7. Problems in applying rules of hadith and narrators on the Shia School’s narrations

The science of isnad[1] and narrations is a distinguished characteristic of the Ummah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which was not bestowed to any other nation.

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has honored and favored this Ummah with isnad. None of the other nations, old or new, had isnad. They merely had scriptures with them and they mingled their transmissions with their books, as a result they could not distinguish between what was revealed in the Tawrah and Injil (Gospel) from what their Prophets brought and from the transmissions that they added to their books which were taken from unreliable people.

This Ummah only narrates hadith from a reliable person, known in his time and famous for truthfulness and trustworthiness, who narrates from similar persons till the end of the narration. Then they research most diligently, till they find the best in memorizing, the most accurate, and the one who accompanied those above him the longest from those who accompanied less…[2]

Regarding the importance of isnad and the diligence about its narrators, Ibn al Mubarak stated:

الإسناد من الدين لو لا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء

Isnad is from din. If there was no isnad, anyone would say whatever he wished.[3]

He also stated:

مثل الذي يطلب أمر دينه بلا إسناد كمثل الذي يرتقي السطح بلا سلم

The example of a person who seeks the matter of his din without isnad is like the one who climbs the rooftop without a ladder.[4]

Al Hakim al Naysaburi (d. 405 AH) states:

لولا الإسناد وطلب هذه الطائفة له وكثرة مواظبتهم علي حفظه لدرس منار الإسلام ولتمكن أهل الإلحاد والبدع فيه بوضع الأحاديث وقلب الأسانيد فإن الأخبار إذا تعرت عن وجود الأسانيد فيها كانت بتراء

If there was no isnad, the desire of this group for it and their perseverance upon preserving it, the landmarks of Islam would become extinct and the atheist and the innovators would be able to fabricate ahadith and change the chains (of narrations). Any narration that is free of isnad is incomplete.[5]

Thus, obtaining isnad and seeking superiority in it and research about the evaluation of its people, i.e. narrators of hadith, is one of the most obligatory responsibilities to preserve the blessed Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Hadith.[6]

Ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH) has alluded to the obligation of scrutinizing the condition of the narrators from whom hadith is narrated, by saying:

إن هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمن تأخذون دينكم

This knowledge is din, so see who you take your din from.[7]

The Muhaddithin from the Ahlus Sunnah made a tremendous effort in preserving the noble Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, in narration and methodology. They set out laws and scrutinized the conditions of narrators who transmitted the narrations, until this knowledge, in its entirety and in detail, was considered to be their knowledge to which no one had preceded them. Whoever came after them, from the Imamiyyah and others, based their knowledge on them, immaterial of whether they attributed the credit to them or attributed it to their predecessors.

Muhammad ibn Idris al Shafi’i (d. 204 AH), in his book al Risalah, took precedence in mentioning the most important topics of Usul al Hadith (principles of Hadith)[8], meanwhile Hassan ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ramahurmuzi (d. 360 AH) is considered to be the first to write an exclusive book in the science of Hadith which he titled al Muhaddith al Fasil bayn al Rawi wa al Wa’i.

Regarding the importance of the science of Dirayah,[9] the late Shia scholar of reference Sayed ‘Ali al Fani al Isfahani (d. 1409 AH) states:

وأهمية بحوث دراية الرجال لا تقل أهمية عن البحوث الأصولية لتوقف الاستنباط عليها كما يتوقف على غيرهما وذلك لأن جل الأحكام التي بين أيدينا وصلت عبر الروايات المسندة بأسانيد غير مقطوعة الصحة والاعتبار ويحتاج تنقيح الصحيح منها إلى نظر دقيق وعناية فائقة لمعرفة صحة الطريق إلي الرواية ليُصبح إسنادها إلي المعصوم جائزا والعمل بمقتضاها مقبولا

The importance of the research of the knowledge of narrators is no less than the research of principles, as deduction is based on it just as it is based on others. This is because most of the rulings that are before us, reached us through narrations supported by chains whose authenticity and consideration is not certain. Revising the authentic ones requires careful consideration and great care, to know the correct path to the narration so that its attribution to the infallible Imam is correct and practicing on its demand is acceptable.[10]

The late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Shihab al Din al Mar’ashi al Najafi states:

إن من أشرف العلوم الإسلامية علم الدراية الذي هو بمنزلة المقدمة لعلم الرجال وكلاهما من أهم علوم الحديث وعليهما تدور رحي استنباط الأحكام ورد الفروع إلي الأصول

From amongst the noblest of Islamic sciences is the science of Dirayah, which is like an introduction to the science of Rijal. Both these sciences are amongst the most important sciences of Hadith. Deriving of rules and referring subsidiaries to the principles revolves around them.[11]

Despite this importance that al Fani al Isfahani and al Mar’ashi al Najafi spoke about, anyone who examines the history of the emergence and development of the science of Dirayah among the Imami Shias would realize—without the slightest doubt—that the Imamis did not have, in the era of the formation of the Imami Hadith, any concern about this science or great knowledge of it. Hence, they did not have any special book in Usul al Hadith and its sciences, until the time of Sheikh Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 965 AH), known as al Shahid al Thani (the second martyr), as stated by a group of Imami scholars.[12]

The reason for this, as Ghulam Hussain Qaisariyyah states, is that:

لما كانت الشيعة في زمن الأئمة غير محتاجة إلى علم الدراية لأنهم مرتبطون بالأئمة ومعتمدون على الأصول المصنفة وعندهم قرائن كانوا يعولون عليها وكانت القرائن لا تزال موجودة عند المتقدمين من الأصحاب لم يهتموا بهذا العلم ولم يدونوا أصوله ولم يؤلفوا فيه تأليفا‏

Since the Shias, in the time of the Imams, had no need for the science of Dirayah—as they were linked to the Imams and relied on the written principles and had evidences which they depended on, and the evidences were always present among the former companions—they neither cared about this science nor compiled its principles, nor wrote any books about it.[13]

Hussain ibn Shihab al Din al Karaki al ‘Amili (d.1076 AH)—during the course of his criticism of the approach of some of the Imami scholars who preceded him—disclosed the method in which the rules of sciences of Hadith and its terminology were quoted from the Sunnis by stating:

ولم يكن للإمامية تأليف في الدراية لعدم احتياجهم إليها ومخالفة عمدة مقاصدها لطريق القدماء وكون العمل بها يوجب سوء الظن بالسلف الصالح وعدم الاعتماد عليهم وتخطئتهم فيما شهدوا بصحته وما أشبه ذلك بالماء الصافي يلقي فيه التراب فيكدره وأول من الّف في الدراية من أصحابنا الشهيد الثاني اختصر دراية ابن الصلاح الشافعي في رسالته ثم شرحها وحيث لم يطلع على عدة الشيخ ولا علي أصول المحقق ليعرف الفرق بين طريق القدماء والمتأخرين كما عرفه ولده الشيخ حسن أخذته الحيرة وأكثر الاعتراض على الشيخ وغيره في العمل بالأخبار

The Imamiyyah did not have a compilation in Dirayah due to their lack of need for it and the contradiction of its primary objectives from the way of the formers, and the fact that practising on it necessitates having bad thoughts about the righteous predecessors, not trusting them, and error in what they testified to be true. How similar is that to pure water in which dirt is thrown and it becomes dirty. The first to write in the science of Dirayah, from among our companions, is al Shahid al Thani who summarized the Dirayah of Ibn al Salah al Shafi’i in his treatise and then commentated on it. Since he was not aware of Sheikh’s ‘Uddah[14] or al Muhaqqiq’s al Usul,[15] he did not know the difference between the way of the formers and the latter ones, as his son Sheikh Hassan knew it. He was confused and objected excessively on Sheikh and others for practicing on the transmissions.[16]

The Imamiyyah are unanimous that dividing Hadith into four categories (i.e. Sahih, Hassan, Muwaththaq, and Da’if) was invented by ‘Allamah Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli (d. 726 AH),[17] according to the popular view, or his teacher Sayed Ahmed ibn Tawus (d. 673 AH). They are unanimous that this categorization and terminology was not known to the sect before. It was taken from the sciences of the Ahlus Sunnah to a point that it became a path which the Imami Usulis emulated till today.

Regarding this, Sheikh Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 1011 AH) states in Muntaqa al Juman:

أكثر أنواع الحديث المذكورة في دراية الحديث من مستخرجات العامة بعد وقوع معانيها في حديثهم فذكروها بصورة ما وقع واقتفي جماعة من أصحابنا في ذلك أثرهم واستخرجوا من أخبارنا في بعض الأنواع ما يناسب (مصطلحهم) وبقي منه كثير على حكم محض الفرض ولايخفى أن البحث عما ليس بواقع واتباعهم في إثبات الاصطلاح له قليل الجدوى بعيد عند الاعتبار ومظنة للإيهام

Most of the types of hadith mentioned in Dirayat al Hadith are extracted from the laymen,[18] after their meanings occurred in their narrations. Thus, they mentioned them as they occurred. A group of our companions followed their footsteps in that and extracted from our narrations, in some types, that which conforms to their terminology and much of it remained as pure presumption. It is no secret that discussing something which has no reality and following them in establishing terminology for it, is of little use, far from consideration, and suspicious of being deception.[19]

Muhammad ibn Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al ‘Amili, the son of the aforementioned Sheikh Hassan, expressed astonishment at his grandfather, Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (al Shahid al Thani), Muhammad ibn Makki al Amili (al Shahid al Awwal), and ‘Allamah Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli for their excessive studying under the Sunnis, researching their books, and quoting from them to such an extent that al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 AH) stated in his biography in Amal al Amil:

ولم يؤلف كتابا مدونا لشدة احتياطه ولخوف الشهرة وكان يقول قد أكثر المتأخرون التأليف وفي مؤلفاتهم سقطات كثيرة عفا الله عنا وعنهم وقد أدى ذلك إلى قتل جماعة منهم وكان يتعجب من جده الشهيد الثاني ومن الشهيد الأول ومن العلامة في كثرة قراءتهم على علماء العامة وكثرة تتبع كتبهم في الفقه والحديث والأصولين وقراءتها عندهم وكان ينكر عليهم ويقول قد ترتب على ذلك ما ترتب عفا الله عنهم

He did not compile a written book due to his great caution and fear of fame. He used to say, “The latter scholars wrote a lot, and there were many lapses in their writings. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forgive us and them. This led to the killing of a group of them. He used to be astonished at his grandfather, al Shahid al Thani, al Shahid al Awwal, and al ‘Allamah at their frequent studying under the scholars of the al ‘Ammah, and the frequent research of their books in fiqh, Hadith, principles, and studying it under them. He would disapprove of them and say, “Whatever resulted from that, has taken place. May Allah forgive them.”[20]

Al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 AH) realised that applying the critical Hadith approach to the Imami legacy, wherein some of the senior Imami scholars emulated the footsteps of the Ahlus Sunnah, would quite simply mean overthrowing the school completely because:

إنه يستلزم ضعف أكثر الأحاديث التي قد علم نقلها من الأصول المجمع عليها لأجل ضعف بعض رواتها أو جهالتهم أو عدم توثيقهم فيكون تدوينها عبثا بل محرما وشهادتهم بصحتها زورا وكذبا ويلزم بطلان الإجماع الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه أيضا كما تقدم واللوازم باطلة وكذا الملزوم بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها عند التحقيق لأن الصحيح عندهم ما رواه العدل الإمامي الضابط في جميع الطبقات ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة إلا نادرا وإنما نصوا على التوثيق وهو لا يستلزم العدالة قطعا بل بينهم عموم من وجه كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني وغيره ودعوى بعض المتأخرين أن الثقة بمعنى العدل الضابط ممنوعة وهو مطالب بدليلها وكيف وهم مصرحون بخلافها حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه وكفره وفساد مذهبه

This necessitates rendering da’if most of the ahadith which are known to have been transmitted from the agreed-upon primary works. This is on account of the weakness of a few of their narrators, or their jahalah (being unknown), or the fact that no one has made tawthiq (approbation) of them, thereby rendering their documentation futile. This would mean their documentation was done in vain. In fact, haram. Their testimony in favour of their authenticity would be false, a lie, and necessitate the invalidity of the ijma’ (consensus) which, as mentioned, is also known to include the infallible—as mentioned above. The lawazim (antecedents) and the malzum (consequent) are invalid. In fact, a critical examination would necessitate that all the ahadith are da’if since a sahih hadith is, according to them “that which is narrated by an upright and precise Imami on all levels.” Very rarely do they document the uprightness of any of the narrators; they merely stipulated reliability, and this does not definitively necessitate uprightness. In fact, there is a generality between them in a sense, as stated by al Shahid al Thani and others. The claim by some latter-day scholars that the term thiqah means “al ‘adl al dabit (upright precise)” is invalid and needs to be proven. How can that be possible whereas they declare contrary to it, as they declare reliability to those who they believe to be sinners, disbelievers, and corrupted in their school?[21]

Applying the four terminological divisions (Sahih, Hassan, Muwaththaq, and Da’if) to the School’s narrations would lead to discarding most of them, and this is also confirmed by Muhaqqiq al Bahrani (d. 1186 AH)—despite his well-known neutralism between the Akhbaris and the Usulis[22]—when he states in al Hada’iq al Nadirah:

وانت خبير بأنا في عويل من أصل هذا الاصطلاح الذي هو إلى الفساد قرب من الصلاح حيث أن اللازم منه لو وقف عليه أصحابه فساد الشريعة وربما انجر إلى البدع الفظيعة فإنه متي كان الضعيف باصطلاحهم مع إضافة الموثق إليه كما جرى عليه في المدارك ليس بدليل شرعي بل هو كذب وبهتان مع أن ما عداهما من الصحيح والحسن لا يفيان لهما إلا بالقليل من الأحكام فإلام يرجعون في باقي الأحكام الشرعية ولا سيما أصولها وفضائل الأئمة وعصمتهم وبين فضائلهم وكراماتهم ونحو ذلك وإذا نظرت إلى أصول الكافي وأمثاله وجدت جله وأكثره إنما هو من هذا القسم الذي أطرحوه ولهذا ترى جملة منهم لضيق الخناق خرجوا من اصطلاحهم في مواضع عديدة وتستروا بأعذار غير سديدة وإذا كان الحال هذه في أصل الاصطلاح فكيف الحال في اصطلاح صاحب المنتقي وتخصيصه الصحيح بما ذكره ما هذه إلا غفلة ظاهرة

والواجب إما الأخذ بهذه الأخبار كما هو عليه متقدمو علمائنا الأبرار أو تحصيل دين غير هذا الدين وشريعة أخرى غير هذه الشريعة لنقصانها وعدم تمامها لعدم الدليل علي جملة من أحكامها ولا أراهم يلتزمون شيئا من الأمرين مع أنه لا ثالث لهما في البين وهذا بحمد الله ظاهر لكل ناظر غير متعسف ولا مكابر

And you are aware that we are lamenting at the origin of this term[23] which is closer to corruption than righteousness, as it necessitates—if its companions stay upon it—the corruption of Shari’ah and perhaps lead to terrible innovations, because if, according to their terminology, the Da’if (weak narration) as well as the Muwaththaq[24] (trusted narration) is not a Shar’i evidence—as is the case in al Madarik[25]—but rather a lie and slander—despite the fact that besides them, the Sahih (authentic) and Hassan (good) narrations only suffice for a few rulings—so what would they refer to in the rest of the Shar’i rulings, especially in principles, the virtues of the Imams and their infallibility, their virtues and miracles, etc.? If one looks at Usul al Kafi and others like it, one will find that most of it is from this type, which they have discarded. Hence, one would see a group of them, due to the tightness of the noose, discard their terminology in many places and hide behind invalid excuses. If this is the situation in the original terminology, then what will be the situation of the terminology of the author of al Muntaqa[26] and his specification of Sahih with what he has mentioned? This is nothing but an apparent oversight.

What is obligatory is, either to accept these narrations—as our righteous scholars did—or to acquire a din other than this din and a Shari’ah other than this Shari’ah, due to its deficiencies and being incomplete because of the lack of evidence for a number of its rulings. I do not see them adhering to any of the two matters, even though there is no third option among them. This—with the praises of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala—is apparent to every observer, without being abusive or arrogant.[27]

He further states:

إنه لو تم ما ذكروه وصح ما قرروه للزم فساد الشريعة وإبطال الدين لأنه متى اقتصر في العمل علي هذا القسم الصحيح أو مع الحسن خاصة أو بإضافة الموثق أيضا ورُمي بقسم الضعيف باصطلاحهم من البين والحال أن جل الأخبار من هذا القسم كما لا يخفي على من طالع كتاب الكافي أصولا وفروما وكذا غيره من سائر كتب الأخبار وسائر الكتب الخالية من الأسانيد لزم ما ذكرنا وتوجه ما طعن به علينا العامة من أن جل أحاديث شريعتنا مكذوبة مزورة

If what they mentioned was fulfilled and what they established was correct, then this would necessitate the corruption of the Shari’ah and the invalidation of din, because if one sufficed on practicing upon this kind of Sahih or Hassan narration specifically, in addition to the Muwaththaq narrations, and the weak narrations—according to their terminology—are removed from the scene, whereas the situation is such that most of the narrations are of this type, as it is not hidden from anyone who reads the book al Kafi—whether al Usul or al Furu’—as well as other books of hadith and books that are devoid of isnad,[28] then this would necessitate what we have mentioned and attract what the laymen (Sunnis) have accused us of, that most of the narrations in our Shari’ah are lies and fabrications.[29]

Al Bahrani alludes to the causes which caused him to reject the application of the new terminology, which he considers to be a destructive axe for the school. He states:

أن طريقة القدماء موجبة للعلم مأخوذة عن أهل العصمة لأنهم قد أمروا باتباعها وقرروا العمل بها فلم ينكروه وعمل بها الإمامية في مدة تقارب سبعمائة سنة منها في زمان ظهور الأئمة قريب من ثلاثمائة سنة والاصطلاح الجديد ليس كذلك قطعا فالعمل بالاصطلاح الجديد يستلزم تخطئة عمل الطائفة منذ زمن الأئمة إلى زمن ابن المطهر الحلي

وأن أصحاب الاصطلاح قد اتفقوا على أن مورد التقسيم إلى الأنواع الأربعة المذكورة إنما هو خبر الواحد العاري عن القرائن بينما يرى القدماء أن أخبار كتبهم المشهورة محفوفة بالقرائن الدالة علي صحتها فكيف أمكن تجاهل هذا؟

The method of the former scholars necessitates knowledge,[30] taken from the infallible people, because they were commanded to follow it and they approved practice upon it, and they did not prevent them. The Imamiyyah practiced upon it during a period of approximately seven hundred years, from that, the time of the appearance of the Imams is close to three hundred years. The new terminology is not like that at all. Thus, practicing upon the new terminology will necessitate the error of the sect’s practice, from the time of the Imams until the time of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli.

The people of terminology are unanimous that the source of the division into the mentioned four types, is the report of a solitary person, devoid of any evidence, while the former scholars see that the narrations of their famous books are fraught with evidence which indicate to their authenticity. So how was it possible to ignore this?[31]

However, the evidence that al Bahrani speaks about and which the Imamis used for nearly three hundred years is considered baseless by the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i (d. 1413 AH), as he says:

ودعوى القطع بصدقهم في خصوص روايات الكتب الأربعة لقرائن دلت على ذلك لا أساس لها فإنها بلا بينة وبرهان فإن ما ذكروه في المقام وادعوا أنها قرائن تدلنا علي صدور هذا الروايات من المعصوم لا يرجع شيء منها إلى محصل

The claim of certainty of their truthfulness regarding the narrations of the four books specifically—due to evidence that indicates to that—has no basis, as it is without any evidence and proof. What they mentioned in this situation—and claimed that they are evidences that indicate to the issuance of these narrations from the infallible Imams—none of it leads to any outcome.[32]

Al Bahrani also alludes to a point worthy of attention during the course of his criticism of the science of Dirayah, which is:

أن أهل الاصطلاح متناقضون فما اعتمدوه من ذلك الاصطلاح غير منضبط القواعد والبنيان ولا مشيد الجوانب والأركان ومن ذلك أنهم حكموا بصحة جملة من الأحاديث التي هي ضعيفة بمقتضي اصطلاحهم كمراسيل ابن أبي عمير وصفوان بن يحيي وغيرهما زعما منهم أن مثل هؤلاء لا يرسلون إلا عن ثقة ومثل بعض الأحاديث الضعيفة المشهور عمل المتقدمين بها فيتستّرون لأجل العمل بها بكونها مجبوة بالشهرة ومثل أحاديث جملة من مشايخ الإجازة الذين لم يذكروا في كتب الرجال بمدح ولا قدح زعما منهم أن هؤلاء مشايخ الإجازة وهم مستغنون عن التوثيق وأمثال ذلك كثير يظهر بالتتبع

The people of the terminology are contradictory. The terminology which they have adopted is not disciplined in its rules and structure, nor have its corners and pillars been firmly constructed. From amongst that is that they have ruled the authenticity of a number of narrations that are weak according to their terminology, such as the Mursal narrations of Ibn Abi ‘Umair and Safwan bin Yahya and others, claiming that such people do not narrate Mursal narrations except from trustworthy people, and like some of the weak narrations that the former scholars are known to have practiced upon. Thus, they cover up practicing on them by claiming that they are inspired by fame. Similarly, like the narration of a group of Mashayikh al Ijazah[33] who are not mentioned in the books of narrators with praise or criticism, claiming that these are the Mashayikh al Ijazah and they are exempted from approval. Examples like these are plenty which become clear through research.[34]

For this and other reasons, al Bahrani believes that the neutralism that al Muhaqqiq al Hilli adopted in his book al Mu’tabar, while criticising immoderation in practicing on narrations, is the best and safest. However, al Muhaqqiq al Hilli, despite his neutralism between the two warring factions, reveals a dangerous point of partial agreement that one can hardly expect, as he states:

أفرط الحشوية في العمل بخبر الواحد حتي انقادوا لكل خبر وما فطنوا ما تحته من التناقض فإن من جملة الأخبار قول النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم: ستكثر بعدي القالة علي وقول الصادق: إن لكل رجل منا رجلا يكذب عليهه واقتصر بعض عن هذا الإفراط فقال: كل سليم السند يعمل به وما عَلم أن الكاذب قد يصدق والفاسق قد يصدق ولم يتنبه أن ذلك طعن في علماء الشيعة وقدح في المذهب إذ لا مصنف إلا وهو قد يعمل بخبر المجروح كما يعمل بخبر الواحد المعدل وأفرط آخرون في طرف رد الخبر حتي أحال استعماله عقلا ونقلا واقتصر آخرون فلم يروا العقل مانعا لكن الشرع لم يأذن في العمل به وكل هذه الأقوال منحرفة عن السنن والتوسط أصوب فما قبله الأصحاب أو دلت القرائن علي صحته بعمل به وما أعرض الأصحاب عنه أو شذ يجب إطراحه لوجوه

The Hashawiyah[35] went to extremes in practicing on al Khabar al Wahid, to such an extent that they submitted to every transmission and did not realize the contradiction beneath it, because among the transmissions is the saying of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “After me, there will be many people speaking against me.”

and the saying of al Sadiq, “Every man among us has a man who attributes lies to him.”

Some of them confined themselves to this exaggeration and said that every narration that has a sound chain of transmission should be practiced, because who knows that a liar may speak the truth,[36] and a sinner may be truthful, without noticing that this is an attack on the Shia scholars and a slander to the school, as there is no author except that sometimes he practices on a controversial transmission, just as he practices on an approved al Khabar al Wahid. Others went to extremes in rejecting the transmission to a point that they made it impossible to use it logically and by transmission. Others restricted themselves and did not regard it to be impermissible logically; however, the Shari’ah did not permit practicing upon it. All these views are deviated from the Sunnah, and moderation is more correct. Hence, whatever the companions accept, or evidence indicated its validity, will be practiced, and whatever the companions turned away from it or is problematic, it is necessary to discard due to reasons.[37]

Al Bahrani commented on it by saying:

وهو‏ قوي متين وجوهر ثمين وإن كان صاحبه قد خالفه في مواضع من كتابه المذكور

It is strong, durable, and a valuable gem, even though the author contradicted it in some instances in the above-mentioned book.[38]

But assuming that a liar may speak the truth at times, that he is not a liar all the time, and raising that in the context of discussing about judging narrations, is nothing but a clear evasion of applying the rules of hadith to the School’s narrations. As if the matter is an instrument for the scholars of the School after him, through which any narration of a liar or a sinner can be passed on, on the pretext of the possibility of their truthfulness in this particular transmission and the existence of sectarian evidence that satisfies him. So what strength and durability is this that al Bahrani saw, and what precious gem is this that he boasts about?

The practical translation of this strength and durability in the science of Dirayah is among the endorsements of the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i (d. 1413 AH), as he states in his biography of Ahmed ibn Hammad al Marwazi:

إن ظهور الكذب أحيانا لا ينافي حسن الرجل فإن الجواد قد يكبو

The appearance of lies, sometimes, does not contradict the goodness of a man, for the good horse may stumble at times.[39]

If issuance of lies does not contradict the goodness of a man, and his lies are like the stumbling of a horse, then what is the benefit of the science of narrators? What is the difference between a trustworthy person and a liar? What is the benefit of the chains of transmission, then? What is the need to know the interrupted narrations from the uninterrupted ones, or the occurrence of errors in them? Here is the answer.

Al Muhaddith Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi (d. 1033 AH) states:

من تأمل فيما ذكره المحقق الحلي في أوائل كتاب المعتبر وفي كتاب الأصول في مبحث العمل بخبر الواحد وفي فهرستي الشيخ والنجاشي وفيما ذكر رئيس الطائفة في مبحث العمل بخبر الواحد من كتاب العدة وما ذكره في آخر كتابي الأخبار وغيرها بعين الاعتبار والاختبار يقطع بأن أحاديث الكتب الأربعة وغيرها من الكتب المتداولة في زماننا مكتوبة من أصول قدمائنا التي كانت مرجعهم في عقائدهم وأعمالهم ويقطع بأن الطرق المذكورة في تلك الكتب إنما ذكرت لمجرد التبرك باتصال السند وباتصال سلسلة المخاطبة اللسانية إلى مؤلفي تلك الأصول ولدفع تعيير العامة أصحابنا بأن أحاديثهم مأخوذة من أصول قدمائهم وليست بمعنعنة

Whoever ponders on what al Muhaqqiq al Hilli mentioned in the beginning of the book al Mu’tabar, in the book al Usul under the subject of practicing on al Khabar al Wahid, in the Fihrist of al Sheikh and the Fihrist of al Najashi, in what the leader of the sect mentioned under the subject of practicing on al Khabar al Wahid in the book al ‘Uddah and what he mentioned at the end of the two books called al Akhbar and others, with eyes of consideration and test, will ascertain that the narrations of the four books and other books circulating in our time are written from the principles of our former scholars, which were their reference in their beliefs and actions; and will ascertain that the chains mentioned in those books were mentioned merely to seek blessing from the connection of the chain of transmission and the connection of the chain of verbal communication to the authors of those principles and to ward off criticism from the laymen, of our companions, that their narrations are taken from the origins of their former scholars and are not transmitted.[40]

Al Hurr al Amili (d.1104 AH) states in Wasa’il al Shia—which is considered to be the richest book of Hadith in Fiqhi narrations and therefore the Imami’s rely on it in the field of deducing rulings as it contains approximately 36 000 narrations—the reason for which he mentioned the chains of transmission of the narrations of his book, as he says:

والفائدة في ذكره أي الراوي في السند مجرد التبرك باتصال سلسلة المخاطبة اللسانية ودفع تعيير العامة الشيعة بأن أحاديثهم غير معنعنة بل منقولة من أصول قدمائهم

The benefit in mentioning him— i.e., the narrator in the chain—is merely to be blessed by the continuity of the chain of verbal communication and to ward off the reproach by the laymen of the Shia by saying that their narrations are not transmitted, but rather quoted from the origins of their former scholars.[41]

For this reason, Mirza Abu al Hassan al Sha’rani (d. 1393 AH), with all literary courage, explaining his position towards the sect’s narrations states:

ولم يكن دأبي في هذه التآليف التعرض لأحوال الرجال لأن أمثال هذه المباحث غنية عن ذكر الأسانيد وإنما الاعتماد فيها على المعني فما وافق أصول المذهب ودليل العقل فهو صحيح وإن ضعف إسناده وما خالف أحدهما كان ضعيفا وإن صح بحسب الإسناد ولذلك نرى أكثر أحاديث الأصول ضعافا وهو من أهم كتب الشيعة وأصحها معنى وأوفقها لأصول المذهب

It is not my habit, in these writings, to address the conditions of narrators, because such topics do not need to mention the chains of transmission. The reliance in this is on the meaning. Whatever conforms to the principles of the school and the evidence of intellect, is correct, even if its chain of transmission is weak, and whatever contradicts one of them is weak, even if it is authentic according to the chain of transmission. Hence, we see that most of the narrations in al Usul[42] are weak, whereas it is among the most important Shia books, the most correct in meaning, and the most consistent with the principles of the school.[43]

With greater clarity, Sayed ‘Ali al Tabataba’i al Burujirdi (d. 1313 AH) expressed his general opinion regarding the narrations of the four books on which the Imami’s transmissions revolve,[44] as the application of the rules of the sciences of narration and Dirayah had not been completed to them:

وإخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء

And information by the Muhammads[45] of the authenticity of what is in their books is in the realm of prohibition, especially noting their inclusion of weak narrations in them. In fact, they are more. The reliable authentic narrations listed in those books are like a white hair in a black cow.[46]

The occurrence of this confession from one of the sect’s experts in the science of Jarh and Ta’dil (approval and disapproval of narrators) expresses the true—inevitably—reality of its narrations.

NEXT⇒ 8. Disorder and confusion in the standards of Jarh and Ta’dil (hadith narrator criticism)

[1] Science related to the chain of narrations.

[2] Al Khatib al Baghdadi reported it in Sharaf Ashab al Hadith, pg. 41, though his chain from al Hafiz Muhammad ibn Hatim ibn al Muzaffar.

[3] Reported by Muslim in the Foreword of his Sahih.

[4] Sharaf Ashab al Hadith, pg. 41.

[5] Ma’rifat ‘Ulum al Hadith, pg. 6

[6] From the nature of sciences is that they overlap in some areas and diverge in other. The science of hadith is also just like these sciences. It does not deviate from them. It is in touch with some of the other Shar’i sciences. Whatever is said about it, the same is said about the science of Dirayah (methodology of Hadith), and Rijal (biographical evaluation of narrators of Hadith) as it includes them, as the overlap between them is deep. The unifying element between the two sciences of Dirayah and Rijal is Sanad (chain of narrations). Hence, the definition of an authentic hadith is: that whose chain is continuous through the narration of a just, accurate person, who narrates from a similar person till the end, from the beginning of the chain till the end without any abnormality or reason for criticism.

[7] Reported by Muslim in the Foreword of his Sahih.

[8] The researcher of the book, Sheikh Ahmed Shakir states:

إن أبواب الكتاب ومسائله التي عرض الشافعي فيها للكلام على حديث الواحد والحجة فيه وإلى شروط صحة الحديث وعدالة الرواة ورد الخبر المرسل والمنقطع إلي غير ذلك مما يعرف من الفهرس العلمي في آخر الكتاب هذه المسائل عندي أدق وأغلي ما كتب العلماء في أصول الحديث بل إن المتفقه في علوم الحديث يفهم أن ما كتب بعده إنما هو فروع منه وعالة عليه وانه جمع ذلك وصنفه علي غير مثال سبق لله أبوه

The chapters of the book and the rulings which al Shafi’i has presented to discuss al Khabr al Wahid and evidence for it, as well as the conditions for the authenticity of hadith and the narrators, the refutation of Mursal (narrations where a non-Companion narrates from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and Munqati’ (narrations wherein one or more narrators are missing) etc., which are known from the academic index at the end of the book, these rulings, according to me, are the most precise and valuable of what the scholars have written regarding Usul al Hadith. In fact, any one well versed in the science of Hadith will understand that whatever was written after him was deduced and dependant on it and that he compiled and wrote that in an unparallel manner.

[9] Definitions have differed in determining the meaning of this terminology. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to suffice on the definition of Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 965 AH) that:

علم يبحث فيه عن متن الحديث وطرقه من صحيحها وسقيمها وعللها وما يحتاج إليه ليعرف المقبول منه والمردود

It a science in which the text and chain of the hadith is discussed, whether it is authentic or unauthentic, its defects and whatever is needed to recognise the accepted ones and the rejected ones.

As for the science of Rijal (narrators), which is based on it, the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sheikh Jafar al Subhani defines it by saying:

علم يبحث فيه عن أحوال الرواة من حيث اتصافهم بشرائط قبول أخبارهم وعدمه … والمطلوب المهم في هذا العلم حسبما يكشف عنه التعريف هو التعرف على أحوال الرواة من حيث كونهم عدولا أو غير عدول موثقين أو غير موثقين ممدوحين أو مذمومين أو مهملين أو مجهولين والاطلاع على مشايخهم وتلاميذهم وحياتهم وأعصارهم وطبقاتهم في الرواية حتي يعرف المرسل عن المسند ويميز المشترك إلى غير ذلك مما يتوقف عليه قبول الخبر

It is the science which discusses the conditions of narrators in terms of them possessing the conditions of accepting their narrations or not… the important requirement in this science —as the definition reveals—is to identify the conditions of the narrators in terms of them being just or unjust, reliable or unreliable, praised or criticised, disregarded or anonymous, and information about their teachers, students, their life, their era and their status in narration so that one distinguish which is Mursal, or Musnad or Mushtarak, etc., on which the acceptance of the narration depends.

[10] Buhuth fi Fiqh al Rijal, pg. 41.

[11] Foreword of Sharh al Bidayah, pg. 9, researched by Muhammad ‘Ali al Baqqal.

[12] Al Karaki: Hidayat al Abrar, pg. 104; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Amal al Amil, 1/86; Kazim Mudirshanih: ‘Ilm al Hadith, pg. 167.

[13] Rasa’il fi Diratat al Hadith, pg. 108, (Risalat al Bidayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah)

[14] i.e., ‘Uddat al Usul of Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi.

[15] i.e., Ma’arij al Usul of Muhaqqiq al Hilli.

[16] Hidayat al Abrar, pg. 104.

[17] The official birth of the new terms and the official announcement of the Hadith’s categorization was in the book Muntaha al Matlab fi Tahqiq al Mazhab, 1/9-10, of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli. It is mentioned that he applied or tried to apply the new terms to the sect’s narrations in two books attributed to him. They are, al Durr wa al Marjan fi al Ahadith al Sihah wa al Hisan and al Nahj al Waddah fi al Ahadith al Sihah. However, Sayed Muhammad al Amin declares in A’yan al Shia, 5/406, that there is no source or trace of these two books. It is possible that he did not complete them or they were destroyed by the events of time.

[18] It is title which the Imami scholars use for the opposition who are not from the Shia sect, particularly the Ahlus Sunnah, in contrast to calling themselves ‘the special ones’. It has been reported in Da’irat al Ma’arif al Shi’iyyah, 17/122:

الخاصة في اصطلاح بعض أهل الدراية الإمامية الاثنا عشرية والعامة أهل السنة والجماعة

Al Khassah (the special ones), in terminology of the people of knowledge are the Ithna ‘Ashari Imamis and al ‘Ammah (the laymen) are Ahlus Sunnah.

Sayed Muhsin al Amin (d. 1371 AH) states is A’yan al Shia, 1/21, regarding the title of al Khassah:

وهذا يطلقه أصحابنا على أنفسهم مقابل العامة الذين يسمون بأهل السنة لأن أصحابنا يرون أنفسهم أحق من أخذ بالسنة ولأنهم فرقة خاصة بين عموم فرق المسلمين المتكثرة

Our companions apply this on themselves as opposed to al ‘Ammah to the Ahlus Sunnah, because our companions see themselves to be more observant of the Sunnah and that they are the special group from amongst the many Muslim groups.

[19] As reported from him by al Karaki in Hidayat al Abrar, pg. 104; and Hassan al Sadr in Nihayah al Dirayah, pg. 151; it appears originally in Muntaqa al Juman, 1/10.

[20] Amal al Amil, 1/93.

[21] Wasa’il al Shia, 20/101; Kitab al Wasa’il, which is one of the eight Hadith origins of the sect, as is known.

[22] He stated in the twelfth Foreword of his book al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/167-168:

بأنه كان في أول أمره ممن ينتصر لمذهب الأخباريين حتي ظهر له بعد تأمل وإمعان نظر إغماض النظر عن هذا الباب وإرخاء الستر دونه والحجاب بعد أن ثبت لديه أن ما ذكره الفريقان في وجوه الفرق بينهما جله بل كله عند التأمل لا يُثمِر فرقا في المقام

That he was initially one of those who supported the school of the Akhbaris until it became clear to him, after contemplation and careful consideration, that he should close his eyes on this door and draw the curtain and veil behind it and, after it became clear to him that what the two groups mention in the aspects of the difference between them, most of it, in fact all of it upon contemplation, does not make any difference in reality.

[23] Sayed Muhsin al Amin (d. 1371 AH) in A’yan al Shia, 5/94:

أراد بالاصطلاح تقسيم الخبر إلى أقسامه المشهورة من الصحيح والضعيف والحسن والموثق

By terminology he refers to his popular categorization of Hadith i.e. Sahih, Hassan, Muwaththaq and Da’if.

[24] A narration which has in its chain, a narrator who was declared reliable but held incorrect beliefs.

[25] i.e. Sayed Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Musawi al ‘Amili (d. 1009 AH) in Madarik al Ahkam fi Sharh Shara’i’ al Islam. Al Bahrani states while criticizing him on pg. 45:

فإن جملة من علمائنا وإن أكثروا التصنيف إلا أن مصنفاتهم عارية عن التحقيق كما هو حقه والتحبير مشتملة علي المكررات والمجازفات والمساهلات وهو أجود تصنيفا وأحسن تحقيقا وتأليفا ممن تقدمه إلا انه مع السيد محمد قد سلكا في الأخبار مسلكا وعرا ونهجا منهجا عسرا أما السيد محمد صاحب المدارك فانه رد أكثر الأحاديث من الموثقات والضعاف باصطلاحه وله فيها اضطراب كما لا يخفى علي من راجع كتابه فيما بين أن يردها تارة وما بين أن يستدل بها اخرى وله أيضا في جملة من الرجال- مثل ابراهيم بن هاشم ومسمع بن عبد الملك ونحوهما- اضطراب عظيم فيما بين أن يصف أخبارهم بالصحة تارة وبالحسن أخرى وبين أن يطعن فيها ويردها يدور في ذلك مدار غرضه في المقام مع جملة من المواضع التي سلك فيها سبيل المجازفة

A number of our scholars, even though they have authored a lot, are devoid of research, as is ought to. The inscriptions contain repetitions, frivolous matters, and leniencies. He is the best in writing, researching, and compiling than those who preceded him. However, he and Sayed Muhammad took a rough path in narrating and a difficult methodical approach. As for Sayed Muhammad, the author of al Madarik, he rejected most of the reliable and weak narrations through his terminology. He was confused in them, as it is clear to those who reviewed his book that he sometimes rejected them and sometimes he inferred through them. He also had, among a number of narrators — such as Ibrahim bin Hashim, Masma’ bin ‘Abdul Malik etc. — great confusion in that he describes their narrations as authentic at times and good at other times, whilst sometimes he criticizes it and rejects it. He revolves around according to the objective of the situation, along with a number of instances in which he took a risky path.

[26]i.e. Sheikh Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 101 AH) in Muntaqa al Juman.

[27]Lu’lu’at al Bahrayn, pg. 46-47.

[28] Foremost is Nahj al Balaghah of al Sharif al Murtada (d. 406 AH), then the most important book of Tafsir through transmissions, Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi (d. 320 AH) and Tafsir Furat al Kufi (d. 352 AH), then the books of al Manaqib (virtues of personalities), Tuhaf al ‘Uqul of Ibn Shu’bah al Harrani (4^th century), al Ihtijaj of al Tusi (d. 548 AH), and Manaqib Al Abi Talib of Ibn Shahr Ashub (d. 588 AH).

[29]Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/21.

[30] i.e., to practice on transmissions reported in the Imami books, considering the author’s testimony on the authenticity of all the narrations.

[31] Al Durar al Najafiyyah, 2/335-336.

[32] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 1/22.

[33] Those who were given permission to transmit hadith but did not recite or hear the hadith directly form the teacher.

[34] Al Durar al Najafiyyah, 2/335.

[35] A group that adhered to apparent meanings and adopted anthropomorphism, etc.

[36] In the manuscript it is written as (قد يلصق), and I questioned it while establishing it because of the trust of quotation, but I came across the text in more than one Imami source and it contains what I have proven above. See, Manhaj al Maqal fi Tahqiq Ahwal al Rijal by al Istarabadi, 1/77. He indicated in the footnote that it contains a source similar to what we have mentioned; and al Fusul al Gharawiyyahfi al Usul al Fiqhiyyah, pg. 294.

[37] Al Mu’tabar, 1/29.

[38] Al Durar al Najafiyyah, 2/333.

[39] Majma’ Rijal al Hadith, 2/113.

[40] Al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, pg. 118-119.

[41] Wasa’il al Shia, 30/258.

[42] Referring to Usul al Kafi.

[43] Footnote of Sharh Usul al Kafi by al Mazandarani, 3/228.

[44] The main books, which are regarded as the source of narrations according to the Imamis are eight: al Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, Tahdhib al Ahkam, al Istibsar, Wasa’il al Shia, al Wafi, Bihar al Anwar, and Mustadrak al Wasa’il. The contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sheikh Jafar al Subhani states in Kulliyyat fi ‘Ulum al Rijal, pg. 355:

الكتب الأربعة التي عليها تدور رحى استنباط مذهب الإمامية فإن أدلة الأحكام وإن كانت أربعة (الكتاب والسنة والعقل والإجماع) على ما هو المشهور بين الفقهاء إلا أن الناظر في فروع الدين يعلم أن العمدة في استعلام الفرائض والسنن والحلال والحرام هو الحديث وأن الحاوي لجلها هوالكتب الأربعة

There four books on which the millstone of the deduction of the Imami School revolves around. Although the sources for rulings are four (Qur’an, Sunnah, Intellect, and Consensus), as is well known among the jurists; however, an observer into the subsidiaries of din will realise that the main pillar for the information of Fara’id (compulsory acts), Sunnah, Halal and Haram is Hadith and most of it is contained in these four books.

Four of the books are compiled by the former four Muhammads, thereafter the three by the three latter Muhammads and the eighth by Hussain al Nuri.

[45] The three former Muhammads that al Burujirdi refers to in his narration are:

Muhammad ibn Yaqub al Kulayni, known as Thiqat al Islam, (d. 329 AH), author of al Kafi.
Muhammad ibn Babawayh al Qummi, known as al Sheikh al Saduq, (d. 381 AH), author of Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih.
Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi, known as Sheikh al Ta’ifah, (d. 360 AH), author of both Tahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar.

These are the three Muhammads whose four books are relied upon in the school.

The latter four Muhammads, who are the authors of the remaining books are:

Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Fayd al Kashani (d. 1091 AH), author of al Wafi.
Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH), author of Bihar al Anwar,
Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 AH), author of Wasa’il al Shia ila Tahsil Masa’il al Shari’
Hussain al Nuri (d. 1320 AH), author of Mustadrak al Wasa’il.

[46] Tara’if al Maqal, 2/308.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents