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: 1The narrations of narrators corrected or authenticated by scholars by consensus (‘Ijma) 2The correction of the three unlinked narrator’s narrations Ibn Umair, Safwan ibn Yahya, Ahmed ibn al-Bezentian. 3The 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. 16 companions of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq (as) among them are Zorarah ibn Ayun, Fodhayl ibn Yasaar and Abu Baseer. 26 companions of Imam As-Sadiq (as) among them is Jameel ibn Darraj. 36 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: 1Consider every narration narrated by them is considered correct either directly by the Imam (as) or indirectly through other narrators, to be correct. 2Consider only narrations narrated by them directly to be correct. 3Consider 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) 1Some 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.)

2It 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.

3The 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: 1As trusted narrators and rely on whatever they say, or; 2consider 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: 1There 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.

3What 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.

4There 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. 5Al-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.