جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « راوی » در نشریات گروه « علوم قرآن و حدیث »

The diversity of Islamic sects, beliefs, and rulings has had various effects on the scientific and practical lives of Muslims. One of these effects is the determination of the narrator's attributes in Hadith, which emphasizes that the narrator must adhere to the sect from which he or she received the Hadith and should not be an innovator since every sect considers other sects as innovators. But what is the concept of innovation? And is it acceptable to narrate from an innovator among all sects? What are the reasons for those who agree or disagree with narrating from an innovator? In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method and library research, we examine this principle in terms of narrator's attributes and Hadith narration and answer these questions along with discussing some related topics such as mentioning some innovator narrators in Shia and Sunni ways. As a result, it has been determined that despite some opponents' refusal to narrate from innovators, most Islamic sects absolutely or conditionally quote them since without their Hadiths, many sects' Hadith heritage would significantly decrease. Furthermore, there are differences in the meaning and examples of innovation to such an extent that it is impossible to determine its precise meaning and example unanimously. Therefore, it cannot be considered a real criticism for a narrator regardless of his or her belief or action; rather, his or her truthfulness or falsehood should be considered important.

Ayatollah Muslim Dauri is one of the contemporary scholars in the seminary of Qom. In addition to his role in Al-Rijal al-Hadith Khoi's collection, he has two independent research works containing specialized topics on the benefits and rules of Rijal science. Professional research is in response to the question of whether or not there is a coherent and systematic epistemic system or the so-called "Rajali theory" of arbitration. If we consider "foundations, methods and opinions" as the sides of a theory, as evidenced by the results of this unprecedented analytical descriptive research, it has the characteristics of a royal theory. Clear concepts, precise definitions, coherent bases in proving the authenticity of a single news and the need for Rizal, determining the scope of the validity of Rizal's sayings, explaining the methodology of hadith validation, evaluating the important sources of Rizal, lexicography of Rizal's descriptions and rules and issuing ijtihadi opinions, the epistemic geometry of Rizal's judgment. it shows.

Scholars of rijāl science have used the term “weak” to describe some transmitters. The introduction of a transmitter as weak by rijāl science scholars have caused our thinkers to treat the traditions of these transmitters differently. In the narrative and jurisprudential books of the Shī‘a, weak transmitters’ traditions have been treated in two ways. Some have taken the weakness of a transmitter as a sufficient reason to abandon his traditions, while many Ḥadīth scholars have included the traditions of weak transmitters in their Ḥadīth collections. These two different ways of treating the weak transmitters’ traditions lead to the hypothesis that the concept of weakness was not deemed by our early rijāl scholars as a sufficient reason for abandoning traditions.

The current main perception about the weakness of transmitter advocates abandoning such a transmitter’s traditions. However, the method adopted by Ḥadīth scholars in the early Ḥadīth sources and collections indicates that the Ḥadīth scholars accept the tradition of a transmitter whose ḥadīths can be trusted. Sometimes the narrator suffers weakness due to some reasons, but his book or tradition is trustable. Thus, their final decision is “trusting the transmitter’s tradition.” This does not mean that for the early rijāl scholars the weakness of transmitter has not been important; rather, the concept of weakness should have meant differently from abandonment decree.In the book al-Kāfī, Kulaynī has mentioned numerous traditions from weak transmitters. That is, he has not deemed the weakness of a transmitter as the weakness of tradition. Some jurisprudents, too, have taken the tradition of a weak transmitter as valid and capable of being used as the criterion for action. Riḍā Hamidānī, Muḥaqqiq Sabziwārī, Sheikh Anṣārī, Burūjirdī, and Ḥākīm do not take the weakness of transmitter as a factor to invalidate the tradition. Consequently, it is necessary to review the concept of weakness systematically and using description and analysis of data. It is essential to answer the question that despite the consideration of some transmitters as weak in the Shī‘a rijāl books, why a huge volume of their traditions have found their way into our tradition collections.

With regard to the entrance of weak transmitters in tradition collections, two points need to be taken into account: the transmitter’s role and the exception phenomenon. The examination of transmitters’ conditions shows that a transmitter can have two roles: (1) He can be the author of a work, or (2) he can be the narrator of others’ works. Of course, the transmitter can have both roles simultaneously, that is, while he is the owner of a Ḥadīth work, he can be the transmitter of others’ Ḥadīth works as well.
The Shī‘a rijāl scholars have completely taken these two aspects into account, and have ruled that the word “weak” pertains to a transmitter who owns the intended Ḥadīth work.Concerning the exception phenomenon, it should be maintained that in the Shī‘a rijāl books, the exception phenomenon has been divided into four types: exception of pupils, exception of masters, exception of a specific part of one or some Ḥadīth works of the intended transmitter, or exception of a specific part of the intended concepts. Moreover, there is a consideration for the exception of the transmitter’s corruption time as well. One of the accurate viewpoints held by rijāl scholars is that they do not generalize their stance to and treatment of a weak transmitter to all his works. For instance, if the transmitter has experienced opinion changes during his lifetime, the rijāl scholars do not make a general judgment about all his works; they rather separate the traditions he has transmitted during his steadfast and corrupt periods.In the light of the types of transmitter roles and exception phenomenon in rijāl science, two results are obtained:From the viewpoint of rijāl scholars, a weak transmitter can have a ṣaḥīḥ tradition. Ṭūṣī states, “If a tradition does not have any indication of ṣiḥat, we do not accept it, but if it has signs of ṣiḥat, we accept it even if its transmitter is weak” (Ṭūsī, 1403 AH, vol. 1: 151).A weak transmitter can be authentic in the transmitting of works.Therefore, since some traditions of weak transmitters enjoyed indications of ṣiḥat and were deemed as obligatory to be put into practice, they found their way into our tradition collections, and other traditions that did not have any indication of ṣiḥat were not included in these books. Thus, it is possible for a transmitter to be weak but whose traditions be deemed as valid. This issue conflicts with the concept of weakness, which means abandoning traditions.

The existence of a weak transmitter in valid sources demonstrates that the transmitter weakness does not mean abandoning and rejecting his traditions in an absolute manner. Thus, in order to attain a true understanding of the concept of weakness in the five rijāl books of the Shī‘a, we addressed the reason for the existence of traditions of weak transmitters in Ḥadīth collections. The results indicated that since some traditions of weak transmitters enjoyed ṣiḥat indications that made putting them into practice as obligatory, they have found their way into our tradition collections, and other traditions that were void of ṣiḥat indications were not included in those collections. Therefore, it is possible for a transmitter to be weak but whose traditions be valid. This view is different from taking weakness as meaning a sufficient reason to reject a weak transmitters’ traditions. In fact, the weakness of the transmitter is kullī mushakkik and it is strongable and vulnerable.

One of the most used expressions in the ancient books of Rejal science is the expression of "mixing" and its other derivatives. The meaning of this word was clear to the ancients; For this reason, they have not given an explanation about it, but with the passing of time and the disappearance of evidence, this expression became ambiguous; In such a way that later scholars differed in its definition. Some have considered it to mean the corruption of belief, and others have considered it to mean the combination of authentic narrations and non authentic narrations. According to the important role of this expression in the validation of narrators and the ambiguities in its explanation, it seems necessary to provide a comprehensive research in order to resolve the existing ambiguities. In this article, which was carried out with the aim of identifying the concept of mixing in the words of the ancients of Islamic scholars, the various uses of this word and its other derivatives in the books of the ancients were analyzed and investigated by descriptive- analytical method and with the help of library data. Mixing means narrating authentic and non-authentic narrations by a narrator, which in most cases is rooted in his corruption of his believes.

Central justice and the avoidance of any prejudice should be one of the most important principles in the critique and review of texts. But has this principle been taken into account in Rejali critiques? Or has religious prejudice worked in this area and prevented some Rejaliyan from telling the truth? This article aims to evaluate the influence of Shiite narrators on Sunni Rejali criticisms in their authoritative Rejali books and has been written with a descriptive-analytical method, and with numerous evidences, states that many Sunni Rejaliyoun criticisms of Shiite narrators with religious orientation and Sectarian and anti-Shiite prejudice has taken place and has proved that among some Sunni Rejaliyoun, Shiism is a weakness for narrators and in many cases has even overshadowed the stability, goodness and justice of the narrators.

Contrary to the prevailing current in the science of rijāl, al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī used the phrase asnada ‘anhu in the biography of over 300 companions of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq (A.S.) as well as a few companions of other Imāms without giving any explanation of what he meant by it while such phrase cannot be seen in any other Shiite book on rijāl―except for a few that followed Shaykh in this regard. Despite that, some hold that this phrase conveys trustworthiness and praiseworthiness of the transmitter. Since that phrase is used by Shaykh in several cases, it seems necessary to evaluate all opinions stated with regard to the meaning of it first, and find out whether it can convey trustworthiness of the transmitter secondly. Taking an analytical approach, this essay finds that, firstly, there is no incontrovertible evidence to determine any of those stated opinions with regard to the phrase asnada ‘anhu and Shaykh, himself, is the only one who knows what he has meant by it, and, secondly, that phrase can in no way convey authenticity―let alone praiseworthiness―of the transmitter.

Studying the degree of authenticity of the transmitters of hadith is among the oldest hadith investigations, called ‘Ilm al-Rijāl. Among the contemporaries, Muhammad Baqir Behboudi has mentioned the weak transmitters in his Ma‘rifat al-Hadith and named 150 of hadith transmitters as ḍu‘fā (the weak) and then undertaken to state their weak aspects. This research is intended to study the transmitters who have been weakened in Ma‘rifat al-Hadith and find the principles and criteria for the invalidation of transmitters in view of the author of the book. The investigations indicate that such instances as the content of the traditions or the book quoted from the transmitter, the weakness of the narrators or the persons from whom the hadith has been narrated (marwī ‘anh), attribution of fabricated hadith to the transmitter are among the factors of weakening the transmitters of hadith in this book. Since familiarity with the criteria and standards of the rijāl experts in invalidation or declaring trustworthy (al-jarḥ wa al-ta‘dīl) of the narrators is essential for proper understanding, interpreting, judgment concerning their statements and procedure, the present article, while enumerating the author’s criteria and standards in calling the transmitters of hadith as weak, has undertaken to judge some of the evidences denoting the weakness of the transmitter in his opinion.

According to historical evidence, Medina is the birthplace and home of the Shiite, but it has never been a center of the Shia. In the other words, Medina isn’t a Shiite town originally, but it doesn’t mean that the people of Medina have no tendency to Ahl al-Bayt. But rather there have been emotional desire and political and scientific tendency in different levels. This article attempts to decode the tendency of people of Medina to Imams, after demise of the prophet until the noble life of Imam Ali (40 AH); obviously this is reflected in the tendency to Imam Ali. It has been explored in various ways by researcher. This paper studies the origin of narrators of Medina, who narrated the Hadith from Imam Ali to prove tendency of Medinas people. As a result, the discovery of approximate equality between narrators of Medina and all of narrators, proves the acceptable attitude of narrators of Medina towards Imam Ali's Hadith.

Ibn al-Ghazāeri and al-Najāshi are assumed to be rijāl scholars of early era whose thoughts have undoubtedly affect on rijāl scholars of late era. Ibn al-Ghazāeri was dependent to rijāli views of Qom’s Hadith narrators. Analyzing their rijāli perspectives indicates a sort of similarities between them. This point results from especially describing and introducing narrators in his Kitāb al-rijāl. Meantime, cooperation of al-Najjāshi and Ibn al-Ghazāeri and their use of narrators such as Hossein Ibn Obeidallāh al-Ghazāeri, the father of Ibn al-Ghazāeri, illustrates that they have similar views in terms of their rijali method and manner. Beside their identical views about substantial issues, we can point to the influence of Ibn al-Ghazāeri on al-Najashi. Comparing these two rijāli scholars on the basis of their significant works shows their approach to Ijtihād rather than their reliance on observation when stating rijali aspects of narrators. In addition to their matching viewpoints such as their scholarly views, opposition with some Qomi narrators, the difference between validity of narrator and their Hadith, al-Najāshi and Ibn al-Ghazāeri are similar in their citation of famous theory of jarh and tadil (disparagement and crediting of narrators of Hadith). There also found to be some differences between these two scholars’ ideas. Obvious instances of these differences can be found in their opposing rijāli views. For example, Ibn al-Ghazāeri is strict in expression of rijāli views which is formed on Qomi narrators’ rijāli views, while al-Najjāshi is more moderate even in disparagement of narrators.

Mingling of Mahdism with warp and woof of Shiites life and having decisive belief in the Mahdi of the last era (Armageddon) is the conclusion of the infallible Imams extensive efforts to establishing Mahdism. To know the authentic Mahdism traditions would help us to get acquainted with this fundamental notion and its basic axis and pivot.
Mofazzal-ibn-omar is one of the narrators who have narrated numerous narrations from Imam Sadiq (A.S) in the field of Mahdism. In addition to recognizing the narrators, knowing Mofazal-ibn-Omar is necessary from two aspects: his abundant narrations from one side, and his being taunted from the other side. This incompatibility and instantaneous vicissitudes has made it difficult to study and analyze his character and personality. These heterogeneous approaches and judgments in the book of Rijal (Transmitters of Hadith) made me to clear the dust of ambiguity and even accusation from his presence.

The present text is a critical review of the book " al Mouduat fil Akhbar wal Athar " written by Ashim Ma`ruf al Hasani. The above mentioned book is a contemporary work which is concerned with fabricated hadiths and is criticized at length by this paper. The author of this paper tries to prove that though some inter- and intra- religious conspiracies have polluted the field of hadith scholarship but it does not mean that all the hadith collections are filled with fabricated hadiths and those who carefully studied hadith books in order to find fabricated hadiths, could not find many radical fabricated hadiths. Lack of high precision and transparency of principles and also lack of criteria for finding fabricated haiths and carelessness in finding examples for these criteria have led to unscientific and wrong judgments concerning these hadiths.