See part 1 here. By Farid (islamic-forum.net) Original Link Posted here By 13S2010
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیمBy Farid Original Article link Posted & added more info by 13S2010 (i.e. blue text)
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem,
The following is a list of narrators that are considered to be from Ahlul Bayt according to Shia standards. I don’t need to spell it out because anyone who reads this can make their observations themselves.
I chose to keep things simple by quoting the judgements Ibn Hajar in Al-Taqreeb (Dar Ibn Hazm – First Edition) and Al-Jawahiri in Al-Mufeed min Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith (Mu’sasat Al-Tareekh Al-Arabi – First Edition) because they generally included final judgements on narrators based on the opinions of early scholars. Furthermore, even though none of the two are perfect, they are considered reliable references when it comes to determining the general status of narrators.
Meaning of terminologies used in the table:
Note: Some of the tawtheeqaat by Al-Jawahiri are relied upon the views of Al-Mufeed in Al-Irshad. However, some Shia scholars consider this book a history book and don’t consider his comments regarding rijal as final due to his leniency in this book.
al-Salamu `Aleykum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu,
The reliability or should I say quality of the narrator, reflects the quality and reliability of the report. The Muslims take their religion and their beliefs from the various books of Hadith which they deem reliable and popular and authoritative, these books contain many reports, some reports contradict other reports, some are un-Islamic beliefs, some are fabrications and lies, some are authentic and correct, others correct in meaning but not accurate in text and so on and so forth…
The most reliable of texts reaches us through the most correct of chains in the utmost of accuracy. The text that reaches us through the clearest and purest chain is more worthy of being followed than the other texts.
We take the example of three narrations that we made up, so we can better explain this:
`Amr (Great reliable scholar) from Zayd (Firm reliable and popular) from Qays (Reliable):
“The Muslims defeated the Persians after three days, then chanted: Truly victory is only from Allah.”
Wahb (Trusted) from `Ali (Honest makes mistakes) from Qays (Reliable):
“The Muslims chanted: Victory comes from Allah, After they defeated the Persians on the second day.”
Sa`eed (Trusted with bad memory) from Sahl (Reliable Mudallis) from `Umar (Acceptable):
“The Muslims defeated the Persians after three weeks of brutal fighting then chanted: Ya `Ali Madad.”
Judging the Narrators and Narrations:
#1 All three narrators are reliable, meaning “Thiqah” which is the highest form of praise for a narrator’s quality in Hadith. The text of this narration is of the utmost in reliability.
#2 Wahb is Saduq, meaning trustworthy but does not excel in the art of narrating, `Ali is honest so he wouldn’t lie but he makes mistakes in narrating, the third narrator is Qays, the same man in the first narration and he is Thiqah reliable. The text of this narration is good, it is “Hasan”, and the only difference between it and the first is the number of days, the first narration gets priority as it is more reliable.
#3 Sa`eed is trusted but has bad memory, this can affect his texts. Sahl is reliable in and of himself but may make Tadlees, meaning he may not have actually heard this narration from `Umar. `Umar as a narrator is barely acceptable, he doesn’t lie, but he isn’t reliable either. The text of the narration appears completely different, the period of 2-3 days is suddenly stretched to two weeks! and the Du`a or chant at the end is Munkar, it opposes the others and opposes Islamic creed, this text is completely un-acceptable although none of the narrators are “liars” or “unknown” or even “weak”.
This is a very small and primitive example to show how the quality of narrators is reflected on the quality of texts, how judging each narrator’s reliability and firmness in Hadith is key when comparing different religious and historical reports to reach the final conclusion as to what exactly happened in the event we research.
This science is applied by Ahlul-Sunnah with excellence as they perfected it, it is used to better understand the narrations and to extract the authentic religious rulings and historical information after filtering out all the lies, the mistakes, the fabrications, the exaggerations and the inaccuracies which distort the texts.
The Shia on the other hand by trying to mimic Ahlul-Sunnah, they tried to do the same. However, due to their negligence and ignorance and extremism, they avoided these sciences and believed in whatever they wished, and now when faced with the criticism of the opponents, they try to shovel the calamities they recorded in their books, they try to bury the mistakes and reconcile the contradictions while failing to explain many of the major conflicts in their `Aqeedah. Success was not on their side and Success is only from Allah.
There are plenty of ways to illustrate this deficiency in the Shia Madhab and prove academically the success and great victory for Ahlul-Sunnah. I’ve read more than one study on this subject by Arab students of knowledge, each more informative than the other, each illustrating with clear evidence the weakness of the Shia sources, we even started a draft for a similar study comparing the main Hadithi sources the Shia Kafi vs the Sunni Bukhari, but we have no yet published it in its entirety. This day, I chose another way to do it, a way that I expect to be InshaAllah easy to accomplish but strong in its conclusions.
The plan is to show how Ahlul-Sunnah took great care when it came to judging their narrators and recording everything to do with their ability to narrate as opposed to the Shia who either give the man a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
In the science of Ahlul-Sunnah, a narrator could be weak in a way that his narrations are abandoned altogether, he could be weak but his narrations are written, he could be slightly weak but strengthened with follow-ups or Mutaba`at, he could be trustworthy but with a bad memory, or reliable but got confused at the end of his life, and we are able to distinguish who heard from him before or after his confusion, a narrator could be reliable when narrating from some men but weak when narrating from others, a narrator could be reliable when narrating from his own books but weak after he lost his books when narrating from memory, a narrator could be reliable and he could have lived in the time of another reliable narrator but we know that they never met so their narration from each-other is weak, a narrator could be reliable but attributes narrations to those whom he never met, a narrator could be an innovator so whatever he exclusively narrates to support his innovation is rejected, a narrator could be honest but not very reliable in narration, a narrator could be trustworthy but makes mistakes every now and then, a narrator could be knowledgeable about the narrations and narrators of Kufa more than those of al-Sham, a narrator could have lived in the time of another but was too young to narrate from him without a middle man, a narrator could be a liar or one who is accused of lies or fabrication and so on and so forth…
In the science of the Imamiyyah, we observe that there is no attention whatsoever to all the above, the case is usually that either they consider a man Thiqah (reliable) or Majhoul (unknown), it’s as if they just have a stamp and they stamp it on the forehead of every man like robots. The dates of birth and death are not recorded for the vast majority of their narrators which is problematic for the connectivity of the narrators, there is no information on who a man’s teachers are, any narrator can attribute anything to any other man. In fact the huge number of unknown narrators makes it obvious that unlike Ahlul-Sunnah, the Imamiyyah took their narrations from random Koufans and Qummies, most of which aren’t Imams or scholars or Huffaz, just grocers and blacksmiths and merchants and other individuals from that society. Another issue is that they invented rules to make Tawtheeq or authenticate unknown individuals, such as authenticating anyone al-Saduq praised or anyone in the chains of Tafseer al-Qummi and so on and so forth…
So how can we quickly compare? The books of Rijal are huge and complicated, especially those of Ahlul-Sunnah?
The answer is simple, pick a reliable book from each school that summarizes the matter.
1- Ahlul-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah:
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani al-Shafi`i has a good small Rijali summary called Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb, in this book he mainly sums up the condition of the narrators of al-Imam al-Mezzi’s book Tahdheeb al-Kamal. al-Mezzi’s book contains the names of all the narrators from the six Sunni main books plus a lot of others that al-Mezzi decided to include as well, sadly it doesn’t contain the names of many other Sunni narrators.
2- Imamiyyah Ithna `Ashariyyah:
Shaykh al-Jawahiri wrote a summary called al-Mufeed min Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith, this book sums up the opinions of al-Khu’i in his Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith. al-Khu’i wrote his encyclopedia to collect all the Shia narrators and document what the early Shia Rijalists said concerning each man.
Method of this comparative study:
The two books we mentioned, although they’re summaries, yet they’re still quite big and going through each book from beginning to end is very time consuming. I thought of the easiest and quickest way to reach the results without sacrificing much in the accuracy of the study and without ending up with a big error margin as that would be a waste of my time.
What I decided in the end, was to use the computer and the software as this would make the search automated and thus much quicker. How would I do this? Well as the readers know, each of the authors lists a number, then lists the name of the narrator, and next to this he states whether the man was Thiqah or Hasan-ul-Hadith or Da`eef or Majhoul etc… So I would write the word “Thiqah” in the search engine and it would give me the number of times the author ruled on the Wathaqah of a narrator. Now you ask, well this isn’t very accurate, we know for example that the Shia usually praise some of their narrators by saying “Thiqah Thiqah”, this would be counted twice for one single man! I say, this is true, the goal was never to be 100% accurate, I believe the difference will be so huge between both, and the result will be so clear, that such small exceptional cases would not affect the study, the error margin wouldn’t be more than 3 to 6% per-my estimation, the proof is that those described as “Thiqah Thiqah” in al-Mufeed are only about 43 individuals out of around 15,678 narrators in the book, hardly 0.2%.
The Sunni book is going to be much much harder, since there are many more terms, the author does not work in binary of Thiqah or Majhoul, so it’s tricky and I need to place much more of an effort to write its resulsts.
With this said, InshaAllah and Bismillah we begin,
NOTE: These are all not 100% accurate, so keep this in mind since I don’t want to keep repeating “around this or that much” I’ll abbreviate it with Tilde “~”.
1- The Sunni book of Rijal, al-Taqreeb li-ibn Hajar:
Published by Dar al-Rasheed, Syria.
Total number of Rijal: Around 8,826 men.
There are many terms used to described narrators in the science of Ahlul-Sunnah, the matter isn’t restricted to Thiqah vs Majhoul like the Shia book, so I’ll just select a few common ones.
Thiqah Thabt (ثقة ثبت) are ~ 137
Thiqah (ثقة) are ~ 2,304
Saduq (صدوق) are ~ 1,833
Maqboul (مقبول) are ~ 1,522
Layyin (لين) are ~ 211
Da`eef (ضعيف) are ~ 423
Matrouk (متروك) are ~ 145
Mastour (مستور) are ~ 157
La Yu`raf (لا يعرف) are ~ 75
Majhoul (مجهول) are ~ 785
There are many other terms which we did not write such as Thiqah Mutqin or Laysa bil-Qawi or Lahu Awham or Katheer al-Khata’ etc… but these are enough to give us a clear image of what the situation is. Obviously the terms of praise range from Sahabi or Lahu Suhbah, to Imam Hafiz or Thiqah Jaleel, or Thabt and these indicate the highest forms of reliability, followed by Thiqah and it is for the reliable narrator, then Saduq or Hasan or Salih al-Hadith for the trusted narrators who aren’t renowned reliable Muhadditheen. Then terms of weakness such as “Maqboul” and he is the one whose narrations are barely acceptable, and the “Layyin” whose weakness isn’t much, and Shadeed al-Du`f or Munkar al-Hadith or Matrouk for those of extreme weakness, then after that come terms such as the “Mouttahameen” those accused of fabricating, then the Kazzab and Wadda` for fabricators and liars, and then the Mastour and Majhoul and La Yu`raf for those whose identities are not known or those whose condition is not known and so on…
Based on the simplified list above, we see that the matter isn’t as black and white as we find in the Shia books, the author seems to have accurately placed each man in his rightful position, we find the weakness of narrators classed into several levels and so is their strength, making the process of grading Hadith deeper and richer.
2- The Shia book of Rijal, al-Mufeed lil-Jawahiri:
Published by Mahillati, Iran.
Total number of Rijal: Around 14,194 men. (After subtracting the term: Muttahid Ma` to reduce repetition)
Thiqatun-Thiqah (ثقة ثقة) are ~ 40.
Thiqah-`Ayn (ثقة عين) are ~ 43.
Thiqah (ثقة) are ~ 1,346.
Saduq (صدوق) are ~ 12.
Da`eef (ضعيف) are ~ 234.
Majhoul (مجهول) are ~ 8,054.
Majhoulah (مجهولة) are ~ 87.
The number of the above does not reach the total because many narrators were not judged, the author says that so and so met the Mahdi or was praised by so and so, but they don’t have a clear ruling on them, in this case they’d be Majaheel (unknowns), and many others are simply repetitions of the same person. There are also some other terms such as “Mamdouh” (praised) and Madhmoum (criticized) and Mal`oun (cursed) which are small in number so no use collecting them.
As the reader can see, there is a great unbalance taking place here, the vast majority are either Majhoul or Thiqah. Thiqatun Thiqah is the strongest praise but is very rare. Thiqah and Thiqah `Ayn are technically the same thing. Saduq or trustworthy is the rarest which exposes a deep problem in how they judge narrators and their Dhabt. There are a few weak narrators, but stumbling upon one would be unlikely. The Majaheel whether male or female are abundant, they make up the vast majority. There are about thirty or so narrators that are “praised” which is another form of Majhoul, another thirty or forty are criticized by the Imams or cursed.
– end –
Give me your comments please, especially those who are into Hadith sciences.Written by Hani Posted by 13S2010 Original article
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
A fellow that goes by the name: Dar’ul_Islam on Shiachat posted some garbage on Shiachat, in which he attacks the Sunni hadith system by translating an excerpt from the book of Mohammed Al-Sanad. The brother does not believe in Shia rijal himself, not only that, but he does not know how to follow tashayyu since he has no standards except for his hawa. Anyhow, let’s examine some of the arguments of Al-Sanad that are directed towards the Sunni system.
It is extremely important to look into and investigate the Jarh and Ta`dīl of the different schools of the Sunnis where they continued in weakening narrators who would narrate the fadā’il of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and their status or those who would narrate the defects of the opponents of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام or those would narrate prophetic narrations in agreement with the ahkām practiced by the school of Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام especially after the formed the principles [of their Mazhzhhab] in their hands today which they have made very clear that the Sunna with them is in opposing the Ahl al-Bayt [as] and exiling them and those obstinately with them. But every that narrator increases in this [opposing them and their followers] then it is said that he is firm in the Sunna, while everything coming from those narrating in their favor is passion (hawā), affection, love (muwadda) for the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and inclining towards them, they criticized attributing to them weakness, innovation, and attacks.
Inshallah this will be examined. Do Sunnis truly believe that the Sunnah is through opposing Ahlulbayt, and that those that love Ahlulbayt are weakened? Together we shall see the “evidences” of this that Al-Sanad brings.
We will provide a few example in their Jarh and Ta`dīl showing their partisanship or nasb opposing the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام.
1 – `Umar b. Sa`d b. Abī Waqās : The murderer of al-Imam The Grandson The Martyr. al-`Ijlī said: thiqa(trustworthy, reliable). Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام
I say: Al-Sanad has left out an important opinion, which is that of Yahya bin Ma’een, arguably the greatest of all the rijalis, in which he says: How can the killer of Al-Hussain be thiqa? (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb) Why didn’t Al-Sanad quote the opinion of Yahya bin Ma’een? Perhaps it is because it will destroy his very argument that the Sunni system revolves around Nasb.
2 – Ziyād b. Abīh : A man of severe calamities, excessive crimes, and mortal sins. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt : He was included amongst the very ascetic ones. Ahmad b. Sālih said: He was not accused of lying.
A man who isn’t accused of lying is not necessarily considered reliable. We find in Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban: It appears as though he was disobedient to Allah, and there is a consensus upon the scholars to avoid using those that appear to be in a state of disobedience of Allah as evidence.
Why has Al-Sanad not quoted the opinion of Ibn Hibban? Perhaps it is because it shows that among Ahlulsunnah were those that acted objectively and criticized those that deserve criticism, and that our view of rijal does not revolve around the love and hatred of people towards Ahlulbayt.
3 – `Imrān b. Hattān : leader of the Khawārij. He wrote well-known poetry regarding Ibn Muljam al-Murādī praising him. al-`Ijlī authenticated him. al-Bukhārī included him amongst the narrators of his Sahīh and selected his narrations.
Al-Daraqutni and Al-Uqaili both criticized him and rejected his narrations. This is clear that there is no conspiracy among the scholars of hadith against Ahlulbayt and the Shias.
4 – Harīz b. `Uthmān : The one would who would pray in the masjid and would not leave until he had cursed (yal`an) `Alī seventy times every single day. al-Bukhārī, Abū Dawūd, al-Tirmizhī, and others presented his narrations as proof [as a matter of dalīl]. In al-Riyād al-Nadra : Thiqa, except he hates `Alī, Allah hates him.
Abu Hatim Al-Razi has said that there is nothing authentic about him cursing Ali. Yazeed bin Harun, his student, said that he never heard him say that he doesn’t love Ali. Ali bin Ayyash said that Hareez denied cursing Ali. It is very possible that each of these three scholars held the same view, which is that Hareez never committed this sin. Al-Bukhari though, in Al-Tareekh Al-Kabeer quotes Abu Al-Yamaan who implied that this is Hareez’s old view, and that he left it.
5 – al-`Abbās b. Bakkār al-Dabbī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān al-I`tidāl : He is accused by his hadith from Khālid b. `Abd Allah from Bayān from al-Sha`bī from Abī Juhayfa from `Alī عليه السلام marfū`an (meaning it originates from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله): On the Day of Resurrection a Caller will call: O People of the Gathering! Lower your gazes from Fātima until she passes the path (al-Sirāt) to Paradise. He [al-Zhahabī] also said: And from among his many false sayings: from Khālid b. `Amr al-Azdī from al-Kalbī from Abī Sālih from Abī Hurayra. He said: It is written upon the throne (al-`Arsh): There is no god except Allah Myself Only, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله is My slave and My messenger, I supported him with `Alī.
Al-Sanad assumes that Sunnis weaken narrators due to narrations of praise towards Fatima and Ali, and yet, our Saheehain include such narrations. However, these two specific narrations do not come to us through those that have been deemed as trustworthy, but rather, through a man who is known to have attributed lies to scholars of hadith. I wonder if Al-Sanad accepts these narrations in the first place, since I am not aware that modern Shias believe that Allah has a tangible throne. However, Al-Sanad is a lumberjack by night, and so he uses whatever he can against Ahlulsunnah, not matter how bad the argument is, or if it can be turned against him.
6 – `Ubayd Allah b. Mūsā al-`Abasī : from al-Khatīb that Ahmad b. Hanbal abandoned narrations from him when he heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān, so he went his messenger to Yahyā b. Ma`iīn so he said to him : Your brother Abū `Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal sends you salām and he says : Behold you increase in narrating the narrations from `Ubayd Allah and you and I both heard him presenting [defamation] of Mu`āwiya b. Abī Sufyān and I surely have abandoned narrations from him. So Yahyā b. Ma`īn said to the messenger : I return the salām to Abī `Abd Allah. Say to him : Yahyā b. Ma`īn sends you salām, he said to you : You and I both heard `Abd al-Razzāq presenting [defamation] in `Uthmān b. `Affān so then abandon narrations from him! For verily `Uthmān is more virtuous than Mu`āwiya.
The other view that Al-Sanad does not want to share is that the majority of the scholars of hadith have accepted the narrations of Ubaidullah bin Musa and hold it to the highest regard, even with his tashayyu. He is a major narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and is praised by Yahya bin Ma’een (as Al-Sanad shows), Ibn Adi, Ibn Sa’ad, Ibn Qani’, Al-Saji, Al-Ijli, and Abu Hatim.
Al-Sanad though is isolation Al-Imam Ahmad and making it seem as though this is a part of his agenda against Shias. However, when we go to Bahr Al-Dam by Ibn Abdul Hadi we find that Al-Imam Ahmad had an issue with his narrations, not his tashayyu.
7 – Zakariyyā b. Yahyā al-Kasā’ī : al-Zhahabī said in Mīzān : `Abd Allah b. Ahmad [b. Hanbal] said: I asked Ibn Ma`īn about him so he said : a vile man that narrates vile narrations. He also said : He deserves that a well be built for him and then he is thrown in it. Abū Yu`lā al-Mūsalī narrated: Zakariyyā al-Kasā’ī narrated to me: Zakariyyā b. al-Qāsim narrated to me from Mu`allā b. `Irfān from Shaqīq from `Abd Allah. He said: I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله take the hand of `Alī عليه السلام while he saying: Allah is my walī and I am your walī and the enemy whoever makes you their enemy and peacemaker with whoever makes with with you.
Ironically, even Al-Nasa’ee, who is accused of tashayyu and of hating Mu’awiyah, rejected the narrations of this man. As we can see from the example of Ubaidullah bin Musa, the scholars of Ahlulsunnah have accepted the narrations of Shias that are thiqaat.
8 – Talīd b. Sulaymān al-Kūfī al-A`raj al-Muhārabī : In al-Tahzhīb : Abū Dawūd said : a rāfidī that villifies Abā Bakr and `Uthmān, a vile man malignant, rāfidī. Ibn Mu`ayd said: A liar, he vilifies `Uthmān and any person who villifies `Uthmān or Talha or anyone from the companions of Rasulullah صلى الله عليه وآله is a dajjāl (anti-christ, super-evil-liar) his narrations are not written down!
Let me quote a narration that Al-Thahabi in Mizan Al-I’itidal quoted in order to prove that this man was a liar. He fabricated a narration where the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) looked at Ali and said: This man is in heaven, and his Shia are a people that claim Islam but have nabz, they are called the Rafidha, if you see them then kill them, for they are Mushrikoon. Subhanallah. Rahimakallah ya Al-Thahabi. You criticize a narrator for fabricating a narration that is in your favour. This is the objectivity of Ahlulsunnah.
10 – Lamāza b. Zabbār al-Azdī al-Jahdamī : [al-Zhahabi] said in Mīzā al-I`tidāl : He was present at the incident of Jamal and he was a Nāsibī. He would defame `Alī عليه السلام and praise Yazīd لعنه الله. And in al-Tahzhīb : Ibn Ma`īn said: He would vilify `Alī. Abū Lubayd said : I said to him [Limāza] : Why do you abuse `Alī? He said : That I abuse a man that kills 2500 from us while the Sun is as here!?
The man is authenticated, Ibn Sa`d gives him authentication (tawthīq). Harb said from his father : He was righteous in narrations and he praised him good praises.
See the explanation by Ibn Hajar and the previous examples of the condemnation of Nawasib by hadith scholars.
The First: Ibn Hajr makes it very clear in this discussion that the practice of the master of Jarh and Ta`dīl of the Sunnis was that they would mostly give tawthīq to the Nāsibī and weaken the Shī`ah absolutely and this reporting from him about methodology of the people in Jarh and Ta`dīl and that it is explicitly being in opposition to the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام not regarding honesty of tongue or the lack of it.
The statement that the Sunnis give tawtheeq to Nawasib is true. However, they are not given tawtheeq due to their nasb, but due to their truthfulness. On the other hand, there are those that are Nawasib that have been rejected by Sunni scholars, since they were known to have lied or are weak in hadith. (See Al-Salt bin Dinar’s biography in Taqreeb Al-Tahtheeb) Furthermore, as we have demonstrated above, we do not weaken Shias absolutely, and Al-Sanad is clearly not being truthful about this.
Second: From that which indicates the nasb of Ibn Hajr is that he weakened some thuqāt because they would abuse some of the Companions like Talha and `Uthmān without it being clarified for a reason – like what has passed in the entry of Talīd – meanwhile he has given tawthīq to those who vilify Amīr al-Mūminīn عليه السلام; rather he says that most of the Nāsiba were described with honesty of the speech and upholders of religion so what is concluded from his words is the following: Everyone who abuses a single one from the Companions is a dajjāl, it is not permissible to take narrations from him except the insulters/abusers of Amīr al-Mūminīn `Alī عليه أفضل الصلاة والسلام for verily they are generally the masters of religious affairs and described as honest in speech! So welcome to this type of religiosity! Congratulations to these religious ones the most daring [in challenging] Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله! How joyous for these pens that seek reward in supporting Banī Umayya in assaulting the law of Islam and the sanctity of the Master of Risālah al-Mudriyya (?) with wickedness and fasād and hating the purified progeny and aiding the Tulaqā’* and the sons of Tulaqā’! The opposers of the Imam of Truth! The drinkers of wine! The creators of calamities and pages of darkness, the likes of Talha, `Uthmān, and Mu`āwiya لعنه الله. “A grievous word comes from the mouths! The speak nothing but lies!” [al-Kahf 18:5]
This is correct, and there shouldn’t be anything confusing about this, nor does this have anything to do with the biases of Sunnis. This is an objective observation by our hadith scholars. The corruptness of a sect does not necessarily make them liars. A good example of this are the Khawarij, who believe that lying is a major sin that leads to hellfire. Due to this belief, the Khawarij, as vile as they were, were very cautious about lying. They were even more cautious than those that ascribed themselves to Ahlulsunnah. However, certain sects that fell under the umbrella of Rafdh believed in the permissibility of lying in order to hide one’s point of view. It is natural for Sunni hadith scholars to be more cautious of the Rafidha than the Khawarij, even if we agreed that the Khawarij are worse than the Rafidha in general.
The Conclusion: The matter of Jarh and Ta`dīl is subjected to the ijtihād of the rijāli according it was grounded in from inquiries of belief so his conclusions that he put out were nothing but his fatāwā, meaning his ijtihād and the majority of the matter is not grounded in assessing the moral behavior of the narrator.
Alhamdulillah, this has been proven to be false, and Alhamdulillah, these arguments by Al-Sanad shows only how weak his opinion is.
In addition to the above, I’d like to demonstrate how Sunni hadith scholars weaken Shias. I’ll be doing so by proving the weakness of Al-Sanad himself when it comes to transmitting information.
1st Mistake: He said: Ibn Hajr said in Tahzhīb al-Tahzheeb : He is a tābi`ī (first generation follower after the Companions), thiqa and he is the one who murdered al-Husayn. عليه السلام
I say: Ibn Hajar said no such thing in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.
2nd Mistake: He said: Khalīfa b. Khayyāt : He was included amongst the very ascetic ones.
I say: The person that said that was Abu Nu’aim. Furthermore, in another edition of Tareekh Dimashq he says that he was considered as one of the smartest, not an ascetic. The same can be found in Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba by the same author.
3rd Mistake: He said when defending Taleed: So anyone who vilifies anyone from the Sahaba is proven to be a dajjāl according to Ibn Hajar and it is not permissible to write his hadith.
I say: The actual quote is by Ibn Ma’een and not Ibn Hajar. Note: Dar’ul Islam, the translator has changed the name to Ibn Ma’een, when in the published book it says Ibn Hajar.
4th Mistake: He says: Abū Lubayd said : I said to him [Limāza] : Why do you abuse `Alī? He said : That I abuse a man that kills 2500 from us while the Sun is as here!?
I say: Abu Lubaid IS Limaza, so how can he be talking to himself?! The quote says that “someone” said to Abu Lubaid, not that Abu Lubaid was speaking to Limaza.
Subhanallah. How can such a man be trusted when he makes such blunders? Truly, it is clear that Al-Sanad is weak in his transmitting the opinions of scholars.
Written by Farid Original Article link Posted by 13S2010
For centuries, Shias have been quoting narrations that are found in Sunni books and shoving them in the faces of Sunnis. Those that have the tools, the Arabic, the knowledge of hadith sciences, have been able to differentiate the authentic from the weak. While those that didn’t have these tools were left questioning the reliability of these narrations. This is especially true today, in the age of internet, where arguments have reached the masses that have not studied these fields sufficiently to defend themselves.
Firstly, it is important to note that Ahlulsunnah are extremely special in the sense that they narrate that which supports them and that which is against them. Due to their fairness, they have documented a lot of narrations that do indeed go against Islamic teachings and Sunni views. Unfortunately, those from other sects, like the Shias, take advantage of this, and quote these narrations, often claiming that they are authentic.
In order to combat this, here is a list of the most common flaws that can be found in narrations that are quoted by Shias. Every Sunni that is interested in hadith should be aware of. Of course, please note that these opinions are the opinions of the majority, or at least the majority of the early scholars of hadith sciences.
Notes that have to do with narrators:
1- The following narrators are weak:
Abdullah bin Lahee’a
Mohammad bin Omar Al-Waqidi (the shaikh of Ibn Sa’ad)
Ali bin Zaid bin Jad’aan
Abd Al-Salaam bin Salih Abu Al-Salt Al-Harawi
Lut bin Yahya Abu Mikhnaf
Nasr bin Muzahim
Al-Balathuri (no information can be found regarding the reliability of this man)
2- The following narrators are mudalisoon (the narrate from their shaikhs what they didn’t hear, so their hadith is rejected unless they said specifically that they heard the narration):
Al-A’amash Sulaiman bin Mahran
Abu Ishaaq Al-Sabee’ee
Mohammad bin Ishaaq (the author of the Sirah)
Notes that have to do with the grading of narrators:
1- Ibn Hibban is infamous for including unknown/anonymous narrators in his book of Thiqaat. Refer to this thread:http://islamic-forum…showtopic=14818
2- When Ibn Hajar says about a narrator that he is Maqbool (satisfactory), this, in most cases, is because he is relying on the Tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban above. Ibn Hajar also says in his introduction that when he says Maqbool, he only means that this is the case when there are supporting narrations.
3- Al-Ijli, the author of Al-Thiqaat is described by Sh. Abdulrahman Al-Mu’allami as being similar in his gradings as Ibn Hibban. It seems as some of the late scholars too didn’t care much about his strengthening of narrators.
Notes that have to do with the authenticating of narrations:
1- The following scholars are seen as very lenient when it comes to strengthening narrations:
2- When Al-Hakim says that the narration is upon the conditions of the two Shaikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), he can be wrong. Proof of this is a compilation of a contemporary scholars who collected a whole volume of such mistakes.
3- Al-Thahabi wrote his summary of Mustadrak Al-Hakim (which includes his gradings) when he was young, so his opinions from his late books are often less lenient. He himself admits that his summary needs to be revised.
4- The strengthening of narration simple because it has two or more chains is not a general rule. Al-Albani is guilty of this, and this methodology wasn’t practiced to the extent by the early scholar. There are many hadiths that the early scholars saw, that had many chains, but still refused to strengthen them, for various reasons.
5- Two chains with anonymous narrators does not make an authentic hadith.
6- Additions are to be taken into account. If a narration is known to have been narrated in one particular way, but then includes an addition in one of the specific chains, then it needs to be studied instead of immediately accepting it as authentic.
7- Disconnected narrations happen from time to time from the narration of the Tabi’een. Refer to books like Tatheeb Al-Tahtheeb by Ibn Hajar, and the books of maraseel by Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Ala’ee, and Al-Iraqi, for details regarding specific disconnections of narrators.
8- When a scholar says that the narration has the narrators of the authentic books, that doesn’t mean that the hadith is authentic. It only means that the narrators are reliable. However, other problems including disconnection of the hadith, or the inclusion of a mudalis, is possible.
Notes on the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh):
1- Not every single companion that is mentioned in the books that detail the names of the companions is an actual companion of the Prophet (pbuh). Refer to this thread for details: http://islamic-forum…showtopic=17278
2- Not all the information included about the lives of companions in these books are accurate. Chains of narrations needs to be taken into account when determining truth from falsehood.3- The book of Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafi’ on the companions of Ali is not authentically attributed to him.
4- Nasr bin Muzahim and Lut bin Yahya’s books that detail historical events are not seen as reliable, because both of these men are from the Rafidha.By Farid
Some of our friends seem to be thinking that Sunnis are making the rules up as they go along when it comes to rejecting weak narrations. However, this is far from true. I’ve personally seen examples of early and late scholars coming to the conclusion that Ibn Hibban’s tawtheeq shouldn’t be accepted if he is the only person doing tawtheeq.
Al-Albani said (Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18):
ولهذا نجد المحققين من المحدثين كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما لا يوثقون من تفرد بتوثيقه ابن حبان
Rough Trans: “And that is why we find the muhaditheen like Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar and others, not strengthening those that Ibn Hibban strengthens alone.”
Shaikh Muqbil was asked in Al-Muqtarah (p. 47):
السؤال: ابن حبان معروف أنه يوثق المجاهيل، فإن كان الراوي غير مجهول وقد روى عنه أكثر من واحد، وقال ابن حبان: هذا مستقيم الحديث أو قال هذا ثقة هل نتوقف في توثيقه أم نعتبره؟
الجواب: من أهل العلم كما في التنكيل بما في تأنيب الكوثري من الأباطيل من قال فيه: إنه يقبل. وهو إختيار المعلمي.
أما (ثقة) فالغالب أنه عرف هو نفسه بالتساهل، فيتوقف لأنه قد عرف هو بالتساهل في توثيق المجاهيل، فإذا وثق غير مجهول يقبل منه، أما المجهولون فقد عرف منه التساهل في هذا.
Question: Ibn Hibban is known for strengthening anonymous narrators, so if the narrator wasn’t unknown, and has more than one student, and Ibn Hibban said: mustaqeemul hadith or thiqa, do we still not accept him or do we?
Answer: Some of the scholars, like Al-Mu’allami in Al-Tankeel accepted this. As for the term thiqa, in most cases, he is known for being lenient, so we stop, because he was lenient in strengthening unknown narrators. However, if he strengthened someone that is known, then we accept it.
So, there you have it, Al-Thahabi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Mu’allami, Al-Albani, and Shaikh Muqbil all hold the opinion that Ibn Hibban’s strengthening of unknown narrators is not acceptable.
Inshallah this will be beneficial to all.By Farid Posted by 13S2010
The following are important notes by scholars that determine whether a narrator is a companion or not.
Ibn Hajr in Al-Isaba (1/8) mentioned the following criteria:
1- Tawatur (Continuous reports from generation to generation that cannot be doubted – i.e. The companionship of Abu Bakr and Omar, etc.)
2- Al-Istifadha and al-shuhra (this is similar to the first but to a lesser extent)
3- A small number of companions and tabi’een that specifically say that so and so is a companion.
4- For a just and upright person to say about himself that he is a companion.
Ibn Hajar then adds a couple of other methods, the most accurate of which is the report from Ibn Abi Shaibah that says, “They used to not assign as a leader in wars anyone other than the companions.” However, this specific method is questionable, or at least one to be taken with caution, since there are cases, for example Al-Qa’qa’ bin Amr Al-Tameemi, that was said to have led wars but is not considered to be a sahabi by Abu Hatim Al-Razi due to him not falling into one of the previous four methods.
On a similar note, it is important to understand the methodologies of the scholars in collecting their compilations of sahaba.
Some of the more important ones are Ma’rifatul Sahaba by Abu Nu’aim Al-Asbahani, Ma’rifatul Sahaba by Ibn Mandah, Al-Istee’aab by Ibn Abdul Barr, Usud Al-Ghaabah by Ibn Al-Atheer, and Al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar. There are also other books that are important to determine who is a sahabi but they are not compilations that were made for that specific purpose. Perhaps the most important from these are Al-Tareekh Al-Kabeer by Al-Bukhari, Al-Jarh wal Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Hatim, and the first chapter of Al-Thiqaat by Ibn Hibban.
Now, the question that plagues the minds of many students of knowledge is the following: Is the inclusion of the name of a narrator in a compilation of sahaba necessitate that he is in fact a sahabi?
The answer is: No, it doesn’t.
Dr. Amer Sabri said that they used to include everyone that is mentioned to have been a companion, even if this is accurate or not, and that Ibn Hajar was clear about this.
Abdullah Al-Judai’ in his Tahreer (1/117) said, “It should be known that many of the names of those you find under “sahaba” were included for their narration from the Prophet (pbuh), but if you looked into the chain you would find that many of them are not authentic to the person that is claimed to be a companion.” He then quoted Abu Hatim in Al-Jarh wal Ta’deel’s statement in regards to Eisa bin Yazdad, “His hadith is not authentic, and his father is not a companion, and some people include him as a companion as some sort of metaphor, but him as his father are anonymous.”Al-Judai’ said, “One should also know that the critics may differ in regards to the suhba of someone, and it is obligatory then to look into it and determine the correct view from the methods mentioned previously in order to determine if he is a companion or not.”
Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaba (1/9) spoke of some of the narrators that said, “the Prophet (pbuh) said,” but without proof of their companionship, he said, “This didn’t prevent those that compiled books on companionship from including them.”
I say: Once again, one needs to return to the books of companionship and look into the methods that are used and if they are correct since it seems that scholars are lenient in who they include in their books.
It should also be noted that Ibn Hajar himself was lenient with his conditions of his compilation. He said (1/6), “The first category: Includes those that have been mentioned as companions through narration or other, whether the chain is authentic, hasan, or weak, or is mentioned in a way that implies his companionship in any way.”
Notice, Ibn Hajar includes people that he himself admits were mentioned as companions through weak chains. This implies that they are not companions in his view, but he chose to include them in his compilation either way.
Inshallah this is sufficient.By Farid Posted by 13S2010