrong about ibn sinan ?? no doubt but this is his view.

now the case against ibn sinan and others that are weak is strong and override tawtheeq ibn al-waleed (ra )

so mohamed ibn sinan is :

thiqat according to ibn alwaleed

but :

weak according to most and his jarh is mufassar (criticism explained ) and this jarh mufassar is stronger than tawtheeq ( deeming a narrators trustworthy )

so this mean that he is weak because of qara'in( proofs) that tawtheeq ibn alwaleed is not enough to stand against them.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this part is incomplete:

[quote]alfaqeeh from mohamed ibn yahya is from nawadir al-hikmah.[/quote]

i meant : whatever is alfaqeeh from mohamed ibn ahmed (not yahya ) is from nawadir al-hikmah

ps: i was late in answering because of some conjunctivitis i had for few days now and i cannot read for a long time or concentrate for a long time. My friends said i look like a vampire now!!!
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another point I wanted to bring up is that early scholars didn’t hold the opinion. Notice that the scholars that held this theory came pretty late.




Al-Nuri Al-Tabrasi (d. 1320 AH)

Al-Jawahri (d. 1997)

Al-Astarbadi (d. 1041)

Al-Amili (11[sup]th[/sup] century scholar)

Al-Sabzawari (d. 1090 AH)

Al-Waheed Al-Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH)

Muhsin Al-Hakeem (d. 1970)



All those that you have quoted are pretty late in the game. It seems as though this theory wasn’t accepted until around seven hundred years after the exclusion of narrators from Nawadir Al-Hikma by Ibnul Waleed.



We can also tell, but the actions and statements of earlier scholars don’t imply that they held this understanding.



Take for example, Al-Tusi, we find him saying in Al-Istibsaar (3/699):



على ان هذا الخبر مرسل منقطع وطريقه محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد عن يونس وهو ضعيف، وقد استثناه أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بابويه رحمه الله من جملة الرجال الذين روى عنهم صاحب نوادر الحكمة



Rough translation: This narration is disconnected, and in it is Mohammed bin Eisa bin Obaid from Yunus, and he is weak, and Abu Ja’afar Mohammed ibn Ali bin Al-Hussain bin Babuwaih removed him from the narrators of Nawadir Al-Hikma.



Al-Tusi also says something similar about Sahl bin Ziyad (3/775).



Yet, we don’t ever find Al-Tusi ever saying, “So and so is trustworthy because Ibnul Waleed didn’t remove him from Nawadir Al-Hikma.”



Nor do we find scholars that came slightly later, like Ibn Tawus, Al-Alamah Al-Hilli, or Ibn Dawud using these arguments. It seems that this understanding was formed much later.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shukran farid

i disagree because my first point when i started was that mutaqaddimeen believed this :
[quote]
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.co.../23/no2320.html

see page 348 from rijel alnajashi

And our sheikh was correct 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 "adalat"(up righteousness ) and "wathaqah" (trustworthiness) [/quote]

also what i postedearlier from sheikh al-tusi (ra) :

[quote]
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[/quote]

I cannot think of any book befitting of this more than nawadir alhikmah and the experience of ibn alwaleed with it

also let's look together : If ibn alwaleed was just accepting narrations based on just the matn then why did he exclude all narrations by mohamed ibn issa ibn ubaid and others. instead of excluding narrators completely he would have excluded what he believed were weak narrations matnan don't you think ? Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] 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

[url="http://www.yasoob.co.../23/no2320.html"]http://www.yasoob.co.../23/no2320.html[/url]

see page 348 from rijel alnajashi

And our sheikh was correct 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 "adalat"(up righteousness ) and "wathaqah" (trustworthiness)[/quote]


Here, we see Ibn Nuh saying that Mohammed bin Eisa shouldn't be excluded because he is a [i]thiqa[/i]. This doesn't mean that everyone that was included was a [i]thiqa[/i]. It just means that those that were excluded were weak.

[quote]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[/quote]

Neither does this imply that whoever is left is a [i]thiqa[/i].

Not commenting on a narration or extracting a narrator due to not finding rejected narrations doesn't mean that they are trustworthy. Edited by Farid
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313370056' post='97047']
[quote] 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

[url="http://www.yasoob.co.../23/no2320.html"]http://www.yasoob.co.../23/no2320.html[/url]

see page 348 from rijel alnajashi

And our sheikh was correct 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 "adalat"(up righteousness ) and "wathaqah" (trustworthiness)[/quote]


Here, we see Ibn Nuh saying that Mohammed bin Eisa shouldn't be excluded because he is a [i]thiqa[/i]. This doesn't mean that everyone that was included was a [i]thiqa[/i]. It just means that those that were excluded were weak.

[quote]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[/quote]

Neither does this imply that whoever is left is a [i]thiqa[/i].

Not commenting on a narration or extracting a narrator due to not finding rejected narrations doesn't mean that they are trustworthy.
[/quote]
here we differ abul abbas ibn nooh spoke about wathqa of ibn ubaid so why would he mention wathqa if this was not the manhaj of ibn alwaleed?? he said he was right to exclude everybody he excluded but not ibn ubaid because he's thiqat according to ibn nooh !! in other words he is saying : ok i agree thatall people who were excluded were weak but ibn ubaid is thiqat so how come ibn alwaleed excluded him ??

as for second part about words of najashi then it shows that mutaqaddimeen looked into isnad and weakened the weak as he himself said elsewhere in iddah. but yes this particular quote can be understood in the way you might understood it if you meant that sheikh tusi might mean that they (our early scholars) look into isnaads only when hadith doesn't sound right to them . so maybe it's my mistake that i didn't show the whole paragraph so here it is :

إنا وجدنا الطائفة ميزت الرجال الناقلة لهذه الاخبار، ووثقت الثقات منهم، وضعفت الضعفاء، وفرقوا بين من يعتمد على حديثه وروايته، ومن لا يعتمد على خبره، ومدحوا الممدوح منهم وذموا المذموم، وقالوا: فلان متهم في حديثه، وفلان كذاب، وفلان مخلط، وفلان مخالف في المذهب والاعتقاد، وفلان واقفي، وفلان فطحي، وغير ذلك من الطعون التي ذكروها. وصنفوا في ذلك الكتب واستثنوا الرجال من جملة ما رووه من التصانيف في فهارسهم، حتى أن واحداً منهم إذا أنكر حديثاً طعن في إسناده وضعفه بروايته. هذه عادتهم على قديم الوقت وحديثه لا تنخرم

so he said in the beginning : we saw the sect differentiating rijel that narrate akhbar so they deemed the trustworthy as trustworthy and the weak as weak and they differentiated between those upon whom the narration is to be relied upon and those whom narrations are not to be relied upon ....etc

as for your quote about sheikh sadooq about ibn sinan he is just saying : i cannot bear the responsibility of authenticating this narration.
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] as for your quote about sheikh sadooq about ibn sinan he is just saying : i cannot bear the responsibility of authenticating this narration.[/quote]

So, the narration is weak because of...?


You have a few choices:

1- Al-Saduq weakened this narration due to Mohammed bin Sinan.
2- Al-Saduq weakened this narration due to Ibrahim bin Hashim.

Either way, this is clear proof that Al-Saduq didn't accept all the narrators included in Nawadir Al-Hikma as [i]thiqa. [/i] Edited by Farid
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313374085' post='97051']
[quote] as for your quote about sheikh sadooq about ibn sinan he is just saying : i cannot bear the responsibility of authenticating this narration.[/quote]

So, the narration is weak because of...?


You have a few choices:

1- Al-Saduq weakened this narration due to Mohammed bin Sinan.
2- Al-Saduq weakened this narration due to Ibrahim bin Hashim.

Either way, this is clear proof that Al-Saduq didn't accept all the narrators included in Nawadir Al-Hikma as [i]thiqa. [/i]
[/quote]

both choices are incorrect :smile:

The matn seemed weird according to sheikh sadooq that's all

this is not the only hadith of mohamed ibn sinan in uyoon akhbaral-ridha.
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you change your mind that fast? I recall a private conversation earlier in which you said that Al-Saduq went against Ibnul Waleed when he chose to weaken Mohammed bin Sinan.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313392743' post='97062']
Did you change your mind that fast? I recall a private conversation earlier in which you said that Al-Saduq went against Ibnul Waleed when he chose to weaken Mohammed bin Sinan.
[/quote]

didn't you do this once farid ? heads up eh?!!! :smile:

but no farid i didn't change my mind but i read the hadith already and it seems ghareeb so the case for sadooq disagreeing with ibn alwaleed seems speculative. so i chose to post what i am inclined towards based on stronger evidence. Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how this slipped by me. I just realized your earlier "argument" as to why one should only rely on Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh.

You argued the following:

[quote] 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) وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري

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


I think it would be more beneficial to continue the quote by Al-Saduq:

وجميع ما فيه مستخرج من كتب مشهورة، عليها المعول وإليها المرجع، [u][size="5"]مثل[/size][/u] كتاب حريز بن عبدالله 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) وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف [b][u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري(7)[/u][/b] وكتاب الرحمة لسعد بن عبدالله(1) وجامع شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد رضي الله عنه(2) ونوادر محمد بن أبي عمير(3) وكتب المحاسن لاحمد بن أبي عبدالله البرقي(4) ورسالة أبي - رضي الله عنه -[b][size="4"][u] إلي وغيرها من الاصول والمصنفات[/u][/size][/b] التي طرقي إليها معروفة في فهرس الكتب التي رويتها(5) عن مشايخي وأسلافي

Rough translation: Everything in it (Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh) has been extracted from famous works, that are relied upon, [size="4"][u][b]like[/b][/u][/size] the book of Huraiz bin Abdullah Al-Sijistani, the book of Ubaidullah bin Ali Al-Halabi, the books of Ali bin Mihzayar, the books of Al-Hussain bin Sa'eed, Nawadir Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Eisa, Nawadir Al-Hikma by Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin Imran Al-Ash'ari, the Al-Rahma by Sa'ad bin Abdullah, the Jami' of Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed, Nawadir Mohamed bin Abi Umair, the book of Mahasin by Ahmad bin Abi Abdullah Al-Barqi, and the letter of my father, [u][b][size="4"]and other [i]usool [/i]and books[/size][/b][/u] that I have mentioned my path to through my [i]mashayikh[/i] and predecessors.



Nothing here implies that the books mentioned above are the only books that were used. The authors that are mentioned here had more than one book, and there is no reason that Al-Saduq quoted from the ones that he mentioned exclusively.

This is similar to a Sunni scholar saying, "I quoted from major Sunni books like Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, and others!" Does that mean that he didn't quote from Al-Adab Al-Mufrad by Al-Bukhari or Fadha'il Al-Sahaba by Imam Ahmad? There is no reason to assume this. He mentioned Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad because those are the most famous book written by that particular author.


No wonder you are the only person that ended up in a category of your own Walid.


The categories of how the exclusion of narrators from Nawadir Al-Hikma are as follows:

1- Those that don't hold the view that inclusion equals [i]tawtheeq[/i]. (i.e. Al-Khoei, Al-Mazindrani, etc)

2- Those that hold the view that inclusion equals [i]tawtheeq[/i].
a- Those that holds the view that these narrators can be known through the books of Al-Tusi and others. (i.e. Al-Bahbahani, Sabzawari, etc)
b- Those that hold the view that these narrators can be exclusively found in Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh only. (i.e. Walid)
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313402432' post='97073']
I don't know how this slipped by me. I just realized your earlier "argument" as to why one should only rely on Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh.

You argued the following:

[quote] 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) وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري

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


I think it would be more beneficial to continue the quote by Al-Saduq:

وجميع ما فيه مستخرج من كتب مشهورة، عليها المعول وإليها المرجع، [u][size="5"]مثل[/size][/u] كتاب حريز بن عبدالله 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) وكتاب نوادر الحكمة تصنيف [b][u]محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى بن عمران الاشعري(7)[/u][/b] وكتاب الرحمة لسعد بن عبدالله(1) وجامع شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد رضي الله عنه(2) ونوادر محمد بن أبي عمير(3) وكتب المحاسن لاحمد بن أبي عبدالله البرقي(4) ورسالة أبي - رضي الله عنه -[color="#FF0000"][b][size="4"][u] إلي وغيرها من الاصول والمصنفات[/u][/size][/b][/color] التي طرقي إليها معروفة في فهرس الكتب التي رويتها(5) عن مشايخي وأسلافي

Rough translation: Everything in it (Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh) has been extracted from famous works, that are relied upon, [size="4"][u][b]like[/b][/u][/size] the book of Huraiz bin Abdullah Al-Sijistani, the book of Ubaidullah bin Ali Al-Halabi, the books of Ali bin Mihzayar, the books of Al-Hussain bin Sa'eed, Nawadir Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Eisa, Nawadir Al-Hikma by Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin Imran Al-Ash'ari, the Al-Rahma by Sa'ad bin Abdullah, the Jami' of Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed, Nawadir Mohamed bin Abi Umair, the book of Mahasin by Ahmad bin Abi Abdullah Al-Barqi, and the letter of my father, [color="#FF0000"][u][b][size="4"]and other [i]usool [/i]and books[/size][/b][/u][/color] that I have mentioned my path to through my [i]mashayikh[/i] and predecessors.



Nothing here implies that the books mentioned above are the only books that were used. The authors that are mentioned here had more than one book, and there is no reason that Al-Saduq quoted from the ones that he mentioned exclusively.

This is similar to a Sunni scholar saying, "I quoted from major Sunni books like Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, and others!" Does that mean that he didn't quote from Al-Adab Al-Mufrad by Al-Bukhari or Fadha'il Al-Sahaba by Imam Ahmad? There is no reason to assume this. He mentioned Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad because those are the most famous book written by that particular author.


No wonder you are the only person that ended up in a category of your own Walid.


The categories of how the exclusion of narrators from Nawadir Al-Hikma are as follows:

1- Those that don't hold the view that inclusion equals [i]tawtheeq[/i]. (i.e. Al-Khoei, Al-Mazindrani, etc)

2- Those that hold the view that inclusion equals [i]tawtheeq[/i].
a- Those that holds the view that these narrators can be known through the books of Al-Tusi and others. (i.e. Al-Bahbahani, Sabzawari, etc)
b- Those that hold the view that these narrators can be exclusively found in Man La Yahdharahu Al-Faqeeh only. (i.e. Walid)
[/quote]

[b]
Oh farid farid farid! you are indeed farid(farid in arabic mmeans unique) :smile:

well [u]you are wrong[/u] and you seem to forget what i said earlier : your point in red is already answered here:

http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=14843&view=findpost&p=96933

I quote :
[quote]
no farid ! when sadooq says mohamed ibn yahya then he is narrating from nawadir al-hikmah only [u]but this doesn't mean that he didn't have other books by others that include mohamed ibn yahya as a narrator in their books[/u][/quote]

also i said in the same post :
[color="#FF0000"]
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 [u]yes very probable[/u][/color]

but i also said :

[u][quote]
but in man layadhuruhu alfaqeeh sadooq only reported hadith mohamed ibn ahmed in nawadir al-hikmah by mentioning this because there's other narrations from mohamed ibn ahmed from other books by other writers and narrators.

So without the narrators saying : this is from nawadir al-hikmah from mohamed ibn ahmed otherwise you and even our scholars cannot prove that such and such hadith is from nawadir al-hikmah because the book is not available to muta'akhireen (the later scholars ).[/quote][/u]

I think this is clear

now i explain the view of the scholars AND THIS WILL SURPRISE MANY !

many shia scholars accepted everybody that is not excluded from nawadiral-hikmah as thiqat and this includes [u]anas ibn malik [/u](the sahabi)
and ibn omar also
ayatollah muslim al-dawiri said about anas ibn malik :

هذا وقد ورد في أسناد نوادر الحكمة، وذلك مما يدل على اعتباره ووثاقته.
ويمكن الجمع بين التوثيق والتضعيف: بأنّه وإن كان منحرفا أولاً، ولكنه ندم وتاب على كتمانه الشهادة لأمير المؤمنين عليه‏السلام ، وقد حلف أن لا يكتم منقبة بعد ذلك، بل روى عدة روايات في فضائل الأئمة عليهم‏السلام ، وفيها إشارة إلى إمامتهم.
وأما الرواية الدالة على أنه من الكذابين فهي ضعيفة السند، فبناء على ذلك يمكن القول بوثاقته في الحديث، ومع ذلك فهو مورد للتأمّل.

and we can gather the tawtheeq with tadh'eef(deeming him trustworthy with weakening him ) : because even though he was inclined away ( from ahlbait he means) then he regretted this and repented and swore neverto hide a quality for ameer al-momineen after that but he narrated many hadiths in fadhail of the imams (as) .... as for narration saying he is a liar then it is weak sanadan so based on this we can confirm his trustworthiness in hadith but still this is matter for debate.

this is manqool (copied)

so Dawiri accepted these as thiqat [u]according to ibn alwaleed [/u]as did others but tawtheeq ibn alwaleed can be challenged and rejected if there's stong case against it.

but this is not accepted by me even though the readers from shia are free to follow this view.

for me whatever is narrated from mohamed ibn ahmed without mentioning it's from nawadiral-hikmah then it's not proof because this is not his only book and his narrations are not limited to nawadir al-hikmah.

either ways farid the principle is sound.

sheikh dawiri considered over 600 narrators thiqat according to ibn al-waleed and i disagree but we agree about the principle.

so the only difference between me and these great scholars is manhaj not the principle.

even with different manhaj then the narrator in question : ibrahim ibn hashim is thiqat according to ibn al-waleed both according to me and the scholars mentioned and this is the heart of the matter we are discussing now.

ws
ws[/b] Edited by Walid
0

Share this post


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