جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "rijāl science" در نشریات گروه "علوم قرآن و حدیث"

Among the criteria of Muslim Hadith scholras in the evaluation of Hadiths has been the examining of its narrators and chain of the narrators. Despite the great fans of the science of the Rijal and the studies of the Hadith narrators, some Muslim scholars also opposed it for various reasons. One of these reasons is the skepticism about the reality of the Rijal scholars' assessments of the narrators. These doubts are exacerbated when there is a contradiction between the content of the Hadiths left by the narrator and the Rijal data. Ishaq ibn Muhammad al-Ahmar al-Nakha'i is one of the Shiite narrators who has been weakened by the early Rijal scholars mainly due to the corruption of his religion and his affiliation with the Shiite Ghulat movement. This article aims to evaluate the realism of the reports of the Rijal in a library way and by referring to the data in non-Rijal sources such as the works of sectarianism and the works of non-Shiite Muslims as well as analyzing the data of the Imami Shiite scholars of Rijal. The result of this study is the confirmation of Rijal data with the historical facts of the early centuries.

Sahl ibn Ziyad Adami, nicknamed Razi, is one of the transmitters of many Shia hadiths. This transmitter has understood the presence of Imam Javad, Imam Hadi, and Imam Hasan Asgari (pbuh). Many traditions have been narrated from this transmitter; for example, Kuleini narrated more than 150 cases directly from Sahl ibn Ziyad in his Kafi book. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding their reliability and lack of reliability. The importance of this study shows that despite the fact that Sahl ibn Ziyad is one of the transmitters of many hadiths and many hadiths have been narrated from him in Kāfī book, most of the jurists have weakened Sahl ibn Ziyad and do not trust his hadiths before Muhaqiq Behbahani.However, Muhaqiq Bihbahani in his "ta'liqat on Manhaj al-Maqal", p. 176 and the book of Masabih al-Zilam, vol. 2, p. 496, seeks to prove the reliability of Sahl ibn Ziyad. After Muhaqiq Behbahani, many researchers have believed in his reliability or at least the validity of his traditions. The question is, what is the basis of weakening Sahl ibn Ziyad? Are these weaknesses true about him? Are the validations made about Sahl ibn Ziyad defensible? The importance of this study is that proving the reliability of Sahl ibn Ziyad or lack of it will have an important impact on the field of Shia religious and jurisprudential education.

In order to achieve this goal, a Isnad and a descriptive and analytical method, and in some cases, a comparative method have been used. Following the views of Rijal books such as Rijāl Ghada'iri, Rijāl Shaykh Tusi, Rijāl Najashi, Rijāl Kashshī, and… we carefully examined the different views about Sahl ibn Ziyad and by comparing them, we explained the basis of the viewpoint of validating and weakening of Sahl ibn Ziyad and the reason for his weaknesses.

By following the words of thinkers and the books of Rijali, we concluded that if we understand the reasons for the weakening of Sahl ibn Ziyad in the words of some great ones such as Kashshī, Ibn Walid, Shaykh Tusi, Ghada'iri, and Najashi, then we can explain their words. For example, Najashi in this sentence: "Kan Zaifa fi Hadith…" (He was very weak in hadith) did not consider Sahl ibn Ziyad to be weak, but attributed the weakness to his hadiths, which shows that he does not accept his method of narrating hadiths, and the phrase «غیر معتمد فیه» (He is unreliable) also indicates the unreliability of Sahl ibn Ziyad in hadiths. Many researchers have come to the phrase «ضعیف فی الحدیث» (weak in hadith) to refer to weakness and trust in messengers. For example, Sahib Jawahar says that Najashi said about Sahl that he is weak in hadith, and Ibn Ghada'iri also said that he narrates weak hadith and relies on the traditions of the messengers. These words do not contradict the validation of Sheikh Tusi and Allameh, because these taunts are about his traditions and not Sahl ibn Ziyad himself. It seems that if the bases of validating and weakening are explained correctly, proving the reliability of Sahl is not a difficult task. The main reason for not attesting to Sahl is his weakening by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa Ash'ari, which is a reflection of Qomiein's strict view on "extremism" (Ghuluww); but this view has no scientific basis and is not accepted and confirmed by all the scholars of jurists. Therefore, the weakening that is based on it is also not accepted. In addition, there is much evidence on the reliability of Sahl, the most important of which are: the abundance of traditions about Sahl in important books such as Kafi, the abundance of quotes from great figures, the validation of Sahl ibn Ziyad and his reliability by the contemporary scholars such as Imam Khumeini (ra), Ayatullah Araki, Ayatullah Shubairi Zanjani, and Ayatullah Sobhani. Therefore, despite the accusations and weaknesses that have been made about Sahl, considering the much evidence on his reliability Sahl ibn Ziyad can be considered reliable and his traditions can be trusted, and because of the existence of Sahl ibn Ziyad in the document of a tradition, that tradition cannot be considered invalid.

By following the words of intellectuals and the books of Rijali, I reached the fact that the important reason for weakening Sahl ibn Ziyad Adami by the early scholars is the reflection of their strict view and narrow definition of "extremism" (Ghuluww), but the later scholars had a more extensive definition and different opinions about Ghuluww. Therefore, they defended the reliability of Sahl ibn Ziyad and considered him trustworthy, and accepted the traditions narrated by Sahl ibn Ziyad. Thus, based on the strictness of his predecessors, he is considered a hypocrite, but based on the extended definition of his early and later scholars, he is reliable. This research considers the second point of view to be fairer according to the investigation and it cannot be considered invalid just because of the existence of Sahl in the narrative document.

Historicity or trans-historicity of the Quran and Islamic law is a highly controversial issue in the contemporary era. One of the narrations cited by advocates of the eternity of Sharia is the hadith "whatever Muḥammad, the Prophet, has made lawful will remain lawful forever up to the Day of Judgement, and whatever he has made unlawful will remain unlawful forever up to the Day of Judgement"; it has been narrated in different forms in both Shia and Sunni hadith sources. In the same way, in the al-Kāfī book, the hadith phrase has been used in two different narrations. One of them refers to the eternity of the Prophet's teachings and rejects false innovations. The other deals with the non-abrogation of Islam, contrary to the previous religions. Still, recently ayatollah Hiydarī, one of the religious intellectuals, has claimed that none of these two hadiths has a sound (ṣaḥīḥ) isnad, and the hadith phrase is only a famous statement that has been on everyone's lips. In his opinion, some scholars' verdict on the authenticity of the phrase is only due to their trust in the earlier scholars and it was not based on its isnad analysis. The hadith phrase has a crucial role in the eternity of sharia. Also, its isnad's analysis is important in making sure that it is a quotation of the infallible Imam. So, using a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims to examine and analyze only the isnads of the two above mentioned traditions. Still, the investigation of their denotation, as well as their relationship to the subsidiary and jurisprudence subjects has been left to another research. The findings suggest that although there are different views about the validity of most of the narrators of these two isnads, based on various proofs, all of them are authenticate and Imami authorities. As a result, both of the hadiths have ṣaḥīḥ isnads.

Abdullah Ibn Khidāsh Al-Mahrī (Al-Basrī) was one of the compiler narrators whose narrations have been reflected in Al-Kāfī, Tahzīb Al-Ahkām and other hadith collections. He was accused of exaggeration by Najāshī, while was authenticated by Sheikh Kashī. In addition, he was among hadith masters of Safwān Ibn Yahyā, being consequently subject to common authenticity. Evaluating Ibn Khidāsh’s position among the narrators accused of exaggeration in Najāshī’s Rijāl, this study carefully examined the rijālī scholars’ statements about him and analyzed the sanads and texts of his narrations. It concluded that Ibn Khidāsh belongs to those narrators directly accused of exaggeration by Najāshī. In contrast, in terms of Ibn Khidāsh’s narrations, there is no sentence of exaggeration. So it may conclude that his narrations, if we accept his exaggeration, were not been well selected and refined. In addition, considering the existence of jurisprudential narrations from him, which is against allowance (ibāhi), as well as some of his doctrinal narrations that are in opposition to the beliefs of exaggerators, it may cast doubt on his accusation of exaggeration. Finally, his narrations also have confirmations, i.e. the presence of Ibn Khidāsh in the sanad of these narrations does not cause rejecting such narrations.

While investigating the isnads, 1) various titles of the same narrator and 2) the homonymous state of a name for different cases are among the obstacles against realizing the identity of the narrators. This study aims at knowing the title Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far. This name has been mentioned with different epithets in the isnad of traditions. Since only Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Ja‘farī was mentioned and authenticated in the early rijal books, the unity (and homonymy) of other epithets with it will cause the authentication of them. According to investigations done in this essay, the epithets of al-Ju‘fī, al-Jawharī, al-Ḥimyarī are shared with Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Ja‘fari. The absolute al-Ja‘farī (with no affix-like additions namely, neither preceded nor followed by something), when narrating from Imam Riḍā (the 8th Shi’a Imam) is this very same narrator. Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Marwazī is a muṣaḥḥaf (misspelling, misreading, etc.) of Sulaymān ibn Ḥafṣ al-Marwazī. Therefore, the absolute version of Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far would be a narrator homonymous with al-Baṣrī and al-Ja‘farī. It seems, however, that Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far - when mentioned without an indication (qarīna) - naturally means al-Ja‘farī.

Mojam Rijāl al-Hadith, written by Ayatollah Sayyid Abu al-Qasim Khoei, is more recent than other Shi'ite Rijāli communities, and therefore contains the latest and most important Shia Rijāl topics and views that are explored and reviewed by the author.  In this paper, attempts have been made to delve into the principles specific to Ayatollah Khoei. These principles can be categorized into two general categories. The first is concerned with how resources are used along with issues such as the credibility of sources, certainty about the issuance of Rijāl propositions, reliance on Shiite and first-hand sources, and lack of authenticity of non-Shi'ite sources. The second deals with understanding the terms discussed in these sources and their interpretation strategy, as well as issues such as consistency of Takhlit, vice, and the phrase “Yoraf and Yonkar” with the narrator's credibility, the invalidation of justice, the necessity of reputation and the trustworthiness of the manipulator or adjustor, the credibility of historical eminence in alteration and the verification of the narrator’s authenticity by “Maskūn alā Revāyateh” and “Sahih al-Hadith”.

Najashi and Sheikh Tusi are among the most famous Shi'ite religious scholars. Following the establishment of the Hilla school and the validation of the Hadith based on the document, the views of Rajali Najashi and Sheikh Tusi were of great importance. Najashi and Sheikh Toosi, according to the duty of science of Rijal, which is the determination of the reliability and weakness of the narrators, have referred to some of their admonitions in their books. But sometimes they are confused about the credibility and weakness of a narrator. In this regard, this paper, by analytical-descriptive method, attempts to investigate how Asif-Mohsseni exposed and interacts with contemporary religious scholars with these contradictions. Finally, it was concluded that the way of dealing with the conflicts of Najashi and Sheikh Tusi is not based on a rule or law, but depends on the inference and confidence that exists for the mujtahid and the religious scholars. Meanwhile, there is no strong reason to prefer Najashi's views on Sheikh Tusi, and how the interaction with the narrators varies according to the certainty that the researcher achieves.