روضة المتقين في شرح من لا يحضره الفقيه للمجلسي الاول(ج٢ / ص٣٨٠) : و في الصحيح، عن الحسين بن ثوير و أبي سلمة السراج قالا
سمعنا أبا عبد الله عليه السلام و هو يلعن في دبر كل مكتوبة أربعة من
الرجال و أربعا من النساء، التيمي، و العدوي، و فعلان، و معاوية يسميهم
(يعني أنه عليه السلام سماهم بأبي بكر و عمر و عثمان و أنا اتقيت في عدم
تسميتهم) و فلانة و فلانة (يعني عائشة و حفصة) و هند و أم الحكم أخت معاوية
Rawdatul Muttaqeen by Taqi Majlisi (Volume 2, Page 380): It has been reported in a sahih (authentic) hadith from al Hussain b. Thuwair and abi Salma al Seraj who said: "We heard aba Abdillah (as), and he would send la'nah at the end of every obligatory prayers upon four men and four women: The man from the tribe of Taim, the man from the tribe of Adi, Fu'lan and Mu'awiyah by name (that is, the Imam would name Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman but the narrator did taqiyyah in not naming them)* and so and so women (that is, Aisha and Hafsa)*, Hind and Umm al Hakam the sister of Mu'awiyah."
*Translator's note: The explanation in parenthesis is by Taqi Majlisi (the father of Baqir Majlisi, the author of Biharul Anwar). Also, as can be seen from this hadith, the Imam (as) used to send la'nah by name in private, at the end of the prayers, not in public. It is very strictly forbidden to send la'nah in public, as seen in another hadith.
The narration is not sahih. In the sanad, there is al-Khaybari b. Ali...
ReplyDeleteخَيْبَرِيُّ بنُ عليّ، الطحّانُ، كُوْفيٌّ. ضَعِيْفُ الحديث، غالي المَذْهَبِ، كانَ يَصْحَبُ يُونُسَ بنَ ظَبْيان، ويُكْثِرُ الرِوايةَ عنهُ. ولهُ كِتابٌ عن أبي عَبْدِاللَّهِ(ع). لايُلْتَفَتُ إلى حديثِهِ.
1 – Khaybari b. `Ali. The miller. Kufi. Weak in hadith. Ghali in madhhab. He had been a companion of Yunus b. Zhabyan, and narrated a lot from him. He has a book from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. His hadith are not regarded.
From Najashi:
خيبري بن علي الطحان كوفي، ضعيف في مذهبه، ذكر ذلك أحمد بن الحسين، يقال في
مذهبه ارتفاع. روى خيبري عن الحسين بن ثوير عن الاصبغ ولم يكن في زمن الحسين بن ثوير من يروي عن الاصبغ غيره. له كتاب يرويه عنه محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع أخبرنا أحمد بن عبد الواحد قال: حدثنا علي بن حبشي بن قوني قال: حدثنا عباس بن محمد قال: حدثنا أبي قال: حدثنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع عن خيبري بكتابه.
@Anonymous: Asalamu alaikum,
ReplyDeleteThe defect in sanad will only make the hadith non-sahih as per the manhaj of mutakhireen (latter scholars), as per classical scholars it is still sahih. Latter akhbari scholars like Shaikh Hurr al Amili who strove to follow the manhaj of classical scholars also considered it authentic. Shaikh Hurr Amili creeated a whole chapter in Wasail al Shia about the desirability of sending la'nah by name at the end of prayers.
From Wasail al Shia: باب استحباب لعن أعداء الدين عقيب الصلاة بأسمائهم
Translation: Section on the desirability of sending la'nah by name on the enemies of religion at the end of prayers.
Besides, although I'm not usuli, but even as per usuli standards it's hard to reject this hadith off the bat. Only Gadairi mentions the unreliability of Khairi in ahadith (Najashi only mentions his corrupt beliefs, which in itself is not a problem in rijal as everyone knows), but Gadairi's book is not considered authentic by all scholars. Yes, many of the great scholars like Allama Hilli considered it reliable, but overall there have always been question marks on its attribution.
Shaikh Shahrudi does tawtheeq of him in his mustadrakat ilmur rijal:
- خيبري بن علي الطحان:
ثقة لوقوعه في طريق ابن قولويه القمي، عن محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع، عن الخيبري عن يونس بن ظبيان - الخ. كامل الزيارات باب ٤٥ ص ١٢٦.
والظاهر اتحاده مع خيبري بن علي الطحان المذكور في جش ص ١١٢. قال: و يقال في مذهبه ارتفاع - الخ. ولعله لروايته عن يونس بن ظبيان
Rough Translation: Khairi b. Ali al Tahan, thiqa (trustworthy) due to him being in th tareeq of ibn Qulaweh al Qumi in kamiluz ziarat. And apparently it can be reconciled with what Najashi said about him in regards to him having corrupt belief....., perhaps it is due to him narrating from Yunus b. Dhibyan.
Ayatullah Ali Milani also says similar: أقول: ما ذكره النجاشي، عن أحمد بن الحسين من ضعفه في مذهبه، فإن
الضعف في المذهب لا يدل على ضعفه في حديثه.
وأما ما في الكتاب المنسوب إلى ابن الغضائري من أنه ضعيف الحديث فلا
يمكن الاعتماد عليه، لعدم ثبوت صحة الكتاب ونسبته إلى ابن الغضائري، بل إن
ظاهر كلام النجاشي أن أحمد بن الحسين لم يذكر إلا ضعفه في مذهبه دون حديثه
Rough translation: What Najashi mentioned about Khairi being da'eef in belief does not prove his being weak in ahadith. And what is stated in the book attributed to Gadairi that he's weak in ahadith, so it is not possible to rely on it due to lack of proof of the book being reliable and being properly attributed to Gadairi, in fact the apparent statement of Najashi on the authority of Ahamad b. al Hussain mentions only his weakness in religion, not weakness in hadith.
Wassalam
Those scholars who considers al-Khaybari as thiqah are the most lenient ones in their gradings. They considers all the narrators of Kamil al-Ziyaraat thiqah and therefore al-Khaybari is thiqah for them. Al-Khoei also use to believe this (i.e. all narrators of Kamil al-Ziyaraat thiqah) but later in his life he changed his view because there are many narrators in Kamil al-Ziyaraat who are confirmed daeef by Najashi or Tusi. And therefore, Al-Khoei changed his view and considered only the Mashaykh of Ibn al-Qulayah as thiqah.
ReplyDeleteIf one ignore the tadheef of Ibn al-Ghadairi, even then al-Khaybari is atleast majhool. Therefore, even a/c to al-Khoei (who doesn't took anything from Kitab Ibn al-Ghadairi), al-Khabayri is majhool.
@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYes I agree. I'm not an usuli and mentioned Khairi's tawtheeq by some clerics just to show the other side.
Anyway, as I said earlier, the defect in sanad (which is not that big anyway, since as you said Khairi is majhool, not da'eef, without gadairi's book) only makes the hadith da'eef for usulis who follow a man made religion. For the mutaqadamin it is still reliable.