Wasil

LOCKED Munazara: Farid vs Wasil (Walid)

412 posts in this topic

[quote][b]
[/b] 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 by others that include mohamed ibn yahya as a narrator in their books[b][/quote][/b]

Why? You argue this as if Al-Saduq is famous for quoting the name of the book that he is quoting from.

=========================

I think the readers have had enough of this topic of [i]tawtheeqaat [/i]from Nawadir Al-Hikma unless you have more to add.

I don't know how it looks to everyone else, but to me, it is obvious that you're struggling a lot in order to prove your theory as correct. If this point was as "clear" as you believed, we wouldn't be spending twenty-six posts arguing what Al-Saduq or your other scholars meant.

For other Shia observers, do you have anything else that is more "clear" and specific about the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibrahim bin Hashim?



Before you answer though, I would like the readers to observe the statement of Al-Hilli in Khulasat Al-Aqwaal (p. 49):

ولم أقف لاحد من اصحابنا على قول في القدح فيه، ولا على تعديله باتنصيص، والروايات عنه كثيرة، والارجح قبول قوله

Rough translation: And I haven't seen anyone from our people attacking him, nor strengthening him in specific, and the narrations from him are plenty, and it is more correct to accept him.


It seems as though Al-Hilli, as well as the rest of the modern Shia hadithists have arrived at the conclusion that he should be strengthened due to his high amount of narrations. This is because he is too big to fail, since weakening him will lead to losing a huge number of hadiths that are seen as accepted.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313438452' post='97111']
[quote][b]
[/b] 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 by others that include mohamed ibn yahya as a narrator in their books[b][/quote][/b]

Why? You argue this as if Al-Saduq is famous for quoting the name of the book that he is quoting from.

=========================

I think the readers have had enough of this topic of [i]tawtheeqaat [/i]from Nawadir Al-Hikma unless you have more to add.

I don't know how it looks to everyone else, but to me, it is obvious that you're struggling a lot in order to prove your theory as correct. If this point was as "clear" as you believed, we wouldn't be spending twenty-six posts arguing what Al-Saduq or your other scholars meant.

For other Shia observers, do you have anything else that is more "clear" and specific about the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibrahim bin Hashim?



Before you answer though, I would like the readers to observe the statement of Al-Hilli in Khulasat Al-Aqwaal (p. 49):

ولم أقف لاحد من اصحابنا على قول في القدح فيه، ولا على تعديله باتنصيص، والروايات عنه كثيرة، والارجح قبول قوله

Rough translation: And I haven't seen anyone from our people attacking him, nor strengthening him in specific, and the narrations from him are plenty, and it is more correct to accept him.


It seems as though Al-Hilli, as well as the rest of the modern Shia hadithists have arrived at the conclusion that he should be strengthened due to his high amount of narrations. This is because he is too big to fail, since weakening him will lead to losing a huge number of hadiths that are seen as accepted.
[/quote]


[b]salam alaykom

shukran for your input but you misunderstood what allamah al-hilli is saying and i tell you why ! he said none of our companions has a saying criticizing him or " nass upon his tawtheeq "

he [u]didn't say[/u] that there was not an indirect tawtheeq. he is just saying there's nobody who said he is thiqat literally(verbally) and this is true because even the tawtheeq ofibn al-waleed is not like he said : ibrahim ibn hashim is thiqat!!! his tawtheeq is through not excluding him from nawadir and this means he is thiqat as understood by abul abbasibn ibn nooh and others as i showed earlier .

so this translation of the words of allamah by you farid is inaccurate:

[quote] nor strengthening him in specific[/quote]

but the correct translation is : no one had stated his wathaqa literally ( or chose other words if you but the meaning is this not what you translated )

as for him mentioning his numerous narration then is sign of wathaqa according to allmah who is strict in grading of hadiths and in describing rijel most of the time not because narrating too much makes someone thiqat ! NO! but the numerous narration of someone who narrated thousands of hadiths without being criticized (as mentioned by alhilli in your own quotation of him show something about his acceptance . the man is famous he is not majhool (unknown ) , he narrates thousands of hadith and scholars specialized in rijel knew him well but nobody criticized him. some sunni big scholars accepted wathaqa of narrators that bukhari mentioned without criticism and those ibn abi hatem mentioned and kept silent about them. isn't this true ?
adding to this that allamah must have known the view of his teacher ibn tawoos (ra) about ibrahim ibn hashim when ibn tawoos said about a sanadof a narration :[u]it's agreed upon the trustworthiness of these narrators unanimously [/u] (when mentioning a hadith where ibrahim ibn hashim is one of the narrators ) .

before we go to ibn tawoos why do you show the readers the view of al-hilli which[u] you thought was in your favor[/u] even though you wanted only views of mutaqaddimeen ( early scholars ) about ibrahim ibn hashim even though al-hilli is not from mutaqaddimeen but from muta'akhireen (late scholars ) . either you accept the view of muta'akhireen in tawtheeq as well as tadh'eef or we stick to mutaqaddimeen as you wanted in the first place.

I don't mind mentioning muta'akhireen like al-hilli (late scholar) and others if you accept that their tawtheeq (considering a narrator thiqat(trustworthy))is as good as their tadh'eef (weakening).

now Do sunnis accept tawtheeq of muta'akhireen or not ??? if the answer is no then who did tawtheeq of ibn majah (rah)for instance (there's many such examples ) from the early scholars?

anyone until darqotni (ra) ??

if you don'taccept that darqotni is the last one from mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) then explain why with proofs if you don't mind farid.

if you say ibn majah is not as important as ibn hashim (ra) [u]then we are talking about the principle here[/u] of accepting or rejecting the "tawtheeqat"(deeming someone trustworthy ) of muta'akhireen (late scholars ) and still i believe ibn majah is very important indeed but let's not dwell on this for now.

Awaiting your answer . wa shukran[/b] Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote][b]
before we go to ibn tawoos why do you show the readers the view of al-hilli which you thought was in your favor even though you wanted only views of mutaqaddimeen ( early scholars ) about ibrahim ibn hashim even though al-hilli is not from mutaqaddimeen but from muta'akhireen (late scholars ) . either you accept the view of muta'akhireen in tawtheeq as well as tadh'eef or we stick to mutaqaddimeen as you wanted in the first place.[/quote]

Al-Hilli's statement here isn't his own. The whole book is based on the [i]aqwaal [/i]of [i]al-mutaqadimeen [/i](the early scholars). I cite Al-Hilli as a source, not because of his own personal [i]ijtihaad[/i], but because he was important when it came to bringing to us the statements of [i]al-mutaqadimeen[/i].

[quote][/b][b]adding to this that allamah must have known the view of his teacher ibn tawoos (ra) about ibrahim ibn hashim when ibn tawoos said about a sanadof a narration :it's agreed upon the trustworthiness of these narrators unanimously (when mentioning a hadith where ibrahim ibn hashim is one of the narrators ) .[/quote]

Indeed, and yet, he said that nobody strengthened Ibrahim bin Hashim. He isn't talking about [i]tawtheeq [/i]by [i]shuhra[/i] (strengthening due to popularity) of a narrator, but rather, the actual claim of [i]tawtheeq [/i]by contemporaries, or those that lived in times that are close to Ibrahim bin Hashim.

Of course, when we face the facts, we realize that the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of the [i]muta'akhireen [/i]for Ibrahim bin Hashim is solely based on the fact that he narrated a lot and that they couldn't see him fall. If you don't mind, you can quote this man's biography to show us how little we know about this very important man.

Seriously speaking, do we know anything about his personal life other than his name, that he was a Kufan, and that he was the first to spread hadiths in Qom? Is that really all we have about the most important narrator in Shiasm?

[quote][/b][b]
I don't mind mentioning muta'akhireen like al-hilli (late scholar) and others if you accept that their tawtheeq (considering a narrator thiqat(trustworthy))is as good as their tadh'eef (weakening).[/quote]

Oh? Is this your own personal view? As far as I'm concerned, most Shia hadith scholars don't accept the view of [i]al-muta'akhireen[/i] (the late scholars).

[quote][/b][b]
now Do sunnis accept tawtheeq of muta'akhireen or not ???[/quote]

There is no rule in Sunni hadith that the opinion of a [i]muta'akhir [/i]is not acceptable. However, this is a Sunni opinion, not a Shi'ee one.
[/b][b]
[quote][/b][b]if the answer is no then who did tawtheeq of ibn majah (rah)for instance (there's many such examples ) from the early scholars?

anyone until darqotni (ra) ??

if you don'taccept that darqotni is the last one from mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) then explain why with proofs if you don't mind farid.[/quote]

This comparison is incorrect. First of all, your understanding of the rule is flawed since Ibn Majah was one of the late [i]mutaqadimeen,[/i] so even by your standards, his acceptability by early [i]muta'akhireen [/i]is sufficient.

Furthermore, the first clear [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH) was by Al-Khaleel (d. 446 AH), at least, does not even hit the two hundred year mark.

While the [i]tawtheeq [/i]of Ibn Tawus (d. 664 AH) for Ibrahim bin Hashim (d. Mid/Late 3rd century) is around four hundred years away.
[/b]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following are the biographies of the early Shia hadithists for Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi.





Al-Najashi (p. 16) said:



[b]ابراهيم بن هاشم ابواسحاق القمي ، اصله كوفي انتقل[/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]إلى قم ، قال ابوعمرو الكشي : تلميذ يونس بن عبدالرحمان ، من أصحاب الرضا[/size][/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]عليه السلام ، هذا قول الكشي ، وفيه نظر ، وأصحابنا يقولون : أول من نشر[/size][/b]

[b]حديث الكوفيين بقم هو .[/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]له كتب منها : النوادر ، وكتاب قضايا أميرالمؤمنين عليه السلام . أخبرنا محمد[/size][/b]

[b]ابن محمد ، قال : حدثنا الحسن بن حمزة الطبري ، قال : حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن[/b][b] [/b][b]هاشم ، عن أبيه بها[/b][b][size="4"].[/size][/b]

[b] [/b]

Rough translation: Ibrahimb in Hashim Abu Ishaaq Al-Qummi, from Kufa then moved to Qom. Abu Amr Al-Kashshi said: He is the student of Yunus bin Abdulrahman, and one of the companions of Al-Redha. This is the opinion of Al-Kashshi, and it should be revised. Our companions say: He is the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qum. He has books: Al-Nawadir, and Kitab Qadhaya Ameerul Mu’mineen. We were told of them through Mohammed bin Mohammed from Al-Hasan bin Hamza Al-Tabari from Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim from his father.



[left]Al-Tusi said in Al-Fihrist (p. 31):[/left]
[right] [/right]
[b]ابراهيم بن هاشم ابواسحاق القمي ، اصله من الكوفة ،[/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]وانتقل إلى قم ، واصحابنا يقولون : إنه اول من نشر حديث الكوفيين بقم ، وذكروا[/size][/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]أنه لقى الرضا عليه السلام ، والذي اعرف من كتبه كتاب النوادر ، وكتاب قضايا[/size][/b]

[b]اميرالمؤمنين عليه السلام اخبرنا بهما جماعة من اصحابنا ، منهم الشيخ ابو[/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]عبدالله محمد بن محمد بن النعمان المفيد ، واحمد بن عبدون ، والحسين بن[/size][/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]عبيدالله ، كلهم عن الحسن بن حمزة بن علي بن عبد ( عبيد ) الله العلوي ، عن[/size][/b][b] [/b][b][size="4"]علي بن ابراهيم بن هاشم ، عن أبيه[/size][/b][b] [/b]

[b] [/b]

[b] [/b]

Rough translation: Ibrahim bin Hashim Abu Ishaaq Al-Qummi, originally from Kufa, moved to Qom. Our companions say: He is the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qom. They said that he met Al-Redha. From his books, I am familiar with Al-Nawadir and Kitab Qadhaya Ameerul Mu’mineen. They were told to us through a group of our companions like Al-Mufeed, Ahmad bin Abdoon, Al-Hussain bin Ubaidillah, all together through Al-Hasan bin Hamza bin Ali bin Abd (Ubaid) illah Al-Alawi from Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim from his father.





Al-Tusi in his Rijal (p. 353) said:



[right][b][size="4"]ابراهيم بن هاشم القمي، تلميذ يونس بن عبد الرحمان[/size][/b][/right]
[right][b] [/b][/right]
[b]ْ[/b]Translation: Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi, the student of Yunus bin Abdulrahman.







Notice, my brethren, that none of these three scholars, Al-Najashi, Al-Tusi, nor Al-Kashshi, mention any [i]tawtheeq[/i] for Ibrahim bin Hashim. They do not declare him to be trustworthy. Al-Tusi had two chances to declare him trustworthy, in both of his [i]rijali[/i] books, but chose not to do so.



Notice that they only mention his name, the name of his father, his origin, his moving to Qom, and his spreading of the hadith of the Kufans. They also mention that he was a companion of Al-Redha and a student of Yunus bin Abdulrahman, but even Al-Najashi seems to have issues with those two claims. This is perhaps due to him not narrating any hadiths from either of them.



So, to keep it short, this man appeared to be a mystery to the early Shias. His biography is only a few sentences long, and there is little meaning in most of it. It is due to this, that I conclude that the early Shias purposefully chose to not declare this man trustworthy, as it is obvious.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]salam alaykom

you said :


[quote]There is no rule in Sunni hadith that the opinion of a muta'akhir is not acceptable. However, this is a Sunni opinion, not a Shi'ee one.
[/quote]

This is inaccurate . it's seems strange that you presented this as if it's a rule agreed upon by all


I will answer all your points inshallah later as i am busy at the moment [/b]
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam

please farid show me where did al-khalili say that ibn majah is thiqat !! this tawtheeq as i know was reported by almizzi who said al-khalili reported this in his book[u] rijel qazwin.[/u] have you got a copy of rijel qazwin ? if not and the book is not available today please show us the tareeq of sheikh almizzi to this book by al-khalili.

here's what mizzi said:

ذكره الحافظ أبو يعلى الخليل بن عبدالله الخليلي القزويني في رجال قزوين، وقال فيه: ثقة كبير، متفق عليه، محتج به، له معرفة بالحديث وحفظ،

translation: hafitdh... alkhalili mentioned him in RIJEL QAZWIN and he said about him : thiqat ...etc

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m021/26/no2624.html

after this we get to your other points you made.

ws
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ Walid, let's try not to get diverted into side discussions.

To keep it short, even if we consider this a form of [i]wijada,[/i] it is still acceptable if the information is transmitted by a credible scholar like Al-Mizzi.

I hope that you're not going to flip flop again and claim that this is not reliable. I recall that you recently accepted Rijal Ibn Al-Ghadha'iri even though Al-Hilli or Ibn Tawus, who don't have a [i]tareeq[/i] to the book, and that it only existed with them through [i]wijada[/i].
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Farid' timestamp='1313547709' post='97257']
^ Walid, let's try not to get diverted into side discussions.

To keep it short, even if we consider this a form of [i]wijada,[/i] it is still acceptable if the information is transmitted by a credible scholar like Al-Mizzi.

I hope that you're not going to flip flop again and claim that this is not reliable. I recall that you recently accepted Rijal Ibn Al-Ghadha'iri even though Al-Hilli or Ibn Tawus, who don't have a [i]tareeq[/i] to the book, and that it only existed with them through [i]wijada[/i].
[/quote]

salam alaykom

ok farid i won't dwell on this even though the case of ibn al-ghadhairi is different because shahid thani has sahih tareeq to him shown in his ijazah to one of his students as confirmed by scholars and the tareeq doesn't go through ibn tawoos .

you see i don't deny trustworthiness of ibn majah as you might think and i only asked this question for a purpose of making you understand something. because it's silly to think ibn majah is weak using sunni "mabanis" !! i don't know of a single sunni who doubted this and saying he is weak [u]according to sunnis[/u] is doing "muzayadah " upon sunnis. [u]so u understand what i am trying to say[/u]: if we weaken a sunni narrator or strengthen him we do it based on sunni mabani not based on shia "mabani".

even abu hurairah! it's extremely silly to even suggest he is weak [u]according to sunnis[/u] or not trustworthy [u]according to them[/u] as there's ijmaa upon his wathaqa but i will show my view as why i don't trust abu hurairah [u]as a shia [/u]

now farid you madea mistake thinking that we shia don't rely upon muta'akhireen in tawtheeq because we do as shaheed thani explaind and also bahral-uloom and others. sayedal-khoei disagreed with this and so did many of his students so the view of sayedal-khoei became more famous and this doesn't make it the only opinion but one of the opinions: sayed alkhoei (rah) himself admitted that many scholars in shi'ism relied on tawtheeq al-muta'akhireen.

i will continue later inshallah about other points and expand upon these points.

shukran Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam alaykom

till now we have over 2300 views of this thread! not bad eh!

now as i mentioned earlier the tawtheeq of mut'akhireen is accepted by many big guns withing the school of ahlbait(as) and for benefit of readers i give the view of the shia scholar bahral-uloom in his rijel : v 1 page 463about ibrahim ibn hashim (ridhwan allahi alaih):

الثاني توثيق كثير من المتأخرين، كما سبق النقل عنهم، ولا يعارضه عدم توثيق الأكثر، لما عرفت من اضطراب كلامهم، ولأن غايته عدم الاطلاع على السبب المقتضي للتوثيق، فلا يكون حجة على المطلع لتقدم قول المثبت على النافي ودعوى حصر الأسباب ممنوعة فان (في الزوايا خبايا)، وكثيراً ما يقف المتأخر على ما لم يطلع عليه المتقدم، وكذا الشأن في المتعاصرين، ولذا قبلنا توثيق كل من النجاشي والشيخ لمن لم يوثقه الآخر أو لم يوثقه من تقدم عليهما. نعم يشكل ذلك مع تعيين السبب وخفاء الدلالة، لأن أكثر الموثقين هنا لم يستند الى سبب معين فيكون توثيقه معتبراً

translation : the second point is tawtheeq ( deeming a narrator trustworthy )of many from muta'akhireen (late scholars ) as we reported from them earlier and this is not contradicted by lack of tawtheeq by majority (he means mutaqddimeen (early scholars) ) as you know the discrepancies in their talk . because the crux of the matter is lack of information about the reason for tawtheeq and this not hujja against the informed ( from muta'akhireen he means ) because the view of confirmer(the one with proofof wathaqa ) is stronger than the denier (those who lack information about wathaqa from mutaqaddimeen ) . and claiming the limitation of reasons (for tawtheeq in mutaqaddimeen he means ) is not sound as there's (secrets in some corners ) and so many times the muta'akhireen (late scholars ) find things that mutaqaddim(early scholar) didn't find..... ( rough translation of the most relevant words of bahr al-uloom(rah))

shahed thani also confirms this as he said in his book dirayat page 63 :

تدبّر ما ذكروه ومراعاة ما قرروه، فلعله يظفر بكثير مما أهملوه، ويطلع على توجيه في القدح والمدح قد أغفلوه، كما اطلعنا عليه كثيراً ونبهنا عليه في مواضع كثيرة وضعناها على كتب
القوم

the thorough examination of what they decided ( he means mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) he might find A LOT from what they neglected and gets information that directs towards criticism or praise ( of narrators he means ) as we found this a lot and warned about it many times in our comments on the book of the people (he means mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ))

this is also accepted by many sunnis even though some say : tawtheeqat (deeming a narrator trustworthy) by muta'akhireen is not as strong as mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) and some accepted this tawtheeq without any problems.

now ibrahim ibn hashim is thiqatas we established by mutaqaddimeen like ibn al-waqleed as i showed even though this won't convince many sunnis and even some shias like those who follow sayedal-khoei etc ...

also ibn hashim is thiqat according to ibn tawoos as reported al-khoei who said: ( here we hit two birds with one stone inshallah ):

دعوى الاجماع من قبل الاقدمين: ومن جملة ما تثبت به الوثاقة أو الحسن هو أن يدعي أحد من الاقدمين الاخيار الاجماع على وثاقة أحد، فإن ذلك وإن كان إجماعا منقولا، إلا أنه لا يقصر عن توثيق مدعي الاجماع نفسه منضما إلى دعوى توثيقات أشخاص آخرين، بل إن دعوى الاجماع على الوثاقة يعتمد عليه حتى إذا كانت الدعوى من المتأخرين، كما اتفق ذلك في إبراهيم بن هاشم، فقد ادعى ابن طاووس الاتفاق على وثاقته، فان هذه الدعوى تكشف عن توثيق بعض القدماء لا محالة، وهو يكفي في إثبات الوثاقة.

here al khoei mentioned a reason for wathaqa that is the claim of ijma'a from mutaqaddimeen (early scholar )so translate :

the claim of ijma'a from aqdameen ( meaning mutaqaddimeen (early scholars)) : and from the reasons of confirming wathqa(trustworthiness of a narrator ) or his goodness (in hadith) is when one from the great (early scholars ) claims complete agreement (ijma'a) upon trustworthiness of someone ... but theclaim ofijma'a( complete agreement about trustworthiness) is relied upon even if this was done by muta'akhireen ( late scholars )as this was agreed about ibrahim ibn hashim as ibn tawoos claimed complete agreement(ijmaa ) upon his trustworthiness because this claim shows the tawtheeq ( deeming a narrator trustworthy )by mutaqaddimeen (early scholars wWITHOUT A DOUBT Aand this alone is enough for confirming trustworthiness .

ref : mojam al-khoei v 1 page 45

i think this is satisfactory for now inshallah

ws Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now back to some of your statements Akhi farid :

you said :

[quote]
Al-Hilli's statement here isn't his own. [u]The whole book is based on the aqwaal of al-mutaqadimeen [/u](the early scholars). I cite Al-Hilli as a source, not because of his own personal ijtihaad, but because he was important when it came to bringing to us the statements of al-mutaqadimeen.[/quote]

this is not correct farid , allamah did tawtheeq(considered narrators trustworthy) of narrators that nothing was said about them from mutaqaddimeen so i give one example that shows that this view is wrong :

isameel ibn mohamed al-humairi (the great poet (rahimahollah)

no one from mutaqqiddimeen said anything about him(apparently of course ) but allmah said :

إسماعيل بن محمد الحميري ، ثقة ، جليل القدر ، عظيم الشأن والمنزلة رحمه الله

ismaeel ibn mohamed al-humairi : THIQAT with great status and rank (rough translation)



you said:


[quote]There is no rule in Sunni hadith that the opinion of a muta'akhir is not acceptable. However, this is a Sunni opinion, not a Shi'ee one.
[/quote]

this is debatable because here's some of the views of big guns in sunnism like ibn rajab ( i believe you like this man ):

فضبط ما روي عنهم في ذلك أفضل العلوم مع تفهمه وتعقله والتفقه فيه ، وما حدث بعدهم من التوسع لا خير في كثير منه إلا أن يكون شرحاً لكلام يتعلق بكلامهم ، وأما ما كان مخالفاً لكلامهم فأكثره باطل أو لا منفعة فيه ، وفي كلامهم في ذلك كفاية وزيادة ، فلا يوجد في كلام من بعدهم من حق إلا وهو في كلامهم موجود بأوجز لفظ وأخصر عبارة ، ولا يوجد في كلام من بعدهم من باطل إلا وفي كلامهم ما يبين بطلانه لمن فهمه وتأمله ، [u]ويوجد في كلامهم من المعاني البديعة والمآخذ الدقيقة ما لا يهتدي إليه من بعدهم ولا يُلمّ به ، فمن لم يأخذ العلم من كلامهم فاته ذلك الخير كله مع ما يقع في كثير من الباطل متابعة لمن تأخر عنهم ويحتاج من جمع كلامهم إلى معرفة صحيحه من سقيمه وذلك بمعرفة الجرح والتعديل والعلل
[/u]
here he is saying that muta'akhireen(late scholars cannot add anything that mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) didn't cover.(

[u]this is manqool(copied and any correction is welcome

and if you want Farid i can show you the view of sheikh muqbil al-wadi'i(it''s up to u )
ws
[/u] Edited by Walid
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b][quote][i]
[i]ok farid i won't dwell on this even though the case of ibn al-ghadhairi is different because shahid thani has sahih tareeq to him shown in his ijazah to one of his students as confirmed by scholars and the tareeq doesn't go through ibn tawoos .[/i][/i][/b]

[i][b][/quote][/b][/i]

[i][b] [/b][/i]

[i]How is that different from us though? Ibn Asakir has an authentic [/i][i]tareeq[/i][i] to Tareekh Rijal Qazween. [/i]



[b][quote][i]now farid you madea mistake thinking that we shia don't rely upon muta'akhireen in tawtheeq because we do as shaheed thani explaind and also bahral-uloom and others. sayedal-khoei disagreed with this and so did many of his students so the view of sayedal-khoei became more famous and this doesn't make it the only opinion but one of the opinions: sayed alkhoei (rah) himself admitted that many scholars in shi'ism relied on tawtheeq al-muta'akhireen.[/i][i][/quote][/i][i]

[/i][/b][i]Indeed. I am aware of the differences of opinion. However, as you said, this opinion is quite popular. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i]Walid, I’m not sure if you noticed the difference between the [/i][i]tawtheeq [/i][i]of Ibn Majah and that of Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi. You see, one of the main differences if that Ibn Majah didn’t have a biography in many of the works that were available at his time. Yet, Ibrahim bin Hashim was in fact included in those books. The question I ask is: Why didn’t the people that chose to include Ibrahim bin Hashim in their books chose to strengthen him? Did they just forget to? Or rather, was it because they didn’t have enough information about this mysterious, yet important, narrator for him to be strengthened?[/i]

[i] [/i]

[i][quote][/i][b][i]
[i]now ibrahim ibn hashim is thiqatas we established by mutaqaddimeen like ibn al-waqleed as i showed even though this won't convince many sunnis and even some shias like those who follow sayedal-khoei etc ...[/i][/i][i][/quote][/i][/b]

[i][b] [/b][/i]

[i]Thank you for admitting this. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i][quote][/i][b][i]
[i]also ibn hashim is thiqat according to ibn tawoos as reported al-khoei who said: ( here we hit two birds with one stone inshallah ):[/i]

[/i][/b][i][b]دعوى الاجماع من قبل الاقدمين: ومن جملة ما تثبت به الوثاقة أو الحسن هو أن يدعي أحد من الاقدمين الاخيار الاجماع على وثاقة أحد، فإن ذلك وإن كان إجماعا منقولا، إلا أنه لا يقصر عن توثيق مدعي الاجماع نفسه منضما إلى دعوى توثيقات أشخاص آخرين، بل إن دعوى الاجماع على الوثاقة يعتمد عليه حتى إذا كانت الدعوى من المتأخرين، كما اتفق ذلك في إبراهيم بن هاشم، فقد ادعى ابن طاووس الاتفاق على وثاقته، فان هذه الدعوى تكشف عن توثيق بعض القدماء لا محالة، وهو يكفي في إثبات الوثاقة[/b][/i][i][b].[/b][/i]

[i][b] [/b][/i]

[b][i]
[i]the claim of ijma'a from aqdameen ( meaning mutaqaddimeen (early scholars)) : and from the reasons of confirming wathqa(trustworthiness of a narrator ) or his goodness (in hadith) is when one from the great (early scholars ) claims complete agreement (ijma'a) upon trustworthiness of someone ... but theclaim ofijma'a( complete agreement about trustworthiness) is relied upon even if this was done by muta'akhireen ( late scholars )as this was agreed about ibrahim ibn hashim as ibn tawoos claimed complete agreement(ijmaa ) upon his trustworthiness because this claim shows the tawtheeq ( deeming a narrator trustworthy )by mutaqaddimeen (early scholars wWITHOUT A DOUBT Aand this alone is enough for confirming trustworthiness .[/i][/i][i] [/quote][/i][/b]

[i][b] [/b][/i][i][b] [/b][/i]

[i]Indeed, this is one of the main arguments for the [/i][i]tawtheeq[/i][i] of Ibrahim bin Hashim. However, once again, I argue that this consensus isn’t the consensus of the early scholars, but rather, of the late scholars. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i]The proof for this is that the chain that Ibn Tawus authenticated, and claimed that all the narrators are agreed upon as trustworthy, include two narrators that don’t have any [/i][i]tawtheeq [/i][i]by early narrators. They are Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi and Mohammed bin Musa bin Al-Mutawakkil. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i]We have found no statements from early scholars strengthening these narrators. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i]Plus, we have the statement of Al-Alamah Al-Hilli that I’ve quoted above in which he says that nobody has strengthened Ibrahim bin Hashim Al-Qummi. He means, from the early scholars.[/i]

[i] [/i]

[i][quote][/i][b][i] [i]this is not correct farid , allamah did tawtheeq(considered narrators trustworthy) of narrators that nothing was said about them from mutaqaddimeen so i give one example that shows that this view is wrong :[/i]

[i]isameel ibn mohamed al-humairi (the great poet (rahimahollah) [/i]

[i]no one from mutaqqiddimeen said anything about him(apparently of course ) but allmah said :[/i]

[/i][/b][i][b]إسماعيل بن محمد الحميري ، ثقة ، جليل القدر ، عظيم الشأن والمنزلة رحمه الله[/b][/i][b][i]

[i]ismaeel ibn mohamed al-humairi : THIQAT with great status and rank (rough translation)[/i][/i][i][/quote][/i][/b]

[i][b] [/b][/i]

[i]This is not relevant. When I say “whole book” I am referring to most of the book, and MOST importantly the case of Ibrahim bin Hashim, since Al-Hilli, as explained, is referring to the early scholars, when he says that nobody strengthened him.[/i]

[i] [/i]

[i][quote][/i][b] [/b][i][b]this is debatable because here's some of the views of big guns in sunnism like ibn rajab ( i believe you like this man ):[/b][/i][b][i]

[/i][/b][i][b]فضبط ما روي عنهم في ذلك أفضل العلوم مع تفهمه وتعقله والتفقه فيه ، وما حدث بعدهم من التوسع لا خير في كثير منه إلا أن يكون شرحاً لكلام يتعلق بكلامهم ، وأما ما كان مخالفاً لكلامهم فأكثره باطل أو لا منفعة فيه ، وفي كلامهم في ذلك كفاية وزيادة ، فلا يوجد في كلام من بعدهم من حق إلا وهو في كلامهم موجود بأوجز لفظ وأخصر عبارة ، ولا يوجد في كلام من بعدهم من باطل إلا وفي كلامهم ما يبين بطلانه لمن فهمه وتأمله ، [/b][/i][b][i]ويوجد في كلامهم من المعاني البديعة والمآخذ الدقيقة ما لا يهتدي إليه من بعدهم ولا يُلمّ به ، فمن لم يأخذ العلم من كلامهم فاته ذلك الخير كله مع ما يقع في كثير من الباطل متابعة لمن تأخر عنهم ويحتاج من جمع كلامهم إلى معرفة صحيحه من سقيمه وذلك بمعرفة الجرح والتعديل والعلل[/i][/b][b][i]

[i]here he is saying that muta'akhireen(late scholars cannot add anything that mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) didn't cover.[/i][/i][i][/quote][/i][/b]

[i][b] [/b][/i] [i]Indeed, it is debatable. Let us try to stay focused on the topic at hand though, since the [/i][i]tawtheeq [/i][i]of Ibn Majah or the [/i][i]hujjah [/i][i]of the statements of late Sunnis isn’t the subject of the debate. [/i]

[i] [/i]

[i]Walid, once again, I will repeat the question that I would like you to answer. Why didn’t the early [/i][i]rijalis[/i][i] mention that Ibrahim bin Hashim is a [/i][i]thiqa?[/i][i] [/i] Edited by Farid
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please try not to make statements that might seem misleading akhi farid( i am not saying you are deliberately misleading people). please make sure your statements are accurate. just an advice .

Now Ibrahim ibn hashim has a certificate of wathaqa so we can safely say that after this certificate which i will show later there's no need to say he is thiqat.

when the early rijalists mentioned said: he is the first [u]to spread[/u] the hadith of kofiyeen(people of kufa) in Qom then this is a certificate of extreme reliability. I even disagree wsith people like allmah al-majlissi who graded hadith ibrahim ibn hashim as just hasan because his hadiths is from the highest degrees of sihha (authenticity )

To understand this we must tell people about the mentality ofthe early Qommis (people of Qom ) among whom ibrahim ibn hashim narrated thousands of hadiths: The Qommis were such a sensitive bunch , they don't tolerate the slightest flaw in someone's aqeedah or manhaj but more than this : they criticize even people who are thiqat when they see them narrating maraseel ( hadith that is not connected in chain) . there's was the famous sheikh ahmedi bn abi abdilleh al-barqi who was extremely thiqat but just narrated from weak narrators a lot and relied on maraseel and this is a manhaj that is known among sunnis and shia. even someone like the sunni tabarai who is thiqat and others with same manhaj would be severely criticized by Qommis if theywere shia living with them(the Qommis (just an example to make sunnis understand )

Ibrahim ibn Hashim narrated thousands and thousands of hadith among these people who watch carefully everything about the narrator and pick on the slightest faults. If qommis felt he was weak let alone a liar then they would have made a horror movie out of his biography. They even used to kill people who they doubt they are ghulat(exaggerators).

There's no way the Qommis would tolerate such narrator as ibrahim ibn hashim with his thousands of hadith if he was not Thiqat.
[u]
Even his son ali ibn ibrahim's wathqa(trustworthiness ) is based in great part of it on wathqa (trustwothiness) of his father[/u] because Ali ibn ibrahim's most narrations are from his father and this extensive reliance of Ali ibn ibrahim on Hadith of his father is an other sign of acceptance.

adding to this tawtheeq ibn al-waleedwhich we showed earlier alhamdulilleh even though you disagree with it with some shia doesn't make it invalid because not all people agree that Allah himself exists so does this mean there's doubt he doesn't exist astaghfirollah. If you are not convinced then this doesn't mean others won't .

now for us not a single shia , not a single one rejected hadith ibrahim ibn hashim or even criticized him in the slightest way be it from mutaqaddimeen or muta'akhireen but the opposite is true : he is muwathaq by the whole taifah directly or indirectly.

and even if you disagree with all this then we showed you that tawtheeq al-muta'akhireen (late scholars ) is accepted in our school and sayedal-khoei is an exception as far as i know and he was followed by many of his students as far as i know and it contradicts view of bigger scholars like shaheed thani (ts) and many others.

Now we show some superb views from the big guns in shi'ism about ibrahim ibn hashim(ra) like sayed al-Damaad(ts) in his "rawashih as-samawiyyah" page 48 :

والصحيح الصريح عندي أن الطريق من جهته صحيح ، فأمره أجل وحاله أعظم من أن يتعدل ويتوثق بمعدل وموثق غيره ، بل غيره يتعدل ويتوثق بتعديله وتوثيقه إياه ، كيف وأعاظم أشياخنا الفخام كرئيس المحدثين والصدوق والمفيد وشيخ الطائفة ونظرائهم ومن في طبقتهم ودرجتهم ورتبتهم ومرتبتهم من الأقدمين والأحدثين شأنهم أجل وخطبهم أكبر من أن يظن بأحد منهم أنه قد حاج إلى تنصيص ناص وتوثيق موثق

the correct frank opinion i have is that the tareeq from him is sahih ( here he is criticizing those who said ibrahim ibn hashim 's hadith is just hasad( good ) but lower than sahih ) as his status is greater and bigger than to be deemed trustworthy and just ..by others but the others get deemed thiqa and just by him ( he means others need tawtheeq of ibrahim ibn hashim not the other way around. especially that the great of our shyukh ...like the leader of muhadditheen sadooq and mufeed and sheikh al-taifah and their likes and those in their rank and their status among the early and late scholars is bigger ..than to think that they one of them need "nass"(text ) ..and tawtheeq..

I think we covered what need to be covered about wathaqa of ali ibn ibrahim (ra) and i don't want to be regurgitating what we already covered as this will annoy people and bore them to death.

ps: still you are mistranslating the words of allamah al-hilli here:

[quote]when he says that nobody strengthened him.
[/quote]

[u]so if you don't have anything to add we start with abu hurairah inshallah
[/u] Edited by Walid
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]salam alaykom

I think farid is a bit busy so i ask again : shall we start discussing abu hurairah?[/b]
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Now Ibrahim ibn hashim has a certificate of wathaqa so we can safely say that after this certificate which i will show later there's no need to say he is thiqat.

when the early rijalists mentioned said: he is the first to spread the hadith of kofiyeen(people of kufa) in Qom then this is a certificate of extreme reliability. I even disagree wsith people like allmah al-majlissi who graded hadith ibrahim ibn hashim as just hasan because his hadiths is from the highest degrees of sihha (authenticity )[/quote]



I’m glad you chose to bring this point up. Many people argue this without realize how insignificant this statement is.



Personally, I don’t believe that this specific point means much, especially once one realizes how few the actual students of Ibrahim bin Hashim are. Al-Khoei lists a total of nine students. Out of that group, it seems that the only real major student was Ibrahim bin Hashim’s son Ali, who narrated the vast majority of his father’s hadith. I believe the next couple of important students were Sa’ad bin Abdullah and Mohammed bin Ahmad bin Yahya, assuming that most of his hadiths are actually connected to Ibrahim. Yet, even their quantities of hadiths aren’t high enough for one to assume that they were dedicated students. I believe those two don’t even hit the seventy hadith mark, and one can easily hear that much during a single hadith sitting or two. The rest of his nine students seem to have narrated a lot less.



It is not a statement of praise.



Of course, we technically don’t know who the people that made this statement are. If you look into Al-Fihrist (p. 31) or Rijal Al-Najashi (p. 16), you will find both saying:



[u]وأصحابنا يقولون[/u]: أول من نشر حديث الكوفيين بقم



Rough translation: [u]Our companions say[/u]: He is the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qom.







So, who are these companions that had this opinion? And does it really hold any weight in light of the evidence that I have mentioned that this “spreading of hadiths” didn’t really mean as much as it seems?



[quote]To understand this we must tell people about the mentality ofthe early Qommis (people of Qom ) among whom ibrahim ibn hashim narrated thousands of hadiths: The Qommis were such a sensitive bunch , they don't tolerate the slightest flaw in someone's aqeedah or manhaj but more than this : they criticize even people who are thiqat when they see them narrating maraseel ( hadith that is not connected in chain) . there's was the famous sheikh ahmedi bn abi abdilleh al-barqi who was extremely thiqat but just narrated from weak narrators a lot and relied on maraseel and this is a manhaj that is known among sunnis and shia. even someone like the sunni tabarai who is thiqat and others with same manhaj would be severely criticized by Qommis if theywere shia living with them(the Qommis (just an example to make sunnis understand )

Ibrahim ibn Hashim narrated thousands and thousands of hadith among these people who watch carefully everything about the narrator and pick on the slightest faults. If qommis felt he was weak let alone a liar then they would have made a horror movie out of his biography. They even used to kill people who they doubt they are ghulat(exaggerators).

There's no way the Qommis would tolerate such narrator as ibrahim ibn hashim with his thousands of hadith if he was not Thiqat.[/quote]



Are you talking about Qummi society as a whole? Or the nine students of Ibrahim bin Hashim?



I honestly don’t think that your argument regarding the criticism of the Qummis stands if we are talking about nine people.





[quote]Even his son ali ibn ibrahim's wathqa(trustworthiness ) is based in great part of it on wathqa (trustwothiness) of his father because Ali ibn ibrahim's most narrations are from his father and this extensive reliance of Ali ibn ibrahim on Hadith of his father is an other sign of acceptance. [/quote]



This is an assumption and you do not have any proof of this.



Al-Najashi was very clear in strengthening Ali bin Ibrahim. He said (p. 224):



ثقة في الحديث – ثبت – معتمد – صحيح المذهب



Those are four statements of [i]tawtheeq [/i]in his biography.



As for his father, we have a useless statement made by some unknown companions that he “spreads the hadiths of the Kufans”. There is no comparison between the two.



[quote]now for us not a single shia , not a single one rejected hadith ibrahim ibn hashim or even criticized him in the slightest way be it from mutaqaddimeen or muta'akhireen but the opposite is true : he is muwathaq by the whole taifah directly or indirectly.[/quote]



That isn’t really true.



Firstly, as I’ve implied, no one was clear about this until the seventh century, and more importantly, I did find a statement by Al-Sayid Mohamemd Al-Amili in which he says:



ويمكن المناقشة في الرواية من حيث السند بإبراهيم بن هاشم حيث لم ينص علماؤنا على توثيقه



See Takmilatul Rijal (1/189).

[quote]Now we show some superb views from the big guns in shi'ism about ibrahim ibn hashim(ra) like sayed al-Damaad(ts) in his "rawashih as-samawiyyah" page 48 :

والصحيح الصريح عندي أن الطريق من جهته صحيح ، فأمره أجل وحاله أعظم من أن يتعدل ويتوثق بمعدل وموثق غيره ، بل غيره يتعدل ويتوثق بتعديله وتوثيقه إياه ، كيف وأعاظم أشياخنا الفخام كرئيس المحدثين والصدوق والمفيد وشيخ الطائفة ونظرائهم ومن في طبقتهم ودرجتهم ورتبتهم ومرتبتهم من الأقدمين والأحدثين شأنهم أجل وخطبهم أكبر من أن يظن بأحد منهم أنه قد حاج إلى تنصيص ناص وتوثيق موثق[/quote]



Can we even compare Al-Saduq, Al-Mufeed, and Al-Tusi to Ibrahim bin Hashim?





Al-Najashi said under Mufeed’s bio (p.399):



فضله أشهر من أن يوصف في الفقه والكلام والرواية والثقة والعلم



Rough translation: His status is more famous than to be described in [i]fiqh, [/i]philosophy, narrations, trustworthiness, and knowledge.



He said under Al-Saduq (p. 389):



شيخنا وفقيهنا ووجه الطائفة بخرسان



Rough translation: He is our scholar and jurist and the face of our people in Khurasaan.



He said under Al-Tusi (p. 403):



جليل في أصحابنا، ثقة، عين



Rough translation: Of a high level among our companions, trustworthy, [i]ain[/i].





...and I’m not even going to bother looking up what Al-Tusi said regarding these scholars. You see, if we had 1/10[sup]th[/sup] of authentication for Ibrahim bin Hashim. Heck, even if he was called [i]saheehul hadith[/i], or [i]la ba’asa bihi[/i], by one of the early scholars, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.




[quote]I think we covered what need to be covered about wathaqa of ali ibn ibrahim (ra) and i don't want to be regurgitating what we already covered as this will annoy people and bore them to death.[/quote]



[quote] so if you don't have anything to add we start with abu hurairah inshallah[/quote]



I never minded discussed Abu Huraira from the start. I was actually anticipating that you would bring him up in one of your earlier posts. I don’t mind doing it simultaneously while you try to defend Ibrahim bin Hashim.



I also haven’t really started giving my reasons, as to why I believe Ibrahim bin Hashim shouldn’t be relied upon, so don’t worry about the public, I’ll try to keep them entertained.





However, I still believe that this question does not have a satisfactory answer. Why does Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi choose praise of Ibrahim bin Hashim?



Why isn’t he referred to as a [i]thiqa, [/i]why don’t we find the excessive praise that we find in the biographies of the major [i]ulama’a [/i]of Shiasm in the biography of Ibrahim bin Hashim? Edited by Farid
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]salam

now wow ! we should ignore our scholars and rely on you instead farid !!! we should ignore Sayed ibn tawoos who said there's ijma'a upon wathaqa (trustworthiness ) of the man/ we should ignore view of sayed damaad / we should ignore bahr aluloom and tabrassi and Ibn alwaleed (ra)and everybody and rely on a man that ibn majah (his sunni imam ) is not muwathaq according to his standards / yes by your standards ibn majah is not Thiqat and also some books of bukhari and others become unreliable again by your standards you are applying here against us.

same old repetitions : this doesn't mean so and so and this means so and so!!! as if you can analyse the words of our rijalists better than our scholars.

Why should we even bother anymore ! we have the words of Farid and that's enough!

I am not imposing my opinion on you but you are trying to impose yours on me and on the readers. said:

you said:

[quote]
وأصحابنا يقولون: أول من نشر حديث الكوفيين بقم



Rough translation: Our companions say: He is the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qom.







So, who are these companions that had this opinion? And does it really hold any weight in light of the evidence that I have mentioned that this “spreading of hadiths” didn’t really mean as much as it seems? [/quote]


You are showing ignorance here when you thought companions in the words of najashi etc means just people whom najashi and tusi met because the word "ashabbuna" (our companions) mean "the shia twelvers " and here his expression means ijmaa that ibrahim ibn hashim was the first to spread hadith of koofis (people of kufa) in Qom. If he said a number of our people or some of them then this is not indication of ijmaa. [u]I am talking about this[/u] :


Also You ignored the fact that the views of muta'akhireen about narrators are accepted for us(apart from some exceptions ) [u]so even if we suppose[/u] that ibrahim ibn hashim is not muwathaq by mutaqaddimeen (early scholars ) then he is muwathaq by muta'akhireen (late scholars )

now don't waste my time and yours and people's time : for me wathaqa of ibrahim ibn hashim is established beyond doubt so are you courageous enough to start discussing abu hurairah or you are going to carry on wasting time?[/b]
-2

Share this post


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