Point Two – The Methodology of Tashih and Tad’if According to the Rawafid

Section Two – Tashih and Tad’if According to the Rawafid – Point One: The Development of Jarh and Ta’dil by the Rawafid
November 30, 2021
Point Three – Tashih and Tad’if According to Jafar al Subhani and a Refutation of him
November 30, 2021

BACK Return to Table of contents

 

Point Two  – The Methodology of Tashih and Tad’if According to the Rawafid

I would firstly say that the Rawafid do not have a methodology or even laws for Tashih and Tad’if. Hence, if some has to say that the Rawafid Shia repudiate the Sunnah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, not because it is the established Sunnah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but because it is not credibly proven to be from him.

I would say that this in itself is ignorance, lying, and a fabrication. For they have not rejected the Sunnah due to it not being credible according them after they scrutinized its Asanid and wordings, as per the principles of the science of hadith and Jarh and Ta’dil, for they are the furthest of people from that. Rather, they rejected it due to it not being harmonious with their false and baseless principal beliefs. To explain, the law for accepting a narration or rejecting it according to them is: agreement with their false principal beliefs or disagreement with them; so every narration which agrees with their beliefs according to them is authentic and they use it as evidence, even if it be a lie and a fabrication; and every narration which opposes their principal beliefs, or it happens to be harmonious with the principal beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah is weak according to them, and at times even a fabrication, irrespective of its Sanad, the narrators, and their integrity.

In addition to this, the foremost narrators of hadith and the transmitters of the Noble Prophetic knowledge are disbelievers according to the Rawafid Shia, as has passed already. This reprehensible belief compelled them to reject their narrations and what they transmitted from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, despite the authenticity and the credibility of what they transmitted.

And one innovation leads to another, and one error serves as a catalyst for another, and one sin propels to another like it or even greater than it. Hence, their beliefs in Imamah, the Imams, immediate successorship, and infallibility served as a persistent cause for them to excommunicate anyone who opposed them from the people of Islam. Thereafter, their excommunication of the Muslims: the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and their successors, served as a strong catalyst for them to believe in the interpolation of the Qur’an and reject the Sunnah. And the views of the interpolation of the Qur’an and the invalidity of the Sunnah necessarily result in the destroying the fundamentals of Shari’ah and the Din.

To repeat, evil breeds more evil, and a wrong indicates to a subsequent wrong which is considered to be from its necessary offshoots, and belying one factor propels them to belie another, just as affirming falsehood propels one to belie the truth. This is what propelled them to repudiate the established Sunnah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So can it ever be possible for them to have a methodology of Tashih and Tad’if. It is impermissible to say regarding such a people what can possibly be said regarding a scholar from the scholars of the Ummah who rejects a narration mistakenly due it not being credible according to him after doing a thorough study of the laws and sciences of hadith; i.e. they will not be excused as this particular scholar will be excused. So be cognizant of this.

Also, you will find a person who rejects hadith, after delving into the laws and the sciences of hadith, probably rejecting one hadith, or ten, or more, or less… But he will not reject all the books of hadith as if they never existed, books which contain tens of thousands of Prophetic Ahadith, as is the wont of the Rawafid Shia with the collections of the hadith of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Hence, the Rafidah are the most ignorant about the Sunnah, and the most distant people from identifying its authentic from its inauthentic. They are, as Ibn Taymiyyah says:

 

وأما الحديث فهم من أبعد الناس عن معرفته لا إسناده ولا متنه ولا يعرفون الرسول ﷺ وأحواله ولهذا إذا نقلوا شيئا من الحديث كانوا من أجهل الناس به وأي كتاب وجدوا فيه ما يوافق هواهم نقلوه من غير معرفة بالحديث

As for hadith, they are most distant from knowing it, be it its Isnad or be it its wording, and they do not know Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his biography. Which is why when they transmit anything of hadith they happen to be most ignorant. And any book wherein they find content that is harmonious with their whims they happen to transmit it without having basic knowledge of hadith.[1]

 

He also says:

 

الرافضة لا تعتني بحديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومعرفة صحيحه من سقيمه والبحث في معانيه ولا تعتني بآثار الصحابة والتابعين

The Rafidah do not lend importance to the hadith of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, to knowing its authentic from its inauthentic, and to delving into its meanings. Likewise, they do not pay attention to the reports of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the successors.[2]

 

In asserting this we are not wrongly offending them, for the narrations of Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which the Ummah has embraced with acceptance, and about whose authenticity thousands of scholars have attested across the centuries, are considered to be lies and even fabrications according to them with the exception of a few narrations which appease their whims. Hence, again, whatever conforms with their whims and bolsters their innovation is credible, even if it has the weakest Sanad, and whatever opposes them is weak even if it has the strongest Sanad.

Thus, we find that they have authenticated thousands of weak and inconsistent narrations which have no credible Sanad and whose origins are unknown. This can only be due to the dominance of desires, deep rooted blindness, and entrenched hatred which fills their hearts for the Ahlus Sunnah and the defenders of the Sunnah from among them. In addition, previously their stance of excommunicating the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum had been explained on the basis of which they repudiated majority of the Sunnah. This proves to be the most crucial point of divergence between them and the Muslims.

Musa al Musawi says:

 

ولا أعتقد أن زعيما دينيا واحدا من زعماء المذهب الشيعي قديما وحديثا قد قام بغربلة الكتب الشيعية من الروايات التي تنسب زورا إلى الأئمة في تجريح الخلفاء وغيرها من الروايات التي يحكم العقل السليم ببطلانها وعدم صدورها من الإمام مع أن علماء المذهب كلهم مجمعون أيضا بأن الكتب التي يعتمدون عليها في الشئون المتعلقة بالمذهب فيها روايات باطلة غير صحيحة وهم يذعنون بأن هذه الكتب تجمع بين طياتها الصدف والخزف والصحيح والسقيم ومع ذلك لم يسلك هؤلاء الزعماء طريق إصلاح مثل هذه الروايات فإذا كانت زعاماتنا الشيعية تتصفح بالشجاعة وتؤمن بالمسئولية الملقاة على عاتقها في رفع الخلاف لتحملت مسئولية الخلاف بكاملها ولعملت على إزالة مثل هذه الروايات من بطون الكتب وعقول الشيعة ولفتحت صفحة جديدة ولعم الخير على جميع المسلمين

I do not believe that a single religious leader from the leaders of the Shia dogma, in the past and the present, has undertaken the task of sifting the narrations of the Shia books to remove those narrations which have falsely been attributed to the Imams regarding the impugning of the Khalifas and other narrations which, according to sound reason, are baseless and could never have originated from the Imam. Whereas the scholars of the dogma concur that the books they rely upon regarding religious issues contain fallacious and invalid narrations. They also believe that these books gather between their cover’s oysters and earthenware, and authentic and lacklustre narrations. But despite that, these leaders have not treaded the path of rectifying this type of narrations. So, if our Shia leaderships are characterized by valour, and they believe in the responsibility of eradicating the disputes which has been placed upon their shoulders, they would assume the responsibility of all the disputes; would strive to eliminate such narrations from the bellies of the books and the minds of the Shia; and they would open a new page in the history of Islam wherein goodness would engulf all the Muslims.[3]

 

Secondly, I would like to say that it is a known fact that the transmitters are the nerves of all transmissions according to the Ahlus Sunnah, rather, of any transmitted report, and is a requirement according to every sane reporter.

It is also known that the science of hadith from beginning to end stands upon this integral element, the narrators. And all the five, or six, requisites of authenticity according to the Ahlus Sunnah revolve around the narrator… Like the extent of his retention versus its absence, and its strength versus its weakness. And the Ahlus Sunnah have placed two such requisites for a narrator around which revolve all the laws of the acceptance of a narration: The first is: integrity, the lowest aspect of which is Islam, and being free from open sinning. The second is: meticulous retention of the narration, either in the heart, or in a book. And the truth is that these requisites should be necessary according to any intelligent person in every transmitted report.

But when we look at the Rawafid, we will find that they approbate an innovator, in fact, even a person the falsity of whose creed they know, and who they believe to be an open sinner or even a disbeliever. So, they know that a particular narrator is a liar, a sinner, or a disbeliever, but they will still go on to narrate from him and accept his narrations.

Do not be so appalled, O my brother, for this is the view of their senior scholars.

Al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 A.H.) says:

 

ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة إلا نادا وإنما نصوا على التوثيق وهو لا يستلزم العدالة قطعا بل بينهما عموم من وجه كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني وغيره ودعوى بعض المتأخرين أن الثقة بمعنى العدل الضابط ممنوعة وهو مطالب بدليلها.وكيف وهم مصرحون بخلافها حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه وكفره وفساد مذهبه

They have not explicitly stated the integrity of any narrator but very rarely. They have only stated his reliability, and reliability does not necessitate integrity, rather, despite at times referring to the same thing, they can also be different, as has been stated by al Shahid al Thani and others. And the claim of some later scholars that Thiqah (reliable) means an upright retainer, is unacceptable and he will be required to furnish evidence for that. For how can that be the case when the scholars have stated contrary to that, for they approbate even an individual whom they believe to be a sinner and an adherent of a false dogma.[4]

 

And he also says:

 

وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا في الراوي العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم إلا نادرا

The scholars of the new nomenclature have placed integrity as a requisite in a narrator. This results in all our narrations being weak, due to not knowing of the integrity of their narrators but very rarely.[5]

 

And he also says:

 

ومن المعلوم قطعا أن الكتاب التي أمروا عليهم السلام بها كان كثير من رواتها ضعفاء ومجاهيل وكثير منها مراسيل

And it is also a categorical fact that the books which the Imams ordered us (to adhere to), many of their narrators are weak and unknown people, and many of their narrations are Marasil (consisting of inconsistent chains).

 

Sheikh al Ta’ifah (d. 460 A.H.) has summed up the status of their narrators with a very crucial confession:

 

إن كثيرا من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الأصول ينتحلون المذاهب الفاسدة وإن كانت كتبهم معتمدة

Many of the authors from our companions, and the authors of the principal sources, were affiliated to invalid dogmas, even though their books are reliable.[6]

 

From the aforementioned the following is clear:

  • The Rawafid approbate individuals whom they believe to be sinners and adherents of false dogmas.
  • They know the status of the weak, the liars, and the unknown, but despite that narrate from them, practice upon their narrations, and even attest to their authenticity.

So, if this is their reality, then how can it ever be possible for them to do Tashih and Tad’if, authenticate or deem weak?

Moving on, the Rawafid also contradict themselves very much regarding accepting the narrations of a dissentient. So, at times they state that the narration of a dissentient is not accepted but thereafter they acknowledge that they do accept his narration. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli says:

 

المخالف غير الكافر لا يقبل روايته أيضا لاندراجه تحت اسم الفاسق

The narration of a dissenter other than a disbeliever will also not be accepted, due to him falling under the purview of a Fasiq (sinner).[7]

 

But he has been opposed by Muhammad Baqir who says:

 

إذ بعد التبين خبر الفاسق أيضا حجة عندهم بلا شبهة

For after investigation, even the narration of a Fasiq is evidence according to them without a doubt.[8]

 

The contradiction in their views gets even worse, for they accept the narration of a dissenter who subscribes to a false dogma even if he be a Nasibi (a detractor of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his household). Abu al Qasim al Khu’i mentions the following under the discussion regarding Ahmed ibn Hilal, one of the narrators of hadith:

 

وقال الصدوق في كتاب كمال الدين في البحث عن اعتراض الزيدية وجوابهم ما نصه حدثنا شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رضى الله عنه قال: سمعت سعد بن عبد الله يقول ما رأينا ولا سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن تشيعه إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال وكانوا يقولون إن ما تفرد بروايته أحمد بن هلال فلا يجوز استعماله لا ينبغي الإشكال في فساد الرجل من جهة عقيدته بل لا يبعد استفادة أنه لم يكن يتدين بشيء ومن ثم كان يظهر الغلو مرة والنصب أخرى ومع ذلك لا يهمنا إثبات ذلك إذ لا أثر لفساد العقيدة أو العمل في سقوط الرواية عن الحجية بعد وثاقة الراوي …فالمتحصل أن الظاهر أن أحمد بن هلال ثقة غاية الأمر أنه كان فاسد العقيدة وفساد العقيدة لا يضر بصحة رواياته على ما نراه من حجية خبر الثقة مطلقا

And al Saduq has said in Kamal al Din under the discussion regarding the objection of the Zaidiyyah and the answer to it:

Our teacher Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Ahmed ibn al Walid said, “I heard Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah saying, ‘We have not seen or heard of any Shia who retracted from his Shi’ism to Nasb other than Ahmed ibn Hilal. And they would say: whatever Ahmed ibn Hilal exclusively narrates cannot be utilized.’” End quote. I (al Khu’i) say, “It is not appropriate to question the disrepute of the man due to his belief. Rather it is not far-fetched to assume that he did not subscribe to anything, which is why at times he would display extremism and at times Nasb. But despite that, it is not our concern to establish that. For the corruption of a person’s belief or practice is not effective in his narration being disregarded once his reliability is established… So the crux is that ostensibly Ahmed ibn Hilal is reliable. The most that can be said is that he was corrupt in his belief, but corruption of belief does not compromise the authenticity of his narrations, as we will see under the discussion of the report of a reliable person being of evidence absolutely.[9]

 

Furthermore, a person who studies the books of the Rawafid will find that the categorization of hadith according to them into Sahih, Hassan, Da’if, and Muqwaththaq, only came about because of the interaction of the Shia with the Ahlus Sunnah, coupled with the Shia wanting to restore confidence to their narrations. Even though in doing so they treaded the path of deception and obfuscation, and even though they wandered about in this knowledge whose foundation was placed, and whose pillars were strengthened by the giant scholars of the Sunnah. And this is despite the fact that the Shia dogma dictates that the Ahlus Sunnah be avoided and that practice should oppose them.

Al Hurr al ‘Amili has acknowledged that his scholars borrowed the categorization of the Ahlus Sunnah, but fumbled when it came to the application of its laws and in its objectivity. He says:

 

أن رئيس الطائفة في كتابي الأخبار وغيره من علمائنا إلى وقت حدوث الاصطلاح الجديد بل بعده كثيرا ما يطرحون الأحاديث الصحيحة عند المتأخرين ويعملون بأحاديث ضعيفة على اصطلاحهم فلولا ما ذكرناه لما صدر ذلك منهم عادة وكثيرا ما يعتمدون على طرق ضعيفة مع تمكنهم من طرق أخرى صحيحة كما صرح به صاحب المنتقى وغيره وذلك ظاهر في صحة تلك الأحاديث بوجوه أخر من غير اعتبار الأسانيد ودال على خلاف الاصطلاح الجديد

The leader of the sect (al Tusi) in his books al Akhbar and other scholars who followed till the time of the emergence of the new nomenclature and even after that many a time would reject narrations which are Sahih according to the later scholars, and practice upon weak narrations as per their terminology. So had what we mentioned not occurred that would have not occurred from them normally. And many a times they would rely upon weak transmissions despite having access to authentic narrations, as has been stated by the author of al Muntaqa and others. This obviously indicates to the authenticity of the narrations due to other considerations other than the scrutinizing of the Asanid and establishes a system contrary to the new methodology.[10]

 

And al Hurr al ‘Amili also raises an objection against the new development in the dogma which demands subjecting the Shia narrations to scrutiny. He claims that the citing of the narrations in the Shia sources is enough to establish their authenticity, and that if only the laws of the Imami Jarh and Ta’dil were implemented all the narrators of the dogma would prove to be weak. He says:

 

هذا الكلام يستلزم الحكم بصحة أحاديث الكتب الأربعة وأمثالها من الكتب المعتمدة التي صرح مؤلفوها وغيرهم بصحتها واهتموا بنقلها ورواياتها واعتمدوا في دينهم على ما فيها ومثله يأتي في رواية الثقات الاجلاء كأصحاب الاجماع ونحوهم عن الضعفاء والكذابين والمجاهيل، حيث يعلمون حالهم ويروون عنهم ويعملون بحديثهم ويشهدون بصحته وخصوصا مع العلم بكثرة طرقهم وكثرة الأصول الصحيحة عندهم وتمكنهم من العرض عليها بل على الأئمة عليهم السلام فلا بد من حمل فعلهم وشهادتهم بالصحة على وجه صحيح لا يتطرق به الطعن وإلا لزم ضعف جميع رواياتهم لظهور ضعفهم وكذبهم فلا يتم الاصطلاح الجديد

This statement necessitates the authenticity of the narrations of the four books and other reliable books whose authors have claimed authenticity for their narrations. They lent importance to transmitting them and to their narrations and depended upon them in their Din. This also appears to be true in the narrations of prominent reliable narrators, like the people of consensus and others, from weak narrators, liars, and unknown people. For they knew their conditions, but still narrated from them, practiced upon their narrations, and attested to their authenticity, especially after knowing of the various transmissions and the abundance of the many credible sources. Owing to that, they were able to juxtapose them with them and were even able to present them to the Imams ‘alayh al Salam. Hence, it is necessary to interpret their doings and their attestation of authenticity with a valid interpretation due to which no criticism can be directed toward them. Or else the inevitable outcome will be the weakness of all their narrations due to their weakness and lying being evident. Hence, the new terminology cannot be complete.[11]

 

For this reason, al Hurr al ‘Amili has deemed the new terminology to be weak. He says:

 

ويظهر من ذلك ضعف الاصطلاح الجديد على تقسيم الحديث إلى صحيح وحسن وموثق وضعيف الذي تجدد في زمن العلامة وشيخه أحمد بن طاوس

From this the weakness of the new terminology which categorizes hadith into Sahih, Hassan, Muwaththaq, and Da’if, which emerged in the era of al ‘Allamah and his teacher Ahmed Ibn Tawus, is evident.[12]

 

So, this statement of al Hurr al ‘Amili suggests that if the Shia methodology is implemented it will result in the weakness of all the narrations due to the narrators being either liars or forgers.

Al Hurr al ‘Amili also believes that this categorization which came about due to the Shia following the Ahlus Sunnah will result in disastrous consequences for the Shia dogma if it is implemented upon their narrations and their men. For it will engender discrediting, according to al ‘Amili, all the principal sources of the Shia from the time of the Imams up to the era of occultation, and consequently will result in their narrations becoming completely barren. Also, if the Shia narrators are subjected to Jarh and Ta’dil the outcome will be the rejection and disavowal of the approbation of the Imams of certain individuals. He says:

 

أن الاصطلاح الجديد يستلزم تخطئة جميع الطائفة المحققة في زمن الأئمة وفي زمن الغيبة كما ذكره المحقق في أصوله حيث قال أفرط قوم في العمل بخبر الواحد إلى أن قال واقتصر بعض عن هذا الإفراط فقالوا كل سليم السند يعمل به وما علم أن الكاذب قد يصدق ولم يتفطن أن ذلك طعن في علماء الشيعة وقدح في المذهب إذ لا مصنف إلا وهو يعمل بخبر المجروح كما يعمل بخبر العدل

The new terminology engenders deeming the entire sect wrong, in the times of the Imams, and the era of occultation, as al Muhaqqiq has mentioned in his Usul saying, “A group of people have exceeded bounds in practicing upon the transmission of a lone narrator,” till he says, “And some have retracted from this excessive position and said: every narration with a sound transmission will be practiced.” But he does not realize that a liar can at times speak the truth, nor does he realize that he puts the Shia scholars and the dogma into disrepute; for there is not a single author but that he practices upon the narration of an impugned person just as he practices upon the narration of an upright person.[13]

 

Al Hurr al ‘Amili has also launched a very ferocious attack against Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi and has considered him to be contradictory in his comments regarding Tashih and Tad’if. He says:

 

فإن قلت إن الشيخ كثيرا ما يضعف الحديث معللا بأن رواية ضعيف وأيضا يلزم كون البحث عن أحوال الرجال عبثا وهو خلاف إجماع المتقدمين والمتأخرين بل النصوص عن الأئمة كثيرة في توثيق الرجال وتضعيفهم قلت أما تضعيف الشيخ بعض الأحاديث بضعف راويه فهو تضعيف غير حقيقي لما تقدم وإنما هو تضعيف ظاهر ومثله كثير من تعليلاته كما أشار إليه صاحب المنتقى في بعض مباحثه حيث قال والشيخ مطالب بدليل ما ذكره إن كان يريد بالتعليل حقيقته وعذره.وما ذكره في أول التهذيب من رجوع بعض الشيعة عن التشيع بسبب اختلاف الحديث فهو كثرا ما يرجح بترجيحات العامة على أن الأقرب هناك أن مراده أنه ضعيف بالنسبة إلى قوة معارضه لا ضعيف في نفسه فلا ينافي ثبوته ومما يوضح ذلك أنه لا يذكره ألا في مقام التعارض بل في بعض مواضع التعارض أيضا فإنه يقول هذا ضعيف لان راويه فلان ضعيف ثم نراه يعمل برواية ذلك الراوي بعينه بل برواية من هو أضعف منه في مواضع لا تحصى وكثيرا ما يضعف الحديث بأنه مرسل ثم يستدل بالحديث المرسل بل كثيرا ما يعمل بالمراسيل وبرواية الضعفاء ويرد المسند ورواية الثقات وهو صريح في المعنى الذي قلناه

If you say, the Sheikh many a times deems a narration weak, reasoning that its narrator is weak. And also, this approach (of discarding the methodology of authentication) necessitates that investigating the narrators is a futile process, whereas that is against the consensus of the early and later scholars, for there are many texts from the Imams regarding the approbation and impugning of narrators.

I will say: As for the Sheikh deeming some narrations weak due to the weakness of their narrators, that is not an actual impugning, due to what has passed, but a superficial one. The like of this is abundantly found in his rulings, as has been alluded to by the author of al Muntaqa in some of his discussions. He says, “The Sheikh is required to furnish evidence if in his ruling he intends its reality. Also, al Tusi will say, “This narration is weak because so and so is weak,” but then you will find him practicing upon the narration of the same narrator, rather even the narration of someone weaker than him in countless instances. And many a time he will deem a narration weak because it is Mursal (inconsistent), but then he goes on to draw evidence from a Mursal narration. In fact, very often does he practice upon Mursal narrations and the narrations of weak individuals, and rejects Musnad (consistent) narrations and the narrations of reliable people. This very clearly suggests what we have stated.”[14]

 

Yusuf al Bahrani says:

 

قد صرّح جملة من أصحابنا المتأخّرين بأن الأصل في تنويع الحديث إلى الأنواع الأربعة المشهورة هو العلّامة أو شيخه جمال الدين أحمد بن طاوس نوّر الله تعالى مرقديهما وأما المتقدمون فالأخبار عندهم كلّها صحيحة إلّا ما نبهوا على ضعفه والصحيح عندهم ليس باعتبار السند بل هو عبارة عما اعتضد بما يوجب الاعتماد عليه من القرائن والأمارات التي ذكرها الشيخ قدس‌سره في كتاب العدة

A group of our later scholars have explicitly stated that the originator of the categorization of hadith into its four popular types is al ‘Allamah or his teacher Jamal al Din ibn Tawus. As for the early scholars, a Sahih narration according to them is anything which is supported by contextual indicators and signs, which are enlisted by the Sheikh in al ‘Uddah, which necessitate authenticity.[15]

 

And because al Bahrani is an advocate of the authenticity of all the narrations of the Shia, especially those documented in the four books, he abhours this categorization due to it having negative consequences for their narrations. For deeming them lacklustre is inevitable if they are subjected to the microscope of the categorisation and investigation of the narrators whereafter nothing will remain to advance as evidence. He says:

 

لنا على بطلان هذا الاصطلاح و صحة أخبارنا وجوه الأول ما قد عرفت في المقدمة الأولى من أن منشأ الاختلاف في أخبارنا إنما هو التقية من ذوي الخلاف لا من دس الاخبار المكذوبة حتى يحتاج الى هذا الاصطلاح. على انه متى كان السبب الداعي إنما هو دس الأحاديث المكذوبة كما توهموه ففيه انه لا ضرورة تلجئ الى اصطلاحهم

We have several proofs to prove the invalidity of this terminology and the authenticity of our narrations. The first is what you have learnt in the first introduction, i.e. the cause of the disparity in our narrations is due to practicing Taqiyyah against the opponents and not because of the inclusion of false narrations into the legacy, owing to which this terminology be required. And hypothetically, even if the propellent cause was the inclusion of false narrations, as they assume, there is still no pressing need which establishes need for their terminology.[16]

 

Hence, the discrepancies of the narrations according to al Bahrani is the consequence of Taqiyyah (which is the root cause of the deviances of the Shia) and not due to what the liars introduced into their legacy which according to him is just an assumption. But the unequivocal statements of the alleged Imams, the citations of the scholars of transmitter-biographies refute him and renders his statement weaker than the web of a spider. And it contradicts what is popularly known in the books of Rawafid, ancient and recent. It is probably his Akhbari leaning that has dictated this empty claim to him, for if the disparities of the narrations are because of Taqiyyah, then can the Shia really distinguish between what was said by way of Taqiyyah and what was not?

The only answer the Shia have proffered to escape this dilemma is: whatever agrees with the Ahlus Sunnah was said by way of Taqiyyah, and whatever is other than that is authentic and its obligatory to practice upon it.

Likewise, al Bahrani also bemoans the borrowing of this categorization by the old Shia, and them practicing according to the science of Jarh and Ta’dil which came about because of it. For they were unable to, or put more aptly, they were too incompetent to implement it in authenticating the narrations they authenticated. He says:

 

أن التوثيق والجرح الذي بنوا عليه تنويع الأخبار إنما أخذوه من كلام القدماء وكذلك الأخبار التي رويت في أحوال الرواة من المدح والذم إنما أخذوها عنهم فإذا اعتمدوا عليهم في مثل ذلك فكيف لا يعتمدون عليهم في تصحيح ما صححوه من الأخبار واعتمدوه وضمنوا صحته كما صرح به جملة منهم كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ ديباجتي الكافي والفقيه وكلام الشيخ في العدة وكتابي الأخبار فإن كانوا ثقات عدولا في الأخبار بما أخبروا به ففي الجميع

They borrowed the approbation and impugning upon which they based the categorization of the narrations from the old scholars. Likewise, they borrowed the narrations which have been narrated regarding the status of the narrators, i.e., their praise and condemnation, from them. So, if they have relied upon them in matters of this sort, then how didn’t they rely upon them in what they authenticated of the narrations, and what they relied upon, and what they assured of the authenticity of, as is stated by a group of them. This is clear to anyone who reads the introductions of al Kafi, al Faqih, and the speech of al Sheikh in al ‘Uddah and the two books of al Akhbar. So, if they were reliable and upright in what they dispensed to us then they should be considered reliable in everything.[17]

 

So, in essence, what we can draw from the statements of al Bahrani is that the scholars of the Shia who followed the Ahlus Sunnah in this science had no share in its implementation. Rather their statements are a bunch of contradictions piled up upon each other due to which no sane person can be confident in the conclusions they reached. This is the natural outcome of the lies which these propagators of falsehood believed in and what they promulgated, and which took the form of a Din, to which those without minds devoted themselves.

Furthermore, a person who studies the science of Jarh and Ta’dil of the Rawafid will find that it is riddled with contradictions and disparities. So how then would it be possible for them to do Tashih and Tad’if in light of it?

Their scholar al Fayd al Kashani mentions:

 

في الجرح والتعديل وشرايطهما اختلافات وتناقضات واشتباهات لا تكاد ترتفع بما تطمئن إليه النفوس كما لا يخفى على الخبير بها

In Jarh and Ta’dil and its requisites there are many disparities, contradictions, and confusions which cannot be alleviated with a solution which is soothing to the heart, as is not unclear to an expert in them.[18]

 

And ‘Ali al Khaqani mentions in his Rijal:

 

اختلف علماؤنا في توثيق كثير من الرجال أو في الأكثر بل في كثير من الأعاظم فترى هذا يوثق محمد بن سنان بل يجعله في أعلى درجات الوثاقة وآخر يضعفه بل يجعله غاليا وكالمفضل بن عمر إلى غير ذلك

Our scholars have differed regarding the approbation of many transmitters, in fact most of them, in fact even regarding many of the greats. Hence, you will see that this scholars approbates Muhammad ibn Sinan and even goes on to consider him to be on the highest degree of reliability, whereas another will deem him weak and even consider him a extremist. And like al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar and others.[19]

 

Hence, whoever will study the biographies of their transmitters will find this contradiction to be very glaring. For there is not a single narrator from their narrators, in most instances, but that there will be two views about him: one view that approbates him, and one that impugns him, neigh even curses him and excommunicates him.[20]

For example, their famous hadith scholar Zurarah ibn A’yan, the companion of the three Imams, al Baqir, al Sadiq, and al Kazim, as they allege. You will find him being praised by them at times and at times condemned; likewise, at times he is deemed to be from the people of Jannat and at times from the people of Jahannam.

Al Kashshi narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

يا زرارة إن اسمك من أسامي أهل الجنة

O Zurarah, your name is in the names of the people of Jannat.[21]

 

And he said:

 

رحم الله زرارة بن أعين، لو لا زرارة ونظراؤه لاندرست أحاديث أبي عليه السلام

May Allah have mercy upon Zurarah ibn A’yan, had it not been for Zurarah and his like the narrations of my father would have vanished.[22]

 

Then on the other hand, al Kashshi himself narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة

May Allah curse Zurarah, may Allah curse Zurarah, may Allah curse Zurarah.[23]

 

And he also says:

 

هذا زرارة بن أعين هذا والله من الذين وصفهم الله عز وجل في كتابه فقال: وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَىٰ مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاءً مَّنثُورً

This Zurarah ibn A’yan is by Allah from those whom Allah has described in the following verse of His Book, “And we will approach what they have done of deeds and make them as dust dispersed[24].”[25]

 

And he also says:

 

زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى ومن قال إن الله ثالث ثلاثة

Zurarah is worse than the Jews and the Christians and those who claim that Allah is the third of a Trinity.[26]

 

This contradiction is their wont in the biographies of their transmitters, just as it is a reality in their narrations and reports. They have no viable solution for it other than stating that one view was based on Taqiyyah, but thereafter they have no reasonable external indicator to determine which of the two was due to Taqiyyah and which not.

Hence, the methodology of Tashih and Tad’if which was founded by the later scholars if implemented, there will not remain with them but a very little of their narrations, as has been acknowledged by their scholar Yusuf al Bahrani (d. 1186 A.H.) who says:

 

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

It is necessary to either accept all these narrations, as was the view of our noble early scholars, or to seek a religion other than this religion and a legislation other than this legislation due to it being incomplete owing to the absence of evidence for most of its rulings. But I do not see them abiding by one of the two matters, whereas there is no third option in between. This by the grace of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is obvious to every researcher who is not arbitrary and arrogant.[27]

 

So, this text unveils the reality of their narrations in light of their science of Jarh and Ta’dil. It suggests that if they apply it rigorously most of their narrations will fall away. Hence, the only option they have is accepting their narrations without investigation, as their early scholars have done who accepted them with all their lies and fallacies. Or alternately they will be compelled to seek another dogma besides the Shia dogma, due to their dogma being deficient and unable to live up to the demands of life.

Moving on, the Rawafid intentionally give preference to a Da’if narration over a Sahih narration despite knowing of the impermissibility of doing that. Al Hurr al ‘Amili mentions:

 

إن من تتبع كتب الاستدلال علم قطعا أنهم لا يردون حديثا لضعفه باصطلاحهم الجديد ويعملون بما هو أوثق منه، ولا مثله، بل يضطرون إلى العمل بما هو أضعف منه، هذا إذا لم يكن له معارض من الحديث، ومعلوم أن ترجيح الأضعف على الأقوى غير جائز

Whoever studies their books of substantiation will know with certainty that they do not reject a narration due to its weakness (as per the new terminology) and do not practice upon that which more reliable or similar. Rather they are compelled to practice upon a narration which is weaker in an instance where it is not opposed by another. Whereas it is a known fact that giving preference to a weaker narration over a stronger narration is not permissible.[28]

 

Likewise, in their approbation and impugning they rely upon Marasil as well, whereas it is known that a Mursal (inconsistent) narration is a type of weak narration. So how can it be relied upon and how can it be accepted for approbating or impugning a narrator? Their scholar Jafar al Subhani says:

 

بدأ أصحاب الأئمة عليهم السلام في التأليف في علم الرجال في أعصارهم عليهم السلام غير أنه لم يصل إلينا شيء من مؤلفاتهم

The companions of the Imams ‘alayh al Salam started compiling books regarding the science of men in their very eras ‘alayh al Salam. However, nothing of their collections has reached us.[29]

 

From this we can draw the following conclusions:

  • Their science of Jarh and Ta’dil is based upon the Mursal, i.e., narrations which did not reach them with an unbroken chain, due to the approbation or impugning of the contemporaries of the Imams not reaching them.
  • His claim that there were collections which emerged in the science of men in the eras of the companions of the Imams is a claim which is not supported by any evidence, and is, thus, rejected.

And their scholar Muhammad Asif al Muhsini says the following in his book Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al Rijal under the fourth note:

 

إن أرباب الجرح والتعديل كالشيخ النجاشي وغيرهما لم يعاصروا أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ومن بعدهم من اصحاب الأئمة عليهم السلام حتى تكون أقوالهم في حقهم صادرة عن حس مباشر وهذا ضروري وعليه فإما ان تكون تعديلاتهم وتضعيفاتهم مبنية على امارات اجتهادية وقرآئن ظنية أو منقولة عن واحد بعد واحد حتى تنتهي الى الحس المباشر أو بعضها اجتهادية وبعضها الآخر منقوله ولا شق رابع وعلى جميع التقادير لا حجية فيها أصلاً فإنها على الأول حدسية وهي غير حجة في حقنا اذ بنأ العقلاء القائم على اعتبار قول الثقة انما هو في الحسيات أو ما يقرب منها دون الحدسيات البعيدة وعلى الثاني يصبح أكثر التوثيقات مرسلة لعدم ذكر ناقلي التوثيق الجرح في كتب الرجال غالباً والمرسلات لا اعتبار بها

The scholars of Jarh and Ta’dil like al Sheikh, al Najashi, and others did not live in the time of the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Amir al Mu’minin, and the Imams that followed thereafter. Thus, their opinions cannot be considered as coming forth from immediate sensory perception, which is necessary. Thus, either their approbations and impugning are based upon analytical indicators and probable suggestions, or they are transmitted from one person to another till they eventually end at immediate perception; or some of them are based on reasoning and others on transmission. There is no fourth possibility.

Considering all the possibilities, there is no evidence in them at all. For in the first possibility, they are based upon conjecture which is not evidence according to us; because the principle of intelligent people for according credence to the statement of a reliable is based only on statements assimilated through perception, or whatever is close to it, and not on mere distant conjectures. In the second possibility, most of the approbations will prove to be inconsistently reaching (the original source), due to there being no mention of the transmitters of approbation and impugning in the transmitter dictionaries in most instances. And inconsistent narrations are not worth consideration.

 

He also says in the very same book:

 

إذا قال الشيخ الطوسي قدس سره قال الصادق عليه السلام كذا وكذا ولم ينقل سنده لا نقبله كذا إذا قال مسعدة بن صدقة من أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام ثقة فإن الحال فيها واحد فكيف يقبل الثاني ولا يقبل الأول وكنا نسأل سيدنا الأستاذ الخوئي أيام تتلمذنا عليه في النجف الأشرف عن هذا ولم يكن عنده جواب مقنع وكان يقول إذا طبع كتابي في الرجال تجد جوابك فيه ولما لاحظناه بعد طبعه رأينا أنه أجاب عن الشق الأول أي حدسية التوثيقات دون الشق الثاني الذي هو العمدة عندي وكنت أسأله عنه مرارا لاحظ كلامه في الصفحة 55 و56 المجلد 1 (معجم رجال الحديث)، وأيضا لم يقدر على إثبات كون جميع التوثيقات حسيا بل أثبت أن الجميع ليس بحدس وقد عرضت هذا السؤال على جماعة من علماء العصر كالسيد الأستاذ الحكيم رحمه الله والشيخ الحلي في المشهد العلوي والسيد الميلاني في المشهد الرضوي وغيرهم فلم يأت أحد بشيء

When al Sheikh al Tusi says, “al Sadiq said such and such,” and he does not cite its Sanad we will not accept it. Likewise, if he says, “Mas’adah ibn Sadaqah is from the companions of al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam and is reliable,” (we will not accept it). For the situation in both instances is the same. So how can the second be accepted and not the first.

And we would ask our teacher al Khu’i in our studying days in the Noble Najaf about this, but he did not have a convincing answer. He would say, “When my book regarding transmitters will be published you will find your answer in it.” And when we studied his book after its publication, we found that he provided an answer regarding the first possibility, i.e. the approbations being based on conjecture, but not about the second which was my main concern, and about which I asked him several times. Refer to his discussion on page 55 and 56 of the first volume of his book Mujam Rijal al Hadith. Also, he was unable to prove that all the approbations were received through sensory perception, rather he established that not all of them were based on conjecture. I have also posed this question to a group of the scholars of the time, like: al Sayed al Ustadh al Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, al Sheikh al Hilli of the ‘Alawi seminary, al Sayed al Mullani of the Ridwi seminary and others, but no one gave me a satisfying answer.[30]

 

Added to this, one of the scholars of the Rafidah has acknowledged that many misspellings and distortions have occurred in their transmitter dictionaries. The Grand Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamenei mentions:

 

ان نسخ كتاب الفهرست كأكثر الكتب الرجالية القديمة المعتبرة الاخرى مثل كتاب الكشي والنجاشي والبرقي والغضائري قد ابتليت جميعاً بالتحريف والتصحيف ولحقت بها الاضرار الفادحة ولم تصل منها لابناء هذا العصرنسخة صحيحة

Based on what many experts of this field have stated, the manuscripts of the book al Fihrist is just like the early credible books of transmitter biographies like the books of al Kashshi, al Najashi, al Barqi, and al Gada’iri, in that they all are victims of distortions and misspellings due to which they bare disastrous harms. And not a single authentic manuscript of them has reached the generation of this time.[31]

 

Another point, a person who will study the books of the Shia will not find, sadly, a single book, or even small booklet dedicated to weak and forged narrations. As opposed to the Ahlus Sunnah whose Islamic library is brimming with such books from ancient to recent times. However, this astonishment regarding the Shia very quickly dissipates when one realises that their dogma is based upon lies and assumptions. Hence, if they attempt to author a book containing weak and fabricated narrations their Din will collapse. Nonetheless, an attempt was made by al Majlisi to grade the narrations of al Kafi in his book Mir’at al ‘Uqul and by al Bahbudi in his book Zubdah al Kafi or Sahih al Kafi.

Hereunder we present a synopsis of these two books:

Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi authored his book Zubdah al Kafi. This infuriated the Rafidah because of him deeming many narrations weak over and above what al Majlisi had already deemed weak. He sifted out from al Kafi all the narrations which violated the Book of Allah and in doing so went on to omit entire chapters with all their narrations. Likewise, he omitted a number of beliefs for which the Rafidah are condemned.

Al Sayed Murtada al ‘Askari says:

 

وقد ذكر المحدثون بمدرسة أهل البيت ان فيها خمسة وثمانين وأربعمائة وتسعة آلاف حديث ضعيف من مجموع 16121 حديث وقد ألف احد الباحثين في عصرنا صحيح الكافي اعتبر من مجموع 16121 حديثا من أحاديث الكافي 3328 حديثا صحيحا وترك 11693 حديثا منها لم يراها حسب اجتهاده صحيحة

The scholars of the hadith of the Ahlul Bayt mention that in al Kafi there are 9485 weak narrations from a total of 16121 narrations. And one of the researchers of our time has authored a book Sahih al Kafi wherein he has considered from the total 16121 narrations 3328 narrations authentic, and he left 11693, which according to his analyses were not authentic.[32]

 

On the other hand, their scholar al Subhani has deemed it impermissible to pick a weak narration solely to point out its weakness because that will lead to the dissolution of their dogma, due to majority of their narrations being weak. He says:

 

ولا يجوز لنا انتقاء الأحاديث وحذف الضعيف في جمع الأحاديث إذ ربما تحصل هناك قرائن على صدقه وربما يؤيد بعضها بعضا ويشد بعضها بعضا وما يتراءى من قيام بعض الجدد بتأليف كتب حول الصحاح كالصحيح من الكافي، فهو خطأ محض

It is not permissible for us to pick narrations and omit the weak narrations in the process of hadith compilation. For it is possible that some indicators of their truthfulness come about and they also corroborate one another at times. And what is being noticed of some novice scholars authoring books pertaining to authentic narrations like the Sahih min al Kafi is a pure error.[33]

 

But this book Zubdah al Kafi did not enjoy widescale prominence in the Shia circles. The reasons for this are unknown, is it because he omitted the narrations of Tahrif (the interpolation of the Qur’an) and they were not pleased with that, or is it because they discovered that the narrations of Tahrif are authentic according to them and, thus, they feared exposure.

And very often do these two books contradict each other in grading the narrations of al Kafi. Hence, what al Majlisi deems authentic is deemed weak by al Bahbudi in most instances who does not give any explanation for why he opposes him and why he deems weak what he deems authentic. In fact, many narrations which al Majlisi deems authentic are not authentic according to al Bahbudi. This is what propels the Shia to not be satisfied with this work which they dubbed the investigation of the narrations of the Imams and which will have a negative impact upon this book, which they give credence to over Sahih al Bukhari.

If this indicates to anything, it indicates to the fact that the grading of the Rafidah of their principal sources was only to deflect criticism, i.e., so that it is not said, “Where is your investigation of the narrations of the Imams?”

Hence, al Majlisi embarked on this mission to launch an attack on behalf of al Kafi thinking that he would render the book a service and save it from criticism, but that turned out to be a very far-fetched goal. For al Majlisi himself went on to deem more than two thirds of the book weak. And in doing so he did not follow any principle or any precise criteria, especially considering that he cites those very same narrations in his other works without stating that they are weak. Due to this, a Muslim is left very confused when wanting to understand the methodology of Tashih and Tad’if according to the Shia.

To illustrate, in Usul al Kafi there appears a chapter titled, ‘What the Imams have been accorded of the greatest name of Allah’[34] wherein three narrations appear. Al Majlisi had deemed all of them weak. But he himself has established the same chapter in Bihar al Anwar and has cited in it several narrations which are stranger than the narrations he deemed weak in Usul al Kafi without commenting upon their weakness or authenticity at all. But if you carefully consider the narrations al Majlisi has deemed weak you will learn that he mostly deems weak those narrations which disparage the Book of Allah and his Din, and clash with Islam and the Qur’an.

Furthermore, al Majlisi has not delineated his methodology and has not outlined the causes of authentication or deeming weak. Rather, he has used very eerie terms which the people of research and investigation know to be poor and which are void of the academic standard of authentication. Hence, we find him using terminology like, ‘Muwaththaq like a Sahih narration’ and ‘Majhul (unknown) like a Sahih narration’. The question is, how can a Muwaththaq and a Majhul narration be the same in their resemblance of a Sahih narration? He also uses the term, ‘Da’if as per the popular opinion but reliable according to me’. We want to know: why are you considering the narration to be worth consideration after it was weak? And why have you deemed weak what the others have deemed authentic?

Furthermore, al Majlisi very openly proclaims the occurrence of interpolation in the Qur’an, so how can any grading be accepted from him at all?

So, there is not then an academic methodology to ascertain the authenticity of the Asanid of their narrations, which enforces the fact that the only reason they contrived one was to deflect criticism from them that they do not know anything about investigation of Asanid. These two books which grade the narrations of al Kafi, their grand book, is not a distant example of this.

Nonetheless, in order to grade their narrations, it is enough to study their wordings. Ibn al Jawzi says:

 

وكل حديث رأيته يخالف المعقول أو يناقض الأصول فاعلم أنه موضوع فلا تتكلف اعتباره

And every narration which you see contradicting reason or opposing the principles, know that it is a fabrication. So do not go out of your way to consider it.[35]

 

And al Alusi mentions:

 

ومن مكايدهم أن جماعة من علمائهم اشتغلوا بعلم الحديث أولاً وسمعوا الأحاديث من ثقات المحدثين من أهل السنة فضلاً عن العوام ولكن الله سبحانه وتعالي قد تفضل علي أهل السنة فأقام لهم من يميز بين الطيب والخبيث وصحيح الحديث وموضوعه حتى أنهم لم يخف عليهم وضع كلمة واحدة من الحديث الطويل ومن مكايدهم أنهم ينظرون في أسماء الرجال المعتبرين عند أهل السنة فمن وجدوه موافقاً لأحد منهم في الاسم واللقب أسندوا رواية حديث ذلك الشيعي إليه فمن لا وقوف له من أهل السنة يعتقد أنه إمام من أئمتهم فيعتبر بقوله ويعتد بروايته كالسدي فهما رجلان أحدهما السدي الكبير والثاني السدي الصغير، فالكبير من ثقات أهل السنة والصغير من الوضاعين الكذابين وهو رافضي غال وعبد الله بن قتيبة رافضي غال وعبد الله بن مسلم بن قتيبة من ثقات أهل السنة وقد صنف كتابا سماه بالمعارف فصنف ذلك الرافضي كتابا وسماه بالمعارف أيضا قصدا للإضلال

And from their ploys is that a group of their scholars engaged in the science of hadith initially and they assimilated narrations from the reliable hadith scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah, let alone from their commonality. But Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala conferred his grace upon the Ahlus Sunnah and established for them individuals who could differentiate between the pure and the impure and the authentic from the forged. To the extent that even the fabrication of a single word in a long narration did not escape their attention.

Another of their ploys is that they study the biographies of scholars and transmitters who are reliable according to the Ahlus Sunnah. Thereafter, whoever from amongst the Shia they find having the same name and the same title they basically attribute the narration of that Shia to him, so that the impression is created that he from their scholars. Hence, those who have no knowledge amongst the Ahlus Sunnah falsely assume that he is from their scholars and consequently they consider them reliable and accept his narrations. For example: al Suddi, for there are two people with this name: al Suddi al Kabir (big al Suddi) and al Suddi al Saghir (small al Suddi); the big one is from the reliable transmitters of the Ahlus Sunnah, and the second is a forger and a liar and is an extremist Rafidi. Likewise, ‘Abdullah ibn Qutaybah is an extremist Rafidi whereas ‘Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah is from the reliable scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. The latter authored a book named Al Ma’arif so the former also wrote a book and named it al Ma’arif in order to mislead.[36]

 

NEXT⇒ Point Three – Tashih and Tad’if According to Jafar al Subhani and a Refutation of him


[1] Minhaj al Sunnah, 6/379.

[2] Minhaj al Sunnah, 5/163.

[3] Al Shia wa al Tashih, p. 66.

[4] Wasa’il al Shia, 30/260.

[5] Ibid., 30/260.

[6] Al Fihrist, p. 32.

[7] Tahdhib al Wusul, p. 77, 79.

[8] Al Fawa’id al Ha’iriyyah, p. 489.

[9] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 3/152, 153; Kamal al Din wa Tamam al Ni’mah, p. 76.

[10] Wasa’il al Shia, 30/256, 257.

[11] Ibid., 30/205, 206.

[12] Ibid., 30/251.

[13] Ibid., 30/ 259.

[14] Ibid., 30/278, 279.

[15] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/14.

[16] Ibid., 1/15, 16.

[17] Ibid., 1/16.

[18] Al Wafi, 1/11, 12.

[19] Rijal al Khaqani, p. 82.

[20] Refer to the discussion regarding the statuses of the narrators of the Rawafid.

[21] Rijal al Kashshi, 1/345.

[22] Ibid., 1/348.

[23] Ibid., 1/365.

[24] Surah al Furqan: 23.

[25] Op. cit., 1/368.

[26] Ibid., 1/381.

[27] Lu’lu’ah al Bahrayn, p. 47.

[28] Wasa’il al Shia, 30/265.

[29] Durus Mujazah fi ‘Ilmay al Dirayah wa al Riwayah, p. 11.

[30] Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, p. 45, 46.

[31] Al Usul al Arba’ah fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, p. 34.

[32] Ma’alim al Madrasatayn, 3/282.

[33] Durus Mujazah fi ‘Ilmay al Dirayah wa al Riwayah, p. 174.

[34] Usul al Kafi, 1/230.

[35] Al Mawdu’at, 1/106.

[36] Mukhtasar al Tuhfah, p. 35.

Back to top