Who invented the Science of Hadith, shia's or sunni's?

[Gajibur]

Assalamu alaykum

Does anyone know which muslims developed the science of hadith, was it the shia's or sunni's(ahle sunna wal jama)?.

If both sects developed the science of hadith jointly then who contributed the most to its development, was it the shia or sunni's?.

I am asking these questions because a shia website i went to is giving the impression that they were the pioneers of this great science. The website is called "www.*************" and you can read what they say at this link, inshallah:

http://www.*************/al-tawhid/hadith-science/

Here's a little of what the shia website says: "As to who were pioneers in this field, it must be admitted that the Shi`ah had taken a lead in this field. The first writer to compile a book on this subject was Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah ibn Hayyan al-Kanani (died 219/834).[10] But according to Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his Kitab al-'awa'il, the first writer on `ilm al-rijal was Shu`bah (died 260/87374).[11] However, it is clear that the statement of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti does not correspond with historical fact, for `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah died forty years before Shu`bah. ".

Please answer my questions or just give me your opinions. :)

[Gajibur]

Sorry about the website name and link, they keep showing up as asterixes. Sorry. :frown:

[umm_madina]

Assalamualikum brother,

I don't know the answer to your question.

Maybe you should put the question in the indepth section of the forum? Those brothers there seem very knowledgeable, I think they'll probably tear this thread apart with their knowledge..lol.

wa'salam

[Salafi]

assalamo alaikum

early shi'a, mostly, were a political group. They are the first who fabricated ahadeeth, unlike khawarij the other extreme.

difference between the tahdeeth of ahle sunnah and rawafidh is that we seek the knowledge ((jirah and ta'deel) of narrator upto sahaba ra. sahaba ra were all adil and thiqqah. they (rawafidh) seek the knowledge of narrator upto their imams, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.

ibn ‘abbas ra said that we started to take ahadeeth from the people we knew (only) after the ppl began to go for every ease and difficulty (Saheeh muslim). So the pioneers of this noble science is sahaba not rawafidh, their enemies.

The science was their in the first century of islam. Like one will find that ibn shahab azZuhree rahimahullah was one of the mudalliseen. He died in 124 h. tadlees (which is one of the somewhat advanced usool) and its tabqaat can be decided by the tarajim of the narrators and it is an indication that the usool of hadeeth were already there in the 2nd generation of islam (ahle sunnah), well developed. I don’t know the first written work by ahle sunnah but the science there. It might not be in the written form like most classical works of hadeeth were written in the early 3rd century hijri.

the muqaddimah (preface) of sahih muslim ( d.261 h) is a very good source to know about the science of hadeeth and its evolution. unfortunately many english translations do not include it.

wassalam

[tariq3]

:salam:

Of what I learned recently regarding ahadith is that the compilation and writing of ahadith started during the time of the Prophet :saw:. There were certain companions that were allowed to write the ahadith. After his death we could say that Abu Hurairah (raa) is the Imam of the Muhadithoon as he actively sought and gathered the ahadith from the other Sahaba. We also see the beginning of the sunnah of verification and checking of narrations during the Khalifa of both Abu Bakr and `Umar (raa). There are famous events during both of their Khalifates where they sought verification and cooberation of hadith that would be presented to them. So here we can see the seeds of the science of hadith being planted and the example and way to deal with the ahadith is being shown to us by the Sahaba.

It was at the time of the Great Fitnah that took place that the 'Ulema would be begin to ask, "who is your man?". As during this time people began to fabricate ahadith. So it was from this time onward where the transmission and knowlege of isnad became very important.

As for the Sunni vs. Shia argument from what I learned, the Shia tradition of gathering/verifying ahadith was a later development. However, I would imagine that with the Jafari and Zaydi schools that this may prove to be a problematic and admittedly our teacher stated that, "he was not an expert in the Shia hadith tradition/history". I would say that this question is probably one deserving of more indepth research. I say that, simply because both Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik were students of Imam Jafar As-Sadiq. Did they take ahadith from him? I'm not sure. Do we accept the Jafari as a legitimate school of Sunni Islam? Nevertheless, this subject would be a good research topic for a Graduate thesis.

I would recommend the following books to get a more detailed answer to your initial questions:

Studies in Hadith Methodology & Literature
http://islamicbookstore.com/b2913.html

Studies in Early Hadith Literature
http://islamicbookstore.com/b2912.html

Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features
http://islamicbookstore.com/b2892.html

[tariq3]

assalamo alaikum

The muqaddimah (preface) of sahih muslim ( d.261 h) is a very good source to know about the science of hadeeth and its evolution. unfortunately many english translations do not include it.

wassalam

:salam:

Here's a recently released translation of Ibn Salah's Muqaddimah. This publisher is usually very good about providing detailed forewards and prefaces to their publications. I would imagine that they would maintain Ibn Salah's introduction, Insha Allah.

An Introduction to the Science of Hadith:
Kitab Ma'rifat Anwa' 'Ilm al-Hadith (Ibn Al-Salah Al-Shahrazuri)

http://islamicbookstore.com/b9128.html

[Al=Fateh]

hope this helps

http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14154

http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10844

http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4170

[Yahya]

There is a saying that the entire ilm of Hadith is indebted to Imam Malik.

I'm not sure exactly if this refers to ilm ur-rijaal or not. But certainly Imam Malik lived much earlier than Shu'bah or that Shi'a dude.

[Mubid al-Majus]

Assalamu alaykum

Does anyone know which muslims developed the science of hadith, was it the shia's or sunni's(ahle sunna wal jama)?.

If both sects developed the science of hadith jointly then who contributed the most to its development, was it the shia or sunni's?.

I am asking these questions because a shia website i went to is giving the impression that they were the pioneers of this great science. The website is called "www.al- islam.org" and you can read what they say at this link, inshallah:

http://www.al- islam.org/al-tawhid/hadith-science/

Here's a little of what the shia website says: "As to who were pioneers in this field, it must be admitted that the Shi`ah had taken a lead in this field. The first writer to compile a book on this subject was Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah ibn Hayyan al-Kanani (died 219/834).[10] But according to Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his Kitab al-'awa'il, the first writer on `ilm al-rijal was Shu`bah (died 260/87374).[11] However, it is clear that the statement of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti does not correspond with historical fact, for `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah died forty years before Shu`bah. ".

Please answer my questions or just give me your opinions. :)

Salam `alaykum,

Brother Gajibur,

The website you linked is filled with inaccuracies and deceptions, and this book you have quoted is an example of that. It is filled with the errors – rather blunders – that seem strange to one who knows about them and makes him wonder: “How can a scholar make errors like these?” But the answer is simple; not all of them are actual errors, rather many of them are intentional deceptions or imitations of such deceptions forwarded by the Shi`a Imamiyya to “win” the “who was first” race to seem to be the better faction or to disparage Sunnis – get on the good side one way or another to gain favors and adherents.

This is what you quoted:

“As to who were pioneers in this field, it must be admitted that the Shi`ah had taken a lead in this field. The first writer to compile a book on this subject was Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah ibn Hayyan al-Kanani (died 219/834).[10] But according to Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his Kitab al-'awa'il, the first writer on `ilm al-rijal was Shu`bah (died 260/87374).[11] However, it is clear that the statement of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti does not correspond with historical fact, for `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah died forty years before Shu`bah.”

http://al- islam1.org/al-tawhid/hadith-science/2.htm


The author tries to show here that the Shi`a took the lead in `Ilm al-Rijal, and thus they were / are better than Sunnis in this field – Trust me, it may sound weird, but that is what is trying to be achieved and is also achieved at times.

Interestingly, the author even declares Imam al-Suyuti as historically incorrect; but it is he who is not just incorrect, but even a little dimwitted because Imam Shu`ba ibn al-Hajjaj was born in 83 A.H. and he died in Basra in 160 A.H. by agreement (Tadhkirat ul-Huffaz [1:197]) – which puts him far more back than Abu Muhammad al-Kinani.

On the other hand, let us even accept for arguments sake that Abu Muhammad al-Kinani was the first to compile a book on this subject, how does this do anything good to the Imamiyya Shi`a? Their own scholars have said that Abu Muhammad was a Waqfi (Rijal al-Najashi [216]; Khulasa [372]) – Shi`is who stopped the concept of Imama on Musa al-Kazim and denied the leadership of `Ali al-Rida – and the books of Imamis are crammed with not only verdicts of their infallible Imams (especially al-Rida) for the deviance and disbelief (kufr) of the Waqfis, but even of their early scholars and Imams declaring the denier of any one of the Imams as disbelief.

And I am not claiming this on my own, rather they themselves openly claim it when they want to. Let me quote the “champ” website Answering – Ansar where the Imami kids have said:

“Followers of the Wakfee madhab have been condemned by the Shi'a Imams as Kaffir and Zindeeq, one can for example consult the words of Imam Reza (as) in Mukees ad'a raraya fi ilm al riwaya page 83

"An adherent of the wakfee al madhab is an individual opposed to the truth, should he remain on this deviant path until his die, his ultimate resting place shall be in Hell".
These words of the Imam are similarly worded in Rijjal Maqqani Volume 1 page 378”

http://www.answering- ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/chap10.php

But now they wouldn’t mind bringing a “Zindeeq” forward to put on a star.

And the following is from my post on another thread of this forum:


your "ra'ees ush-shi`a" Shayh al-Mufid has said:


اتفقت الإمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الأئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار

"There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna ‘Ashari or Ja‘fari Shi‘ah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell."

-- Awa'il al-Maqalat [44]; Bihar al-Anwar of al-Majlisi II [8:366] quoted from al-Mufid's Masa'il (whichever that may be) - translation taken from ansar.org to save myself from the hardship.


In short, Imam Shu`ba died before Abu Muhammad al-Kinani, and the latter was a Waqfi according to them, so in either case, the Imami propagandists should not gain anything.

As far as your question is concerned, then Alhamdulillah, it has been our scholars who have not simply been the earliest, but even the most outstanding ones in this field. Although I do not know what Imam al-Suyuti has said, but I think that Ibn Jurayj (80-150) preceded Shu`ba in compiling a book on the subject.

But the thing is, the Imamis of today struggle to prove that they were the first in this and that, but my question is: What is the use of being the first in something when now you suck?! (sorry couldn't find a better word)

Their `Ilm al-Rijal is so poor, that one could actually laugh upon the narrations they pick from thousands of their narrations they claim to be forgeries to declare them authentic. The Imamis have originally only five [5] books of Rijal that are original, rest are *all* based on the five, among them, one is like a useless mini-booklet, and two are written by the same individual. So there are actually three useful works of al-Kashshi, al-Najashi and al-Tusi, and the earliest of the five is al-Kashshi’s, who died in 350 A.H. according to their own sources. Where as we have the Tabaqat of Muhammad ibn Sa`d who died in 230 A.H., yet it is far more comprehensive and detailed than al-Kashshi’s work.

They are behind in everything when it comes to Hadith and Rijal, as their sciences are not as in-depth and well developed as ours for whatever the reason maybe. If you follow their science, then about more than 90% of their material would be turn out to be weak. In fact, their own scholar, al-Hurr al-`Amili, even said that if one sincerely analyzes the chains according to the science, then nothing would be Sahih!

Anyways, this is an issue that requires a long discussion and I’m sorry I don’t have much time right now; otherwise I would have given a much comprehensive and detailed reply. So I would advise you to remain alert from that entire website and other propagandas like it because - in simple words - they lie a lot.


There is a saying that the entire ilm of Hadith is indebted to Imam Malik.

I'm not sure exactly if this refers to ilm ur-rijaal or not. But certainly Imam Malik lived much earlier than Shu'bah or that Shi'a dude.

Imam Malik was born in 93 and died in 179, whereas Imam Shu`ba was born in 83 and died in 160. But of course, Imam Malik was among the pillars of this field like Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibn al-Mubarak, may Allah have mercy on all of them.

Wa `alaykum as-Salam.

[AbdulHakam1]

The Shia assimilated Sunni madhhabs and religious sciences for their own benefit. They took what they liked and left other things. They also added to or subtracted from certain things. The Jafari and Zaydi schools were closely linked to the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools. The Shia took theology from the heretical sect Mutazliah when they were in power during the Abbassid dynasty. They have been evolving over their history and many types of Shia have come and went. Today there are 3 main branches; Jafari/Imami, Zaydi, and Ismaili.

[qiyam-ul-hidaya]

brother mubud al mujus!u gave us a good but one dimensional insight into picture .i also researched (still doing) a lot into matters of ilm-e-rijal.i dont agree with following points of your information

As to who were pioneers in this field, it must be admitted that the Shi`ah had taken a lead in this field. The first writer to compile a book on this subject was Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah ibn Hayyan al-Kanani (died 219/834).[10] But according to Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his Kitab al-'awa'il, the first writer on `ilm al-rijal was Shu`bah (died 260/87374).[11] However, it is clear that the statement of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti does not correspond with historical fact, for `Abd Allah ibn Jibillah died forty years before Shu`bah.”
well
.i heard it for the first time .according to verdict of shia scholars i heard it was ubaidullah bin abi rafeh(ra) whom imam ali(s) ordered to write names of those companions who participated with him during civil wars.of course not a perfectly rijal book by any sense .just a book.asqalani in taq-ul tehzeeb says عبيد الله ابن أبي رافع المدني مولى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان كاتب علي وهو ثقة من الثالثة ع

Interestingly, the author even declares Imam al-Suyuti as historically incorrect; but it is he who is not just incorrect, but even a little dimwitted because Imam Shu`ba ibn al-Hajjaj was born in 83 A.H. and he died in Basra in 160 A.H.
yup amir ul momimmen fil hadith imam shubah is not only a versatile hadith narrator but scholar of ilm -e-rijal too.his work is no more existant but he was among pioneers of sunni school of ilm-e-rijal, not a *perfect* rijal scholar but a highly reliable hadith scholar.according to salafi scholars zuhri was the first one to utilize isnad factor of narration

On the other hand, let us even accept for arguments sake that Abu Muhammad al-Kinani was the first to compile a book on this subject, how does this do anything good to the Imamiyya Shi`a? Their own scholars have said that Abu Muhammad was a Waqfi (Rijal al-Najashi [216]; Khulasa [372]) – Shi`is who stopped the concept ........................ ][in a nutshell u are trying to say that waqifies are not authentic by shia rijal standards .absolutely wrong they did not accept imamate of ali rida(s) but did not actively oppose him any where.only some strict line scholars like majlisi report that all narrators should be itna asharis while rest majority does not do so.a narrator by shia standards of rijal should should be of truthful sahih compatible aqaadah thats all. a narrator cannot be rejected because of his personal (different) creed or sect.same is the case with sunni books of rijal.a narrator is much scanned via his narrations not his aqaid.many narrators denounced salaf(companions(ra) believed in doctrine of rijah..yet are accepted as reliable narrators like aibad bin yaqoob rijawani( man of zaidiyaah jarrudiah sect)ismail bin kahlifah al abbasi, many more in it does a narrator who opposes companions(s) can be declared authentic?????????[ books of Rijal that are original, rest are *all* based on the five, among them, one is like a useless mini-booklet, and two are written by the same individual. So there are actually three useful works of al-Kashshi, al-Najashi and al-Tusi, and the earliest of the five is al-Kashshi’s, who died in 350 A.H. according to their own sources. Where as we have the Tabaqat of Muhammad ibn Sa`d who died in 230 A.H., yet it is far more comprehensive and detailed than al-Kashshi’s work
.worthless arguement the life line of sunni rijal-e-hadith according to suyuti(himself accused of moderate shiam) revovles aroud following books 1)tahzeeb al kamal 2)meezan al ehtedal 3 &4) taqreeb and tehzeeb of asqalani prior to these books the opions regarding sunni hadith narratorswere scattered not present in collective form.shia rijal books were written much prior to these books right starting from era of sulaym bin qais hillali till late ayatuulah khoei(existant as well as non existant books) ibn sad book is not a entirely reliable book for sunnies his teacher was waqqidi.......whose rijal record is extremely poor by suni standards yet sunnies wrote out of it.ibn saad student was baladhuri whose book is full of anti-ummayad narraions(shiekh g.f haddad)
They are behind in everything when it comes to Hadith and Rijal, as their sciences are not as in-depth and well developed as ours for whatever the reason maybe. If you follow their science, then about more than 90% of their material would be turn out to be weak. In fact, their own scholar, al-Hurr al-`Amili, even said that if one sincerely analyzes the chains according to the science, then nothing would be Sahih!
with a little giggle what is use of such depth????every sunni issue exihibits a strong tussle between salafies and traditional sunnies.still could not conclude any judgement over attributes of ALLAH like hand power etc?????????amili himself was a undoubtedlly excellent scolar but had akhbari tendencies he never said that none of thses hadiths is sahih by rijal standards(it was burujerdi) who said so that too never gave explanation for his comments.sistani learned hadith sceinces from burujerdi also..never reported such statements
sunni scholars and their book of rijal contain tons of arguements .no two scholars have same standards of authencity.infact the conclusion is lacking every now and then every narrator has the same typical scenario for instant the narrator abc in sunni books of rijal
1. Al-Bukhari: “He is not depended upon)

2. Ahmed ibn Hanbal: "He is average Nisa’i: "Weak"
4. Hammad ibn Ziyad: "He would invert Hadith
5. Ibn Ayiniyah: strong

6. Abu Zarah: "He is not a strong source, he imagines things and makes mistakes" and "He is not used"
7. Abu Hatim al-Raazi: "He is not depended upon"
8. Al-‘Ijli: “Not a strong source” (
9. Shu'bah: "He used to mix things up"
10. Yahya Ibn Mai'n: "He is nothing" (
11. Yazid ibn Zarya’: “He was a Rafidhi” )

12. Ibn ‘Adi: “Weak”

13. Ibn Sa’d: “He was blind from birth and he narrates copiously and there is weakness in him and he is not depended upon”
14. Saleh Ibn Ahmed: “He is not strong source” (
15. Abdullah ibn Ahmed: “Not a strong source”
16. Hanbal (Imam Ahmed’s father): “A Weak narrator of Hadith” 17. Muawiyah ibn Saleh: “Weak”
18. Al-Darimi: “Not a strong source”19. Ibn Abi Khaythmah: “He was weak in everything”

20. Ibn Khuzayma: “Do not depend on him because of his weak memory”

21. Al-Jowzjani: “Narrated nonsense; Weak”
22. Al-Hakim: “Not dependable” )

23. Al-Darqutni: “There is infirmness in him”24. Ma’adh ibn Ma’adh: “Narrated to us before he started mixing things up” (
25. Ibn Hibban: “He imagined things into his narrations and made mistakes in his narrations… therefore he deserves to be rejected as evidence” 26. Yahya al-Qattan: “His narrations are avoided”
27. Ibn Sa’eed: “He is not strong”

28. Al-Fallaas: “He is not strong” (
29. Sulayman ibn Harb: “He would invert Hadith” (
30. ‘Amr ibn Ali: “His narrations are avoided” -
31. Al-Faswi: “He used to mix up major things”
32. Hammad ibn Salmah: “He had a weak memory” 33. Musa ibn Isma’eel: “He had a weak memory”
34. Al-Dhahabi: “He is not a strong source” 35. Ibn Hajar: “He is Weak”)
35>tirimdhi said he is extremely trustworthly
now what to do with record who to follow who to reject??? same is the case with sunnies grading of hadith for e.g
'Ali Qari:) The Hadith "I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate," was mentioned by Tirmidhi in his Jami', where he said it was unacknowledgeable. Bukhari also said this, and said that it was without legitimate claim to authenticity. Ibn Ma'in said that it was a baseless lie, as did Abu Hatim and Yahya ibn Sa'id. Ibn Jawzi
recorded it in his book of Hadith forgeries, and was confirmed by Dhahabi, and others in this. Ibn Daqiq al-'Eid said, "This Hadith is not confirmed by scholars, and is held by some to be spurious." Daraqutni stated that it was uncorroborated. Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani was asked about it and answered that it was well authenticated (hasan), not rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Hakim had said, but not a forgery (mawdu'), as Ibn Jawzi had said. This was mentioned by Suyuti. The Hadith master (hafiz) Abu Sa'id 'Ala'i said, "The truth is that the Hadith is well authenticated (hasan), in view of its multiple means of transmission, being neither rigorously authenticated (sahih) nor weak (da'if), much less a forgery" (Risala al-mawdu'at, 26 ).


one says weak..other says hasan.still another says authentic shia aqaid s of fiqah can be proved from sunni books even via authentic ahadith( if not usul-fiqah of sunnies) on other side sunni acts of fiqah are even violated by their own set standards of rijal.just examine issue of holding hands in prayers.no such hadith is sahih.in my opinion it was asqalani whom sunnies should owe great thanks for his works for clearfying the secne who possesed knowledged of both sunni and shia rijal books.in his book lisan al mezzan he mentions many shia schoars and at at same time praies them too for their knowledge.a fair veiw given by him in every regard.hats off to genius like asqalani.a true amir ul momimmen fil hadeeth other wise .according to g.f haddad
..bukhari did not trust abu hanifa(r) accrding to sheikh g.f haddad Bukhari admits that he has something in his heart against Ja'far. Even Dhahabi criticized Bukhari for that.
Not al-Bukhari. It is Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan who reportedly admitted "having something in his heart against Ja`far" meaning his reliability as a narrator. It might - Allahu a`lam - have something to do with reports from Ja`far through his son Muhammad, who publicly admitted to forging hadiths as I documented in my recent post on the hadith of the angel of death asking permission.

Imam al-Bukhari definitely had something in his heart against Imam Abu Hanifa, do you see Hanafis attack the reliability of the Sahih for it? On the contrary, they and the rest of the Sunnis accept it as the soundest book under the sky after the Glorious Qur'an, on our head and our eyes.

who u think one can offer judgements based on single statements
thanks to asaqalani who removed thses misconceptions.sunnies dont have any appepite for shia rijal books because they say they only conclusive not explanatory on hadith narrators.stuff sunnies are not used too.shia hadith narraters are not standard by sunni means for e.g narrators like kumayl bin ziyad (r),aba-salat herwi(r) and asbagh bin nabata(r). details comment on issue sometime later .i would brother salman and faqir to comment on this issue as they well recognized knowledgeable indiviuals.brother tahasyed(tilmeedh) is requested tooo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wa salams bye till response

[Gajibur]

Assalamu alaykum

I would like to thank everyone for the answers they have given. It seems there is a dispute between sunnis and shia's as to who started this science. However i am more inclined to believe the sunnis who have replied than the one shiite who has replied. I am referring to the shiite brother who calls himself

[Gajibur]

Assalamu alaykum

I would like to thank everyone for the answers they have given. It seems there is a dispute between sunnis and shia's as to who started this science. However i am more inclined to believe the sunnis more than the one shiite who has replied so far. The one shiite i am referring to is the brother who calls himself "Qiyam ul hidaya". I remember when a sunni brother said:

"They (Shiites) are behind in everything when it comes to Hadith and Rijal, as their sciences are not as in-depth and well developed as ours for whatever the reason maybe. If you follow their science, then about more than 90% of their material would be turn out to be weak... ". To this "Qiyam ul hidaya" replied:

"with a little giggle what is use of such depth????every sunni issue exihibits a strong tussle between salafies and traditional sunnies.still could not conclude any judgement over attributes of ALLAH like hand power etc?????????". I suppose my shiite brother is admitting that their science is not as indepth as that of the ahle sunna wal jama, otherwise he would have refuted this claim. However, he didn't refute this claim, instead he started to mock the sunnis scholars for disagreeing about the authenticity of a certain hadith. This of course is very stupid of him since shiites also disagree about the authenticity of certain hadiths.

As for the subject of who invented the science of hadith, it is interesting to note that the four most respected shia hadith books all seem to have been compiled at a later date than their sunni counterparts. For example the author of USUL AL KAFI, Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Yaqoub bin Ishaaq al-Kulainy Ar-Razi died in 328/329 AH. While imam Bukhari died in 265 AH. More examples are the following:

1) Man la Yahdhuruhu'l Faqih of Shaikh Saduq. Shaikh saduq lived from 306 to 381 AH

2) Tahdhib al-Ahkam by Abu Ja'far al-Tusi. Abu Ja'far al-Tusi lived from 385 to 460 AH

3) Al-Istibsar by Abu Ja'far al-Tusi . Abu Ja'far al-Tusi lived from 385 to 460 AH

Compare the above dates with the compilers of the six authentic sunni books. I have already mentioned bukhari so i wont include him in this list:

1) Sahih muslim by Abu'l-Husain 'Asakir-ud-Din Muslim b. Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naisaburi. Lived from 202 or 206 AH to 261 AH.

2) Sunan an-Nasa'i by Ahmad ibn Shu`ayb ibn Ali ibn Sinan Abu `Abd ar-Rahman al-Nasa'i. Lived from 201 AH to 303 AH

3) Sunan Abu Dawud by Abu Da'ud Sulayman ibn Ash`ath al-Azadi al-Sijistani. Lived from 202 AH to 275 AH

4) Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Abu Isa Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Musa ibn ad-Dahhak as-Sulami at-Tirmidhi. Lived from 209 AH to 279 AH

5) Sunan Ibn Maja by Abu `Abdallah Muhammad ibn Yazid Ibn Maja al-Rab`i al-Qazwini. Lived from 209 AH to 273 AH.

I got these dates from wikipedia. If these dates are correct then it shows that the sunni scholars that produced the six authentic hadith books lived and died considerably earlier than their shiite counterparts. To me this indicates that the sunnis were probably the first to develop such authoritative hadith books. The shia's then copied their sunni brethren and produced their own authoritative books. I am not saying this is what happened, but it might be the case looking at the dates. Just looking at some of the dates shows a gap of a hundred years or even more. For example the shia scholar Abu jafar al tusi who compiled 'Tahdhib al-Ahkam ' was born 385 AH, compare this to imam Abu Dawud who compiled 'sunan Abu Dawud' and was born in 202 AH. What do you guys think.

[Saad]

1) Man la Yahdhuruhu'l Faqih of Shaikh Saduq. Shaikh saduq lived from 306 to 381 AH
As far as I know this book doesnt even have any Isnaads.

[Gajibur]

As far as I know this book doesnt even have any Isnaads.

Assalamu alaykum brother

I'm sure the shiite hadith books aren't that dodgy, surely they provide isnads?:confused:

[Saad]

Assalamu alaykum brother

I'm sure the shiite hadith books aren't that dodgy, surely they provide isnads?:confused:

al-Saduq himself said about his work:


"I compiled the book without Isnads so that the chains (of authority) should not be too many (-and make the book too long-) and so that the book's advantages might be abundant. I did not have the usual intention of compilers (of books of traditions) to put forward everything which they (could) narrate but my intention was to put forward those things by which I gave legal opinions and which I judged to be correct."

Man la yahduruh al-faqih, Introduction as cited by www.al-islam. org

[Mubid al-Majus]

Salam `alaykum,

Brother Qiyam-ul-Hidaya,

Although your post is not so well arranged, I did succeed in reading it. It is mostly off-topic, and you have misinterpreted and skipped all the main points of my post, so I’ll just address the main points quickly:


i heard it for the first time .according to verdict of shia scholars i heard it was ubaidullah bin abi rafeh(ra) whom imam ali(s) ordered to write names of those companions who participated with him during civil wars.of course not a perfectly rijal book by any sense .just a book.asqalani in taq-ul tehzeeb says عبيد الله ابن أبي رافع المدني مولى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان كاتب علي وهو ثقة من الثالثة ع

I was not the one who claimed that, rather it was stated in the book on al- islam.org and Ayatullah Ja`far al-Subhani has also counted Abu Muhammad al-Kinani as the first one in his Adwa’ `ala `Aqa’id al-Shi`a al-Imamiyya [285].

As for `UbaydAllah, neither was he Shi`i like you would claim him to be, nor does this issue relate to simple count-writings.


now what to do with record who to follow who to reject[/COLOR]???

The “abc” you have mentioned is `Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jud`an, and you have copied this from a thread on shia-chat – where you too posted under the same nick and were refuted along with your friends – (http://www.shia chat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70580&st=0&p=921010&#entry921010) Unfortunately, you have tampered the statements by replacing “he is nothing” with “He is average” for number two [2] and “weak” with “strong” for number five [5]. Then you have included in the end that al-Tirmidhi [35] declared `Ali ibn Zayd “extremely trustworthy,” which is blatant lie. What will you gain from these tamperings brother “Qiyam-ul-Hidaya”? Or should I say… Natiq ul-Dalala?

And lastly, `Ali ibn Zayd is weak, as clearly demonstrated in the thread linked which put down the lid on Zainabia and other big-timers of shia-chat. I personally don’t know of a single contemporary who has actually not deemed him unreliable, either Salafi or non-Salafi. G.F. Haddad has also mentioned him as weak (http://www.livingislam.org/n/absn_ei.html - footnote #25) - all other misconceptions are cleared on the thread itself.


bukhari did not trust abu hanifa(r) accrding to sheikh g.f haddad Bukhari admits that he has something in his heart against Ja'far. Even Dhahabi criticized Bukhari for that.
Not al-Bukhari. It is Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan who reportedly admitted "having something in his heart against Ja`far" meaning his reliability as a narrator. It might - Allahu a`lam - have something to do with reports from Ja`far through his son Muhammad, who publicly admitted to forging hadiths as I documented in my recent post on the hadith of the angel of death asking permission.

What part of “Not al-Bukhari” do you not understand?

Also, it is amazing to see you inserting “(r)” after Imam Abu Hanifa’s name, in opposition to your own infallible Imam who is reported to have said in the authentic narration: [I]“la`n Allah Aba Hanifa” (al-Kafi [1:57]; Sahih al-Kafi of al-Bahbudi [1:8]).

Is it deliberate dissimulation or unintentional ignorance?

Rest is all off-topic and requires a detailed reply.

Wassalam.

[JayshAllah]

The “abc” you have mentioned is `Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jud`an, and you have copied this from a thread on shia-chat – where you too posted under the same nick and were refuted along with your friends – (http://www.shia chat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70580&st=0&p=921010&#entry921010) Unfortunately, you have tampered the statements by replacing “he is nothing” with “He is average” for number two [2] and “weak” with “strong” for number five [5]. Then you have included in the end that al-Tirmidhi [35] declared `Ali ibn Zayd “extremely trustworthy,” which is blatant lie. What will you gain from these tamperings brother “Qiyam-ul-Hidaya”? Or should I say… Natiq ul-Dalala?


Sometimes it's amazing at the blatant manipulation and outright fabrications/alterations to the texts that Shia engage in.

[MohammadMufti]

lolololol, if Shi'a invented Rijal e ahadith, than we would be in a host of troubles, we would be adding animals into our isnad like them and using dreams to verify authenticity of ahadith. What a science! (http://www.*************/Organizations/Aalimnetwork/msg00458.html)



...Furthermore, the Saheefa [-al-Sajjadiyyah] has also been authenticated through a "special" way. Those interested may refer to the dream of `Allmah Muhammad Taqi Majlisi (d.1070 AH) mentioned in the "Introducton" of The Psalms of Islam (1988) by William Chittick.

[Mubid al-Majus]

qiyam-ul-hidaya?

Have you planned to go in occultation?

[Saad]

qiyam-ul-hidaya?

Have you planned to go in occultation?

:cheesygri

[qiyam-ul-hidaya]

mubud al majus: FIRST GO AND LEARN AHDAB OF DISCUSSION .STOP BEING PORTRAIT OF FUGUTIVE FANATIC HANAFI MULLAH SERVING AS TERROR SUSPECT.
NEITHER AM I TAMPERER NOR A LIAR I DID NOT SAY ALI BIN ZAID IS TRUSTWORTHY BY ANY STANTARDS NIETHER DID I SAY TIRIMDHI DECLARED HIM EXTREMELY TRUSTWORTHY I JUST QOTED A SUPPOSITORY SCENARIO OUT OF YR RIJAL BOOKS THAT ALL. IF NOT EXTREMELY TRUSTWORHTY THEN WHAT DID TIRIMDHI SAY ABOUT HIM ????????????N
WOULD U TELL US. BYE FOR NOW.ENJOY YR WORLD OF FANTASIES AND FORGERIES

[JayshAllah]

mubud al majus: FIRST GO AND LEARN AHDAB OF DISCUSSION .STOP BEING PORTRAIT OF FUGUTIVE FANATIC HANAFI MULLAH SERVING AS TERROR SUSPECT.
NEITHER AM I TAMPERER NOR A LIAR I DID NOT SAY ALI BIN ZAID IS TRUSTWORTHY BY ANY STANTARDS NIETHER DID I SAY TIRIMDHI DECLARED HIM EXTREMELY TRUSTWORTHY I JUST QOTED A SUPPOSITORY SCENARIO OUT OF YR RIJAL BOOKS THAT ALL. IF NOT EXTREMELY TRUSTWORHTY THEN WHAT DID TIRIMDHI SAY ABOUT HIM ????????????N
WOULD U TELL US. BYE FOR NOW.ENJOY YR WORLD OF FANTASIES AND FORGERIES

What a colorful diatribe. Literally.

It's odd how you say "go and learn Adhab of discussion" and in the same breath you accuse him of being a "fugutive [sic] fanatic hanafi mullah serving as a terror suspect."

A bit of hypocrisy on your part, eh?

And can you refrain from typing like a third grade girl? The colorful font effect is altogether un-necessary, as is the all-caps thing you got going on. In fact, get rid of the colors, the all-caps, etc....in fact, just click DELETE to all your posts, that should do just fine.

[aliq]

qiyam-ul-hidaya?

Have you planned to go in occultation?

i hope that it is not as long as the alleged one as that of 'Isa ('a) as portrayed within the genre of non-Quranic literature among muslims, both shi'i and ahlal sunna wal jama'ah, more than 1400 years and still counting

regards, ali.q

[aliq]

Originally Posted by Mubid al-Majus
your "ra'ees ush-shi`a" Shayh al-Mufid has said:

اتفقت الإمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الأئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار

"There is consensus amongst the Imamiyyah (the Ithna ‘Ashari or Ja‘fari Shi‘ah) that whoever denies the Imamah of anyone of the Imams, and denies the duty of obedience to them that Allah has decreed, that such a person is a kafir, misguided, and that he deserves everlasting torment in Hell."

-- Awa'il al-Maqalat [44]; Bihar al-Anwar of al-Majlisi II [8:366] quoted from al-Mufid's Masa'il (whichever that may be) - translation taken from ansar.org to save myself from the hardship.

yes - but there is an equally detailed ascription of a tradition, from the shi'ite imam, al-Baqir (r), where this is proven to be false. it was even cited in a previous discussion, and it is within the shi'ite sunni dialogue thread - which has now been locked, WalLahu Alam!

you can read the entire discourse at


Islam and Religious Pluralism, Murtadha Mutahhari
http://12.96.164.214/religiouspluralism/7.htm

i wonder, what the views of the ahlal sunna are towards the Plurality enjoined by the late abu Bakr Siraj ud Din (aka Martin Lings)?

has Shaykh Hamza Yusuf written about this in detail or not, for the last work, which offered several tributes to the deceased soul, Shaykh Hamza - out of the adab - because of Lings health, refrained. Shaykha Nancy Roberts account is also very moving, and worth the read (i can't recall the name of the work, but it has been recently published by the Islamic Texts Society)

regards, ali.q

[MohammadMufti]

i hope that it is not as long as the alleged one as that of 'Isa ('a) as portrayed within the genre of non-Quranic literature among muslims, both shi'i and ahlal sunna wal jama'ah, more than 1400 years and still counting

regards, ali.q

Occultation? What you smokin mate? Isa (as) was lifted (ascension). Occultation (on Earth) is distinctly Yahuwdi-Rafidi concept in origin.

[aliq]

Occultation? What you smokin mate? Isa (as) was lifted (ascension). Occultation (on Earth) is distinctly Yahuwdi-Rafidi concept in origin.

In the Name of the Most High
assalam o 'alaykum

the notion of the Mahdi is indeed a concept from Judaism, among several other that have been adopted into non-Quranic literature within Islam. i even find the idea detestable, since it runs contrary to the covenant that God speaks of in 2:124

the alleged ascension of Jesus, peace be upon him - if you are to read the commentaries to the verses under discussion, are subject to much Israiliyat. (an excellent work on this subject - which is a compilation of all verses that speak of Isa, from the Classical commentators, the Sufis and the Shi'ites) evidences from from Neal Robinsons work, State University of New York Press with a foreword from William Chittick.

in-fact during the Abbasid regime when much of the Islamic Empire had expanded, and while the Abbasids were more accomodating of dialogue with the other faiths - many reverts to Islam, particularly from the Jewish and the Chrisitian faith were brought forth to speak on issues raised by the non Muslim other: perhaps with the justification that they knew the scripture of their former belief. this is how they ended up being incorporated into.

there is such a state of confusion, contradiction within the themes surronding 'Isa (s) alleged ascension, and not to forget the theories, that it sounds more like a hotch potch of different non-Islamic influences.

again, if he was indeed subject to ascension, what benefit is the faith of such a Prophet or for that matter a Mahdi, who we are told, in both ahlal sunna or shi'ite literature, that would redeem humanity at some later point in time? as if the current suffrage today isn't enough.

nothing,

ali.q