Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ilm al-rijal or the science of rijal literally means The Science of the People (pl. of rajul which
means man). A typical hadith consists of two parts the chain (also called as the
sanad/isnaad) and the main text or the narration (also called as the matn). The chain will bear
the names of the narrators who narrated the hadith. The study of the chain and the narrators
mentioned is called science of rijal.
When we study ahadith, we look at two steps the content and the chain. Since well be
focusing on the science of rijal, we will study the details about the sanad (chain) only. When we
study the chain, we look at it from two aspects quantity and quality of the chain.
The quantitative aspect is to determine the number of chain/s a hadith has. For example: We
wish to know how many chains does hadith al-Thaqalain have 1 or 2 or more?
The second aspect is qualitative in nature. The quality of the chain is known through the
narrators the hadith is narrated through. It thus studies the reliability of the narrators of the
hadith.
On studying the number of chains of the hadith, we classify them in 3 categories:
1. Ahad (Individual) not more than 2 ahadith and which cause doubt. The hadith has either
one chain or two chains (not more than 2 chains).
2. Mustafidh (Extensive) Hadith that has 3 or more chains and causes
assurance/satisfaction. We feel comfortable to rely on such hadith.
3. Mutawater (Consecutive) The numbers of chains are just like mustafidh i.e. 3 or more
chains, however, we must realize that narrators cannot collude to lie. A mutawater hadith
causes certainty.
Lets focus on Mutawater hadith. It is a piece of news from narrators who cannot collude to
lie. How can we make sure they did not collude to lie? There are 4 ways to ensure:
1. Place: If the narrators come from different countries/places, for example Medina, Kufa or
Iran etc. Since the narrators come from different geographical locations and have never met
each other, it means that they cannot collude to lie about the hadith/ahadith.
2. Views: If we see a Ummawi person narrating virtues of Imam Ali (a.s), such a hadith is
mutawater.
3. Sects: A Shia, Sunni or Zaidi narrate a hadith, example: Hadith al-Ghadeer.
4. Ideologies: When people having different ideologies, narrate a hadith it will be termed
mutawater. For example: People including mughali and muqassi narrate ahadith about
people knowing the unseen, have wilayat al-taqwiniya, that Ahlulbayt (a.s) know the
unseen, they performed miracles etc; such a hadith that comes from narrators holding
different ideologies, will be considered as mutawater.
What if while discussing a hadith, one says it goes against logic and the hadith in question is
mutawater? Ahlulbayt (a.s) knowing the unseen is a mutawater hadith. What if one takes a few
verses from the Quran that imply nobody knows the unseen except Allah and tries to use it
against the mutawater hadith? If we were to disregard mutawater hadith and rely only on
Quranic verses, itll lead to a bigger problem, because Quran itself is proven through tawatur!
Itll thus mean either the hadith is not mutawater or the Quranic verses have been
misinterpreted.
This is the importance of the quality issue. We shall now start with the definitions of ahadith
with respect to the quality of their chains.
Sahih - Authentic
Muwathaq - Credible
Hasan - Good
Dhaeef - Weak
1. Definition of a Sahih hadith: Narration of a just Imami who is accurate, from another
(Imami who is accurate) till it reaches Masoom (any from the 14 infallibles) without a defect,
even if the content is Shaath (abnormal/minor).
Lets break the above definition and examine the terms used in it:
Just: Justice is based on two meanings justice based on action & justice based on truthfulness.
Here, when we speak about chains, we mean the latter i.e. justice in terms of truthfulness. Thus
we are not necessarily saying that the just narrator is one who can be used as a witness in fiqh
issues, or can lead prayers, or does not backbite. This is not the kind of justice that is spoken of
in this context. Here we are only talking about his truthfulness.
Imami: Who believes in the 12 Imams (a.s)
Who is accurate: Sometimes we have a just person or a reliable person who does not lie
intentionally; or an old person who does not remember the details or mixes information.
Therefore such people are not liars, at the same time they arent accurate either. Hence we
want to take narrations from people who are accurate.
Without a defect: We need to look at any inconsistencies in the chain. There may be a chain
with all reliable narrators however on closer scrutiny we find that one narrator passed away in
the year 100 AH and the next narrator was born in the year 200 AH, this is thus a clear defect.
Hence such a chain (which is broken), cannot be termed authentic even if all the narrators are
reliable. Another kind of defect could be places - one narrator is in Yemen, the other in Iran
and we know for a fact that they neither travelled nor met each other, is also recognized as a
defect.
Content is Shaath: When the content of one hadith is in conflict with other ahadith, it means
that content of the lone hadith is shaath (abnormal/minor). Such a hadith with a good chain
with conflicting content will still be termed authentic because we are only studying the chains
and not the matn.
2. Definition of a Muwathaq hadith: Narration of a reliable non-Imami who is accurate, from
another (reliable non-Imami who is accurate) till it reaches Masoom (any from the 14
infallibles) without a defect even if the content is Shaath (abnormal/minor).
Thus ahadith from any non-Imami like Zaidis, Ismailis, Sunnis etc. would fall under this category
keeping the rest of the definition intact (accurate, without defect, Shaath).
3. Definition of Hasan hadith: Narrator of a hasan hadith who is neither reliable nor weak.
For example: A good person who pays zakah, reads Quran but one does not know whether or
not he is accurate, then narration from such a person will be considered Hasan.
4. Definition of a Dhaeef hadith: If a narration is neither Sahih, Muwathaq, nor Hasan, then it is
considered Dhaeef.
Note: When we grade a hadith as dhaeef, it does NOT mean it is fabricated. It only means we
do not have enough proofs yet to consider it reliable.
We may have to make use of other signs like logic, Quran or compare with other ahadith, and
thus be able to support it with a different sign other than quality. If not, then such a dhaeef
hadith cannot be used as a proof.
How should we apply the definitions mentioned earlier to those books of rijal?
We should know the following:
1. Regarding Justice: In context of the science of rijal, justice means the truthfulness of the
narrator and not his actions or idealogy.
Sheikh al-Tusi states that whoever is mistaken in his actions or is a fasiq and while he is reliable
in his narrations, such a person fulfills the justice that we are looking for.
Reference: Sheikh al-Tusi in his book al-Edda, page 382.
For Sunnis, the definition of Sahih hadith is: The narration of the just who is
accurate(continued to the rest of the definition that we have mentioned above).
For example: Bukharis Sahih claims to have all sahih narration, thus every narrator must be
just. But we find in the book, Shias narrating the hadith, we have people who are Nawasib,
Murjiya (considered as kafirs by Bukhari himself). Thus he doesnt care that they are fasiq etc.
2. How can we say if the narrator is Imami or not?
Our scholars like al-Mamaqani and al-Bahbahani said: In the books of rijal, once you see
scholars speak about the narrator and say he is reliable and they do not tell you that he has bad
ideology, you should immediately assume he is Imami.
Reference: al-Mamaqani and al-Bahbahani in Miqbas al-Hidaya, page 108
Thus they will either clearly say that the narrator is Imami or theyll tell you he is one of us, or
one of the gang.
This is what we do in our daily lives too, if we are speaking about scholars or orators and
mention names, we assume that they are one of us/belong to our sect. If not, we expect the
person who is talking about them to mention if he is a Sunni etc
3. How can we tell if a person is reliable or not?
Sheikh Jafar Subhani and Baha al-Deen al-Amili in their respective works said that if the
scholars say a narrator is reliable and do not state that he is not accurate or do not mention any
problem, then one must immediately assume that the narrator is both reliable and accurate.
Thus when we go to the biography books, the same should apply to ascertain whether or not a
8
narrator is Imami. Once the scholars state that a narrator is reliable and dont mention anything
else, then one should assume that the narrator is a just Imami who is accurate.
It is enough for one to read the word: Thiqa, thats all what is needed. If they say thiqa
without stating that he is not very accurate or he is not Imami, then one should assume he is.
References: Sheikh Jafar Subhani in his book Usool al-Hadith, page 157
Baha al-Deen al-Amili in his book Mashraq al-Shamseen, page 296
Also, there are two ways of knowing whether or not a narrator is reliable:
1. Through witness/experience: For example, if Sayyed Sistani is asked how was Sayyed alKhoei, he will say that Sayyed al-Khoei was a good person, he was reliable, honest, helpful etc.
This is because he witnessed/saw him.
Thus, the same applies to the companions of the Imams. The students of Zorarah, Yunus ibn
Abdul Rahman, Fadhl bin Shazan and other companions had students who spoke about them.
2. Through signs: To understand the reliability of a narrator through signs, we can study Abu
Hurayrah as an example. Looking at history, the content of his ahadith, the contradictions in
them, one will immediately conclude that he is a liar. He was also accused of lying by Ayesha,
Imam Ali (a.s), even Umar al-Khattab. Thus looking at the signs we can say that Abu Hurayrah is
a liar even though he lived 1400 years ago.
Likewise, Sheikh al-Tusi and al-Najashi saw signs about the companions of Imams, narrators for
example Zorarah either through his narrations or through what people said about them.
The same is the case with Sunni scholars too. Ibn Hajar Asqalani came in the 8 th century AH.
How is he then speaking about companions or tabeyeen? He is thus relying on books of scholars
who came before him.
We mentioned earlier that once we see the word thiqa, it means the narrator is reliable.
However, what if there is no mention of the word thiqa? Does it mean that the narrator is not
reliable?
The answer is No. Once has to read carefully what the scholars have written, sometimes they
write a statement or a word which is equally or sometimes more important than the word
thiqa. Often, scholars use the word wajh (face) or ayn (eye) for a narrator which means the
narrator was notable during his time. Notable would mean somebody of high caliber, for
example in todays day and age, Sayyed Sistani. He is a notable Shia and represents thousands
of his followers. One will immediately conclude that he is reliable in his narrations and does not
lie.
An example of scholar who mentions that words like notable, wajh, ayn would mean reliability
of a narrator is al-Muhaqeq al-Qummi:
Reference: al-Muhaqeq al-Qummi in his book Qawanin al-Usool, vol. 1 page 485
9
Let us take an example of a narrator who the scholars say is reliable (without the mention of
the word thiqa in rijal books)
Example: Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi
When we read the biography of this narrator, none of the books of rijal mention the word
thiqa for him, however Shia scholars have nonetheless graded him reliable for the following
reasons:
Sayyed al-Khoei said: Allamah HIlli (was speaking about Ibrahim ibn Hashim) and said: I did not
see any direct criticism for him and not a direct authentication for him but many narrate from
this person and I believe that is it is stronger to rely on him.
Reference: Sayyed al-Khoei in his enclycopedia, Vol. 1 Page 291
After stating this, Sayyed al-Khoei said: There is no reason to doubt the reliability of Ibrahim ibn
Hashim because of the following:
1. His son Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi narrates a lot from him in his tafseer and his son said that
he will only narrate from reliable people.
2. Sayyed ibn Tawous said that all Shias believe Ibrahim ibn Hashim is reliable.
3. Ibrahim ibn Hashim is the first person to spread the hadith of the Kufi people in Qum and
Qummis accepted from him while some of them were hard in accepting ahadith. Then alKhoei said: If there was any problem with Ibrahim ibn Hashim then they (Qummis) will not
accept this and the Shia will not agree on him.
4. al-Mamaqani while speaking about Ibrahim ibn Hashim mentioned scholars who did not
believe in his reliability and gave their reasons. In the end al-Mamaqani said: I feel shy not
to authenticate his ahadith.
Thus clearly Ibrahim ibn Hasim is reliable without anyone mentioning the word thiqa for him.
10
11
RULINGS
Lets study 2 rulings that the majority of the Shias have a problem with.
1. Can we accept ahad hadith in everything?
2. We separate our scholars as old scholars and new scholars. While we accept the
authentication of old scholars, can we accept the authentication of new scholars as well?
1. Can we accept Ahad hadith in everything?
Yes, because any proof that one can use to prove that we are allowed to use ahad hadith in
fiqh, whether it is logical proof or a proof based on hadith, you will notice that the proof that is
being used does not separate/distinguish between ideology or fiqh or history or any other
thing. If someone asks for proof to use ahad hadith in idealogy, one should ask for proof to
prove ahad hadith in fiqh issues. You will notice that the proof will not distinguish between fiqh
or idealogy.
Also, in some of the issues where there is lots of conflict, one is forced to depend on mutwater
or mustafeedh ahadith, and is not comfortable with relying on just ahad hadith.
2. We separate our scholars as old scholars and new scholars. While we accept the
authentication of old scholars, can we accept the authentication of new scholars as well?
Unfortunately, the majority of the Shias today do not accept it. They say one can rely on a
scholar who witnesses or experiences what he is talking about. So when al-Fadhal ibn Shadhan
talks about Mohammed ibn Sinan, one accepts what he (al-Fadhal) says because he met
Mohammed ibn Sinan since it was based on experience, not guess. Thus one can accept old
scholars authentication because it is based on experience and not mere conjecture, while new
scholars authentication is based on guess, not experience. Thus one cannot rely on new
scholars.
However, what the majority of the Shias say regarding accepting authentication of old scholars
and denying those of new scholars are mistaken because the conditions of accepting old
scholars authentication should be the conditions one must use to accept new scholars
authentication. The conditions should not be different, it must be the same. The same can be
said about ahad hadith, it should have the same condition whether applied to fiqh or idealogy.
Unfortunately, people have made different conditions for fiqh and for idealogy.
Secondly, whatever is based over experience we accept it, whatever is based on guess, people
deny it. However, authentication is not just based on these two things. Sometimes it is based
over ijtehad, over signs and we accept those because we say old scholars used to authenticate
either based on experience or over signs. For example al-Najashi and al-Tusi who passed away
in 450 AH and 460 AH, never met Zorarah and they talk about companions of Prophet (s), Imam
Hasan (a.s), Imam Hussain (a.s) etc. Those scholars never saw them, how did they then know
that those people are reliable? It is because they looked at the signs, and was not based on
experience. Did we accept this? Yes, and we still can! So we should not have such a problem;
12
we should accept anything based on experience and signs, and not accept anything based on
mere guesswork. It is very obvious that after 1400 years we have signs that will make us very
certain whether a person is reliable or not, regarding Imam Ali (a.s) and Umar, we never met
them, we didnt have any experience with them, but we can say who is reliable or not, based
over the narrations we have, based on the signs we have, the content of the ahadith they
narrated, what history told us about them. Therefore when we are able to accept this, the same
goes for the rest of the narrators too.
Some people claim: If old scholars did not say anything about a certain narrator or did not say
that somebody is reliable, are the new scholars going to find any signs that the old scholars did
not see, especially when the majority of the books of rijal have disappeared?
Answer: The signs are not limited to what the old scholars have seen because old scholars
sometimes restricted the signs only to rijal books. When we study books like Tafseer al-Qummi,
Kamiluz Ziarat, or al-Mufid in his letter to Sheikh Saduq about the month of Ramadhan whether
29 or 30 days, or Sheikh al-Tusi in his book when he was refuting Waqifa, they mentioned some
statements which prove the reliability of some narrators, or they mentioned some good things
about some narrators. When we go to the old scholars we see that they havent spoken about
these narrators. Thus it is possible that the new scholars have seen things which the old
scholars have not, because they only limited themselves to rijal books, they did not go to
tafseer and other books, doing so made them miss a lot of signs like the content of hadith
which many overlook.
We have lots of ahadith from Ahlulbayt that say: Know the rank of the Shia by the type of
hadith they narrate. This is authentic and mustafeedh hadith. What does this mean? It means
that sometimes Ahlulbayt (as) have a secret which they dont tell everybody. However, if we
see that Zorarah is narrating those secrets, we realize that Zorarah is a person who Ahlulbayt
(a.s) consider reliable, he has a special rank, that is why they taught him those secrets. Those
secrets are not limited to idealogy, it can be fiqh, history like Imam Sadiq (a.s) telling people
about the details of what happened to Sayyeda Fatima (s.a), that he knows the unseen or has
control over the universe - those are secrets he doesnt tell everybody.
A fiqh issue like knowing whether or not a wife (widow) can inherit from building was also a
secret. The hukm is that they cannot. Common people did not know about it. Ahlulbayt (a.s)
only taught this to few people like Zorarah, thus we can say that Zorarah was a person who
knows secrets (and we also realize who amongst the companions of Ahlulbayt (a.s) have a
higher rank).
Another way of concluding that newer scholars can observe new signs is the following: Lets say
al-Najashi authenticates a narrator, and al-Tusi did not or vice versa. This means al-Najashi saw
some signs which al-Tusi did not or vice versa. Thus, al-Najashi did not know everything nor
does al-Tusi, therefore new scholars may be able to see some signs to authenticate narrators
too.
13
a) Shaheed al-Thaani said: The skillful man (in science of rijal) should not rely on taqleed and
he should be aware because he may find some signs that the old scholars did not pay attention
to or he may find an authentication or a weakening that they may have missed, like what I have
found. And we have mentioned it in my different places (in his book). Thus you are not allowed
to rely on taqleed, but to rely on ijtehad.
Reference: Shaheed al-Thaani in al-Bedaya, Page 63
Thus, by experience he talks what we mentioned early.
b) Bahr al-Oloom was talking about things upon which we can rely to authenticate narrators,
and was speaking about the authentication of many new scholars; he said: In regards to relying
on new scholars, sometimes we have an opinion that many new scholars agree on, we should
thus rely on such agreement.
Reference: Bahr al-Oloom in al-Fawaed al-Rijalia, Vol. 1 Page 463
[Thus if we see that Sayyed al-Khoei, Sayyed Sistani and many new scholars say that a certain
narrator is reliable, (even if none of the old scholars say he is reliable), we should hence rely on
the authentication of the new scholars and consider the narrator as reliable because the
possibility of mistake in determining the reliability of the narrator is very narrow]
There are people who say: that we cannot rely on them (new scholars) because we see
scholars authenticate a narrator but the majority of scholars did not, Sheikh Bahr al-Oloom
refuted such a claim by saying that the majority did not look at certain signs and the person
who looked at or knew those signs, he should be considered as hujjah. And he says that those
who believe that the signs are limited to the old scholars are mistaken because there are
surprises in the corner!
Later he gives some examples to prove his point, and states Sheikh al-Tusi and al-Najashi did
not see the signs each had for every narrator, thus it proves that they did not know everything.
[New scholars would include Shaheed al-Thaani, Allamah Hilli, Sheikh Tawous even though they
lived about 600 years ago. Sometimes we see that they authenticated some narrators even
though we dont know the reasons why. If they agree on the authentications, we should accept
their authentication because they must have seen some signs to authenticate the narrators].
It will only befit to offer an example here to see how one can solve contradictions between
scholars and how newer scholars can uncover signs to authenticate narrators and prove their
reliability.
14
15
al-Maruzi said: That I have heard Saleh talking about Obad ibn Yaqub and he said: Obad ibn
Yaqub told me that Allah is more fair than to enter Talha and Zubair to heaven. I asked him why
is that? He (Obad) said: Because they had a battle with Imam Ali (a.s)
Thus we see clearly that Obad ibn Yaqub was a persistent Shia by looking at the signs
mentioned by al-Mirza Noori and from the books of the Sunni scholars. Those signs direct us to
believe that he was a Shia.
b) About Obads reliability: Sheikh al-Najashi and al-Tusi did not speak about his reliability.
How can we know he is reliable? We can rely on Sunni scholars in this instance because if they
speak highly of a narrator and respect him and say he is reliable, being well aware of the fact
that the narrator is a Shia, then we can safely conclude that this narrator must be reliable. Lets
see what the Sunni scholars say about him:
al-Dhahabi: Obad ibn Yaqub is a sheikh, a scholar, a truthful muhaddith from the Shia
Abu Hatim: A Kufi but he is reliable
al-Darqutni: He is truthful
Ibn Hajar Asqalani: He is truthful
al-Hakim: Ibn Khuzaima used to say (when narrating from Obad): I narrate from the reliable in
his narrations, the accused in his religion
Hence, we conclude that Obad ibn Yaqub is a reliable narrator, even though none of the Shia
scholars spoke about his reliability.
16
GENERAL AUTHENTICATION
We have two kinds of authentication specific and general. In specific authentication, the
scholar is talking specifically of a certain narrator, based on either experience or ijtehad. In
general authentication, the scholar is talking about a group of people either directly or
indirectly. Often such general authentications are not found in rijal books, ideally they are
found in the books of fiqh, ideologies or tafseer etc. Thus we shouldnt be surprised if people
use arguments from non-rijal books because we mentioned earlier that one can pick up signs
from anywhere when it comes to science of rijal, just like while writing tafseer, one does not
limit himself to the books of tafseer - maybe you will find a point in the book of hadith or
history or even philosophy! We may pick a point from philosophy which could help us
understand the verse better. Science of rijal is no different. So once general authentication is
understood, a rijali can authenticate a lot of people who were previously unknown to him (and
thus unreliable) and move them to the reliable category. It is therefore equally important as
specific authentication.
Some people may claim that while relying on statements from old scholars who authenticate,
for example, a group of ahadith (like Sheikh Saduq in his introduction to Man La Yahduruhu alFaqih, said all the ahadith in this book are hujjah between him and Allah), they are not really
authenticating chains but are only authenticating content.
However this is not true, because when we can go to old scholars quotation we will see clearly
that when they authenticate ahadith, they dont just look at the content, they also look at the
chains.
We can prove this from the following two quotations of old scholars:
1. Sheikh Saduq in Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih was speaking about a hadith that says whoever fasts on the day of Ghadir, it was as if he paid kaffarah for 60 years. After mentioning
this hadith, he said the hadith is weak because my teacher Ibn al-Waleed weakened it since it is
narrated by Mohammed ibn Musa al-Hamadani who is a liar and not reliable. And then he said,
everything my teacher weakened, I weakened too.
Reference: Sheikh Saduq in Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Vol. 2, Page 90-91, Hadith no. 1817
Thus we see that he is clearly talking about the chain and not the content.
2. Sheikh al-Tusi in al-Edda was speaking about scholars who came before him (he himself is
considered to be from the older scholars and he is talking about scholars before him). He says:
we have found old scholars distinguishing between reliable narrators and unreliable narrators,
authenticating narrators and weakening narrators, relying on authentic ahadith and not relying
on weak ahadith and distinguish narrators on whom we can rely on to take ahaidth from and
those who cannot (be relied on), those who are good and those who are bad and he continued
like this till the end, until he said: this was their habit from the old days until today and if it was
allowed for us to follow narrations from weak narrators, they wouldnt have done this.
Reference: Sheikh al-Tusi in al-Edda, vol. 1 page 141-142
17
The last statement is especially important as it shows that the old scholars used to accept
ahadith based on the narrators and their reliability.
18
b) Aisha: Again, Ibn Qulawayh has mentioned her only once. Secondly it was not a narration
through her; it was only a story wherein a person was saying something which Aisha said about
Imam Hussain (a.s). Thus it was not a narration that goes back to Aisha, it was actually a person
simply quoting Aisha.
c) Umar ibn Saad: Ibn Qulawayh narrated through him 9 times. However, according to
Allamah Amini and other scholars, they wrote his name incorrectly. The narrator is not Umar
ibn Saad but Amr ibn Saeed, and one can find Amr ibn Saeed narrating in Kamil al-Ziyaraat with
the same chain. The proof on which Allamah Amini relied on is that the narrator who narrates
from Amr ibn Saeed is Nasr ibn Muzahim, and he (Nasr ibn Muzahim) was not alive during the
days of Umar ibn Saad. Thus they are from two different times and could not meet each other.
d) Amr ibn Shimr: As mentioned earlier, Sheikh Jafar Subhani says we dont have a proof that
this narrator is reliable. What Sheikh Subhani said is true, for when we look at the books of rijal,
we dont find any signs that affirm his reliability. However the question one should ask is: Is
there any sign that indicates Amr ibn Shimr is weak? The answer is No! Having no proofs to
prove the something is incorrect. Also, one cannot use him as a refutation because while
authenticating specifically we see disagreement amongst scholars over the reliability of certain
narrators. One scholar considers a narrator X to be reliable, while other disagrees. Such
disagreements do not lessen the importance of specific authentication or any of the scholars
who are differing on the opinion of narrator X. After studying the differing opinions, we accept
the opinion of a scholar who we think has graded the narrator appropriately. We apply the
same logic with general authentication. The most we can say is that Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil alZiyaraat has value just like other scholars who authenticate narrators specifically, he is
authenticating people, but if its proven otherwise, we should only leave that particular
narrator aside. We can do the same with Amr ibn Shimr - at the most we can say that Amr ibn
Shimr is not reliable because of disagreement between Ibn Qawleweh who thinks he is reliable
while others do not. This does not mean that we should leave the whole of Kamil al-Ziyaraat
aside and consider all the other narrators to be unreliable as well.
Secondly, there are many signs that prove Amr ibn Shimr is reliable. Three of Ashabul Ijma
narrated from Amr ibn Shimr. Another sign is that either Sheikh Saduq or Tusi has a book called
al-Majalis, where he sat with Sunni and Shia scholars and he narrated two thirds of the book
through Amr ibn Shimr. Besides, it is enough that we have one authentication from Ibn
Qulawayh since it does happen sometimes that only one scholar authenticates a particular
narrator. Here we have Ibn Qulaway authenticating Amr ibn Shimr, and that should suffice.
e) al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bataeni and his father Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bataeni:
When one reads their biographies, one will come across a hadith from one of the Imams who
was speaking to al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Bataeni and was talking good things about his father Ali ibn
Abi Hamza and the Imam said that he will go to heaven. This left the scholars puzzled. We must
realize that we are dealing with 4 different people with the same names! The ones that are
mentioned in Kamil al-Ziyaraat are not the same as the other al-Bataeni narrators who are liars.
We come to know this through the following:
19
By Kamil al-Ziyaraat itself. The first sign is that the author Ibn Qulawayh states that he will
narrate only from reliable narrators
The second sign is that Ibn Qulawayh narrated 8 ahadith from al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Hamza and 12 ahadith from his father Ali ibn Abi Hamza, while narrating these 20 ahadith, he
never used the word al-Bataeni.
Also there is another authentic hadith where Imam Redha (a.s) has said that Ali ibn Abi
Hamza al-Bataeni is hell bound (Note: Imam said al-Bataeni)
After al-Bataeni was cursed, Shias left his hadith and did not narrate anything from him.
Ashabul Ijma have narrated from the non-Bataeni narrators.
Even if they are proven to be unreliable, it cannot be proven the same for Ibn Qulawayh. He
believed them to be reliable thus narrated those ahadith through them. If a scholar now has an
differing opinion regarding these narrators, it will simply be a case of disagreement between
scholars over narrator/s. One can disregard Ibn Qulawayh authentication for these narrators
but can still accept his authentication for the rest of them.
2) Only the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh are reliable.
However this is just a claim, it does not have a proof. Our assumption of people having such an
opinion is because of the refutations mentioned by scholars like Sheikh Jafar Subhani, while at
the same time trying to find a solution using Ibn Qulawayhs words of narrating only from
reliable narrators.
Thus, if we were to accept that all the narrators of Kamil al-Ziyaraat are reliable, we have 388
reliable narrators. If we were to accept that only the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh are reliable, we
are left with 32 reliable narrators.
20
21
b) Ismael al-Himyari: To understand the case of al-Himyari, we need to look at the story
behind Imam saying Rahimallah to al-Himyari. Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith was
speaking about al-Himyari. Imam Sadiq (a.s) was sitting and somebody came and read a poem
to him and the Imam cried, the Imam asked whose poem it was, they replied it was Sayyed ibn
Mohammed al-Himyaris. Imam Sadiq (a.s) said Rahimallah. The narrator said: But he drinks
wine. The Imam (a.s) said Rahimallah. The narrator said: He drinks restaq. The Imam asked: Do
you mean wine? The narrated replied: Yes. Then Imam said Rahimallah.
Reference: Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith, Vol. 4, Page 90-91, No. 1432
Thus Imam said Rahimallah thrice for al-Himyari.
Answer 1: However we only have two narrations that say Sayyed al-Himyari drinks wine and
both of them are weak. Sayyed al-Khoei admitted in the same source (Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith)
on page 94 that both the narrations are weak. Thus the objection of al-Himyari also cannot be
used against the concept of tarahhum.
Answer 2: The case of al-Himyari can actually be used to rely on tarahhum and not against it,
because if one reads the second narration that says al-Himyari drinks wine which is mentioned
in Manaqeb by Ibn Shaher Ashoob, we read: That a person came to Imam Sadiq (a.s) with a
poem and when Imam asked him whose poem it was, the man said it was al-Himyaris. Imam
(a.s) said: Rahimallah thrice. The person was surprised because al-Himyari drank wine, Imam
replied in the affirmative and said that once al-Himyari heard that the Imam cursed anybody
who drank wine, al-Himyari wrote a letter to the Imam and asked him whether he (Imam)
cursed him (al-Himyari) and the Imam replied in the affirmative, al-Himyari later repented and
told Imam that he will never drink wine henceforth.
Reference: Manaqeb by Ibn Shaher Ashoob, Vol. 3 Page 370
Thus we see that Imam said Rahimallah after al-Himyari repented, not while he was drinking
alcohol. However, this hadith is weak too but if al-Himyaris case is to be used against the
concept of tarahhum, all the ahadith should be taken together since all of them are weak
instead of relying and singling out one weak hadith.
c) Mohammed ibn Abdullah ibn Mohammed ibn Ubaidullah Ibn al-Bahlool: He is the teacher
of al-Najashi who al-Najashi said Rahimallah and at the same time said: My scholars weakened
him and I avoided him.
What is the story behind Ibn al-Bahlool? Al-Najashi in Rijal al-Najashi said: Ibn al-Bahlool
travelled to gain knowledge and he was accurate in the beginning of his life and later started to
mix. Ive seen a majority of our scholars weaken him..(and al-Najashi continued) while in the
end he said: He has seen him (Ibn al-Bahlool) and he has heard from him a lot, then stopped
narrating from him (Ibn al-Bahlool) without putting someone in between them.
Reference: al-Najashi in Rijal al-Najashi, Page 396, No: 1059
22
23
Note: Consider all the scholars who spoke about these people. Some say Abu Baseer al-Asadi
narrates only from reliable people, other scholars say Abu Baseer al-Moradi narrates only from
reliable people. Thus it leads to the same conclusion that both Abu Baseer al-Asadi and Abu
Baseer al-Moradi narrate only from reliable people and there is no conflict.
After al-Kishi, Sheikh al-Tusi spoke something similar about it. In his book, al-Edda, he was
talking about science of rijal and was speaking about connected and disconnected narrations.
He said: We do not accept disconnected narrations except from someone who is known and
does not narrate from unreliable narrators and because of this, Shias did not differentiate
between the connected ahadith and disconnected ahadith that is narrated from Mohammed
ibn Abi Omair, Safwan ibn Yahya, and Mohammed ibn Abi Nasr and others from those who are
known not to narrate from unreliable narrators. And because of that, all Shias accept the
disconnected ahadith that comes from those (He mentioned 3 of the 18 names from Ashabul
Ijma)
Reference: al-Edda by Sheikh al-Tusi, Vol. 1, Page 154
We have 3 main opinions on the statements by al-Kishi and al-Tusi stated earlier. What do they
mean? What did Shias agree on?
1. The first opinion: Shias agreed that ONLY those 18 people are reliable.
This opinion is incorrect because if it is accepted then what about Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dhar,
Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Hamza Thumali, Zakariya ibn Adam, al-Fadhl ibn Shadhan etc? Are there
disagreements on their reliability? No! They are all considered to be highly reliable.
There are many great fuqaha, scholars, narrators about whom there are no disagreements
whether or not they are reliable.
2. The second opinion: All Shias agreed that the content of those 18 people are acceptable.
Refutation: If we go to the book of fiqh, we wont find such an opinion. We find that many
people deny the ahadith of Zorarah, Safwan ibn Yahya, al-Hasan ibn Mahboub, and many other
names from Ashabul Ijma, because they find the content of those ahadith to be against Quran,
or majority of ahadith, or logic. Thus people do not accept every single ahadith that comes from
them, content-wise. Yes, they say it is a hujjah but if they find a stronger hujjah, they go with
the stronger hujjah. Thus, if people claim that all Shias accept the content of the ahadith
narrated by Ashabul Ijma, then in reality, is not the case.
Secondly, what do people mean when they say that they accept the hadith that comes from
those 18 people content-wise even if it is weak? They are trying to say that Ashabul Ijma do
narrate from weak and reliable people, they never said they do not narrate from weak people
however all Shias accepted the content of their ahadith because Ashabul Ijma compared their
hadith with Quran, with other ahadith hence they made ijtehaad and concluded that the
ahadith they narrate are true content-wise.
25
Thus we see that the people of second opinion are trying to say that the issue has nothing to do
with narrators being reliable or not, the content of their ahadith agrees with Quran, other
ahadith and logic, so if this proven, then we cannot use those names to authenticate the names
after them.
Answer: If one faqih says that a hadith is authentic because he compared it with Quran (even
though the hadith does not have a chain) and he believes that it is Sahih, can another faqih
accept it or should he make his own ijtehad? We all know that in Shia madhhab, our scholars
should make their own ijtehad, they should not do taqleed to other scholars. One mujtahid will
never rely on the ijtehad of another mujtahid. Thus it will be impossible that all Shia fuqaha
made taqleed to Ashabul Ijma when it comes to taking their narrations with respect to their
content.
Also, such an understanding - that of Ashabul Ijma doing their own ijtehad and later scholars
accepting their narrations based over it, do not fit the clear statement by Sheikh al-Tusi who
said that Ashabul Ijma are known not to have narrated anything from unreliable narrators.
3. The third opinion: The statement clearly means that those 18 or 22 people narrate only
from reliable narrators.
Sayyed ad-Damaad, Sheikh al-Bahai, Allamah Hilli, Bahr al-Oloom, Allamah Baqir Majlesi and
many other scholars, also said: The fact there is an agreement amongst Shias that those 18
people narrate only from reliable narrators, then this by itself is a proof.
26
27
from the elbows downwards or vice versa? We can claim that during the days of Imams (a.s),
everybody did wudhu pouring water down from the elbows and since Ahlulbayt (a.s) did not
object, we can say that Ahlulbayt (a.s) agreed with the method too.
The wudhu example is one from fiqh, whereas here (rijal) it is a different scenario. Here we are
talking about witnessing; we want people who witnessed that Ashabul Ijma only narrated from
reliable people. In this case, the witness of only one scholar is enough for example if alNajashi is the only scholar who authenticates a narrator, it will be hujjah. Now taking this a step
further, what if we get ijma over a narrator? This would mean a stronger hujjah!
Thus in this scenario, the opinion of Ahlulbayt (a.s) is not required. Just like when we visit
doctors, if all doctors advise you to stay away from certain kind of foods, such a type of ijma is
hujjah on you. They are scholars in their own field, not fiqh.
Since it is about witnessing even if only one person witnesses, it will be a hujjah. If there is ijma
over such a witness, it means it has a much stronger hujjah.
3. Claim: Nobody before al-Kishi mentioned that Ashabul Ijma narrate only from reliable
narrators, thus we cannot rely on al-Kishi.
Answer: While authenticating or weakening a narrator, sometimes a scholar (lets say alNajashi) says that many of our scholars have weakened him and we understand this statement
to be a sign and we weaken that narrator as well. Or when the scholar says many of our
scholars believe he is reliable, thus we consider the narrator to be reliable too. The important
point that needs to be noted here is that we dont know who those scholars are. However we
accept the authentication or the weakening of the narrator because we say that al-Najashi is a
reliable person and we believe in what he says. Thus, the same must be said about al-Kishi - we
think he is reliable and he says that all scholars believed in the reliability of those 18 people.
Thus we should accept it from him. It is the same logic, if we accept from al-Najashi, we should
accept it from al-Kishi too.
Secondly, we have to note that al-Kishi lived during the days of al-Kulayni (died 329), the same
year the minor occultation ended and the final safeer passed away. So this is a very early stage
in Shiism, it is therefore possible that al-Kishi took this claim from his teachers according to
what he says (He said: Our scholars which means his teachers). Thus he must have taken this
claim from his teachers who either met some of the 18 people or they met their students. If not
a direct claim, then they must have seen signs which must have indicated that Ashabul Ijma
narrate only from reliable narrators.
4. Claim: If it is a direct statement about Ashabul Ijma narrating only from reliable narrators,
then it is alright and one can rely on such a claim. However, if it comes from signs, then it
cannot be relied upon.
Answer: We should understand that actually in these cases, signs will be much stronger hujjah
than mere statements. Signs that come from reality are stronger than statements that come
29
from claims. What do we mean here? Lets take a look at some examples as a means of further
explanation:
a. Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari: He never said that he only narrates from reliable
narrators however when one studies his nature, his lifestyle we can clearly see that he would
narrate only from reliable narrators. If one reads his biography given by Sayyed al-Khoei, we
come across an incident where Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari expelled Ahmed ibn
Mohammed ibn Khalid al-Burqi from Qom since he (al-Burqi) narrated from weak narrators.
Looking at this incident/sign, we can conclude that Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari
himself would not narrate from weak narrators, lest somebody expels him out too. Also, we can
add what Sayyed al-Khoei said about al-Ashari. Sayyed al-Khoei said that he (al-Ashari) did not
narrate from Ibn Mahboub because some people criticized Ibn Mahboub, also he did not
narrate from Abu Hamza Thumali because.
Thus it is possible that Ashabul Ijma did something similar and their students and other scholars
noted such signs and concluded that they only narrate from reliable narrators.
b) Another proof is al-Najashi himself. al-Najashi when speaking about certain narrator said that
he (the narrator) heard ahadith and in the end of his life started to mix ahadith, and he was my
friend and friend of my father. I heard from him a lot but Ive seen my teachers weakening him
and because of that I avoided him even though he was from the people
In the example seen above, we notice that he did not narrate from that narrator simply because
his teachers weakened the narrator. Thus we see that al-Najashi himself never narrated from
unreliable people. He himself never claimed it and there is no direct statement or claim, it is
however based on signs. In the same way, al-Kishi or his teachers did not record any direct
statement, but they knew based on some signs that Ashabul Ijma did not narrate from
unreliable narrators.
30
31
32
33
34
If this is proven (what al-Dhahabi said about Baqiyyah), then Baqqiyah is not reliable. Then alDhahabi adds this has been proven that Baqqiyah does this, so does Walid ibn Muslim and so
do many of our big scholars and it is a major mistake by them.
*NOTE: What does making tadlees from a weak narrator mean?
It means that the one who wants to make tadlees does not mention the name of the weak
narrator (or changes the name of the weak narrator) from whom hes narrating. He does this
because he wishes to trick people. If he mentioned the (real) name of the weak narrator, other
scholars will not accept the hadith from him.
Sometimes the person does tadlees with a reliable narrator. Why? Because if somebody (X)
does not like a certain narrator (Y), then he will not take the hadith from that narrator (Y) even
if that person (Y) is reliable. So the person who does tadlees skips the name of the person (Y)
while narrating a hadith to X.
Some of the companions also made tadlees. Lets look at some of the quotations by Sunni
scholars talking on this subject.
Ibn Katheer said: Shuba said that Abu Hurayrah used to make tadlees by narrating what he has
heard from Kaab al-Ahbar and what he heard from Prophet (s) without distinguishing them (so
he will tell you something from Kaab by saying that he heard from the Prophet). One day they
questioned Abu Hurayrah about a hadith : Whoever woke up in the days of Ramadhan in the
state of Janaba, then there is no fasting for him. People said did you really hear it from him
(Prophet)? Then they kept questioning him till he admitted that somebody else told him about
it, not the Prophet.
Reference: al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah for Ibn Katheer, Vol. 8 Page 117-118
(Thus, we see clearly Abu Hurayrah making tadlees. He claimed to have heard from the Prophet
when in fact it was from someone else).
Then Shuraiq said that al-Mughira said that Ibrahim said: Many of our scholars did not accept
the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, some accepted it but only when it had something to do with the
description of jannah and hell or the advices that you have to do in good things or the advices
that you have to avoid.
Reference: al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. 2 Page 608-609, and added that there is a
lot of tadlees in the level of ashaab.
Thus there are many from the companions who made tadlees, according to al-Dhahabi.
al-Hakim said: I have mentioned the 6 types of tadlees so that the students of science of rijal
will understand them but I wouldnt like to mention the names of scholars who make this type
of tadlees because I want to protect the hadith and the narrators.
Reference: Al Hakim in al-Marifat al-Uloom al-Hadith, Page 111
35
al-Dhahabi said: And it is known that we have to protect the narrators and this door on
ourselves, only a minority will survive because the majority do not know what they narrate and
they dont know those rules, the only thing they did was that they heard the hadith when they
were young and we needed the hadith when they became older.
Reference: Mizan al-Etidal by al-Dhahabi, Vol. 1 Page 4
al-Dhahabi also spoke about scholars accusing each other and then he said that we should not
rely on such accusations i.e. when scholars talk against each other and concluded: We should
not rely on al-Thawri when he accused Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa and we should not rely on
Ibn Mueen when he accused al-Shafi. And we should not rely on al-Nisaei when he accused
Ahmad and if we do this (if we rely on such accusations), no one will survive from our Imams
because all the Imams were accused by somebody else.
Thus, the conclusion we get from the statements above is that all their scholars are accused by
other Sunni scholars, their big names in rijal as well as the companions did tadlees and now
have resorted to hiding information and details to protect their science of hadith.
Dhahabi said: Every now and then, I see a reliable narrator who is being accused by another
scholar and if we open this door to ourselves, many of the companions and the tabein and the
imams will enter this door because some of the companions accused each other of being kaffir.
And there are many scholars who lived with each other at the same time, and when they
accuse each other we should not take this and we should hide it and not narrate it.
Reference: al- Dhahabi in al-Riwat al-Thiqat, Page 23
Dhahabi (while talking about scholars who lived with each other and accuse each other) said:
We should not rely on those accusations and hide and not narrate them just like when we
should hide the things that happened amongst the companions and the battles with each
other, and every now and then I see in our books, in our pages many of these things. And we
should hide it and destroy it so that the hearts will be living again. And it is wajib for everybody
to hide and not to talk about these things.
Reference: al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. 10 Page 92
36
37