Introduction to Hadith Studies

LESSON NINE
The General Authentications or
Corrections
•Scholars of consensus
•The three MORSAL or unlinked
•The four books
• These are the narrations which have
been generally corrected by great
scholars of Hadith. And these
narrations can be classified in three
types:
1 The narrations of narrators corrected
or authenticated by scholars by
consensus (‘Ijma)
2 The correction of the three unlinked
narrator’s narrations Ibn Umair,
Safwan ibn Yahya, Ahmed ibn al-
Bezentian.
3 The correction of the four books
 Correction of the scholar of consensus
KASHI mentioned in his book of Rajaal that
our scholars unanimously agreed and are in
consensus for considering the narrations of 18
narrators from the companions of Imam (as) as
authentic.
1 6 companions of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq
(as) among them are Zorarah ibn Ayun,
Fodhayl ibn Yasaar and Abu Baseer.
2 6 companions of Imam As-Sadiq (as) among
them is Jameel ibn Darraj.
3 6 companions of Imam Al-Kadhim and Ar-
Radha (as). Among these companions are 3
authors of unlinked narrations: Safwan ibn
Yahya, Mohammad ibn Abu Umair, and
Ahmed ibn al-Bezenty.
• Most of these 18 narrators were praised by the
infallibles (as).
 Possibility of correction:
There is confusion regarding what is
meant by the corrections of the above 18
narrators and this statement can be
summed up into three different
possibilities:
1 Consider every narration narrated by
them is considered correct either directly
by the Imam (as) or indirectly through
other narrators, to be correct.
2 Consider only narrations narrated by
them directly to be correct.
3 Consider whoever narrates anything by
them as saheeh (correct).
• Narrator (Link)  Scholar of consensus
(link)  Imam
• Based on the first opinion the whole chain
from the scholar of consensus to the Imam
(as) is excluded from verification or
justification.
• Based on the second opinion the whole chain
narrated by them goes under the process of
verification except for the scholars of
consensus (only the scholars of consensus are
excluded from the process of justification or
verification.)
• Based on the third opinion the link between
the narrator who narrates from the scholar of
consensus and from the later to the infallible
(as), are all excluded both links pre and post
of the scholar of consensus. (who narrates
(conveys) to him and who receives from him)
• Narrator (Link)  Scholar of consensus
(link)  Imam
• The second opinion can be more
acceptable because if they are trusted
then only them are excluded from
authentication , and the narrators
before them or after them require
investigation and authentication.
• But there is a debate whether to
consider those 18 narrators trusted
without any authentication relying on
EJMAA of the scholars regarding
their authentication. Therefore even
these narrators of consensus require
investigation too.
 Type of ‘Ijma (the consensus)
1 Some said that the type of EJMAA of
scholars regarding the 18 narrators
justification is the type of legal and
valid ‘Ijma which includes the
infallible (as) amongst them, because
some of the narrators are verified by
the infallibles (as). Therefore such
consensus is from the one which
indicates the acknowledgement Imam
(AS).
(many scholars consider the EJMAA
proof if it indicates the existence of
Imam (AS) amongst the scholars of
EJMAA.)
2 It is a consensus of an opinion
of few scholars and does not
necessarily indicate the
existence of the infallible (as)
among the those scholars of
EJMAA ,and this kind of
EJMAA or an agreement of
the scholars was after the
minor occultation in the time
of Sheikh Mufid.
3 The corrections of the scholars of
consensus are not valid, this is the
opinion of most of the recent
scholars on top of them was S. Al-
Khoe. We do not have the clues,
criteria of authentication in
which they relied in their
authentication which lead to such
consensus and agreement
between them so we can not just
go ahead and rely on their
consensus. Therefore the base of
their ‘Ijma is unknown which
makes it ineffective to us.
The authentication of the three
unlinked (Mursal)
There is no doubt that these three were
very well-trusted and authentic source of
the narrations, and if they narrate directly
from the infallible (as) it is accepted as
proof. But we do not know that the link
between them and the infallibles (as), and
we do not know what was their criterion of
defining the trusted or their means of
justification. This is why the recent
scholars do not issue fatwa (verdict) just
based on there unlinked narrations even
though those three are trusted.
• But previous scholars based their
fataws (verdicts) on these Mursal
Hadiths because they used to say
that a trusted person narrates
always through or from a trusted
narrator, he investigates before he
narrates . But the recent scholars
prefer to verify those links, because
such narrators investigation may be
his deduction and intellectual work,
and since some links are missing,
these Hadiths are classified as the
unlink Hadiths.
The correction of the four books
It was said that whatever is narrated in these
four books by those trustworthy great
authors of these books of Hadith such as Al-
Kafi, are considered saheeh (correct). But
the process of verification done by these
great scholars, authors of these books, was
based upon their ‘Ijtehad and every jurist is
responsible of verifying the authentication of
each narrator and narration, as same the
previous author jurists did.
• There were many points of support about
‘correcting the Hadiths’ of these four books.
Many of these points were weak and easily
debated, but one of the strongest supporting
point is that the great scholars of those 4
books clearly mentioned that the Hadiths they
narrate were correct and true, and these
authors are very well trusted and pious, so
should we rely on their words, due to the
principle :”the word of the trusted (or Just) is
proof”. Or it was their personal deduction and
every mujtahid should perform their own
‘Ijtehad. So when they mention that it is
correct and true hadeeth, then it is based on
their investigation.
• So the main point of debate as in the
previous discussions (the three Mursals
and the scholars of ‘Ijma) that should we
consider these three great authors:
1 As trusted narrators and rely on whatever
they say, or;
2 consider them great jurists (mujtahid) and
consider what they said as their opinion
and as a result of their process of ‘Ijtehad
(intellectual work) , and therefore create an
opinion based on our own work and
investigation as mujtahid (as same as the
issue of fataawa)
 The Akhbaris accept the first opinion
• The recent ones mention that all the clues and
supporting evidences for their reliance is
absence due to the lapse of time and centuries
so it has to be dealt with the matter as ‘Ijtehad
and every mujtahid has to base his opinion on
the clues and evidences he passes therefore all
what was mentioned in those books is subjected
to authentication. There was only one written
original for each of these books written by the
authors and they were later handwritten by the
kings and rulers and others. And later after
some time the original was mixed with the
copies and there were differences in the copies.
Because of this mixing up of these books’
therefore authentication is required.
• The words of Kulayni regarding
Al-Kafi when some one requested
him to write a book which
compiles the correct traditions
from the two sadiqs (Baqir and
Ja’far), he responded that this is
the book with fulfils such requests
(i.e. all the Hadiths in it is correct
from BAQIR and SADIQ (AS),
therefore every hadeeth in
ALKAFI is supposed to be
correect.
 Response of S. Al-Khoei
• The request did not include a condition
that there should be no other than correct
Hadith in that book or should not include
other Infallibles (as) sayings. So the
request was fulfilled but included more
than what was requested for the sake of
extra benefit.
• S. al-Khoe supports this point as follows
from the books itself:
1 There are sayings in Al-Kafi which are not
narrated by any of the infallibles (as)
2. If Al-Kulayni said that all narrations in his Al-
Kafi are correct and true then it can not be
taken seriously because if he meant that all
those narrations fulfill the conditions of
authentication than that is not true, because
there are narrations narrated by those who
were known in fabricating and falsifying the
Hadiths such as Abu Al-Bakhtari. If it is said
that maybe these narrations are of those which
are supported by other supportive clues which
might strengthen the weak Hadith. Response:
Yes, that point can be valid by itself but it is not
applicable because such narrations are plenty
in number, and such cases are far from being
accepted.
3 What Al-Kulayni mentions about
his book can be a deductive issue
(‘Ijtehad) and not his testimony.
Maybe he has some clues to
authenticate narrations, and in
that case every jurist is responsible
to make his own deduction and
conclude based on the clues
available to him.
4 There are some odd Hadiths
narrated by unknown
narrators which creates a doubt
of being narrated by the
infallibles (as). Sheikh Sadooq
did not accept many of the
narrations of Al-Kafi.
5 Al-Kulayni himself mentions
that he hopes that he has
fulfilled the request. This
‘hope’ is not based on the
modesty and that he relied on
his deduction or ’Ijtehad and
his personal studies.
 Words of ‘Mun La Yadhorho Al-Faqih’
(Sheikh Sadooq)
“My intention was to collect the
narrations which was source of
verdict and was considered correct
and I believe that it is a proof
between me and my Lord….”
• From his words it can be understood
that what he did was his deduction
(‘Ijtehad) in his collection. His
‘Ijtehad was based on his personal
study and deduction cannot be a
proof on another mujtahid or jurist
as stated by Al-Khoe.
• As mentioned previously that
previous great scholars had some
clues of strengthening the weak
hadeeth, and these clues did not fall
under their agreement, they had
disagreements on these clues, and
not all the clues were agreeable to
all of them. Based on that there
may be some weak narrations
which may be supported by some
disputed clues of strengthening a
weak hadeeth.
 Words of ‘Tahzeeb’
(Sheikh at-Tousee)
• He clearly mentioned that the book
includes his hard work and efforts to
deduce or to define the correct and
authentic narration.
• He did not mention that all what he
narrates is correct as he mentioned that if
a false narration exists in the book, then
there is a reason behind it. (he must have
used some of the disputed clues of
supporting the weak hadeeth.)
Words of ‘Istbsaar’
(Sheikh at-Tousee)
• It is a summary or brief of
Tahzeeb and he mentioned that
he took the same approach in
writing this book as he took in
Tahzeeb. So not all in the four
books of Hadith is saheeh but
is subjected to further
authentication from the jurist.