Point 4

Point 3
March 29, 2018
Point 5
April 9, 2018

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Point 4

To prove the ills of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, the Shia scholars presented those Sunni narrations majority of which are fabricated or weak from books which are unreliable and non-canonical. When our ‘Ulama’ rejected such narrations and labelled narrating such narrations from such books as erroneous and deceitful, the Shia scholars generally objected by saying that it is the habit of the Sunni that when a narration from their books is quoted which conflicts their principles and which they cannot answer, they reject that narration or label it as weak and slander the author of being Shia or having Shia ideologies thereby excluding him from their ranks. And if they cannot do this because of the narration being well-known, they take out a hundred tricks to defect that narration. Al Shustari [1], Hamid Hussain, and the mujtahidin of Lucknow have vehemently raised this objection in their respective books.

This objection of theirs is incorrect since there is no religion in the world; all the scholars of which possess pure beliefs, brilliant minds, and are perfect researchers. Nor is there any religion; all the books of which are reliable and authentic, and worthy of proof in religious discussions. Every religion has rituals, customs, and inspired statements together with their structure of beliefs. They have stories and tales with authentic narrations. Due to the infiltration of the greedy, ignorant, and those with corrupt ideologies, false narrations have been broadcasted with authentic ones.

Islam is a religion which has thousands of sects and millions of scholars. Every sect has authored books in support of their belief structure and principles. Many of such persons have fabricated narrations and falsely attributed statements to the elders of their religions to support their proofs. The passing of time and the severity of difference has reached such a limit that together with authentic books, a library of unreliable books is found. Many scholars have passed and many books were written by the Sunni. Not all the scholars were of the same status nor were all the books dealing with the same subject. Some scholars were on the pinnacle of research while others fell into the dark abyss of deception and error. Many have exerted themselves in the search and spreading of truth with true sincerity while others have not had a second thought to spread falsehood and did not take the pains to sift truth from falsehood due to carnal desires or worldly desires. Some were such who had corrupt beliefs but wore the Sunni garb and entered the ‘Ulama’ fraternity. People were deceived by their outer appearance, knowledge, and expertise and began narrating from them. So when there is an abundance of such authors with various ideologies and various standings, our religion cannot take responsibility for all their narrations nor can anyone be stamped as approved on the basis of him being a scholar or author. Yes, the religion is most certainly responsible and guarantor for that book which has the prestige of:

 

لَّا يَأْتِيْهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيْلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيْمٍ حَمِيْدٍ

Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.[2]

 

And that blessed mouth concerning which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares:

 

وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوىٰ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوْحىٰ

Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.[3]

 

So all the narrations from our books cannot be presented as proof against us unless they are Qur’anic verses or authentic ahadith which are free from contradiction and rarity. But the reality is that instead of the above, the Shia present such narrations which are extracted from books of history, books of tafsir, or unreliable ahadith books. The condition of these books is:

 

‘Allamah Ibn Khaldun has written that books of history have nothing but history. It is said that although many creditable historians wrote history books, they are filled with futile, nonsensical, and ridiculous stories. Besides the primary history books, all other history books that have been authored do not contain any isnad so one cannot ascertain whether the narrators were truthful or not and whether they followed the correct path or were people of bid’ah. And wherever the isnad is mentioned, then after thorough research it is found that most of the narrators are unreliable, obscure or unknown.

 

From among the early historians, some renowned like Waqidi etc., who is known as Imam al Mu’arrikhin (leader of the historians); his books are also filled with incorrect narrations. The condition of the later historians is that each one of them is the sole narrator of such narrations and incidents. They only conveyed to us all the nonsensical and senseless narrations they found in the early books or heard from different sources. They neither scrutinised the source nor investigated their objectives. Especially those historians who were linked to a certain sect or inclined towards the same; they accepted any narration which conformed to their ideology. Their staunchness or inclination to their creed was a veil over their eyes and they thus fell into the calamity of accepting and narrating fabrications. Due to them trusting and having good thoughts about the narrations, they had confidence in them and did not scrutinise them thus spreading and generalising this calamity.

They had so much reliance on the narrators that they did not consider the principles of riwayah (narrating ahadith) nor apply the rules of dirayah (analysing the meaning of the narration). If the narrator was mistaken or did not convey the correct message due to a misunderstanding, then too they narrated from him verbatim. Incautiousness, love for fame, and intermingling with people of bid’ah and passion transformed history books into fairy tales. Ibn Khaldun’s statement needs no substantiation. The books of history and the stories mentioned therein are sufficient testimony to the same.

Notwithstanding this, the Shia have narrated majority of the narrations of such history books and presented such fabrications as proof against us. As in the case of gifting Fadak, they extracted forgeries from Tarikh A’tham Kufi, Tarikh Al ‘Abbas, Ma’arij al Nubuwwah, Habib al Siyar, etc., to prove their stance. According to the muhaqqiqin (researchers) such narrations do not hold any weight in ordinary incidents, forget using them as proofs in cases which have an impact on the accepted principles and beliefs which are established in the glorious Qur’an and noble ahadith.

Besides books of history, the narrations and statements found in books of tafsir have been presented by the Shia to prove their allegations against the noble Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, merely a narration being found in a tafsir book does not authenticate it since these books have been written by people of different temperaments and ideologies and they have all types of narrations; correct and incorrect, strong and weak. As Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahu Llah has commented:

 

كتب التفسير التى ينقل فيها الصحيح و الضعيف مثل تفسير الثعلبى و الواحدى و البغوى و ابن جرير و ابن ابى حاتم لم يكن مجرد رواية واحد من هؤلاء دليلا على صحته باتفاق اهل العلم فانه اذا عرف ان تلك المنقولات فيها صحيح و ضعيف فلا بد من بيان ان هذا المنقول من قسم الصحيح دون الضعيف

The books of tafsir wherein authentic and weak narrations are quoted like the tafsir of al Tha’labi, al Wahidi, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Abi Hatim; the mere narrating of one of them are not proof for its authenticity by the consensus of the men of knowledge. This is due to the fact that when it is known that the narrations consist of both authentic and weak ones, it is necessary to ascertain whether the said narration is authentic and not weak.

 

‘Allamah ‘Abdul Ra’uf writes in Fatawa Fayd al Qadir Sharh Jami’ Saghir:

 

قال ابن الكمال كتب التفسير مشحونة بالاحاديث الموضوعة

Ibn al Kamal has stated that the books of tafsir are filled with fabrications.

 

So until a narration or hadith which is authentic according to the principles of hadith is not presented, neither the statement of a mufassir nor the narration of a tafsir book will be accepted as proof simply on the grounds that it is found in a tafsir book.

The Shia also narrate from many ahadith books. However, one should bear in mind that all ahadith books are not on the same standard of authenticity and reliability. The statement of the Muhaqqiqin regarding all ahadith books besides the al Sihah al Sittah is that generally their ahadith are not worthy to be practiced upon nor quoted. Yes, those men who are grounded in the science of Asma’ al Rijal and are aware of the ‘ilal (defects/flaws) of ahadith and are great muhaqqiqin are at liberty to extract mutabi’at[4] and shawahid[5] from them. This is the condition of those masanid, jawami’ and musannafat which were written prior to the era of al Bukhari and Muslim and after their era which are filled with sahih, Hassan, da’if, ma’ruf, gharib, shadh, munkar, khata’, sawab, thabit, and maqlub; e.g. Musnad Abi Ya’la, Musannaf ‘Abdul Razzaq, Musannaf Abi Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Musnad ‘Abd ibn Humaid, Tayalisi, and the books of al Bayhaqi, al Tahawi, and al Tabarani. The objective of these authors was to gather whatever they found without scrutinizing and analysing them. They left this job for others. Besides the above, there are those books of hadith which were authored at a later stage. Their authors gathered those ahadith which were not found in the al Sihah al Sittah and the ahadith of those masanid and jawami’ which were hidden. These ahadith are generally on the tongues of people. However, the muhaddithin did not give any consideration to these books and did not quote from them. Majority of the ahadith are unreliable and those quoted by vociferous speakers, men of passion, men of bid’ah, and weak narrators.

And sometimes they are the statements of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Tabi’in; quotations from the Banu Isra’il, and the words of men of wisdom which the narrators – intentionally or unintentionally – have labelled as ahadith. Or the indications of Qur’anic verses and ahadith have been included as ahadith intentionally. Such ahadith are found in books like Kitab al Du’afa’ of Ibn Hibban, al Kamil of Ibn ‘Adiyy, Khatib, Abu Nuaim, al Juzaqani, Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn Najjar, al Daylami, and Musnad Khawarizimi. The condition of these books is that the best ahadith are those which are da’if and the worst are the ones which are fabrications, maqlub, or munkar. The material of these books can be found in Ibn al Jawzi’s Kitab Mawdu’at.

Besides these, there are those ahadith which were on the tongues of the Fuqaha’, Sufiyah, and historians and became famous due to this whereas there is no basis in the first few eras for such narrations. Such narrations are jumbled therein which are the fabrications of the wayward linked with isnad that cannot be criticised. Moreover, their eloquence is not far-fetched from the station of nubuwwah. This deception has caused a great disaster in Islam and has allowed the insertion of fabrications into authentic ahadith books. The books which have included these narrations are the favourites of the Shia and Mu’tazilah. They present these narrations to prove their false ideologies and use them as proof against the people of truth. Those who are not well grounded in knowledge are deceived by these narrations.

Another anomaly is that some began seeking and narrating authentic ahadith. However, they began fabricating ahadith to prove their wrong beliefs attaching them to the isnad they have memorised thus succeeding in deceiving the muhaddithin. Jabir al Ju’fi and Abu al Qasim Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah al Sha’ri al Qummi are guilty of this. They were so cunning that although they were Shia in reality, they deceived many muhaddithin by wrapping fabrications in authentic isnad to the extent that even al Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and al Nasa’i have quoted Jabir al Ju’fi’s narrations in their books. There was a Shia by the name of Aslah who devised a plan to destroy the Sunni. A muhaqqiq like Yahya ibn Ma’in termed him reliable and had confidence in him. His deception was only discovered at a later stage after thorough investigation. However, since his narrations have been included in the ahadith books, many people fall into deception and their beliefs are put at jeopardy since they believe his narrations to be ahadith whereas the reality is that they are not the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but the stories of a liar.

Among such people is Ibn Abi al Hadid al Mu’tazili[6] who together with i’tizal, was a Shia. He wrote Sharh Nahj al Balaghah to appease Ibn ‘Alqami Wazir Mu’tasim Billah; he wrote it for the latter’s library. He extracted unreliable and fabricated narrations from unknown books and the works of unreliable authors which cast doubts on the integrity of the noble Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and lend support to the beliefs of the Shia. Ibn ‘Alqami was his nurturer and close friend. As a reward for this book, he awarded him 100000 gold coins and a robe of honour. Ibn ‘Alqami was no ordinary Shia. He was a hard-core Shia and enemy of the Ahlus Sunnah to such an extent that due to religious prejudice, he subtly invited Hulagu Khan to attack Baghdad and destroy the ‘Abbasid Khilafah. He then brought Hulagu to the khalifah deceptively and martyred him along with the ‘Ulama’ and leaders. Although Ibn Abi al Hadid’s work is comprehensive and scholarly and he himself is an expert and very eloquent, he was a supporter of Shiasm. Apparently, no hard-core Shia has ever gathered so much material in support of Shiasm as Ibn Abi al Hadid has. It is this very book which the Shia have quoted from in the past and up until this day as proof for their beliefs. The Ahl al Bid’ah and opposition reckon him among the senior scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah and use his narrations against us. If you study the books of the Shia, you will notice that ahadith on the topic of mata’in (disparagement) of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, are all referenced to Ibn Abi al Hadid. All his fabrications are used against us. So the readers of this book should be well aware that majority of narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah concerning mata’in of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum have been extracted from the book of Ibn Abi al Hadid.

The masters of the science of hadith and those who review the authenticity of ahadith cannot be deceived. They reject fabrications just as an blacksmith differentiates between pure and fake. The muhaddithin have attached an isnad to every hadith and have written the biographies of all the narrators so that the door of scrutinizing and reviewing ahadith will remain open till the Day of Qiyamah. Furthermore, they have provided the means for distinguishing authentic narrations from fabrications. So whichever hadith is presented before us, it is necessary to first examine its authenticity on the principles of hadith examination. If it is found that one narrator was a fabricator or unreliable or a bid’ati narrating in support of his bid’ah, we will reject such a narration. And it is not correct for the opposition to use such a narration against us.

Ahadith narrations are pieces of information. Information can either be true or false. To remove the possibility of falsehood, it is necessary that the narrator be reliable, devout, and truthful. If the narrations have been narrated through many isnads that normally it is impossible for such a large number of people to unite on falsehood, and all the narrators are free from defects which cast doubts on their narrations, then such narrations are reckoned on the highest level of authenticity. Such narrations are termed mutawatir. It is only such narrations which give yaqin (certainty of knowledge) and upon which beliefs can be structured. Man is forced to believe them. Such narrations are very few as articulated by Ibn Salah:

 

مثال المتواتر على التفسير المتقدم يعز وجوده الا ان يدعى ذلك فى حديث من كذب على متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار

Examples of mutawatir on the given definition are very few in number. It can be claimed on the hadith, “The one who intentionally forges a lie against me should prepare his abode in Hell.”

 

If a narration does not have many isnads, but the narrators are very reliable and devout and it is narrated with at least two isnads then its truthfulness will be given credence. Such narrations are termed mash-hur and are worthy of acceptance.

If a narration has not been narrated through many isnads and falls short of meeting the standard of mutawatir or mash-hur, however it has an unbroken isnad and does not have any criticism together with the narrators possessing the qualities of reliability coupled with a remarkable memory, then such a narration will not provide yaqin (conviction) but will provide zann (supposition). Such narrations are authentic and practice upon them is necessary. However, they cannot be the basis for beliefs since yaqin is needed for this science. A narration whose narrators have been omitted or one of them was omitted – whether this was made clear or not – or any of the narrators is criticised due to some liable flaw, then such a narration will be considered mat’un (criticised). There is a possibility that the narrator that was omitted could have been a Sahabi or a Tabi’i. If he was a Tabi’i, then he could be reliable or not. On the other hand, if the narrator is a liar or an intentional fabricator or assumed a liar (i.e. although he does not intentionally fabricate ahadith but lies in other matters,) or he errs too often, is not cautious, is negligent, is an open transgressor, is affected by delusions, has opposed reliable narrators, is a bid’ati, or does not possess a good memory; then his narration is not worthy of acceptance. If he is a liar, then the hadith will be labelled mawdu’ (fabricated). If he is assumed a liar, then the hadith will be labelled matruk. If he errs plenty or is negligent or is an open sinner, then his narration will be termed munkar.

An unknown narrator’s narration will not be accepted since the reliability of the narrator is a necessary condition for the acceptance of a narration. When he is unknown, then how will his reliability be ascertained and how can his narration be accepted? It is for this reason that a mursal[7] hadith will not be accepted according to the most correct view.

A point worthy of consideration regarding ahadith in general and mata’in of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in particular is that the narrator should not be an enemy of the Ahlus Sunnah, the true religion. We do not label as kafir the Ahl al Bid’ah or our adversaries and we do accept the narrations of those who are devout, truthful, and intelligent, on condition that their narrations does not support their false ideologies and bid’ah. It is very possible for them to interpolate and adulterate narrations to conform to their bid’ah in order to give them credibility. Such narrations which support their bid’ah or cult will not be accepted as per rule.

The readers will see that majority of narrations concerning the mata’in against the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and regarding Fadak have been narrated by those who are hard-core Shias or accused of having Shia ideologies. Although they are reliable due to other qualities and the muhaddithin have accepted their narrations, their narrations which lend support to their cult cannot be accepted both rationally and contextually. In consideration of the rules of dirayah (the meanings of the ahadith), their narrations are criticised. If their narrations do not reach the standard of dirayah, they will not be accepted. This is explained in Tadrib al Rawi:

A hadith which is in conflict to intellect, contextual evidence, and beliefs will be considered as mawdu’.

 

It is recorded in Fath al Mughith that Ibn al Jawzi has stated: “A hadith which is irrational or is contrast to accepted beliefs should be understood to be mawdu’. There is no need to scrutinise the reliability of the narrators. Similarly, the following narrations will not be accepted: those ahadith which mention aspects in conflict to sense and reality; those which oppose Qur’an or mutawatir ahadith or ijma’ qat’i to the extent that no interpretation can be presented to reconcile the two; the meaning is repulsive; he is the sole narrator of this narration and the subject matter is obligatory for all to know; the incident mentioned is so important and common that more people need to narrate it; or it is rejected by such a large number of people that for them all to be wrong is impossible and them planning such a rejection is improbable. These are all indications that the narration is mawdu’.”

Molana Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz has written the following in ‘Ujalah Nafi’ah:

 

علامات وضع حدیث و کذب راوی چند چیز است اول آنکہ خلاف تاریخ مشہور روایت کند دوم آنکہ راوی رافضی باشد و حدیث در طعن صحابہ روایت کند و یا ناصبی باشد و حدیث در مطاعن اہل بیت باشد و علی ہذا القیاس سوم آنکہ چیزے روایت کند کہ بر جمیع مکلفین معرفت آں و عمل براں فرض باشد و او منفرد بود بروایت چہارم آنکہ وقت دحال قرینہ باشد بر کذب او پنجم آنکہ مخالف مقتضاۓ عقل و شرع باشد و قواعد شرعیہ آن را تکذیب نمایند ششم آنکہ در حدیث قصہ باشد از امر حسی واقعی کہ اگر بالحقیقہ متحقق می شد ہزاراں کس آنرا نقل می کردند ہفتم رکاکت لفظ و معنی مثل لفظے روایت کند کہ بر قواعد عربیہ درست نشود یا معنی کہ مناسب شان نبوت و وقار نباشد ہشتم افراط در وعید شدید بر گناہ صغیر یا افراط در وعدہ عظیم بر فعل قلیل نہم آنکہ بر عمل قلیل ثواب حج و عمرہ ذکر نماید دہم آنکہ کسی را از عاملان خیر ثواب انبیاء موعود کند یازدہم خود اقرار کردہ باشد بوضع احادیث

There are few signs which manifest the falsehood of a narration or the forgery of a narrator. Firstly, he narrates in conflict to a well-known date. Secondly, the narrator is a Rafidi and his narration criticises the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum or a Nasibi or Khariji and his narration criticises the Ahlul Bayt. Thirdly, he is the sole narrator of such a narration which makes a practice obligatory upon all. Fourthly, there is evidence of the narrator being a liar. Fifthly, his narration is in conflict to the Shari’ah and intellect and the principles of Shari’ah falsify his narration. Sixthly, an observation is mentioned which if was true would have been narrated by thousands of people. Seventhly, the words of the narration are grammatically incorrect or the meaning is not befitting for the pedestal of nubuwwah. Eighthly, there is a severe punishment for a minor sin or a grand reward for a small action. Ninthly, mention is made of the reward of hajj and ‘umrah for a little action. Tenthly, there is a promise of reward equal to the Prophets for some good action. Eleventh, the narrator himself acknowledges fabricating the narration.

 

Imam al Sakhawi has quoted from Ibn al Jawzi the signs of a fabrication in Fath al Mughith:

 

Firstly, the narration is irrational or oppose to beliefs. Secondly, sense and reality belies it. Thirdly, a narration which is in stark conflict to Qur’an, hadith mutawatir, or ijma’. Fourthly, there is mention of severe punishment or great rewards for a small action. Fifthly, the meaning is absurd. Sixthly, the inarticulacy of the narrator. Seventhly, the narrator is alone. Eighthly, the narrator is alone and the subject matter affects all. Ninthly, a great occurrence which necessitates an abundance of narrators. Tenthly, a huge group having consensus that it is a fabrication.

 

These principles of dirayah mentioned by Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah are not the product of his imagination and were not formed by him. Rather, majority of our muhaqqiqin have practiced upon them. Whenever a hadith was found contrary to the Qur’an, intellect, fundamental principles, or accepted beliefs, it was labelled as discarded.

Imam al Razi has related, “Someone narrated from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that Sayyidina Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam did not lie except in three instances. I told him that such narrations should not be accepted. The narrator vehemently opposed me saying that if we do not accept it then the narrators will be accused of lying. I said that if we do accept then Sayyidina Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam will be accused of lying. And it is better to protect Sayyidina Ibrahim from being labelled a liar than to accuse some unreliable men of the same.”

Abu Muti’ al Balkhi questioned Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah, “What do you say concerning the hadith which people narrate that when a believer commits adultery/fornication, his iman is removed from him like how a shirt is removed from the body; do you believe such narrators or doubt them or belie them? If you believe them, your belief will be like that of the Khawarij. If you doubt them, then a doubt will remain on the view of the Khawarij. And if you belie them, you will be belying many who narrate this from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”

Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah replied, “I belie all the narrators. My belying the narrators and rejecting them does not necessitate my rejection of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement. Rejection of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement is for someone to say that I do not accept Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement. However, when he testifies to believing in everything conveyed by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and says that he knows fully well that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not say anything contrary to what is in the Qur’an, then in fact this is belief in Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and belief in the Qur’an and this establishes the innocence of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from opposing the Qur’an. Had Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said anything contrary to the Qur’an, would Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala allow it? How is it possible for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to say anything contrary to what is mentioned in the Qur’an? How can the person who opposes the Qur’an be the Messenger of Allah? In short, this narration of iman being removed by committing adultery/fornication is in conflict to the Qur’an. To reject those who claim Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam opposition to the Qur’an is not rejecting Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement nor belying him. Rather, it is rejection of the statement of the one attributing this to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and slandering him. We believe in everything Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said and testify to its truthfulness. At the same time, we testify that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not state anything contrary to the Shari’ah, nor did he command what Allah forbade, nor did he separate what Allah commanded be joined, nor did he mention a quality of anything contrary to what Allah has mentioned. We bear witness that every statement of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was in conformity to Allah’s speech. It is for this reason that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala stated: ‘Whoever obeys Allah’s Messenger has obeyed Allah.’”

No one should think that these principles only apply to the narrations of unreliable books. In fact, they apply to all ahadith books. The ahadith included in the sihah are not of one level of authenticity but have varying levels. In fact, it is said about Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which are accepted as the most authentic books of hadith:

 

انه صحيح على ظن مصنفه و غلبة ظنه و اما السهو و النسيان فمن لوازم طبع الانسان

It is authentic according to the opinion of the author or his strongest opinion. Besides, making mistakes and forgetting is part of the nature of man.

 

Moreover, some of their ahadith and narrators have been criticised. The muhaqqiqin have said that al Bukhari has narrated from a little over 430 narrators who do not appear in Sahih Muslim, 80 of whom have been criticised of du’f (weakness). Muslim has narrated from 620 narrators who do not appear in al Bukhari. 160 of them have been criticised of du’f. The narrations of ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas appear in Sahih al Bukhari and the narrations from Abu al Zubair from Jabir, Suhayl from his father, ‘Ala’ ibn ‘Abdul Rahman from his father, and Hammad ibn Salamah from Thabit appear in Sahih Muslim. These narrators have been deemed weak. Ahadith which have an ‘illah (flaw) in them are 210 in total. Sahih al Bukhari has less than 80 while Sahih Muslim has the rest.[8] It is for this reason that Mulla ‘Ali Qari has stated in Kitab al Rijal:

 

و ما يقوله الناس ان من روى له الشيخان فقد جاز القنطرة هذا ايضا من التجاهل فقد روى مسلم فى كتابه عن الليث عن ابى مسلم و غيره من الضعفاء فيقولون انما روى عنهم فى كتابه للاعتبار و الشواهد و المتابعات و هذا لا يقوى لان الحفاظ قالوا الاعتبار امور يتعرفون بها حال الحديث و كتاب مسلم التزم فيه الصحة فكيف يتعرف حال الحديث الذى فيه بطرق ضعيفة الى قوله و روى مسلم ايضا حديث الاسراء فيه و ذلك قبل ان يوحى اليه و قد تكلم الحفاظ فى هذه القصة و بينوا ضعفها الى قوله و قد قال الحفاظ ان مسلما لما وضع كتابه الصحيح عرضه على ابى زرعة فانكر عليه و تغيظ و قال سميته الصحيح و جعلته مسلما لاهل البدع و غيرهم انتهى و الحاصل انه صحيح على ظن مصنفه و غلبة ظنه و اما السهو و النسيان فمن لوازم طبع الانسان و قد ابى الله الا ان يصحح كتابه بقوله إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

What people say that the person from whom Sheikhayn (al Bukhari and Muslim) have narrated has passed the bridge; this is due to ignorance. Muslim has narrated in his book from Layth from Abu Muslim etc., who are weak narrators. Some say that he only narrated from them in his book as i’tibar (consideration), shawahid, and mutaba’at. However, this view is not so strong. The huffaz [of hadith] have stated that al i’tibar are aspects which ascertain the condition of a hadith. And Muslim has taking a resolution of authenticity. So how can a narration’s condition be judged which is narrated through weak chains? …

Muslim has also narrated the hadith of Isra’ therein and this was prior to revelation coming to him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The huffaz have criticised this incident and have clearly stated that it is weak. …

Al Hafiz has said that when Muslim was complete with his Sahih, he presented it to Abu Zur’ah who became angry and scolded him saying: “You have named it al Sahih and made it a weapon for the Ahl al Bid’ah and others.”

In short, it is authentic according to the opinion of the author or his strongest opinion. Making mistakes and forgetting is part of the nature of man. Allah wishes not but to authenticate His book by His declaration:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.[9]

 

The author of Izalat al Ghayn has stated:

 

از کتب محدثین چناں بوضوح می انجامد کہ بعد از تحقیق در صحت یعنی روایات صحیح بخاری کلام است و ہم چنیں در بعضے روایات صحیح مسلم و قبل ازیں گزشتہ کہ آں روایات کہ اہل حدیث در صحت آن قیل و قال دارند ہر چند اقل قلیل ست مگر در صحیح ثانی زیادہ تر از اول ست و بریں قدرا اکتفا نمی تواں کرد زیراکہ افادہ بن اثیر در صدر جامع الاصول جائیکہ فرع ثالث در طبقات مجروحین قرار دادہ ست دلالت براں دارد کہ بعضے از وضاعین خود اقرار کردہ اند کہ حدیث فدک ساختہ بر مشائخ بغداد خواندیم ہمہ ہا قبول کردند مگر ابن بی شیبہ علوی کہ او بعلت جعل و افترا پی برد ہر گز قبول نکرد عبارت آں مقام این ست

After studying the books of the muhaddithin it is learnt that after thorough research, there is some criticism on the narrations of Sahih al Bukhari. Similarly, there is some criticism on the narrations of Sahih Muslim. It has been mentioned before that those narrations; the authenticity of which has been debated by the Ahl al hadith are very few in number. However, there has been more criticism on Sahih Muslim than on Sahih al Bukhari. Only this cannot be relied upon since Ifadah Ibn Athir Sadr Jami’ al Usul has been declared majruh (criticised). Some hadith fabricators have attested to the fact that they presented their forged hadith regarding Fadak to the Shuyukh of Baghdad who accepted them. Ibn Abi Shaybah ‘Alawi was the only one who did not accept it due to its forgery.

 

The Arabic text reads:

 

و منهم قوم وضعوا الحديث لهوى يدعون الناس اليه فمنهم من تاب عنه و اقر على نفسه قال شيخ من شيوخ الخوارج بعد ان تاب ان هذا الاحاديث دين فانظروا من تاخذون دينكم فان كنا اذا هوينا امرا صبرناه حديثا و قال ابو العينا وضعت انا و الجاحظ حديث فدك و ادخلناه على الشيوخ بغداد فقبلوه الا ابن ابى شيبة العلوى فانه قال لا يشبه اخر هذا الحديث اوله و ابى ان يقبله تم بلفظه

There is a group among them who fabricated ahadith to invite people towards carnal desires. Some of them repented and acknowledged this. One of the elders of the Khawarij said after repenting, “Indeed, these ahadith are din. So ascertain from whom you are acquiring your din from. Whenever we made up something, we moulded it into a hadith.”

Abu al ‘Ayna has said, “Al Jahiz and myself fabricated the hadith of Fadak and presented it to the Shukukh of Baghdad who accepted it besides Ibn Abi Shaybah al ‘Alawi who said, ‘The end of this hadith does not conform to the beginning,’ and refused to accept it.”

 

Imam al Nawawi rahimahu Llah has written in Sharh Muslim where he rejected the statement of Sheikh Ibn Salah that all the ahadith of Sahihayn are unquestionably the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

هذا الذى ذكر الشيخ فى هذا الموضع خلاف ما قاله المحققون و الاكثرون فانهم قالوا احاديث الصحيحين التى ليست بمتواترة انما يفيد الظن فانها احاد و الاحاد انها يفيد الظن على ما تقرر و لا فرق بين البخارى و مسلم و غيرهما فى ذلك الى ان قال و لا يلزم من اجماع الامة على العمل بما فيهما اجماعهم على انه مقطوع بانه كلام النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم

What Sheikh has mentioned here is in conflict to what the muhaqqiqin and majority have said. They have said that the ahadith of Sahihayn which are not mutawatir only provide zann since they are khabar ahad and khabar ahad only provide zann as has been established. There is no difference between Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others in this regard…

The consensus of the ummah upon practicing on the ahadith contained in them does not necessitate their consensus of them being unquestionably the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

 

For this reason, any hadith recorded in Sahih al Bukhari or Sahih Muslim which is contrary to any established tenant of the Shari’ah will be rejected as per consensus – due to the delusion of a narrator – or it will be given a suitable interpretation. As ‘Allamah Rashid al Din Khan has said in Shawkat ‘Umariyyah:

 

چیزے کی مخالف ما ستقر فی شریعۃ الاسلام ست باتفاق شیعہ و سنی یا محکوم علیہ بطلان ست بجہت وہم راوی یا ماول ست چنانچہ امام نووی در شرح صحیح مسلم در شرح ایں حدیث حدیث صحیح مسلم کہ ظاہر او دلالت بر قدح بعضے اصحاب کبار دارد نقلا عن القاضی عیاض مازنی می فرماید و اذا انسدت طرق تاویلہا نسبنا الکذب ال رواتہا

A hadith which is in conflict to established aspects of Islam unanimously accepted by both Shia and Sunni will be understood to be the delusion of the narrator or it will be suitably interpreted. Imam al Nawawi rahimahu Llah has stated in Sharh Muslim under the commentary of the hadith, which casts allegations against the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, on the strength of Qadi ‘Iyad Mazini, “When it cannot be interpreted, we will attribute its falsehood to the narrators.”

 

Although the compilers of Sahihayn, i.e. Imam al Bukhari and Muslim, exhausted their human efforts in gathering only authentic narrations – and for this reason their books are the most superior and high ranking among all – they were human after all. They have surpassed their contemporaries in authentication of ahadith. However there is scope for the tahqiq of the muhaqqiqin and the ijtihad of the mujtahidin. It is written in Muntaha al Kalam:

 

آخر ایں بزرگاں ہم از جملہ بشر بودہ اند گو در تصحیح حدیث بغایت قصوی کو شیدہ باشند سیما محمد بن اسمعیل بخاری کہ او دریں امور گوۓ سبق از اقران و امثال ربودہ لیکن بازہم جاۓ اجتہاد مجتہدین باقی ست مگر یادنداری کہ در بارہ چندے از رواتش بعضے از علماء و فقہاء بحث دارند شارحین در جواب آں وجوہے نقل می کںد کہ بعضے ازاں خالی از غرابت نیست

After all these men were human beings. Although they exhausted all efforts to ascertain the authenticity of the ahadith especially Muhammad ibn Ismail al Bukhari who surpassed his contemporaries in this field, yet there is scope for the ijtihad of the mujtahidin. You will remember that some Fuqaha’ and ‘Ulama’ have criticised their narrations. The commentators have answered these allegations with such reasons which are farfetched and improbable.

 

This point is not unfathomable. Besides fabrications, there are other natural causes which create the possibility of contradiction and doubts in their authenticity. The muhaqqiqin have mentioned eight causes.

  • Misunderstanding the meaning of the hadith.
  • Two narrators understanding the hadith differently.
  • The inability of the narrator to convey the proper meaning to the audience.
  • A fault in the memory of the narrator either by omitting a portion of the hadith or mixing two narrations.
  • A narrator commenting on a portion of the hadith so that the listener may understand it properly. However, the listener misunderstood this explanation as part of the hadith.
  • The narrator mentioned few words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his speech and the listener understood the entire speech to be the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
  • Those differences which occur due to narrations being conveyed verbally.
  • Various conditions in which the narrator saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, heard him say something, or do something.
 

In usul al fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), the following rule was formulated:

 

العقل شاهد بان خبر الواحد العدل لا يوجب اليقين لان احتمال الكذب قائم و ان كان مرجوحا و الا لزم القطع بالنقيضين عند اخبار العدلين بهما و ان خالف خبر الواحد جميع الاقيسة لا يقبل عندنا و ذلك لان النقل بالمعنى كان مستفيضا فيهم فاذا قصر فقه الراوى لم يومن من ان يذهب شىء من معاينيه فيدخله شبهة زائدة تخلوا عنها القياس

Intellect bears witness that the khabar al wahid of a reliable person does not provide yaqin since the possibility of lying is present although it is predominated. Otherwise it will be necessary to believe with certainty in opposites when two reliable people give contradicting information. If the khabar al wahid conflicts all analogies, it will not be accepted according to us. This is because narrating the meaning was prevalent among them.[10] When the narrator’s understanding is weak, it is possible that he did away with a portion of the meaning which creates an extra doubt that cannot be understood.

 

Doubting the ahadith appears to be doubting the integrity and truthfulness of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. To remove this doubt, our muhaqqiqin have written regarding the righteousness of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum:

 

فان قيل عدالة جميع الصحابة ثابتة بالايات و الاحاديث الواردة فى فضائلهم فقلنا ذكر بعضهم ان الصحابى اسم لمن استشهر بطول صحبة النبى على طريق المتتبع له و الاخذ منه و بعضهم انه اسم لمومن راى النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم سواء طالت صحبته ام لا الا ان الجزم بالعدالة مختص بمن استشهر بذلك و الباقون كسائر الناس فيهم عدول و غير عدول

If it is argued that the truthfulness of all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is established by the verses and the ahadith which extol their virtue, our response is that some have mentioned that a Sahabi is one whose long companionship with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is common in the sense that he followed him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and learnt from him. Others say that a Sahabi refers to a believer who saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam whether his companionship was lengthy or not. Yes, conviction on their truthfulness is particular with those whose companionship is well-known. The rest are like the common masses; some are truthful and others are not.

 

Now that it is accepted that akhbar ahad do not provide yaqin – both rationally and contextually – it will naturally follow that the akhbar which contradict the Qur’an, Sunnah mash-hurah, or ijma’ al ummah will not be accepted due to the reasons mentioned above even though the narrators are not unknown for the simple reason that yaqin (conviction) cannot be removed by zann (supposition).

 

فكيف يعتبر خبر الواحد فى معارض الكتاب و السنة المشهورة و اجماع الامة و كل حديث يخالف كتاب الله فانه ليس بحديث الرسول و انما هو مفترى و كذلك كل حديث يعارض دليلا اقوى منه فانه منقطع عنه عليه السلام لان الادلة الشرعية لا يناقض بعضها بعضا و انما التناقض من الجهل المحض

How can a khabar al wahid be considered when it is in conflict to the Qur’an, Sunnah mash-hurah, and ijma’ al ummah? Every hadith which contradicts the Book of Allah is not the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is only a fabrication. Similarly, every hadith which contradicts a proof stronger than it cannot be attributed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam since the shar’i proofs do not contradict one another. Contradiction is the product of sheer ignorance.

 

It is worthy to note that al jarh wa al ta’dil (scrutinising the truthfulness of the narrators) is only necessary to ascertain the authenticity of their information relating to the Shari’ah so that one has zann of the correctness of this information because to practice upon zanni shar’i aspects is wajib. There is no need for al jarh wa al ta’dil when it comes to stories and intellectual aspects until it is not ascertained that the information is possible or not. If it is established to be impossible, al jarh wa al ta’dil will be redundant. To the extent that even if the information is mutawatir, it will not provide yaqin as written in al Talwih:

 

ثم المتواتر لا بد ان يكون مستندا الى الحس سمعا او غيره حتى لو اتفق اهل الاقليم على مسئلة عقلية لم يحصل لنا اليقين حتى يقوم البرهان و قال ابن خلدون فى مقدمة تاريخه ممكن او ممتنع و اما اذا كان مستحيلا فلا فائدة للنظر فى التعديل و التجريح و لقد عد اهل النظر من المطاعن فى الخبر استحالة مدلول اللفظ و تاويله ان ياول بما لا يقبله العقل و انما كان التعديل و التجريح هو المعتبر فى صحة الاخبار الشرعية لان معظمها تكاليف انسانية اوجب الشارع العمل صدقها او صحتها من اعتبار المطابقة فلذلك وجب ان ينظر فى امكان وقوعه و صار فيها ذلك اهم من التعديل و مقدما عليه اذ فائدة الانشاء مقتبسة منه فقط و فائدة الخبر منه و من خارج بالمطابقة و اذا كان ذلك فالقانون فى تميز الحق من الباطل فى الاخبار بالامكان و الاستحالة ان ننظر فى اجتماع البشرى الذى هو العمران و نميز ما يلحقه من الاحوال الذالته و بمقتضى طبعه و ما يكون عارضا لا يعتد به

It is necessary for mutawatir to be supported by sense like hearing etc., to the extent that even if all the people of a continent unanimously agree on an intellectual aspect, we will not be convinced until proof is furnished. Ibn Khaldun has mentioned in the foreword of his Tarikh, “There is no need to scrutinize the narrators until it is confirmed that the information is possible or impossible. If it is impossible, then there is no benefit in scrutinizing. The intellectuals have considered the impossibility of an occurrence a flaw of the khabar as well as such an interpretation of it which the mind cannot accept. Scrutinizing the truthfulness is only considered to ascertain the authenticity of akhbar shar’iyyah for majority of such akhbar are injunctions which the Shari’ah has ordered to be carried out.

Its correctness and authenticity are considered in relation to reality. For this reason, it is imperative to ascertain the possibility of its occurrence. And this is more imperative than and precedes verifying the narrators. The benefit of a command is taken from the latter (possibility) only whereas the benefit of information is from the latter (possibility) and the actual occurrence. When this is the case, then the rule to differentiate true information from false information with regards to possibility or impossibility is to determine the agreement of the human who is the subject and scrutinize the conditions that affect him and his natural demands. Anomalous conditions will not be considered.

 

After reading what we have written regarding narrations and akhbar, then most probably the Shia will say, “When this is the condition of the books of history, tafsir, and hadith that there is no narration therein which does not have the possibility of a flaw, no khabar al wahid provides conviction, and there is an abundance of fabrications which people have disseminated, then no sunni book is worthy of consideration. Moreover, the foundation of their religion and Shari’ah rests on these very books especially the books of ahadith. So according to their own testimony, this foundation is destroyed for it is them who falsify their own books.” Some Shia scholars have written this. The author of Istiqsa’ has written this at many places – explicitly and implicitly. However, this conclusion is incorrect. There is no book besides the Qur’an which was revealed from the heavens and brought by Sayyidina Jibril ‘alayh al Salam and which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called revelation. For this reason, no book can reach the level of authenticity and conviction of that of the Qur’an. After the Qur’an, the highest humanly possible mammoth task of gathering authentic ahadith and rejecting fabrications was done by the authors of the al Sihah al Sittah. They exhausted their efforts in gathering authentic ahadith especially Imam al Bukhari and Imam Muslim and moreover the former. It is for this reason that the majority of scholars have accepted its authenticity and termed it the most authentic book of all after the Qur’an. However, to claim that its every hadith provides conviction and no narrator mentioned therein is shady, is actually claiming its equality with the Qur’an. If there are few weak ahadith and some narrators who have been criticised, despite the painless efforts he undertook to gather ahadith, this will not affect his status in the least and will not degrade his book from the lofty position it holds. Doubts cannot be cast on his book and no one can claim that our religion’s books cannot be relied upon or trusted. In fact, if you consider the stringent rules of the muhaddithin and the high standard they have set for the acceptance of ahadith and the criteria they have laid down, it will depict the staunchness, sincerity, and truthfulness of Imam al Bukhari and that he was a searcher of the truth, a hater of falsehood, and one who established the religion upon firm principles. Had they not been so staunch and stringent in accepting ahadith and shown laxity in this regard, we would not have the level of certainty and confidence that we have now. The research of our muhaqqiqin and the criteria of our muhaddithin have confirmed that our religion is based on such a strong foundation which has no cracks.

 

أَلَمْ تَرَ كَيْفَ ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا كَلِمَةً طَيِّبَةً كَشَجَرَةٍ طَيِّبَةٍ أَصْلُهَا ثَابِتٌ وَفَرْعُهَا فِي السَّمَاءِ

Have you not considered how Allah presents an example, [making] a good word like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches [high] in the sky?[11]

 

If by a few fabrication and anomalies, all the books of the religion are understood as incorrect and all the muhaddithin and mujtahidin are taken as unreliable; what will be the condition of Shiasm then? When our ‘Ulama’ have scrutinized our books this way, they will scrutinize the Shia’s books the same way. If their books are not more objectionable than ours, then definitely they will not be less. In fact, if we do not consider Arabic literacy, then too the greater part of their ahadith books especially those that deal with Imamah will be proven to be unworthy of acceptance due to them being contrary to Qur’an and intellect. However, I do not wish to enter the domain of literacy and humiliate the Shia. Therefore, I will suffice on imperative aspects. I will now show you what the Shia scholars have to say about unreliable books, fabrications, slandering the Imams, scrutinizing the narrators, giving precedence to jarh over ta’dil, akhbar ahad not providing conviction, the non-acceptance of those narrations which contradict the Qur’an, intellect, accepted beliefs, and other aspects which we have mentioned above.

Mulla ‘Ali al Tahrani writes in Tawdih al Maqal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal regarding narrations and narrators:

 

المراد بالحديث ما ينتهى سلسلة سنده الى النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم او احد المعصومين

The definition of al hadith is that whose chain goes back to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or one of the infallible Imams.

 

و على كل واحد فوجه الحاجة الى هذا العلم استنباط الاحكام الواجب علينا او كفاية موقوف فى ازماننا او مطلقا على النظر فى الاحاديث لوضوح عدم كفاية غيرها و غناه عنها فلا بد من معرفة المعتبر منها الذى يجوز الاستنباط منه و العمل عليه حيث تعرف ان جميعها ليست كذلك و لا ريب فى حصول هذه المعرفة بالمراجعة الى علم الرجال و هذا مما لا نزاع فيه

In both cases, since deducing shar’i ahkam is conditional upon studying the ahadith. Therefore, it is necessary for the authenticity of the ahadith to be ascertained so that deduction of masa’il and practice upon them may be permissible. And it is a well-known fact that all ahadith are not of this standard. The authenticity of ahadith is based upon the condition of the narrators, i.e. studying ‘ilm al rijal, and there is no difference of opinion in this regard.[12]

 

و رابعها ان من المعلوم الوارد على طبقة اخبار مستفيضة ان فى رواياتنا كانت جملة من الاخبار الموضوعة ففى النبوى المعروف ستكثر بعد القالة على و فى المروى عن الصادق ان لكل رجل منا رجل يكذب عليه و فى الاخر عنه انا اهل البيت صادقون لا تخلو من كذاب يكذب علينا فيسقط صدقنا بكذبه و فى الاخر ان المغيرة بن سعيد لعنه الله دس فى كتب احاديث ابى احاديث لم يحدث بها ابى فاتقوا الله و لا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا و سنة نبينا و عن يونس انه قال وافيت العراق فوجدت فيها قطعة من اصحاب ابى جعفر و اصحاب ابى عبد الله متواخرين فسمعت منهم و اخذت كتبهم و عرضتهم من بعدى على ابى الحسن بن الرضا فانكر منها احاديث كثيرة ان تكون من اصحاب ابى عبد الله و قال ان ابا الخطاب كذب على ابى عبد الله لعن الله على ابى الخطاب و كذلك اصحاب ابى الخطاب يدلسون من هذه الاحاديث الى يومنا هذا فى كتب اصحاب ابى عبد الله فلا تقبلوا علينا خلاف القران و فى جمله من الاخبار العلاجية ان ما خالف القران و فى بعضها ما خالفه و خالف السنة انى ما قلته و اخراج الموضوعة عما فى ايدينا من الاخبار غير معلوم و ادعاءه كما ياتى غير مسموع فى العمل بالجميع من غير تميز الموضوع عن غيره بالمقدور قبيح بل منتهى عنه بهذا الاخبار[13]

Fourthly, it is common knowledge that there is an abundance of fabrications. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has mentioned, “After me, those who fabricate things in my name will increase.”

It is narrated from Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah, “For every one of us, there is another who fabricates in our name.”

In another narration he states, “We the Ahlul Bayt are truthful. We are not protected from liars who will attribute lies to us, and tarnish our honesty with their falsehood.”

Another narration says, “Mughirah ibn Sa’id – may Allah curse him – has added many fabrications in the ahadith books of my father which my father never ever said. So fear Allah! And do not accept against us that which contradicts the word of Allah and the Sunnah of our Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”

Yunus says, “I reached Iraq and saw some of the students of Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah. I listened to their ahadith and benefited from their books. I then presented these to Abu al Hassan ibn al Rida who rejected majority of the narrations from being from the students of Abu ‘Abdullah and commented, ‘Indeed, Abu al Khattab has lied upon Abu ‘Abdullah. May the curse of Allah be upon Abu al Khattab. Similarly, the students of Abu al Khattab practice deception in these ahadith to this day by including them in the books of the students of Abu ‘Abdullah. So do not accept anything in our name which contradicts the Qur’an.”

Among his statements is that which contradicts Qur’an and the Sunnah was not said by him. In another narration he ordered that such narrations be thrown onto the wall.

[The author comments] “We do not know if all the fabricated narrations have been removed from our books. And to make such a claim is disregarded as will come later. So to practice upon all without ascertaining authentic from fabrication is pathetic, in fact prohibited.”

ان احتمال الوضع قائم فى اكثر الاخبار و جميعها او ضعف فى بعض القرائن خارجية فلا بد من الرجوع فى الجميع

The reason for the necessity of investigating the narrators and knowing the science of ‘ilm al rijal is that the possibility of fabrication is found in all narrations, although in some this possibility is very slight due to external factors. However, it is necessary to study this knowledge to remove this possibility, i.e. to remove doubts from all the ahadith.[14]

 

The author while mentioning other proofs for the necessity of investigating the narrators and studying ‘Ilm al Rijal has written:

 

منها ان سيرة العلماء قديما و حديثا على تدوين كتب الرجال و تنقيحها و تحصيلها باشتراء و استكتاب و على مطالعتها و الرجوع اليها فى معرفة احوال الرواة و العمل بها فى الاعتداء برجال و الطعن فى اخرين و التوقف فى طائفة ثابثة حتى ان كثيرا منهم كانت له مهارة فى هذا العلم كالصدوق و المفيد و الطوسى و غيرهم من مشائخ الحديث بل ربما امكن ان يقال اهتمام المتقدمين فيه كان ازيد من المتاخرين و اى عاقل يرضى بكون ذلك كله لغوا مكروها او حراما فليس الا للافتقار اليه بل ربما يظهر من عدم ارتكابهم مثل ما ذكر بالنسبة الى سائر ما يتوقف عليه الفقه ان الافتقار اليه اشد و اعظم و لعله كذلك بعد سهولة اكثر ذلك فى حقهم و فى زمانهم دون الرجال كيف و به يعرف ما هو الحجة فى حقهم عن غيرها و منه يحصل الاطمنان او الظن المستقر بما استفيد من الاحكام عن الاخبار و حيث ان المفضل فى الافتقار النافى له على الاطلاق شاذ نادر بل غير معلوم القائل ظهر ان الافتقار على الاطلاق و بتقرير اخر ان ما سمعت منهم خصوصا بعد ملاحظة ما فى كتب الاصول من الاتفاق على اشتراط فى الاجتهاد يكشف قطعيا عن بنائهم على الافتقار اليه و اشتراطه فى الاستنباط و عن رضا المعصوم بذلك و هل ينقص هذا من الاجماعات المتكررة فى كلماتهم فما مخالفته من مر فلا تقدح فيه لوضوح فساد شبهاتهم كما ياتى و بسبقهم بالاجماع و السيرة و لحوقهم عنه و منها ان سيرة الرواة و المحدثين الى زمن تاليف الكتب الاربعة بل الى تاليف الثلاثة المتاخرة الوافى و الوسائل و البحار على الالتزام بذكر جميع الرجال و جميع الاسانيد حتى ان لواحد اسقطهم او بعضهم فى مقام اشار اليهم فى مقام اخر كما فى الفقيه و التهذيبين من التصريح بانه للتحزر عن لزوم الارسال و القطع و الرفع المنافية للاعتبار و من المعلوم ان ذلك كله لان يعرفهم الراجع الى كتبهم و يجتهدوا فى احوالهم على حسب مقدوره فيميز الموثوق الجائز اخذ الرواية عن غير و الالزم اللغوية فيعلم الافتقار و الكشف عن الاشتراط كما فى ثانى تقرير الوجه السابق فلو كان بنائهم على اعتبار ما فيها من غير ملاحظة احوال الرواة للاخذ من الاصول الاربع مائة او غيره من القرائن الاعتبار او لقطع بالصدور لكان تطويل الكتب يذكر الجميع لغوا مكروها او محرما و قد مر بطلان نفى الافتقار فى الجملة فثبت الافتقار المطلق و يويد هذا الالتزام من تاخر بالرجوع الى الرجال و توصيف بعض الاخبار بالصحة و الوثوق و الاعتبار و تضعيف بعض اخر و عدم اكتفاء بعضهم بتوصيف غيره و ان كان باعرف منه بالرجال بل الخلاف بينهم فى كثير من التصحيحات و التضعيفات واضح معلوم للمراجع الى كتبهم[15]

It is found in the biographies of the former and latter ‘Ulama’ that they authored books on rijal, bought such books, studied them, and referenced them when investigating narrators. So will any sensible person accept that this action of theirs was futile, reprehensible, or impermissible? On the contrary, the need for this knowledge and investigating the narrators becomes even more apparent. Why should it not be so? It provides one with peace of heart and surety of those ahadith from which ahkam are deduced. It is also part of the practice of the muhaddithin that they mention a sanad of every hadith and they held on to this practice from the very beginning to the era of the authoring of the four books. They listed each and every narrator’s name and if anyone was left out, they mentioned it at another place so that irsal[16], qat’[17], and raf’ which hamper the authenticity of the hadith are removed. This was only practiced so that those who will read these books and investigate them will be able to differentiate as to which narrator is reliable and which is not. Had this not been the object and had this practice been futile after the books of hadith were authored, then this practice of the muhaddithin would be useless. If without investigating the narrators, it was sufficient to reproduce and narrate from the four hundred ahadith books and there was conviction on their authenticity, then to write the names of the narrators in the books and to teach these books would be futile and reprehensible, in fact forbidden.

 

This author has also mentioned the objections of those who accept the books of hadith and every hadith mentioned therein as reliable and worthy of practice without checking the narrators. He has also mentioned their proofs and answered them. One of these are:

 

احدها ان المعلوم بالتواتر و الاخبار المحفوفة بقرائن القطع انه كان داب القدماء فى مدة تزيد على ثلاث مائة سنة ضبط الاحاديث و تدوينها فى مجالس الائمة و غيرها و كانت هممهم على تاليف ما يعمل به الطائفة المحققة و عرضه على الائمة و قد استمر ذلك الى زمن تاليف الكتب الاربعة حتى بقيت جملة منها بعد ذلك و هذه الاربعة منقولة من تلك الاصول المعتمدة بشهادة اربابها الثقات و لغايت بعد تاليفهم من غيرها مع تمكنهم منها و من تميز ما هو المعتبر عن غيره غاية التمكن مع علمهم بعدم اعتبار الظن فى الاحكام الشرعية مع التمكن من العم و التبين و المعلوم من و ثقاتهم و جلالتهم عدم التقصير فى ذلك كيف و اهل التواريخ لا ياخذون القصص من كتاب او شخص غير معتمد مع التمكن من الاخذ عن المعتمد فما ظن بهؤلاء المشائخ العظام و على فرض اخذهم من غير الكتب المعتبرة كيف يدسلون بل يشهدون بصحة جميع ما نقلوه و كونه حجة بينهم و بين ربهم[18]

Firstly, they say that it is known by tawatur and countless narrations and undoubtable factors that the practice of the former scholars for more than three hundred years was to memorise ahadith and write them down in the gatherings of the Imams, etc. Their desire was to gather those ahadith upon which the true sect practices and then present it to the Imams. This practice continued till the era in which the four books were authored and also after that era. These four books are transmitted with these reliable principles with the rectification of their reliable authors. They have separated authentic from unauthentic. Knowing fully well that zann has no credence in formulating ahkam of the Shari’ah and that conviction is necessary and knowing fully well their integrity and reliability, who will think that the authors of the four books fell short in gathering authentic ahadith? When the historians do not narrate from unreliable books and unreliable persons, then how can one doubt these great luminaries that they fell short in narrating authentic ahadith? And if we hypothetically accept that they did accept unauthentic narrations, then why would they deceive by claiming that all the narrations they have gathered are authentic and their books are proof between them and Allah?[19]

 

He answered this by stating:

 

و نقول فى المقام الثانى اجمالا ان ما ذكر فى هذا لوجه باجمعه غير مفيد القطع بالصدور انه لا اقل من قيام احتمال السهو و الغفلة لوضوح عدم عصمة الرواة و المؤلفين للاصول و الكتب الماخوذة منها و مع التسليم فلا يوجب الغنى عن الرجال على الاطلاق لوضوح وجود الاخبار المعارضة فى جملة هذه الاخبار كاخبار التقية و من المعلوم المدلول عليه بالاخبار العلاجية منها و غيرها توقف تميز الراجح المعتبر منها على مراجعة الرجال فاين الغنى المدعى على كل حال

Briefly, this does not prove that these ahadith are definitely from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams since the possibility of negligence and error still remains at the least. This is because the narrators and the books from which the ahadith were taken are not infallible and flawless. Even if this much is accepted, the need for ‘ilm al rijal is realised. There are contradictory ahadith present like the narrations on Taqiyyah. Hence, investigating the narrators is necessary.[20]

 

The author thereafter says:

 

The compilers of hadith did not state that whatever they gathered in their books provides yaqin. Rather, whether they provide yaqin or not does not concern them. Furthermore, all the hadith compilers are not unanimous when it comes to gathering ahadith. For example, al Kulayni discarded many ahadith which the latter scholars included. It is learnt from his biography that he was very cautious when it came to narrating and authenticating ahadith. Why would such people discard those ahadith which provide yaqin which the latter scholars have included? Look at al Saduq; majority of the time, he relies on his Sheikh Ibn al Walid when it comes to authenticating or discrediting narrations. To the extent that he has declared, ‘The hadith which my Sheikh has declared as authentic is authentic according to me and the one he did not authenticate is discarded by me.’

Think for a moment. What does having reliance on the accrediting or discrediting of anyone affect those ahadith which provide yaqin and why does he have reliance on the authenticity or weakness of a narration based on his Sheikh’s determination? How can those ahadith which provide yaqin be rejected simply based on his Sheikh’s discrediting?[21]

 

Dildar ‘Ali in Sawarim has written the principles of his school with regards to ahadith:

 

The method of the Shia is that they acquire yaqin in their belief system and principles and do not permit zann and taqlid in the fundamentals of din. And after attaining yaqin, they mention sam’iyyat mutawatirah, i.e. those narrations which are mutawatir either in wording or meaning even though the narrator has corrupt beliefs. This is attained from rational proofs for further satisfaction, increase in the levels of yaqin, further substantiation, and other benefits. It is for this reason that Sheikh al Ta’ifah practiced upon the narrations of narrators with corrupt beliefs. A khabar al wahid, although it is narrated by reliable narrations is not sufficient as proof when it comes to beliefs. Some of our scholars have preferred that each aspect of the furu’ (subsidiary aspects) be necessarily supported by mutawatir or deduced from the Qur’an and supported by rational proofs. Nonetheless, our practice is that when a khabar al wahid is narrated by a reliable narrator and other requirements are found therein, then it is obligatory to practice upon it.

 

Dildar ‘Ali has also mentioned that one of their principles is that if any khabar is apparently contradicting an aspect upon which there is unanimity then it is necessary that it be interpreted or discarded. Owing to this principle, he regards those narrations as rejected and false which discredit Zurarah, Hisham, etc. He says:

 

Indeed, there are some narrations in our religion which state the condemnation of some of our senior scholars. Due to the narrator of such narrations being weak or discredited and such narrations contradicting others which are strong and upon which there is unanimity, our scholars have regarded such narrations as unreliable.

 

He states further:

 

Intellect bears testimony to the fact that notwithstanding the narrations of condemnation of such senior scholars, the belief of our scholars in the integrity and loftiness of these senior scholars did not waver and no one, although witnessing the abundance of differences, did not contradict them. From this we learn that the reason is that the sun of their greatness and integrity was radiant in their eyes. If the Shia list 100 people the likes of Hisham etc., with corrupt beliefs like Abu al Khattab, then too no flaw will come to the foundation of their true beliefs which rests upon rock-hard proofs and evidences. We do not establish Imamah and the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his children except from the Qur’an, the authenticity of which is a necessity of Islam, undisputed ahadith, or rational proofs. So even if a thousand people like Hisham and Muhammad ibn Muslim are hypothetically proved to be heretics or transgressors, this will not shake our beliefs.

 

He says:

 

It is very unlikely to find a religion wherein some of the narrations of which are not baseless or interpreted. So it devolves on religious honest people to formulate a ruling which they cannot escape in debate. The ruling is that proof should be used against the opponent of that which contradicts his religion and is documented in his books, and whatever the narrator and scholars have mentioned is accepted by both parties. Or that it is established through tawatur wherein there is no possibility of falsehood according to the sound and sensible.

 

Dildar ‘Ali writes in Husam regarding khabar al wahid:

 

خبر واحد اگر بے معارض ہم باشد ظنی ست در اصول اعتقادیات بآں تمسک نباید کرد بلکہ نزد محققین شیعہ امامیہ مثل ابن ادریس و شریف مرتضی و اکثر قدماۓ ایشاں قابل احتجاج نیست و متاخرین ایشاں ہمیں مذہب را اختیار کردہ اند و ہذا اخبار احادر را در دلائل نشمردہ بلکہ رد آنرا واجب دانستہ (خصوصا در اعتقادات حسام)

A khabar al wahid, even though it is non contradictory, provides zann. It is not permissible to use it as evidence in the fundamentals of belief. In fact, according to the muhaqqiqin Shia scholars like Ibn Zuhrah, Ibn Idris, Sharif Murtada, and majority of the early scholars, it is not worthy of proof. The latter scholars have preferred this view and have not included khabar al wahid amongst the proofs. Rather, they deem its rejection as necessary especially when it comes to beliefs.

 

Dildar ‘Ali states regarding the rejection or interpretation of those ahadith which contradict shar’i proofs:

 

و آنچہ دریں باب از ائمہ دین نقل می کںد ہمہ زور و بہتان ست و از موضوعات دروغ گویاں و یا اینکہ گو فرمودہ باشند لکن واجب التاویل ست نظر بایں کہ کہ معارض ست بآن چہ از ادلہ شرعیہ کہ اقوی ازان ست

Whatever has been reported from the Imams in this regard is false and slanderous and the fabrications of the deceitful. Or maybe the Imams have stated it but there is definitely some interpretation since it contradicts those shar’i proofs which are stronger than it.[22]

 

He writes on page 14 of the same book:

 

ہیچک فرقہ ہالکہ ضالہ نخواہد بود کہ یکے از آیات و احادیث نبویہ بحسب ظاہر موافق مسلک وا نباشد پس اگر مجرد و جود معارض دلیل بطلان مذہب شود باید کہ مذہب اسلام بالمرہ باطل باشد و مستحق طعن و تشنیع از قبل کفار و ملاحدہ شود آرے باوجود قوت معارض اگر کسے جانب ضعیف او اختیار نماید البتہ مورد طعن و تشنیع اورا می تواں ساخت

There is no misguided and destructive sect such that no verse or hadith externally does not contradict it. So if finding contradiction was sufficient as proof for the falsehood of a religion, then the religion of Islam would have been totally false and the target of criticism and censure from the disbelievers. If anyone prefers the weak side over the strong one, then he will be the target of criticism and censure.[23]

 

He writes on page 25:

 

بالجملہ دانستی کہ بناء اعتقادات امامیہ بر اخبار احاد نیست پس ابن بابویہ در کتاب اعتقادات خود روس اعتقادات امامیہ را کہ بنا بر آیات و احادیث متواترہ و اجماع اہل بیت و ادلہ عقلیہ بہ ثبوت پیوستہ مذکور ساختہ در کتب احادیث موافق داب محدثین اخبار احاد را بہر قسم کہ ماثور گشتہ مندرج فرمودہ و لازم نیست کہ محدثین آنچہ روایت کںد مطابق آن ہم اعتقاد داشتہ باشند

In short, you have learnt that the foundation of the beliefs of the Shia does not rest on khabar al wahid. Ibn Babawayh has mentioned in his book I’tiqadat that the basis of the fundamentals of Shia beliefs is verses, ahadith mutawatirah, consensus of the Ahlul Bayt and those rational proofs which are proven. The muhaddithin have included the khabar al wahid in the ahadith books as narrated as is their habit. It is not a compulsion that the muhaddithin hold beliefs conforming to their narrations.

 

He then writes on page 62:

 

بدانکہ ورود احادیث مختلفہ الظواہر مخصوص بیہچ یک از فرق اہل اسلام کہ ارباب کتب احادیث و اخبار باشند نیست و نظر بہ ہمیں علماء اہل اسلام طریق جمع بین الاحادیث المختلفۃ و وجوہ ترجیح احد الخبرین المتعارضین را بر حدیث دوم در کتب اصول و غیرہ مدون و بیان ساختہ اند پس اگر بمجرد ایراد روایات مختلفہ ابن بابویہ محل طعن و تشنیع باشد کافیہ محدثین اہل اسلام باید محل طعن و تشنیع باشند

The appearance of such ahadith which are externally contradictory is not peculiar to any sect of Islam which have ahadith books. The scholars of Islam have mentioned the methods of reconciling two seemingly contradictory narrations or giving preference to one over the other in the books of usul. So if Ibn Babawayh is the target of criticism and censure due to him narrating contradictory narrations, then all the muhaddithin of Islam will be the targets of criticism and censure likewise.[24]

 

He writes on page 38:

 

ہیچک محدثین عامہ و خاصہ التزام ایں ںمودہ کہ در ہر کتاب حدیث آنچہ روایت کند بر طبق مدلول ظاہری آں معتقد و عامل ہم باشد بلکہ در صورت تعارض حدیث با ادلہ شرعیہ گو آن حدیث را روایت کردہ باشد بمقتضاۓ آں چہ از ادلہ شرعیہ راجح می باشد بمقتضاۓ آن عمل می کند[25]

None of the muhaddithin have taken the responsibly to believe and practice according to the external meaning of the narrations they report. Rather, in the case of contradiction, they practice upon that which is rajih (more convincing) in accordance to shar’i proofs notwithstanding them narrating both.

 

Sayed Muhammad Mujtahid says in Darbat Haydariyyah:

 

سوال اول کہ مصدرست بقول وے ازاں جملہ آنکہ حکم بموضوع بودن احادیث قدح ہشامین کہ در کافی کلینی کہ یکے از اصول اربعہ شیعہ ست موجود ست الخ جواب علی نہج الصواب آنکہ ایں سوال متبنی است بر عدم درک طریقہ انیقہ متکلمین و مجتہدین امامیہ چہ ایشاں و اصول دینیہ متینیہ بر دلائل قطعیہ اعتماد می کںد و بس و ظن و تقلید را دراں جائز و سائغ نمی داںد پس در اصول دینیہ اعتماد بر اخبار احاد نمی نمایند و صحاح و حسان و موثقات ضعاف دریں مادرہ یکساں ست امادر فروع دینیہ پس اعتماد شاں در ضروریات دین و مذہب بر قطع ست و بس لا علی اخبار الاحاد و در غیر آن بر ظن ست نہ مطلق ظن بل ما حصل من الادلۃ الاربعۃ کتابا او سنۃ او اجماعا او عقلا و لا عبرۃ عندہم بالقیاس المنہدم الاساس و لا بمحض الرای و اجتہاد الناس و در صورت تعارض ادلہ شان بر ترجیح بعض علی بعض ست و انماء ترجیح و مناشی آں متکثر و منشعب بشعب کثیرہ ست کہ استقضصاۓ آن دریں مقام مخرج کلام از ما نحن فیہ ست و بالجملہ یکے از مرجحات نظر در سند و حال رجال ست پس بر تقدیر تعارض صحیح با ضعیف و عدم الخبار ضعف آں بعمل اصحاب و غیرہ من القرائن بہ ترجیح صحیح علی الضعیف می پر دازند ن بر تقدیر عدم تعارض و وجدان خبرے ضعیف السند اگر آں خبر منجر الضعف بعمل اصحاب باشد فلا ریب فی الاعتماد علیہ و ہکذا لوحف بقرائن عاضدۃ لہا و ہم چنیں اگر آں خبر مسوق باشد براۓ بیان یکے از مستجاب چہ مسامحہ در ادلہ سں شائع کما بین فی محلہ و اگر منجر بعمل نیست و نہ مسوق براۓ بیان سں بس یا موافق اصول خواہد بود کاصل البرائۃ و الاستصحاب و الضحوی و غیرہ ذلک یا مخالف آں علی الاول یعتمد علیہ و یحتج الیہ علی الاظہر و علی الثانی حکمش آئل و راجع بتعارض خواہد بود و رجوع بمرجحات لازم و اگر اصلے در دست نخواہد بود و حدیث ضعیف بلا معارض دراں صورت نیز عمل براں سائغ علی کلام فیہ الحاصل قطعیت صد در ہر واحد از اخبار کتب اربعہ غیر مدعی و غیر ثابت و حالش نزد ایشاں مثل حال اخبار صحاح ستہ سنیہ نیست کہ اگر طلاق حلق براں خورد طلاقش واقع نشود قال فضل روزبہان اما صحاحنا فقد اتفق العلماء علی ان کل ما عدا من الصحاح سوی التعلیقات فی الصحاح السنۃ لو حلف الطالق انہ من قول رسول اللہ او من فعلہ و تقریرہ لم یقع الطلاق و لم یحنث انتہی و عمل فرقہ حقہ بر اخبار کتب خود نہ بر سبیل غض بصر عن المعارضات و الترجیحات می باشد بلکہ بعد نقر و بحث اطراف و جوانب آن را از مزیفات و مرجحات و حال رواۃ ملاحظہ نمودہ در محل اعتماد اعتماد می نمایند و در مقام جرح و طرح طرح و جرح و در جاۓ تاویل تاویل و لا ینحصر وجوہ ترجیحہم و علمہم فی وجہ و سبیل و احاطہ ابن مقاصد علیہ بر کسیکہ در تدرب فن اجتہاد روز را بشب نیاودہ و شباب را بشئیب مبدل نساختہ حیلے عسیر و لا یاتیک مثل خبیر و چون راویان مثالب ہشامین و من یحذ و حذوفہما مخالف اجماع فرقہ حقہ و معارض بروایات متواترۃ است لا محالہ محتمل الطرح یا مائول باشد نہ ایں کہ قطعا جزما کسے حکم بوضع و طرح آں نمودہ باشد کما یلمح الیہ صدر کلام الفاضل المجادل و ازیں معنی لازم نمی آید کہ جمیع مرویات رواۃ قدح شان مطروح گردد اگر چہ داعی الی الوضع و باعث الی الطرح دراں مفقود باشد چنانچہ وجوب تاویل در بعض آیات منافی ادلہ قطعیہ ست مثل آیتہ کریمہ ید اللہ فوق ایدیہم و امثال آں مستلزم وجوب تاویل در جمیع ظواہرات نیست

The Shia mutakallimin and mujtahidin rely on qat’i proofs with regards to the fundamentals of din and do not give credence to zann and taqlid in this regard. They do not consider khabar al wahid when it comes to the fundamentals of din. In this topic, all types of ahadith – authentic, Hassan, strong, and weak – are equal. With regards to the furu’ of din – the daruriyyat al din – consideration is given to yaqin, not khabar al wahid. Besides these, zann is considered but not unfettered. Rather that zann which is acquired from one of the four proofs, i.e. Qur’an, Sunnah, ijma’, and analogy. In the case of contradiction, sahih will get preference over da’if. When there is no contradiction, then if the khabar conforms to the practice of the people of the religion then it will be relied upon.

Every khabar from the narrations of the four books (i.e. the four books of hadith which are regarded as authentic according to them) providing yaqin is not established nor was it claimed. The condition of the four ahadith compilations of ours is unlike the al Sihah al Sittah of the Sunni that if anyone swears on their authenticity then talaq will not take place. Nor is the practice of the Shia upon their ahadith without considering contradiction and predilection. Rather, it is only after deep contemplation, discussing, considering all the angles, and scrutinising the narrators. After pondering over all of these, they rely on that which is reliable, criticise what needs to be criticised, and interpret where needed. The reasons for giving preference and practicing are not one. The narrations like those in condemnation of Hisham which contradict ijma’ and mutawatir narrations are discredited or interpreted.[26]

 

Those narrations which disparage Hisham and crew are recorded in al Kafi. Notwithstanding their narrators being Shia from whom al Kulayni has narrated, they are discrediting those men who the Shia regard as the pioneers of their creed and the bosom friends of the Imam. Therefore, without scrutinising the narrators, they declare these narrations as matruk (discarded) in fact mawdu’ (fabricated). Dildar ‘Ali has written at the end of the answer to belief 13:

 

ہر گاہ امامیہ باوجود عدم احتیاج بطرف و ثاقت ہشام و مومن الطاق و باوجود ایں روایات مثالب مثل ابو الخطاب و مغیرہ و عثمان بن عیسی و نظراۓ ایناں ایشاں را انکاشتند دلیل قوی ست کہ ایں روایات یا موضوع اند کہ حساد و اعداۓ ہشام و غیرہ بنا بر قرب و منزلت کہ ایشاں را پیش جناب ائمہ بود بافتہ اند یا ایں کہ جناب ائمہ بنا بر صیانت نفس خود و جانہاۓ ایشاں مثل حضرت خضر نسبت بسفینہ در نظر مخالفین ایشاں معیوب ساختہ اند و قرینہ بریں ہر دو محمل اینکہ اجل امثال چنیں کساں کہ اسناد مذہب باطلہ بطرف آنہا شدہ باوجود انکہ غرض ایشاں صحیح بود و لیکن عوام معنی و مراد ایشاں نفہمیدہ اند انتہی کلامہ

This is strong proof that these narrations are either fabricated or either made up by those who were jealous and harboured hatred and enmity for Hisham etc., due to the proximity they enjoyed by the Imams. Or maybe the Imams disparaged them for their protection like Sayyidina Khadir ‘alayh al Salam made the ship defective in the eyes of the enemy. The evidence for this is the abundance of people who have been attributed to false religions whereas their object was correct but the masses could not understand them.

 

Sheikh Abu Jafar al Tusi has stated in al Tahdhib, the chapter concerning bequeathing a third:

 

اذا وجدت عنهم بانهم فعلوا فعلا يخالف ما استقر فى شريعة الاسلام فينبغى ان يحكم ببطلانها او حملها على وجه فى الجملة يطابق الصحيح من الاخبار و ان لم نعلمه على التفسير

When you find a narration which states that they practiced an action that contradicts that which is established in the Shari’ah of Islam, then it devolves on you to declare its falsehood or to relate it to that which conforms to what is authentic, although its commentary is not known.

 

Sheikh al Tusi has harped upon the negligence and delusion of the narrators notwithstanding their reliability at many places in Tahdhib. He says in the chapter about retraction of a bequest:

 

قال محمد بن الحسن ما يتضمن هذا الخبر من قوله ان اوصى به كله فهو جائز وهم من الراوى

Muhammad ibn al Hassan has said, “What this narration mentions i.e. he said ‘If he bequests everything, it is permissible’ this is a narrator’s delusion.”

 

He writes in Kitab al Waqf:

 

قال محمد بن الحسن ما يتضمن هذا الخبر من قوله يعنى صاحب الدار حين ذكر ان رجلا جعل لرجل سكنى دار له فانه غلط من الراوى

Muhammad ibn al Hassan has said, “What this narration mentions – i.e. the owner of the house saying that a man gave the house to another to stay – is a mistake of the narrator.”

 

At many places he uses the words:

 

يجوز ان يكون الراوى وهم

It is possible that the narrator erred.

 

انما اشتبه الامر على فلان

So and so was confused about the matter.

 

The Shia scholars accept that no scholar’s mere statement is worthy as proof. Qadi Nur Allah al Shustari has declared Harun and Ma’mun to be from the Shia. Sayed Mujtahid answers this claim in Darbat Haydariyyah by saying:

 

اما آنچہ از کلام سید نور اللہ نور اللہ مرقدہ مستفاد می شود کہ جناب ایشاں بتشیع آنہا قائل بودہ اند پس اولا آنکہ تقلید شاں غیر لازم و در باب امثال ایں گونہ امور غیر مطع فان الحق احق بلاتباع خصوصا نظر بریں کہ ہمت جناب سید ممدوح بسوی توسیع دائرہ تشیع چناں مصروف بودہ و تکثیر سواد ایں فرقہ آں چناں مطمح نظر داشتہ کہ مثل سید شریف جرجانی و علامہ دوانی راہم محاط محیط آن دائرہ گردنیدہ ماںد منصور دانقی شقی را نیز دریں شاں بتکلف گردانیدہ

It is established from the statements of Sayed Nur Allah that he declared Harun Rashid and Ma’mun Rashid – the khulafa’ of their respective eras – as Shia. Firstly, it is not necessary to follow him in such matters because only the truth is followed. Sayed Nur Allah widening the scope of Shiasm is contentious. Due to this ideology of his, he included Sayed Sharif Jurjani and ‘Allamah Dawani among the Shia. He also included Mansur Daniqi Shaqqi with much effort.

 

Sheikh Murtada has written in his Rasa’il – published in Iran – concerning contradiction and fabrication of ahadith:

 

ثم ان ما ذكر من تمكن اصحاب الائمة من اخذ الاصول و الفروع بطريق اليقين دعوى ممنوعة واضحة المنع و اقل ما يشهد عليها ما علم بالعين و الاثر من اختلاف اصحابهم صلوت الله عليهم فى الاصول و الفروع و لذا شكى غيره واحد من اصحاب الائمة اليهم اختلاف اصحابه فاجابوهم تارة بانهم قدر القوا الاختلاف بينهم حقنا لدمائهم كما فى رواية حريز وزاره و ابى ايوب الجزار و اخرى اجابوهم بان ذلك من جهة الكذابين كما فى رواية الفيض بن المختار قال قلت لابى عبد الله جعلنى الله فداك ما هذا الاختلاف الذى بين شيعتكم قال و اى الاختلاف يا فيض فقلت له انى اجلس فى حلقهم بالكوفة و اكاد اشك فى اختلافهم فى حديثهم حتى ارجع الى الفضل بن عمر فيوقضنى من ذلك على ما تستريح به نفسى فقال اجل كما ذكرت يا فيض ان الناس قد اولعوا بالكذب علينا كان الله افترض عليهم و لا يريد منهم غير انى احدث احدهم بحديث فلا يخرج من عندى حتى يتاوله عن غير تاويله و ذلك لانهم لا يطلبون بحديثنا و بحسبنا ما عند الله تعالى و كل يحب ان يدعى راسا و قريبا منها رواية داود بن سرحان و استثناء القميين كثير امن رجال نوادر الحكمة معروف و قصة ابن ابى العوجاء انه قال عند قتله قد وست فى كتبكم اربعة الاف حديث مذكورة فى الرجال و كذا ما ذكره يونس بن عبد الرحمن من انه اخذ احاديث كثيرة من اصحاب الصادقين ثم عرضها على ابى الحسن الرضاء فانكر منها احاديث كثيرة الى غير ذلك مما يشهد بخلاف ما ذكره

What he has mentioned that the companions of the Imams derived usul and furu’ from them through yaqin is a baseless claim. The smallest proof to debunk this is the well-known ikhtilaf of the companions in usul and furu’. It is for this reason that when anyone complained to the Imams of the ikhtilaf of their companions then sometimes they answered by saying that they themselves had created this ikhtilaf in order to save their lives as appears in the narration of Hariz, Zurarah, and Abu Ayub al Jazzar. At other times, they answered that this is from the liars as appears in the narration of al Fayd ibn al Mukhtar who relates that he said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “May I be sacrificed for you. What is this ikhtilaf between your companions?”

He asked which ikhtilaf.

He explained, “I sit in their gathering in Kufah and begin to have doubts due to their ikhtilaf in ahadith. Then I go to al Fadl ibn ‘Umar who informs me of that which brings satisfaction and relief to my soul.”

The Imam commented, “Yes, it is as you have said, O Fayd! People have fabricated upon us as if Allah had made it obligatory upon them and He desires nothing from them besides this. I narrate to one of them a hadith and he does not even leave the gathering and he has already given it a false interpretation. This is due to the fact that with our hadith and love they do not desire what is by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Each of them wishes to become a leader.”

Similar to this is the narration of Dawood ibn Sarhan. The exclusion of the Qummiyyin from the rijal of Nawadir al Hikmah is well-known. The incident of Ibn Abi al ‘Awja’ is that he confessed before being killed, “I have added four thousand ahadith to your books which are recorded in al Rijal.”

Likewise, Yunus ibn ‘Abdul Rahman has related that he narrated many ahadith from the students of al Baqir and al Sadiq and then presented them to Abu al Hassan al Rida’ who denied majority of the ahadith. There are other reports as well which testify to the opposite of what he has mentioned.

 

In this book, where there are rational proofs to substantiate the strength of khabar al wahid, it is written regarding not relying on what is recorded in books without hearing the ahadith, as well as fabrications and false narrations being included in the books:

 

و هو ان لا شك للمتبع فى احوال الرواة المذكورة فى تراجمهم فى كون اكثر الاخبار بل جلها الا شذر و ندر صادرة عن الائمة و هذا يظهر بعد التامل فى كيفية اهتمام ارباب الكتب من مشائخ الثلاثة و من تقدمهم فى تنقيح ما ادعوه فى كتبهم و عدم الاكتفاء باخذ الرواية من كتاب و ايداعها فى تصانيفهم حذرا من كون ذلك الكتاب مدسوسا فيه من بعض الكذابين فقد حكى عن احمد بن محمد بن عيسى انه جاء الى الحسن بن و شاد طلب منه ان يخرج اليه كتابا لعلاء بن ذرين و كتابا لابان عثمان الاحمر فلما اخرجهما قال احب ان سمعها قال ما عجبك اذهب فاكتبهما فقال له رحمك الله ما عليك اذهب فاكتبهما و اسمع من بعد فقلت له لا امن امن الحدثان فقال لو علمت ان الحديث يكون له هذا لطلب لاستكثرت منه فانى قد ادركت فى هذا المسجد مأة شيخ كل يقول حدثنى جعفر بن محمد و عن محمدويه بن نوح انه وقع و عنده و فاتر فيه احاديث ابن سنان فقال ان تكتبوا ذلك فانى كتبت عن محمد بن سنان و لكن لا روى لكم عنه شيئا فانه قال قبل موته كلها حدثتكم فليس بسماع و لا برواية و انما وجدته فانظر كيف احاطوا فى الرواية عمن لم يسمع من الثقات و انما وجد فى الكتب و كفاك شاهد ان على بن الحسن بن فضال لم يرو كتب ابيه الحسن عنه مع مقابلتها عليه و انما يرويها عن اخويه احمد و محمد عن ابيه و اعتذر عن ذلك بانه يوم مقابلته الحديث مع ابيه كان صغير السن ليس له كثير معرفة بالروايات فقرأ ما على اخويه ثانيا و الحاصل ان الظاهر الحصار مدارهم على ايداع ما سمعوه من صاحب الكتاب او ممن سمعه منه فلم يكونوا يودعون ال ما سمعوا و لو بوسائط من صاحب الكتاب و لو كان معلوم الانتساب مع اطمينانهم بالوسائط و شدة وثوقهم بهم حتى انهم ربما كانوا يتبعونهم فى تصحيح الحديث و رده كما اتفق للصدوق بالنسبة الى شيخه ابن الوليد و ربما كانوا لا يثقون بمن يوجد فيه قدح بعيد المدخليه فى الصدق و لذا حكى عن جماعة منهم تحرز عن الرواية عمن يروى من الضعفاء و يعتمد المراسيل و ان كان ثقته فى نفسه كما اتفق بالنسبة الى البرقى هل يتحرزون عن الرواية عمن يعمل بالقياس مع ان علمه لا دخل له بروايته كما اتفق بالنسبة الى الاسكا فى حيث ذكرفى ترجمته انه كان يرى القياس فترك رواياته لاجل ذلك و كانوا يتوقفون فى روايات من كان على الحق فعدل عنده و ان كانت كتبه و رواياته حال الاستقامة حتى اذن لهم الامام او تائبه كما سئلوا العسكرى عن كتب فضال و قالوا ان بيوتنا منها ملاء فاذن لهم و سئلوا الشيخ ابا القاسم بن روح عن كتب ابن غدافر التى صنفها قبل الارتداد عن مذهب الشيعة حتى اذن بهم الشيخ فى العمل بها و الحاصل ان الامارات الكاشفة عن اهتمام اصحابنا فى تنقيح الاخبار فى ازمنة المتاخرة عن زمان الرضا اكثر من ان يحصى و يظهر للمتتبع و الداعى الى شدة الاهتمام مضافا الى كون تلك الروايات اساس الدين و بها قوام شريعة سيد المرسلين صلى الله عليه و سلم و لهذا قال الامام فى شان جماعة من الرواة لولا هولاء لاندرست اثار النبوة و ان الناس لا يرضون بنقل ما يوثق به فى كتبهم المؤلفة لرجوع من ياتى اليها فى امور الدين على ما اخبرهم الامام بانه ياتى على الناس زمان هرج لا يانسون الا بكتبهم و على ما ذكره الكلينى فى ديباجة الكافى عن كون كتابه مرجعا لجميع من ياتى بعد ذلك ما تنبهوا له و نبههم عليه الائمة عن ان الكذابة كانوا يدرسون الاخبار الكذوبة فى كتب اصحاب الائمة كما يظهر من الروايات الكثيرة منها نه عرض يونس بن عبد الرحمن على سيدنا ابى الحسن الرضا كتب جماعة من اصحاب الباقر و الصادق فانكر منها احاديث كثيرة ان يكون من احاديث ابى عبد الله و قال ان ابا الخطاب كذب على ابى عبد الله كذلك اصحاب ابى الخطاب يدسون الاحاديث الى يومنا هذا فى كتب اصحاب ابى عبد الله

There is no doubt for the person who studies the biographies of the narrators that most of the narrations, in fact all of them besides a few, are not from the Imams. This will only be realised after pondering over the amount of importance given to narrations reaching us by the authors of the books, i.e. the three mashayikh and those who preceded them. The amount of analysis and scrutiny they observed to the narrations before including them in their books. They were not satisfied just by narrating from books and did not include such narrations in their books for fear that some fabricators might have added to these books. The incident of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa is that he came to Hassan ibn Shad and requested for the books of ‘Ala’ ibn Dharin and Aban ibn ‘Uthman ibn Ahmar. When Hassan brought the books, Ahmed voiced his desire to listen to them directly to which Hassan commented, “What is the hurry? Take them and write them.”

He then said, “May Allah have mercy on you. Take them and write them and learn from the one who succeeds me.”

Ahmed said, “This is not protected from lies.”

Hassan said, “If I knew that there would be such a desire for hadith, I would have acquired much. I saw 100 persons in this Masjid who claimed that Jafar ibn Muhammad narrated to them.”

It is narrated about Muhammaduyah ibn Nuh who acquired plenty archives which contained the ahadith of Ibn Sinan that he said, “Write what you want. I have heard directly from Muhammad ibn Sinan. However, I will not narrate to you because he said before dying that all the ahadith I told you, I have not heard them. Rather, I found them written down.”

Look at the caution they observed from relating from one who did not hear directly from reliable men but simply found it in books. This evidence is sufficient for you that ‘Ali ibn Hassan ibn Fudal does not narrate his father’s books from his father although he checked them with his father. Rather, he narrates from his brothers Muhammad and Ahmed who in turn narrate from their father. ‘Ali presents this excuse that he was young at the time he checked the ahadith with his father, and did not have sufficient knowledge about narrating. Therefore, he learnt again from his brothers.

In short, this clearly shows that the basis of the muhaddithin is upon hearing from the author himself or from someone who heard from him. They would not narrate a hadith until they did not hear it themselves even though there are many links between them and the author. Moreover, they had reliance and confidence on the person who heard directly from the author to the extent that sometimes they also followed those links in the authentication and rejection of ahadith as al Saduq does with his Sheikh Ibn Walid. Sometimes they do not rely on them when any criticism is found in them or their truthfulness is blemished. It is for this reason that it is reported regarding a group of muhaddithin that they would not relate from one who narrates from weak narrators and relies on mursal, even though he himself is reliable as in the case of al Barqi. In fact, they discard narrating from those who practice upon qiyas (analogy) notwithstanding the fact that practice has nothing to do with narrating as in the case of al Askafi who was believed to deem qiyas as permissible, hence his narrations were discarded. They would not narrate from those who were on the straight path but then strayed away although their narrations and books did not change. To this extent that people sought permission from the Imam or Imam’s deputy, e.g. Imam al ‘Askari to narrate from the books of Banu Fudal saying that their houses were full of his books and were then granted permission. Sheikh Abu al Qas ibn Ruh was asked about the condition of the books of Ibn Ghadafir which he wrote prior to apostatising from the Shia faith; he gave permission to narrate from them. In brief, the evidences of the importance given by the scholars to the scrutinizing of narration in the last era, i.e. the era of Imam al Rida ‘alayh al Salam, are countless and clearly visible to the one who seeks. The reason for this is that these narrations are the basis of din and the Shari’ah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Owing to this, the Imam stated regarding a group of narrators: “Had these men not been, the signs of nubuwwah would have been destroyed.”

People do not agree with unreliable narrations in their history books whose falsehood is not detrimental to their religion or world. So how will such people agree with this in those books which were written concerning matters of the din which affect the entire creation? The Imam has prophesised that such a difficult time will come that they will only find solace in books. Al Kulayni has written in the preface of his book al Kafi that his book will be the source for everyone. The muhaddithin informed him and they were informed by the Imams that liars will mix false narrations in the books of the Imams’ students as is seen from many narrations. One narration is that Yunus ibn ‘Abdul Rahman presented the books of the students of al Baqir rahimahu Llah and al Sadiq rahimahu Llah to Abu al Hassan al Rida who rejected majority of the ahadith and declared, “These are not the words of Abu ‘Abdullah.”

He also stated, “Abu al Khattab fabricated upon Abu ‘Abdullah.” And up until this day, the students of Abu al Khattab add narrations to the books of Abu ‘Abdullah.

 

و منها ما عن هشام بن حكم انه سمع ابا عبد الله يقول كان المغيرة بن سعد لعنه الله و يتعمد الكذب على ابى و ياخذ كتب اصحابه و كان اصحابه المستترون باصحاب ابى ياخذون الكتب من اصحاب ابى فيدفعونها الى المغيرة لعنه الله فكان يدس فيها الكفر الزندقة و يسندها الى ابى عبد الله الحديث و رواية الفيض بن مختار المتقدمة فى ذيل كلام الشيخ الى غير ذلك من الروايات فظهر مما ذكرنا ان ما علم اجمالا من الاخبار الكثيرة من وجود الكذابين و وضع الاحاديث فيها فهو انما كان قبل زمان مقابلة الحديث و تدوين على الحديث و الرجال بين اصحاب الائمة مع ان العلم لوجود الاخبار المكذوبة انما ينافى دعوى القطع بصدور الكل التى ينسب الى بعض الاخباريين او دعوى الظن بصدور جميعها و لا ينافى ذلك ما نحن بصدده من دعوى العلم الاجمالى بصدور اكثرها او كثير منها بل هذه دعوى بديهية

A narration appears that it is related from Hisham ibn Hakam who heard Abu ‘Abdullah saying, “Mughirah ibn Sa’d – may Allah curse him – would intentionally fabricate upon my father. He would take the books of his students. And his students would associate with the students of my father. So they would take the books from my father’s students and give them to Mughirah – may Allah curse him. He would add kufr and heretic narrations therein and attribute them to my father ‘Abdullah.”

Another narration is from Faydan ibn Mukhtar which passed in the footnotes of Sheikh. And there are copious narrations besides these.

What we have mentioned sufficiently proves in brief that majority of the narrations are not free from liars and fabricators. This took place before the Imams’ students began writing books on ahadith and rijal. The knowledge of fabrications falsifies the claim of all ahadith being the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or the Imams with yaqin or zann. However, our claim remains intact, i.e. the claim that majority of them are true. In fact, this claim is obvious.[27]

 

Besides contradiction and fabrication, the belief of Taqiyyah of the Shia has totally confused the ahadith. Intellect plays not a part therein and reliance is solely on faith. No rational principles can be formulated to assess these ahadith. Sheikh al Murtada writes in his Rasa’il under the heading, Khatimah fi al Ta’adul wa al Tarjih:

 

الثانى ما رواه ابن ابى الجمهور الاحسانى فى غوالى اللالى عن العلامة مرفوعا الى زرارة قال سئلت ابا جعفر فقلت جعلت فداك ياتى عنكم الجزان و الحديثان المتعارضان فبايهما اخذ فقال يا زرارة خذ بما يقول اعدلهما عندك و اوثقهما فى نفسك فقلت انهما معاعدلان مرضيان موثقان فقال انظر ما وافق منهما العامة فاتركه و خذ بما خالفهم فان الحق فيما خالفهم قلت ربما كانا موافقين لهم او مخالفين فكيف اصنع قال اذن فخذ بما فيه الحائطة و اترك الاخر قلت فانهما معا موافقان للا احتياط او مخالفان له فكيف اصنع فقال اذن فتخير احديهما و تاخذ به و دع الاخر

Secondly, Ibn Abi al Jamhur al Ihsani has written in Ghawali al La’ali from ‘Allamah that Zurarah said that he asked Abu Jafar, “May I be sacrificed for you. Two contradictory narrations are reported from you; which one should I accept.”

The Imam replied, “O Zurarah. Accept that which the one most just and most reliable in your eyes says.”

Zurarah said, “Both are equal in reliability and justice.”

The Imam then said, “Discard what conforms to the Sunni and accept what opposes them. For indeed, the truth is in what opposes them.”

Zurarah asked, “Sometimes both narrations conform to them or both disagree with them, so what should I do?”

The Imam replied, “Then take the one in which there is greater caution and discard the other.”

Zurarah said, “What if both have the same level of caution, then what should I do?”

The Imam said, “Choose one of them and leave the other.”[28]

 

الثالث ما رواه الصدوق باسناده عن ابى الحسن الرضا فى حديث طويل قال فيه مما ورد عليكم من حديثين مختلفين فاعرضوهما على كتاب الله فما كان فى كتاب الله موجودا حلالا او حراما فاتبعوا ما وافق الكتاب و ما لم يكن فى الكتاب فاعرضوهما على سنن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فما كان فى السنة موجودا منهيا عنه نهى حرام او مامورا به عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم امر الزام فاتبعوا ما وافق نهى النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم و امره و ما كان فى السنة اعافة او كراهة ثم كان الخبر خلافه فذلك رخصة فى ما عافه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و كرهه و لم يحرمه و ذلك الذى يسع الاخذ بهما جمعا او بايهما شئت و سعك الاختيار من باب التسليم و الاتباع و الرد الى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و ما لم تجدوه فى شىء من هذه الوجوه فردوا الينا علمه فنحن اولى بذلك و لا تقولوا فيها بارائكم و عليكم بالكف و التثبت و الوفوق و انتم طالبون باحثون حتى ياتيكم البيان من عندنا و الرابع ما ان رسالة القطب الراوندى بسنده الصحيح عن الصادق اذ اورد عليكم حديثان مختلفان فاعرضوهما على كتاب الله فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوه و ما خالف كتاب الله فذروه و ان لم تجدوهما فى كتاب الله فاعرضوا على اخبار العامة فما وافق اخبارهم فذروه و ما خالف اخبارهم فخذوه الخامس بسنده ايضا عن الحسين السيرى قال قال ابو عبد الله ان اورد عليكم حديثان مختلفان فخذوا بما خالف القوم السادس بالسند عن الحسن بن بالجهم فى حديث قلت له يعنى العبد الصالح يروى عن ابى عبد الله شىء و يروى عنه الرضا خلاف ذلك فبايهما ناخذ قال خذ بما خالف القوم و ما وافق القوم فاجتنبه السابع بسنده ايضا عن محمد بن عبد الله قال قلت الرضا كيف نصنع بالخبرين المختلفين قال اذ اورد عليكم خبران مختلفان فانظروا ما خالف منهما العامة فخذوه و انظروا ما يوافق اخبارهم فذروه

Thirdly, Al Saduq has narrated a lengthy narration from Abu al Hassan al Rida in which the Imam says, “When two contradictory narrations come before you, then analyse them in front of the Qur’an; follow that which is found in the Qur’an – halal or haram. Whatever is not found in the Qur’an, then analyse it in the light of hadith. Whatever is found in the hadith – whether emphatically prohibited or strictly commanded – then follow the prohibition or command of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. What is overlooked or disliked in the Sunnah and the narration mentions something contradictory, then this is leeway in what Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has overlooked or disliked and he has not emphatically prohibited it. In this case, you have liberty to take anyone you like or to take both. This choice is in conformity to accepting, following, and referencing to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Whatever is still not found should be brought to us. Do not give your own opinions. Be cautious and exercise restraint – while you are seekers and researchers – until clarification comes from us.”

Fourthly, the letter of al Qutb al Rawindi with his authentic sanad from al Sadiq, “When two conflicting reports come to you, then present them in front of the Qur’an; accept whatever conforms to it and reject what conflicts it. If you do not find it in the Qur’an, then present it in front of the narrations of the Sunni. Reject what conforms to their narrations and accept what contradicts them.”

Fifthly, with his sanad from Hussain al Siyari who narrates that Abu ‘Abdullah said, “When two conflicting narrations come to you, then accept that which contradicts the Sunni.”

Sixthly, with a sanad from Hassan ibn Balajahum who says, “I asked him, i.e. al ‘Abdul Salih, ‘Something is narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah and al Rida narrates the opposite. So which one should I accept?’

He answered, ‘Accept that which contradicts the Sunni and reject what conforms to them.’”

Seventhly, with his sanad from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah, “I asked al Rida, ‘What should we do with two conflicting narrations?’

He answered, ‘When two contradictory narrations appear before you, then accept what contradicts the Sunni and accept what conforms to them.’”[29]

 

الثامن ما عن الاحتجاج بسنده عن سماعة بن مهران قال قلت لابى عبد الله يرد علينا حديثان واحد يامرنا بالاخذ به و الاخر ينهانا قال لا تعمل بواحد منهما حتى تلقى صاحبك فتسئل قلت لا بد ان نعمل بواحد منهما قال خذ بما خالف العامة التاسع ما عن الكافى بسنده عن المعلى بن جنس قال قلت لابى عبد الله اذا جاء حديث عن اولكم و حديث عن اخركم بايهما ناخذ قال خذوا به حتى يبلغكم عن الحى فان بلغكم عن الحى فخذوا بقوله قال ثم قال ابو عبد الله انا و الله لا ندخلكم الا فيما يسعكم العاشر عنه بسنده الى الحسين بن المختار و عن بعض اصحابنا عن ابى عبد الله قال ارأيتك لو حدثتك بحديث العام ثم جئتنى من قابل فحدثتك بخلافه بايهما كنت تاخذ قال كنت اخذ بالاخير فقال لى رحمك الله تعالى الحادى عشر ما بسنده الصحيح ظاهرا عن ابى عمرو الكنانى عن ابى عبد الله قال يا ابا عمرو ارأيت لو حدثتك بحديث او افتيتك بفتيا ثم جئت بعد ذلك تسئلنى عنه فاخبرتك بخلاف ما كنت اخبرتك او افتيتك بخلاف ذلك بايهما كنت تاخذ قلت باحدثها و ادع الاخر قال قد اصبت يا ابا عمرو ابى الله الا اى يعبد سرا اما و الله لئن فعلتم ذلك انه لخير لى و لكم ابى الله لنا فى دينه الا التقية

Eighth, what appears in al Ihtijaj with his sanad from Sama’ah ibn Mahran who narrates, “I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, ‘Two ahadith appear before us; one commanding us and the other prohibiting us.’

He said, ‘Do not practice on any of them until you meet the Imam and ask him.’

I retorted, ‘It is necessary to practice upon one.’

He said, ‘Then practice on that which contradicts the Sunni.’”

Ninth, what appears in al Kafi with his sanad from al Mu’alla ibn Jins, “I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, ‘When a hadith comes from one of you and another from another, then which one should I practice upon?’

He replied, ‘Practice upon it until something reaches you from the living Imam. When this reaches you, then act upon it.’

He then added, ‘Indeed, we do not want to overburden you.’”

Tenth, with his sanad to Hussain ibn al Mukhtar and from some of the Shia from Abu ‘Abdullah who says, “If I narrate to you a hadith and then when you come to me again I narrate the opposite, which one will you take?”

He said, “I will practice upon the latter.”

The Imam commented, “May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala have mercy on you.”

Eleventh, with his authentic sanad from Abu ‘Amr al Kinani from Abu ‘Abdullah who said, “O Abu ‘Amr! If I narrate a hadith to you or give you a fatwa and then you return asking me the same thing and I give you the opposite answer, then which one will you practice upon.”

He said, “I will practice on the latest one and discard the former.”

The Imam commented, “You have chosen correctly O Abu ‘Amr. Allah rejects except that He be worshipped secretly. By Allah, if you do this, it will be better for me and for you. Allah rejects everything in our din for us except Taqiyyah.”[30]

 

From these statements which we have reproduced from reliable books and reputable scholars of the Shia, it is apparent that their ahadith are contradictory. Many slandered the Imams and fabricated thousands of ahadith in their name and included thousands of false narrations in the books deceitfully. Their muhaqqiq scholars and renowned muhaddithin did not simply rely on what was recorded in the books until they heard the same narration directly or indirectly from the author. This is also established that notwithstanding this type of contradiction, the presence of thousands of fabrications and the possibility of error and forgeries in the present ahadith, the Shia have declared their reliable and authentic ahadith books as the basis of their shari’ah and creed and relied upon them in both usul and furu’. They have formulated principles to remove contradiction, the best of which are opposing the Sunni and Taqiyyah. In this situation, I do not see how the Shia have the audacity to object to Sunni books and declare all the ahadith as unreliable due to the fact that some people fabricated ahadith. How can they declare the books of the muhaddithin to be incorrect and turn a blind eye to the great efforts and pains the muhaddithin undertook in scrutinizing the biographies of the narrators? How can they ever claim that the Sunni declare their own books as unreliable and break the foundation of their religion with their own hands simply on the basis that the Sunni have accepted the existence of fabrications and mistakes and made the public aware of fabrications and errors. The only thing I can say at this juncture is that a person living in a glass house should not throw stones at those living in brick homes.

One question arises here. When both the parties’ condition of narrations are nearly the same, both have authentic, unauthentic, strong, and weak narrations and both have formulated principles to scrutinise and investigate ahadith then no group could use such ahadith of the other party to prove his stance which hampers on the usul, ‘aqa’id, and consensus of that party. If we practice upon this, then the door to presenting inculpatory proofs will be closed. When the Sunni will present ahadith in favour of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from Shia books, the latter will answer that these are unauthentic and in conflict to consensus and established principles, hence they cannot be used as proof against us. Similarly, when the Shia present narrations which criticise the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from Sunni books, the latter will answer that these ahadith are unauthentic, weak, and in conflict to consensus and established principles.

We accept this objection and say that these types of inculpatory proofs are not sufficient and no one’s claim can be established against the other – taking into consideration their principles – simply based on such proofs. However, our usage of Shia narrations is not because we regard it as necessary to prove our stance. Rather, such proofs are merely inculpatory, i.e. just as how they use some of our weak narrations as proof, we wish to falsify them with their authentic and strong ahadith. This is the methodology of the latter scholars. They have adopted this on the pattern of the Shia. Otherwise, our early scholars only utilised Qur’an and rational proofs to substantiate their beliefs and claims and refrained from using citing proofs from Shia works. Although we have used inculpatory proofs in this book, it is only to show the Shia that their objection is answered by their own narrations. However, we have used the glorious Qur’an and rational proofs as the primary proofs to establish the virtues of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and to answer the allegations against them. And we have used these extensively. We can openly claim that if the methodology of inculpatory proofs is closed then the Shia will not be able to stand in debate with the Sunni. They will not be able to establish their claim regarding the criticism against the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from the glorious Qur’an and sound intellect.

 

NEXT⇒ Point 5


[1] As al Shustari says in Ihqaq al Haqq, “From the extremely evil habits and shameless acts of the Sunni is that whenever the Shia present any verse in praise of the Ahlul Bayt supported by narrations in Sunni books, the Sunni declare such narrations as weak, or fabrications of the opponents, and sometimes mention conditions of generalisation or specification, and sometimes present ludicrous interpretations.

 

كانهم مفوضون فى الدين موكلون فى تشريع الشرع السيد المرسلين و لم يسمعوا كلام رب العالمين حيث قال قتل الخراصون الذين هم فى غمرة ساهون و اما اقل حياءهم و اكثر اعتدادهم فاى خير فى ذلك و اى جميل يترقب من هذا الخلف لا يرحمهم الله و لا يزكيهم و لهم عذاب اليم

As if they are given the responsibility of din and codifying the Shari’ah of the leader of the Messengers. Did they not hear the statement of the Rabb of the universes when He declared: “Destroyed are the falsifiers. Who are within a flood [of confusion] and heedless.” What goodness is there in their shamelessness and transgression? What virtue do they acquire what such opposition? May Allah not have mercy on them, nor purify them. And for them is an antagonising punishment.

 

The author of Istighathah states:

 

بالجملہ مقاصد گونہ استعجاب ست از انصات دشمنے ایں حضرات کہ خود بعبارات و ہفوات چنیں کسان کہ انتساب ایشاں ہم باہل حق ثابت نیست احتجاج و استدلال می نمایند و بوجدمی آیند و خود از غایت جسارت و عدم استحیاء اجتجاج را بکلام و مرویات اکاب ائمہ دین خود قبول ندارند و بسمع اصغا جاند ہند بلکہ از مزید عناد یا بے بصیرتی آن علماء را گاہے رافضی و شیعی قطعا و حتما قرار دہند و گاہے مجہول و غیر معروف گویند و گاہے غیر معتبر و نا معتبر پنداند و مجروع مطروع بودند شان ظاہر سازند چنانچہ ثعلبی را بآاں ہمہ جلال اوصاف و امامت مفسرین تضعیف و توہین سازند و مرویات اور اعتبارے ند ہند و بجولے نخرند و پردہ ناموس اورا بقدح و جرحش بدر ند و ابن مغازلی را با وصف ظہور محدثیت مجہول داںد و ابن الصباغ مالکی سنی را توہین و تضعیف کںد و ابن حبان راز از اصحاب صحاح و ائمہ متبحرین ایشانست مطروح و متروک گویند و احتجاج بکلامش جائز ندارند و یحیی بن سعید بآں ہمہ جلالت و امامت گویند کہ ہیچ مردست و طبرسی را ساقط الاعتبار سازند بلکہ تہمت رفض برو گزارند و از قبول روایات حاکم سر باز زںد و شہرستانی را ہم مائل برفض و تشیع قرار دہند و اخطب خوارزم را از پایہ اعتبار و اعتماد ساقط سازند

 

[2] Surah Ha Mim Sajdah: 42.

[3] Surah Najm: 3,4.

[4] Corroborations.

[5] Corroborations.

[6] Zubdat al Mujtahidin Mirza Muhammad Baqir Musawi ibn Haji Zayn al ‘Abidin has written in his book Rawdat al Jannat fi Ahwal al ‘Ulama’ wa al Sadat printed in Iran in 1307 under the biography of Ibn Abi al Hadid:

 

عبد الحميد بن ابى الحسين بهاء الدين محمد بن محمد بن الحسين بن ابى الحديد المدائنى الحكيم الاصول المعتزلى المعروف بابن الى الحديد صاحب شرح نهج البلاغة المشهور هو من الكابر الفضلاء المتبعين و اعاظم النبلاء المتجرين مواليا لاهل بيت العصمة و الطهارة و ان كان فى ذى اهل السنة و الجماعة منصفا غاية الانصاف فى المحاكمة بين الفريقين و معترفا فى ذلك المصاف بان الحق يدور مع والد الحسنين و ابن ابى الحديد مع تسننه قد يتوهم عن شرحه تشيعه و بالميثم بالعكس و كان مولده فى غرة ذى الحجة سنة ست و ثمانين و خمس مائة فمن تصانيفه شرح نهج البلاغة عشرين مجلدا و قد احتوى هذا الشرح على ما لم يحتوى عليه كتاب من جنسه صنفه لخزانة كبت الوزير مويد الدين بن علقمى و لما فرغ من تصنيفه انقذه على يد اخيه موفق الدين ابى المعالى فبعث له بمائة الف دينار و خلعه سنية و فرس فكتب الى الوزير هذه الابيات

‘Abdul Hamid ibn Abi al Hussain Baha’ al Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn Abi al Hadid al Mada’ini al Hakim al Usul al Mu’tazili commonly known as Ibn Abi al Hadid author of Sharh Nahj al Balaghah. It is famous that he is one of the senior great scholars, a friend of the pure and chaste Ahlul Bayt although in the guise of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. He was very just in arbitration between the two groups and acknowledged that the truth is with the father of Hassanayn. Notwithstanding his sunniyyah, he was criticised of being Shia due to his Sharh and vice versa due to his al Maytham. He was born in the beginning of Dhu al Hijjah 586 A.H. Amongst his works is Sharh Nahj al Balaghah which is in 20 volumes. This commentary comprises of such things which books of this type do not. He wrote it for the library of al Wazir Mu’ayyid al Din ibn ‘Alqami. When he finished authoring the book, he sent it with his brother Muwaffaq al Din Abi al Mu’ali. The receiver sent 100000 gold coins, a robe of honour and a horse.

 

[7] Where one link or more in the isnad is missing

[8] See Muqaddamah Fath al Bari.

[9] Surah al Hijr: 9.

[10]

و اما كلامه صلى الله عليه و سلم فيستدل منه بما ثبت انه قاله على اللفظ المروى و ذلك نادر جدا انما يوجد فى الاحاديث القصار على قلة ايضا فان الغالب الاحاديث مروى بالمعنى و قد تداولتها الاعاجم و المولدون قبل تدوينها فردوها بما ادت اليه عباراتهم فزادوا و نقصوا و قدموا و اكروا و بدلوا الالفاظ بالفاظ و لهذا ترى الحديث الواحد فى القصة الواحدة مرويا على اوجه شتى بعبارات مختلفة و من ثم انكر على ابن مالك اثبات القواعد النحوية بالفاظ الواردة فى الحديث قال ابو حبان فى شرح التهسيل قد اكثر هذا المصنف من الاستدلال بما وقع فى الاحاديث على اثبات القواعد الكلية فى لسان العرب و ما رايت احدا من المتقدمين و المتاخرين سلك هذه الطريقة غيره على ان الواضعين الاولين لعلم النحو المستقرئين للاحكام من لسان العرب كابى عمرو بن العلاء عيسى بن عمر و الخليل و سيبويه من ائمة البصريين و الكسائى و الفراء و على بن مبارك الاحمر و هشام الضرير من ائمة الكوفيين لم يفعلوا ذلك و تبعهم على هذا المسلك المتاخرون من الفريقين و غيرهم عن نحاة الاقاليم كنحاة بغداد و اهل الاندلس و قد جرى الكلام فى ذلك مع بعض المتاخرين الذكياء فقال انما ترك العلماء ذلك لعدم وثوقهم ان ذلك لفظ الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم اذ لو وثقوا بذلك لجرى مجرى القران فى اثبات القواعد الكلية و انما كان ذلك لامرين احدهما ان الرواة جوزوا النقل بالمعنى فتجد قصة واحدة قد جرت فى زمانه لن تنقل بتلك الالفاظ جميعا نحو ما روى من قول زوجتكها بما معك من القران ملكتها بما معك خذها بما معك و غير ذلك من الالفاظ الواردة فى هذا القصة فنعلم يقينا انه صلى الله عليه و سلم لم يلفظ بجميع هذه الالفاظ بل لا نجزم بانه قال بعضها او يحتمل انه قال لفظا مرادفا لهذا الالفاظ غيرها فاتت الرواة بالمرادف و لم تاتوا بلفظه اذ المعنى هو المطلوب و لا سيما مع تقادم السماع و عدم ضبطه بالكتابة و الاتكال على الحفظ فالضابط منهم من ضبط المعنى و امام الضبط اللفظ فبعيد جدا لا سيما فى الاحاديث الطوال و قال سفيان الثورى ان قلت لكم انى احدثكم كما سمعت فلا تصدقونى انما هو المعنى و من نظر فى الحديث ادنى نظر علم علم اليقين انهم انما يرون بالمعنى و قال ابو حبان انما امنعت الكلام فى هذه المسئلة لئلا يقول المبتدى ما بال النحويين يستدلون بقول العرب و فيهم المسلم و الكافر و لا يستدلون بما روى فى الحديث ينقل العدول كالبخارى و مسلم و امثالهما فمن طالع ما ذكرناه ادرك السبب الذى لاجله لم يستدل النحاة بالحديث انتهى كلام ابن حبان و قال ابو الحسن بن الصائغ فى شرح الجمل تجويز الرواية بالمعنى هو السبب عندى فى ترك الائمة كسيبويه الاستشهاد على اثبات اللغة بالحديث و اعتدوا فى ذلك على القرن و صريح النقل عن العرب و لولا تصريح العلماء بجواز النقل بالمعنى فى الحديث لكان الاولى فى اثبات فصيح اللغة كلام النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم لانه افصح العرب[10]

Regarding his salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam speech, that may be used a proof which is established that he said it verbatim as quoted. However, this is very rare. It is found seldom in short ahadith. Majority of the ahadith are narrated with meaning. The non-Arabs and those born and raised among Arabs (but not of pure Arab blood) received and passed on ahadith before they were composed in books. They conveyed it as they understood it thus adding and omitting, bringing forward, repeating, and changing some words with others. It is for this reason that you will see a hadith of one incident narrated in various ways with diverse texts. For this reason, people have criticised Ibn Malik for establishing rules of syntax grammar by the words which appear in the ahadith. Abu Hibban has stated in Sharh Tahsil, “This author has gone overboard by using as proof the words of the ahadith to establish absolute grammatical rules in the Arabic language. I have not seen any of the earlier or later scholars taking this path besides him. Those who formed the science of syntax and formulated the rules from the Arabic spoken by the Arabs like Abu ‘Amr ibn al ‘Ala’ ‘Isa ibn ‘Umar, al Khalil, Sibawayh – from the Basri Imams – al Kisa’i, al Fara’, ‘Ali ibn Mubarak al Ahmar, Hisham al Darir – from the Kufi Imams – have not done this. The latter scholars of both sides and other grammar masters of the continents like the grammar masters of Baghdad and al Andalus followed their path. There has been discussion about this with one of the later intelligent scholars who explained, ‘The ‘Ulama’ did not do this due to their inconviciton that these are not the exact words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Had they had this conviction, it would have been like Qur’an in establishing absolute rules. This was due to two reasons. Firstly, the narrators allowed narrating the meaning. You will find one incident that took place in his era being narrated with various wordings as was narrated, ‘I marry her to you in lieu of the Qur’an you have’ ‘I make you owner of her in lieu of what you have’ ‘take her in lieu of what you have’ etc. We certainly know that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not say all these words. In fact, we cannot say with certainty that he said one of them. It is possible that he used a synonym to these words and the narrators used the other synonym and not his exact word. The meaning is the object. Especially when the narration was heard long ago, it was not recorded in writing and one’s memory was relied upon. The one who remembered, remembered the meaning. It is far-fetched that he remembered the exact words especially in lengthy narrations.”

Sufyan al Thawri has said, “If I tell you that I am narrating to you exactly how I heard, then do not believe me. I am only conveying the meaning.” Whoever does a study of the ahadith will know with certainty that they conveyed the meaning. Ibn Hibban stated, “I have discussed this aspect in detail so that the beginner does not dispute, ‘What is wrong with the syntax masters; they use the speech of the Arabs – both believer and disbeliever – as proof whereas they do not use what has been narrated in the ahadith by reliable narrators such as al Bukhari and Muslim and their like.’ The person who has studied what we have mentioned now will know the reason why the nuhat (masters of syntax) did not use the ahadith as proof.” Abu al Hassan ibn al Sa’igh has stated in Sharh al Jamal, “The permissibility of conveying the meaning is the reason according to me for the Imams like Sibawayh discarding the usage of ahadith as evidence to prove Arabic grammar. In this matter, they relied upon the pure words of the Arabs. Had there not been the emphatic permission of the ‘Ulama’ to convey the meaning in the ahadith, it would have been sounder to establish eloquent language through the speech of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for he was the most eloquent Arab.” (al Iqtirah of Suyuti pg. 19 – 21)

 

[11] Surah Ibrahim: 24.

[12] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 3.

[13] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 4.

[14] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 4.

[15] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 5.

[16] Missing link in the isnad.

[17] Discontinuity in the isnad.

[18] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 7.

[19]

و ثانيها ان مقتضى الحكمة الربانية و شفقة الرسول و الائمة لا يضيع من فى اصلاب الرجال من الامة و يتركوا حبارى بلتجؤن الى التشبث بظنون واقبة و غيرها بل يمد لهم اصول معتبرة يعملون بها فى الغيبة كما هو الواقع و المعلوم بالتتبع فى احوالهم و التامل فى الاحاديث الكثيرة الدالة على انهم امروا اصحابهم بكتابة ما يسمعونه منهم تاليفه و العمل به ففى الغيبة و الحضور بالنص عليها بقولهم سياتى زمان لا يستانسون فيه الا بكتبهم و فى الاحاديث الكثيرة الدالة على اعتبار تلك الكتب و الامر بالعمل بها و على انها عرضت على الائمة فمدحوها و مدحوا صاحبها و قد نص المحقق بان كتاب يونس بن عبد الرحمن و كتاب الفضل بن شاذان كانا عنده و ذكر علماء الرجال انهما عرضا عليهم فما لظن بار باب الاربعة و قد صرح الصدوق مواضع بان كتاب محمد بن حسن الصفاء يشتمل على مسائل و جوابات العسكرى كان عنده بخطه الشريف و كذا كتاب عبد الله بن على الجبلى المعروض على الصادق ثم رايناهم يرجحون كثيرا حديثا مرويا فى غير الكتاب المعروض على الحديث الذى فيه و هذا لا يتجه الا بانهم جازمون بكونه فى الاعتبار و صحة الصدور كالكتاب المعروض و يقرب من ذلك ما ترى من الشيخ و غيره الى زمان الاصطلاح الجديد من طرح كثير من الاخبار الصحيحة بهذا الاصطلاح و العمل كثير مما هو ضعيف عليه و كثير ما يعتمدون على طرق ضعيفة مع تمكنهم من طرق صحيحة كما صرح به صاحب المنتقى و غيره و هذا ظاهرى فى صحة تلك الاخبار بوجوه اخر و دال على عدم العبرة بالاصطلاح الجديد و حصول العلم بقوله الثقة ليس بمنكر و لا ببدع فقد نص صاحب المدارك و غيره على انه يتفق كثير اصول العلم بالوقت من اذان لثقة الضابط العارف حيث لم يكن مانع من العلم و بمثله صرح كثير من علمائنا فى مواضع كثيرة و ثالثها الوجه الكثير الاخير من الوجوه المتقدمة للاسترابادى و فيه التصريح بحصول القطع العادى من شهاداتهم كالعلم بان الجبل لم ينقلب ذهبا و قال انه لاتفاق الشهادات و غيره ذلك اولى من نقل ثقته واحد كالمحقق و الشهيدين فتوى من فتاوى ابى حنيفة فى كتابه مع انا نرى حصول العلم لنا بذلك من النقل المذكور فكيف لا يحصل بشهادة الجماعة و ذكر ايضا انه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهاداتهم فى صحة احاديث كتبهم لما جاز لنا قبولها فى مدح الرواة توثيقهم فلا يبقى حديث صحيح و لا حسن و لا موثق بل يبقى جميع اخبارنا ضعيفة و اللازم باطل فكذا الملزوم و الملازمة ظاهرة بل الاخبار بالعدالة شكل و اعظم و اولى بالاهتمام من الاخبار بنقل الاحاديث من الكتب المعتمدة فان ذلك امر محسوس و العدالة امر خفى عقلى يعسر الاطلاع عليه و لا مضر لهم عن هذا لالتزام عند الانصاف و ذكر ايضا ان علمائنا الاجلاء الثقات اذ جمعوا احاديث و شهدوا بثبوتها و صحتها لم يكن دون من اخبارهم بانهم سمعوها من المعصوم لظهور علمهم و صلاحهم و صدقهم و عدالتهم فى انه مع امكان العمل بالعلم لم يعملوا بغيره ففى الحقيقة هم ينقلونها عن المعصوم و قد وردت روايات كثيرة جدا فى الامر بالرجوع الى الرواة الثقات معه اذا قالوا ان اخبر من المعصوم و ليس هذا من القياس بل عمل بالعموم و قال ايضا انهم كانوا ثقات حين شهادتهم و جب قبولها لكونها عن محسوس و هو النقل عن الكتب المعتمدة و الا كانت احاديث كتبهم ضعيفة باصطلاحهم فكيف يعملون بها[19]

 

[20] Tawdih al Maqal pg. 9.

[21]

و نقول تفصيلا و ان كان ايضا جمليا انا نمنع الصغرى و الكبرى كما اشرنا الى منعهما فى الاجمال ففى الوجه الاول فى الصغرى ان حصول القطع من المتن فى غاية الندرة كذا من الاعتقاد و على فرضه على ندرة لا يلازم حصوله فى غيره و الافتقار فى الغالب كاف بل هو المدعى و كذا من كون الراوى ثقة لمنع حصول القطع للراوى الثقة لعدم لزومه لا فى الرواية و لا فى العمل فلعل اخذها ممن يثق به تعبدنا او قلنا خاصا او مطلقا و لى تسليمه محصولا لا يستلزمه لنا الاحتمال السهو و النسيان و الذهول عن القرينة او خفائها كما اوقع فى كثير من الرواة فروعهم بقوله ليس كما ظننت او ليس كما تذهب او ما اراك بعد الا بهنا[21]

And we say in detail although it is in brief. We reject both the minor and major premises as indicated in the brief discussion. The first reason in the minor premise is attaining certainty from the text is very rare. Similarly, in belief. Hypothetically accepting its rareness, it does not necessitate its attainment in others. The non-existence of this generally is sufficient, in fact it is claimed. Similarly, the narrator being reliable due to the non-attainment of conviction of the reliable narrator for he did not take it upon himself in narrating or practice. So maybe he heard if from someone reliable. Or we say specific or general. I have two clauses which occur which necessitates the possibility of error, forgetfulness, obliviousness of the context or its secrecy as happened to many narrators who say, “It was not as I thought” “It was not as I imagined” “I found out later differently.”

 

[22] Husam pg. 6.

[23] Husam pg. 14.

[24] Husam.

[25] Husam.

[26] Durbat Haydariyyah pg. 362, 363.

[27] Fara’id al Usul pg. 95.

[28] Rasa’il Sheikh Murtada pg. 429, 430.

[29] Rasa’il Sheikh Murtada pg. 430.

[30] Rasa’il Sheikh Murtada pg. 430.

Back to top