Al Hidaya by Shaikh Saduq (ra)
مقدمة لجنة التحقيق - مؤسسة الإمام الهادي عليه السلام
Preface by group of researchers from the Imam Hadi Foundation
أن جميع علماء الإمامية أجمعوا على اعتبار الكتب الأربعة واعتمادها والعمل بها والشهادة بكونها منقولة من الأصول الأربعمائة المجمع عليها المعروضة على الأئمة عليهم السلام كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني والشيخ بهاء الدين في درايتهما (٢
٢ - الوجيزة في الدراية للشيخ البهائي رحمه الله: ١٦ و ١٧، والدراية للشهيد الثاني: ١٧
All the Shia Imami scholars consented upon reliability of the kutub al Arba (the four primary ahadith books of Shias), and trusting and acting on them, and the testimony of their having been sourced from the four hundred consented upon usool (original books of ahadith compiled by companions of the Imams) which had been presented to the Imams (for verification), as stated by Shahid al Thani and Shaikh Bahai in their books* on Dirayah (Study of analysis of ahadith).
Shaikh Hurr al Amili says:
وسائل الشيعة (آل البيت) للحر العاملي (1104 هـ) الجزء30 صفحة264
Wasail al Shia of Shaikh Hurr al Amil (1104 AH) Volume 30 Page 264
الحادي والعشرون
أن أصحاب الكتب الأربعة ، وأمثالهم ، قد شهدوا بصحة أحاديثكتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول المجمع عليها
فان كانوا ثقاتا : تعين قبول قولهم ، وروايتهم ، ونقلهم ، لأنه شهادة بمحسوس
واللازم باطل ، فالملزوم مثله
The twenty first (point is) that the authors of the four books, and their likes, have testified by the authenticity of ahadith in their books, and their soundness, and their extraction from the usool consented upon.
So if they were trustworthy: Acceptance of their saying, and their narration, and their naql (quotation) is established, because it is a testimony with material.
And if they were not trustworthy: Ahadith in their books, all of them, become da'eef (weak/unreliable), due to dha'f (weakness/unreliability) of their compilers, and lack of proof that they were trustworthy. Rather, it shows their laxness and their slacking in the religion, and their lies in shari'a, and (this assumption) is necessarily false, so becomes necessary for similar to it.
الاِيقاظ مِنَ الهجْعَةِ بالبرهان على الرجعة للحر العاملي (1104 هـ) صفحة65
Al Iqadh min al Huj'ah bil Burhan 'ala al raj'ah by Shaikh Hurr al Amili (1104 AH) (ra), Page 65
أقول : والأحاديث في ذلك كثيرة جدّاً قد تجاوزت حدّ التواتر ، وقد نقل جماعة من عظماء العلماء الإجماع على ذلك ، ويستفاد بالتتبّع والإستقراء أنّهم كانوا يكتبون ما يسمعونه من أهل العصمة ( عليهم السلام ) بأمرهم ، ويعرضون كلّ ما يشكّون في صحّته من حديث أو كتاب عليهم ، وأنّهم جمعوا أربعمائة كتاب سمّوها اُصولاً ، وأجمعوا على صحّتها ، فكانوا لا يعملون إلا بها ، ولا يرجعون إلا إليها ، وذلك بأمر الأئمّة ( عليهم السلام ).
وإنّ الكتب الأربعة وأمثالها مأخوذة من تلك الاُصول ، فكلّ حديث منها مجمع على ثبوته عن المعصوم ، وكلّ كتاب منها متواتر عن مؤلّفه ، وتحقيق هذه المقدّمات يظهر لمن طالع كتاب « الفوائد المدنيّة » وأمثاله
وإنّ الكتب الأربعة وأمثالها مأخوذة من تلك الاُصول ، فكلّ حديث منها مجمع على ثبوته عن المعصوم ، وكلّ كتاب منها متواتر عن مؤلّفه ، وتحقيق هذه المقدّمات يظهر لمن طالع كتاب « الفوائد المدنيّة » وأمثاله
I (translator's note: i.e. Shaikh Hurr al Amili) say: And the ahadith on that are too many and have surpassed the limit of tawatur. And a group from the great scholars has quoted a consensus upon that (translator's note: on raj'ah), and it is deduced by investigation and induction that they (translator's note: companions of the Imams) would write what was heard from the infallibles (as) by their order. And they would present everything, from a hadith or book, that was doubtful in its authenticity to them (translator's note: i.e. to the Imams), and that they collected four hundred books containing in them the usool. And they consented upon their authenticity, so they would not act except on them and not refer except to them, and that was by the command of the Imams (as). And indeed the kutub al arba (translator's note: the four primary shia books) and their likes are sourced from these usool, so every hadith in them is collected upon proof from the infallible and every book among them is mutawatir (in tareeq) to its compiler. And the research in these prefaces would be clear to one who studies "Al Fawaid al Madaniya" and its like.
Salam aleikum brother
ReplyDeleteI have been following your blog for a short while now.
What I am interested in rightnow:
Is there a text which tells us which books were used by the scholars Kulayni, Saduq and Tusi for the compilation of Kutub al Arba?
Is there any guarantee that the Ahadith mentioned therin were all taken from the 400 Usul?
Wa aleikum salam
@Anonymous: Wa'laikum assalam,
ReplyDeleteProbably the best source for this info is Shaikh Tusi's book itself, al Fihrist ("The list/index"), in which he has listed all Shia authors and information about their compilations. It includes the usul as well, along with his own tareeq (route of transmission) to them. Also, Shaikh Tusi created "Mashaikha" (list of shuyukh) at the end of his hadith books tahdhib and istibsar, wherein he listed the usul he referenced and his tareeq to them, sometimes making reference to his Fihrist.
As for Shaikh Saduq, he mentioned some of the main books he referred to in the introduction of his Man la yahduruhl faqih (you can read rough translation here: http://realtashayyu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/authenticity-of-ahadith-in-man-la.html). For details, he also created "mashaikha" at the end of his book (he had omitted the isnad in the book itself).
As for Shaikh Kulaini, he had listed full isnad for all ahadith in Kafi, so one can check up the books used via al Fihrist which lists his shuyukh and their compilations as well.
In general, you may also find this post helpful: http://realtashayyu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/manhaj-of-our-classical-scholars.html
The second passage lists some of the famous compilers and their books, from which the ahadith in our kutub al arba (as well as rest of hadith books) were extracted from.
As for a "guarantee" about the ahadith in kutub al arba being from the usul, while many of the usul are unfortunately not extant anymore so it is not possible to fully personally verify this, but nonetheless, they (usul) were definitely present upto the time of the mutaqadami mutakhireen (the earlier scholars among the batch of latter scholars, such as muhaqqiq Hilli, Syed ibn Tawus, Allama Hilli etc), and none of them cited any huge inconsistency which may then support the conspiracy theories about the ahadith in kutub al arba+other books being mass forgeries/fabrications.
Thank you very much. That was helpful.
ReplyDeleteIt will take some time for me though to sort this all through.
If you have the time, do you think you would be able to make a lenghty post with that topic?
For example, which books from the Usul were used by Al Kulayni for his al Kafi and by Saduq for Al-Faqih and by Tusi for Tahdhib and Istibsar? From which of their scholars did they transmit the most? And what does al Fihrist and other books of the same kind say about these personalities or books?
Do you know what I mean?
It would be a scientific text about the probability of authenticity of the kutub al arbaa (instead of just scholars who say its authentic one could see himself the reason why)
I personally think that would be very useful because nowadays there are many people questioning more then half of the content of these books
What do you think?
@Anonymous: I understand what you mean, but unfortunately the issue is, that what you are asking for is not something which could be properly dealt with in just one lengthy post (or even in more than one post). To sufficiently analyse this issue, one would need to go through the rijal and fihrist books, and preferably as well as through their analysis, commentaries etc by succeeding scholars.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I personally do not at all consider basing our judgements on ahadith SOLELY according to what the fihrist and rijal books say, to be a scientific approach at all. There are a number of reasons for that, mainly:
1) Our earliest rijal books, by Shaikh Tusi and Shaikh Najashi, were not at all written to serve as the definitive criteria for determining the probability of a hadith being authentic. This is evident from Shaikh Tusi's hadith books themselves, such as Tahdhib and Istibsar where he does not narrate solely from the narrators he judged to be trustworthy in his rijal, fihrist book. Similarly, in his Istibsar which is focused on analysing contradictory ahadith, he does not solely determine which hadith to act on based on which narrators he ruled to be trustworthy in his rijal or fihrist book. In fact, he stated in the introduction that all the ahadith mentioned are taken from extracted from reiable usul and can be acted upon, even though not all their narrators were ruled to be trustworthy by him in his rjal, fihrist book.
2) Continuing from the earlier point, the reason why it's not the best idea to determine hadith authenticity going by rijal books is, that our current earliest (and proper) rijal books came after the earliest hadith books (by Shaikh Kulaini, Shaikh Sadooq and their predecessors) had been compiled. In fact our best ever rijal book, Rijal Najashi, came after the kutub al arba and was written solely to counter the mockery of the sunnis who would taunt the shias for not having a proper rijal book (as stated by Shaikh Najashi himself in the intro of his book). Because Shaikh Najashi and Shaikh Tusi were not present in the times of the hadith narrators (unlike the muhaditheen like Shaikh Kulaini, Shaikh Sadooq and their predecessors who were), therefore their rulings regarding the trustworthiness (or lack of) of narrators is not based on personal knowledge but through knowledge transmitted by intermediaries. Ayatullah Asif Muhsini (the greatest living scholar of rijal) berates shia ilmur rijal, due to the rulings passed by Shaikh Tusi and Shaikh Najashi on narrators without mentioning the source for the basis of their rulings (see this post: http://realtashayyu.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ilm-al-rijal-in-shiaism.html). So basically, relying on our earlier books is somewhat circular logic, because when we refer to them to determine the trustworthiness of narrators (to determine hadith authenticity), we are then faced with the problem of determining whether the source via which the narrators' have been judged is reliable or not.
3) To add on, as the rijal scholars werent there in the times of the narrators, they often did not have enough information about them and thus did not record much about them, which led the latter scholars (who considered the rijal books to be the main source for determining hadith authenticity) such as Ayatollah Khoei to label many of the narrators as "majhool" (unknown) in his mu'jamur rijal and grade many ahadith to be weak/unreliable due to their narrators being majhool.
4) Similarly, they (rijal scholars) would often also quote information about narrators from non shia or unknown sources such as ibn al Nadim's Fihrist.
So all in all, neither were those rijal books written to serve as the primary criteria for determining hadith authenticity and neither do they have fully complete and reliable information to enable one to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that in determining the accuracy of ahadith, or any early social historical events for that matter, the only proper scientific way to do that is to invent a time machine to go back in time and witness the event oneself. Other than that, one would have to trust the earlier experts/historians, and to ensure accuracy one would need to thoroughly analyse who to trust therefore. So in the case of shia ahadith, one can either take the earlier rijal books by Shaikh Tusi and Najashi to serve as the basis despite their having been written for a different purpose and not being fully complete and reliable, or one may put their trust in the muhaditheen like Shaikh Kulaini, Shaikh Sadooq and their predecessors themselves who were there in the times of the narrators and have unanimously been regarded by the shia community (as stated by Shaikh Najashi himself for example) to be extremely trustworthy and competent hadith scholars (also note, Shaikh Kulaini and Shaikh Sadooq themselves wrote books on rijal which are unfortunately not extant anymore, so therefore they were thoroughly knowledgeable about the reliability/unreliability of hadith narrators).
It would be best to read the books and the arguments put forward therein by Akhbari scholars such as Shaikh Hurr al Amili (author of Wasail al Shia), Allama Amin Astarabadi etc who favoured going by the judgements of the muhaditheen like Shaikh Kulaini, Sadooq etc as well as books by earlier mutakhireen like Shaikh Hasan Sahibul Ma'alim, Shaikh Bahai etc who have elaborated on the methodologies of the earlier muhaditheen, to reach an informed decision about the authenticity of the ahadith books.
Wassalam
Salam aleikum
ReplyDeleteThank you brother. I agree on all points. I would love to read more about these topics. What could you advise?
Wa aleikum salam
@Anonymous: Wa'laikumus salam,
ReplyDeleteBro, do you know arabic. If so, then a good place to start could be these sources:
http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-30/30001.html#2
http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-30/30006.html#3
http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-30/30007.html#4
^^The above links are from Shaikh Hurr al Amili's khatima (last volume ) of Wasailush shia, in which he has expanded upon the sources he has referred in his book and his methodology. In the links provided, he talks in detail about the sources of Shaikh Sadooq and Shaikh Tusi in the compilations, and then he presents the sources in alphabetical order, which the respective authors themselves had listed in a rather unsorted manner. In third link he expounds upon the sources of Shaikh Kulaini.
There are MANY MANY more books about such topics in Arabic. In case you don't know Arabic, then I can provide some links in English, but obviously the info therein is pretty limited (and biased as well)
Wassalam
Salam aleikum brother
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanations and thanks for the links. Can you provide me with the english links too?
Wa aleikum salam
@Anonymous: Wa'laikum assalam bro,
ReplyDeleteInshallah I'll post some English links soon.
@Anonymous: Here are some English links which you'll inshallah find helpful.
ReplyDeleteHadith science course for eHawza, written by Dr. Mansour Leghai: http://www.ihic.org.au/Book.aspx?id=75
Information about Shaikh Kulaini and al Kafi: http://www.al-islam.org/message-of-thaqalayn/vol-11-n-4/shiite-authorities-age-minor-occultation-part2/
Below links give info abt kutub al arba and their compilers, by Dr. I.K.A. Howard:
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=kulayni-howard.htm
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=saduq-howard.htm
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=tusi-howard.htm
All the above links are definitely extremely helpful and informative, but obviously, as they're written by usoolis (or from usooli perspective, in the case of Dr. Howard), therefore they present info from only the usooli perspective and pass it off as the unanimously accepted truth. Again, they're definitely very informative, but one needs to read them with an open and critical mind, or as they say, with a pinch of salt.
Of course, while such links do provide the basics, its best to learn arabic (if you dont know it already) so that you can then have access to information from all perspectives.
Wassalam
Thank you very much. Can you also provide some more arabic sources as well?
ReplyDeleteThanks brother :)
@Anonymous: Inshallah I'll post them shortly.
ReplyDeleteBrother inshallah you have not forgotten :)
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: assalamu alaikum brother,
ReplyDeleteNo i hadnt forgotten, but just lazed off because I've been a bit tired for some time. Apologies for tht.
As for arabic links, there are so many of them, dealing with different issues that it's a bit hard to decide which ones to post. Since you'd asked initially about the usul used in compilation of kutub al arba and its likes, I'd say one of the best links for tht are the ones i already posted from wasail al shia in my earlier comment. Another book tht you may find interesting is mustatrafat al sarair by Ibn Idris al Hilli in which he quotes ahadith directly from the usul and organises them into sections by the names of the usul. The book therefore also proves that the usul were present upto the times of the early mutakhireen like Ibn Idris al Hilli. Here's the online link:
http://www.shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1352_%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A
Other than that, for your purpose, i think the best two books are these:
usul al arbamia by Shaikh Asad Kashif al Ghita, as name suggests, its a comprehensive book about the 400 usul:
http://www.shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1636_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A1
And this, al usul al sitti ashar by Shaikh Diauddin Mahmoodi, it's a book dealing specifically with 16 of the special usul among the 400 usul. It deals with their history, manuscripts etc:
http://www.shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1637_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A
I'm sure the above books would be very helpful. If you're looking for something more specific, then let me know.
Wassalam
Assalamu Aleykum
ReplyDeleteSome shias say taht al kulayni didn't want to compile a sahih book because he said in the introduction to compare the hadith with the holy quran and to reject the hadith if it contradicts the quran. is it true ?
Wa'laykum assalam,
ReplyDeleteIt's not true. Shaikh Kulaini wrote al Kafi at the request of a person, whom he addresses in the preface of Kafi (he doesn't name him, it's probable that the person was a student of knowledge). Shaikh Kulaini says in the preface to that person (I'm paraphrasing Kulaini's words): "you asked for a reliable book as there are currently contradictory ahadith around and it's hard to determine which one to accept and which one not to accept........." after saying that, Shaikh Kulaini reiterates AHADITH (which he had included in al Kafi) which mention how to analyse contradictory ahadith (and lists among one of them, the primary one of comparing against the Qur'an). So if Shaikh Kulaini's saying regarding comparing ahadith against Qur'an is to be somehow misinterpreted as him intending to compile an unreliable book with all types of ahadith (authentic and unauthentic), then the instruction (to compare against Quran) itself would be considered weak as it is nothing but a reiteration of ahadith which instruct us to compare against qur'an and which Kuliani had included in kafi; therefore the basis of that argument would be weak. Anyway, Shaikh Kulaini then says later in the preface (I'm paraphrasing again) "and now Allah by the grace of Allah I've managed to compile the reliable book that you needed....."
Anyhow, all our great scholars, such as Shaikh Hurr al Amili, understood that Shaikh Kulaini (as well as the compilers of our other classical books) included in the book only the ahadith which he considered sahih. This is further corroborated by the fact that there are many ahadith which Shaikh Kulaini did NOT include in his book, so if his intention was to just include everything he came across, then why didnt he include them? For example, take the issue of the bidah of aliun waliullah in adhan and iqama these days (which is very common these days). Shaikh Sadooq said that the narrations about third testimony in adhan are fabricated by mufawida, and Shaikh Tusi also rejected such ahadith as being Shaadh. Taqi Majlisi then argued that since ahadith did exist about third testimony in adhan+iqama, but the classical scholars rejected them, that is their view which is not fully binding and therefore saying third testimony in adhan+iqama is mustahab. So the point is, IF scholars like Shaikh Kulaini were going around collecting ANY hadith they'd find, without any regards for authenticity, then why didn't they include those ahadith about third testimony in adhan+iqama which the scholars of these days consider authentic? It's obvious that scholars like Shaikh Kulaini would not include any ahadith they didnt consider authtentic. I can give many more such examples. Also, Shaikh Kulaini passed fatawa off the ahadith he included in his book, as seen by the titles of the chapters in the book; and he wouldn't pass fatawa off something he didn't consider authentic. Lastly, in Rijal Najashi it's mentioned that Shaikh Kulaini took 20 whole years to compile this book, that's how meticulous he was.
So all in all, Shaikh Kulaini compiled a reliable book as per the request of the student, INCLUDING the ahadith which specify how to analyse contradictory narrations (such as by comparing against Qur'an). Finally, all the rijal scholars, from Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani in his kuliyyat fi ilmir rijal to Ayatullah Asif Mohsini in his Buhuth fi ilmirijal, while they all do discuss the possibility of Shaikh Kulaini not including only what he considered authentic, they all conclude by saying that he included what he considered authentic BUT that was as per his own judgement which is not binding on mujtahids as themujtahid is not allowed to do taqleed in usulism, which is basically the only reason why some mujtahids may not consider everything in the classical books such as kafi to be authtentic.
Assalam Aleykum
ReplyDeletethank you for your answer.
Could you give some quotes from rijal scholars about the intention of al kulayni to compile only sahih hadiths ?
and what is the opinion of author of mu'jam al rijal alkhu'i about the intention of al kulayni and his book ? did he consider that al kulayni wanted to compile only hadith sahih per his view or he though that al kulayni wanted to compile authentic/weak hadith in his book ?
Wa'laykummus salam,
ReplyDeleteBro I'll answer later inshallah, I'm very busy these days.
Assalamu Aleykum
ReplyDeleteDon't forget me bro.
@Anonymous: Wa'laykummus salam brother,
ReplyDeleteRegarding al Kulayni's (329 AH) intention to compile only those ahadith in kafi which were sahih according to him, this is what he explicitly wrote himself in the preface of al Kafi and what all our giant scholars from Shaikh Hurr al Amili to Muhadith Noori to Faid Kashani etc etc understood. Perhaps the more important question would be who first denied what is explicitly stated in the preface (available in our hands to this day as well)?
The first to deny this and question it was Wahid Behbahani (1207 AH) in his risalatul ijtehad wal akhbar, as admitted by Ayatullah Mirza Hussain Noori as well in his Khatima of Mustadrak. So basically this idiotic method of denying the obvious (since Shaikh Kulayni explicitly stated his intention to collect sahih ahadith in his book in its preface, its evident to anyone who simply reads it) was invented 9 centuries after the time of Shaikh Kulayni, by Behbahani.
As for our rijal scholars, our highest authority on rijal Shaikh Najashi had stated (not exact translation) about Shaikh Kulayni that he's the most truthful, knowledgeable and best judge of authenticity of ahadith (note: rijal books are about rijal i.e. men themselves, not primarily about their books although they're mentioned). These words speak for themselves. Besides, also remember that the qummis for example would reject and exile people who would report weak ahadith even if they themselves were trustworthy but would still quote weak ahadith from others, for example al Barqi was exiled by Ahmad b. Isa for this reason. So if someone says that Kulayni himself maybe trustworthy but still quoted weak ahadith, then that doesn't fit because as mentioned the early rijalis would have then cast him aside for this very reason.
As for latter scholars, Ayt Naeni (teacher of Ayt. Khoei) used to consider it useless to examine the isnads of kafi as he considered it completely reliable.
As for other latter rijal scholars, for example Ayt Asif Mohsini (our best living scholar of rijal),while discussing authenticity of kafi, without trying to twist Kulayni's words about his intention to collect ahadith sahih according to him, he simply says that as it's not allowed for a mujtahid to do someone else's taqlid therefore he can not call kafi authentic merely on kulayni's words. While I may not agree with Mohsini's conclusion, at least he's honest about his reason and doesn't try to twist the facts.
Similarly, Ayt Khoei and Ayt Subhani also (after beating around the bush for some time) state the same point that kafi may be sahih as per Kulayni's standards but his ruling is not hujjah on others.
So all in all, while not all of kafi's ahadith are sahih as per modern ahadith grading standards (which is different from the methodology of classical scholars and is not hujjah), this is well known and no one including me would argue about that, but to go ahead and start twisting Shaikh Kulayni's words and trying to deny the complete obvious is beyond idiotic to say the least (not saying that about you, since you are only asking, but those clerics who stoop to such low levels to defame our own best ever muhaditheen).
Wassalam
Assalamu Aleykum bro,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your answer, very helpful.
last question, do you have arabic quotes from Ayt Khoei and Subhani about al Kafi may be sahih per Al Kulayni ?
@Anonymous: Walaykummus salam,
ReplyDeleteHere are 2 of the quotes,
Ayt. Khoei says in Mu'jam Rijal, Vol 1 (link: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=7043)
إلاّ أنّه دلّت القرائن الخارجية على صحّتها ولزوم الإعتماد عليها، فهو أمر ممكن في نفسه
......................
مضافاً إلى أنّ إخبار محمد بن يعقوب بصحّة جميع مافي كتابه حينئذ لايكن شهادة، وإنّما هو اجتهاد إستنبطه ممّا إعتقد أنّه قرينة على الصدق. ومن الممكن أنّ مااعتقده قرينة على الصدق لو كان وصل إلينا لم يحصل لنا ظنّ بالصدق أيضاً، فضلاً عن اليقين
Translation: It is fully possible that Shaikh Kulaini considered Kafi to be sahih....(Ayt. Khoei then discusses some other possibilities, then continues)........In addition the report that Kulaini declared the contents of Kafi sahih, that declaration can't be counted as a proof since it is just his personal ijtehad based on what he considered to be evidences for the authenticity of the ahadith in Kafi, while it is possible that if those evidences were available to us then we (the latter scholars) would not have considered them strong enough.
Ayt. Subhani says in his Durus Mojzah, page 20(link: http://rafed.net/books/rejal/dorous-moujazah/02.html#17):
دروس موجزة في علمي الرّجال والدّراية ::: 16 ـ 30
وثانياً : أنّ كون الرواية أو الروايات صحيحة عند الكليني لا يكون دليلاً على كونها صحيحة عند الآخرين بعد ما كانت شرائط الحجّية مختلفة في الأنظار ، وسيوافيك انّ الصحيح عند القدماء غير الصحيح عند المتأخّرين (2) ، وعندئذ كيف يمكن الأخذ بعامّة روايات « الكافي » بمجرّد كونها صحيحة عند المؤلّف ؟!
Translation: A hadith or ahadith being sahih according to Kulaini is not binding for the mutakhireen (latter scholars) as the conditions of acceptance/authenticity are different (between Kulaini and the latter scholars)and what was sahih according to the classical scholars is not considered sahih by the latter scholars. So how is it possible to overall follow the ahadith of kafi just because they are sahih according to its author?!
Wassalam
Jazakalahu kheyran for your answer. May Allah increase your knowledge
ReplyDeletesalam,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of view of Cheikh Sadouq about al-Kafi? Please, i want the view of cheikh sadouq but about the al-kafi (not man la (...))
Thanks.
PS : in arabic-english (or in arabic).
@Anonymous: Wa'laikummus salam,
ReplyDeleteIt can not be said for certain what Shaikh Sadooq's view of Kafi was, because he never explicitly said anything about it. Perhaps the only explicit statement from Shaikh Sadooq about al Kafi (one particular hadith of Kafi to be exact) is where in his Man la Yahduruhul Faqih, he gives tarjeeh (preference/priority) to a hadith from Imam al Askari (as) which he had received in the Imam's handwriting, over a shaadh hadith from Kafi. This is rather expected, as Shaikh Sadooq was highly inclined towards tarjih (and his conditions of takhiir were more strict), while Shaikh Kulaini was more inclined towards takhiir when faced with ta'arud.
Overall, while although the manhaj of Shaikh Sadooq and Shaikh Kulaini was different in ahadith, Shaikh Sadooq never explicitly discarded any hadith from al Kafi (although he would do so with other ahadith if he considered them weak), so generally one finds an absolute tacit approval of Kafi from Shaikh Sadooq (unlike from the latter scholars such as Shaikh Mufid, Sharif al Murtada, Tusi etc, who would fault both the ahadith of Shaikh Kulaini and shaikh Sadooq), and somewhat surprisingly, in most fiqh issues there conclusions are same despite the difference in manhaj of ahadith.
Wassalam
Salaams brother,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in an earlier comment: "So all in all, neither were those rijal books written to serve as the primary criteria for determining hadith authenticity and neither do they have fully complete and reliable information to enable one to do so."
If not for checking hadith authenticity, then what was the real purpose of the rijal books?
Thank you