Shia Muslims only: The validity of Hadithes

[InvestigateTruth]

Hadithes are the sayings of the Prophet and Imams that are narrated through chains of narrators.
If the name of person(s) in the chain is unknown, it is said that the Hadith is weak.
If the Hadith has a person, that some people believe he is not reliable, the Hadith is considered weak by those people.
On the other hand the strong Hadithes are those with known names in the chains and specially if same Hadith was repeated from various chains, it is considered stronger, and called Mutawatir.

However:

1. Consider, if there are many Hadithes that are narrated by different people, that are weak Hadithes according to the definition above, but conceptually saying the same thing and is in agreement with Quran conceptually. Would it be correct if those Hadithes still be called weak?

2. If someone believes a person in the chain is not reliable, is that a proof, that the Hadith is weak? What if some other people do not agree that the person is unreliable?

3. Ultimately, as each person in the chain is not an infallible person, there is a chance of making a mistake, or forgetting a word, or adding something to it according to one's own understanding by mistake or intentionally. Therefore, could it be said, all strong Hadithes are certainly true?

4. Do you think the following conclusion is fair?

Since it cannot be guaranteed that a strong Hadith is always certainly true, and a weak Hadith is certainly false, whatever the Qaim confirms, then it is certainly known it was a true Hadith, and if He rejects, then it is known it was false. Because the knowledge of Qaim is from God and He is infallible, whereas other people, even the scholars are not infallible, hence, it is Qaim who can tell the truth.

 

[use_your_brain]

who is Qaim?

 

[Union]

who is Qaim?

Bab or Mahdi , not so sure whom he is mentioning to .

 

[Union]

Hadithes are the sayings of the Prophet and Imams that are narrated through chains of narrators.
If the name of person(s) in the chain is unknown, it is said that the Hadith is weak.
If the Hadith has a person, that some people believe he is not reliable, the Hadith is considered weak by those people.
On the other hand the strong Hadithes are those with known names in the chains and specially if same Hadith was repeated from various chains, it is considered stronger, and called Mutawatir.

However:

1. Consider, if there are many Hadithes that are narrated by different people, that are weak Hadithes according to the definition above, but conceptually saying the same thing and is in agreement with Quran conceptually. Would it be correct if those Hadithes still be called weak?

2. If someone believes a person in the chain is not reliable, is that a proof, that the Hadith is weak? What if some other people do not agree that the person is unreliable?

3. Ultimately, as each person in the chain is not an infallible person, there is a chance of making a mistake, or forgetting a word, or adding something to it according to one's own understanding by mistake or intentionally. Therefore, could it be said, all strong Hadithes are certainly true?

4. Do you think the following conclusion is fair?

Since it cannot be guaranteed that a strong Hadith is always certainly true, and a weak Hadith is certainly false, whatever the Qaim confirms, then it is certainly known it was a true Hadith, and if He rejects, then it is known it was false. Because the knowledge of Qaim is from God and He is infallible, whereas other people, even the scholars are not infallible, hence, it is Qaim who can tell the truth.

Did GOD gave that authority to Qaim ? Please refer to the verse of the Qur'an . Thanks .

 

[Hendrick Laursen]

Mahdi is "Al Insanil Kamil", the Complete Human.

He's infallible.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Hadithes are the sayings of the Prophet and Imams that are narrated through chains of narrators.
whatever the Qaim confirms, then it is certainly known it was a true Hadith, and if He rejects, then it is known it was false. Because the knowledge of Qaim is from God and He is infallible, whereas other people, even the scholars are not infallible, hence, it is Qaim who can tell the truth.

Well the Qa'im is in occultation and your whole discussion is pointless.

 

[mojtaba]

Hadithes are the sayings of the Prophet and Imams that are narrated through chains of narrators.
If the name of person(s) in the chain is unknown, it is said that the Hadith is weak.
If the Hadith has a person, that some people believe he is not reliable, the Hadith is considered weak by those people.
On the other hand the strong Hadithes are those with known names in the chains and specially if same Hadith was repeated from various chains, it is considered stronger, and called Mutawatir.

However:

1. Consider, if there are many Hadithes that are narrated by different people, that are weak Hadithes according to the definition above, but conceptually saying the same thing and is in agreement with Quran conceptually. Would it be correct if those Hadithes still be called weak?

If a weak(non-authentic) Hadith opposes other numerous Sahih(authentic) Hadiths, so that, it is a so weak Hadith.

2. If someone believes a person in the chain is not reliable, is that a proof, that the Hadith is weak? What if some other people do not agree that the person is unreliable?

We should see and analyze the reasons and then conclude and judge that what is true.

3. Ultimately, as each person in the chain is not an infallible person, there is a chance of making a mistake, or forgetting a word, or adding something to it according to one's own understanding by mistake or intentionally. Therefore, could it be said, all strong Hadithes are certainly true?

Since it cannot be guaranteed that a strong Hadith is always certainly true, and a weak Hadith is certainly false, whatever the Qaim confirms, then it is certainly known it was a true Hadith, and if He rejects, then it is known it was false. Because the knowledge of Qaim is from God and He is infallible, whereas other people, even the scholars are not infallible, hence, it is Qaim who can tell the truth.

According to your logic, we should not read Qur'an and Hadith, until the reappearance of Imam Mahdi.
But on contrary, Imam Mahdi, before his major occultation, said to us that the reliable narrators of the Hadiths are the proofs of Imam Mahdi to us during the major occultation.

Sheykh Sadugh has narrated from Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Isaam Kulaini (r.a.): Narrated to us Muhammad bin Yaqoob Kulaini from Ishaq bin Yaqoob:
“I asked Muhammad bin Uthman Amari (r.a.) to write to the Imam[Mahdi] a letter containing questions that were difficult for me. The Imam sent the following reply:
"..... But as for the problems which will occur in the future, you should refer to the narrators of our traditions for their verdicts as they are my proofs to you, and I am Allah’s proof to them."
(source: Wasa'il al-Shia, v27, p140)

So your ff saying is not true, because in the time of the major occultation, the reliable narrators of the Hadiths are the proofs of Imam Mahdi to us.

Since it cannot be guaranteed that a strong Hadith is always certainly true, and a weak Hadith is certainly false, whatever the Qaim confirms, then it is certainly known it was a true Hadith, and if He rejects, then it is known it was false. Because the knowledge of Qaim is from God and He is infallible, whereas other people, even the scholars are not infallible, hence, it is Qaim who can tell the truth.

 

[Hendrick Laursen]

The study of narration, "Dirayatal Hadith" and study of narrators, "Ilmul Rijal", are two branches of Islamic science solely devoted to verifying existing Hadiths.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

According to your logic, we should not read Qur'an and Hadith, until the reappearance of Imam Mahdi.
But on contrary, Imam Mahdi, before his major occultation, said to us that the reliable narrators of the Hadiths are the proofs of Imam Mahdi to us during the major occultation..

Actually, I didn't mean that!.
Let me say it more clearly. Is the following a fair statement:

The Prophet said, He left two testimony after Himself. Quran, and His successors.
The Quran remained, but His successors, which were Imams, disappeared in year 260. See these Two Hadithes in Al-kafi:
H 909, Ch. 80, h 22
H 910, Ch. 80, h 23
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Al-Kafi.pdf


Quran has two type of verses: Muhkamat and Mutishabihat. The Muhkamat are to be Acted upon till Day of Judgement, and Mutishabihat, are to believed in, but not act or followed, and should not be craved after them to be interpreted, because only Allah and the Imams who were well-grounded in knowledge, knew their interpretations.


The methods of classifying Hadithes in to Weak Hadith, Sahih, Hasan, etc,..is not a divinely ordained Method. Allah did not establish these methods to determine if a Hadith is Authentic or not, but it is really a method by human-beings who are not infallible.

Therefore while Hadithes, have truth in them, and there is guidance in them, but they are not Authoritative Text since their Authenticity cannot be absolutely certain by man-made methods. These methods help, but do not guarantee. Yes?

For example:

A typical Hadith is in this way:

'A' has heard from 'B' who has heard from 'C'...that Imam (a.s) said so and so.

To have a proof that, this certainly happened, we need to have the verifiable signature of the Imam, on the document, so, we can say, He really said exactly this Hadith, because the other people in the chains are not infallible.

Is this a fair statement?

 

[Union]

Actually, I didn't mean that!.
Let me say it more clearly. Is the following a fair statement:

The Prophet said, He left two testimony after Himself. Quran, and His successors.
The Quran remained, but His successors, which were Imams, disappeared in year 260. See these Two Hadithes in Al-kafi:
H 909, Ch. 80, h 22
H 910, Ch. 80, h 23
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Al-Kafi.pdf


Quran has two type of verses: Muhkamat and Mutishabihat. The Muhkamat are to be Acted upon till Day of Judgement, and Mutishabihat, are to believed in, but not act or followed, and should not be craved after them to be interpreted, because only Allah and the Imams who were well-grounded in knowledge, knew their interpretations.


The methods of classifying Hadithes in to Weak Hadith, Sahih, Hasan, etc,..is not a divinely ordained Method. Allah did not establish these methods to determine if a Hadith is Authentic or not, but it is really a method by human-beings who are not infallible.

Therefore while Hadithes, have truth in them, and there is guidance in them, but they are not Authoritative Text since their Authenticity cannot be absolutely certain by man-made methods. These methods help, but do not guarantee. Yes?

For example:

A typical Hadith is in this way:

'A' has heard from 'B' who has heard from 'C'...that Imam (a.s) said so and so.

To have a proof that, this certainly happened, we need to have the verifiable signature of the Imam, on the document, so, we can say, He really said exactly this Hadith, because the other people in the chains are not infallible.

Is this a fair statement?

This sounds very fair to me at least .

 

[mojtaba]

Actually, I didn't mean that!.
Let me say it more clearly. Is the following a fair statement:

The Prophet said, He left two testimony after Himself. Quran, and His successors.
The Quran remained, but His successors, which were Imams, disappeared in year 260. See these Two Hadithes in Al-kafi:
H 909, Ch. 80, h 22
H 910, Ch. 80, h 23
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Al-Kafi.pdf

Quran has two type of verses: Muhkamat and Mutishabihat. The Muhkamat are to be Acted upon till Day of Judgement, and Mutishabihat, are to believed in, but not act or followed, and should not be craved after them to be interpreted, because only Allah and the Imams who were well-grounded in knowledge, knew their interpretations.

Because the reliable narrators narrat the Hadiths of Prophet and his 12 Successors, so that in the occultation of Imam Mahdi, they[i.e., the Hadiths which they narrat] are the proofs of Imam Mahdi to us.
This is according to the order of Imam Mahdi.

The methods of classifying Hadithes in to Weak Hadith, Sahih, Hasan, etc,..is not a divinely ordained Method. Allah did not establish these methods to determine if a Hadith is Authentic or not, but it is really a method by human-beings who are not infallible.

Therefore while Hadithes, have truth in them, and there is guidance in them, but they are not Authoritative Text since their Authenticity cannot be absolutely certain by man-made methods. These methods help, but do not guarantee. Yes?

Those methods are rational methods. Allah did not establish these methods, but He has given the reason to us. Reason confirms these methods, so Allah confirms them.

Abu ‘Abdallah al-Ash‘ari has narrated from certain persons of our people have narrated in a marfu‘ manner from Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said the following.
"Imam Baqir stated the following to me.
"O Hisham, Allah has placed two kinds of authority over man. 1.The apparent and external authority, 2.and the internal and hidden authority. The prophets and messengers are the apparent and external authorities and reason is the hidden and internal authority.
(Al-Kafi, v1, pg15)

For example:

A typical Hadith is in this way:

'A' has heard from 'B' who has heard from 'C'...that Imam (a.s) said so and so.

To have a proof that, this certainly happened, we need to have the verifiable signature of the Imam, on the document, so, we can say, He really said exactly this Hadith, because the other people in the chains are not infallible.

Is this a fair statement?

If all narrators of a Hadith are reliable, rejection of the Hadith is not rational, is it?

The direct verifiable signature of Imams for the narrators is not needed.
But Imams have said the general characteristics of a reliable person, so we can determine the reliable narrators and non-reliable ones and then reject the Hadiths that have non-reliable narrators and accept the Hadiths which have been narrated by the reliable ones.
This is rational, isn't it?

Also Imams ordered their companions that they should narrate the Hadiths so that the Hadiths would reach to the people of the future and they would benefit from the Hadiths.

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi from certain persons of his people from abu Sa‘id al-Khaybari from al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar who has said the following.
"Imam Sadiq (a.s.) said, ‘You must write down (Hadith) and spread your knowledge among your brethren. If you will die your children will inherit your books. A time will come when people will face chaos and they will find no comfort but with their books.’"
(Al-Kafi, v1, p52)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Because the reliable narrators narrat the Hadiths of Prophet and his 12 Successors, so that in the occultation of Imam Mahdi, they[i.e., the Hadiths which they narrat] are the proofs of Imam Mahdi to us.
This is according to the order of Imam Mahdi.


Those methods are rational methods. Allah did not establish these methods, but He has given the reason to us. Reason confirms these methods, so Allah confirms them.

Abu ‘Abdallah al-Ash‘ari has narrated from certain persons of our people have narrated in a marfu‘ manner from Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said the following.
"Imam Baqir stated the following to me.
"O Hisham, Allah has placed two kinds of authority over man. 1.The apparent and external authority, 2.and the internal and hidden authority. The prophets and messengers are the apparent and external authorities and reason is the hidden and internal authority.
(Al-Kafi, v1, pg15)


If all narrators of a Hadith are reliable, rejection of the Hadith is not rational, isn't it?

The direct verifiable signature of Imams for the narrators is not needed.
But Imams have said the general characteristics of a reliable person, so we can determine the reliable narrators and non-reliable ones and then reject the Hadiths that have non-reliable narrators and accept the Hadiths which have been narrated by the reliable ones.
This is rational, isn't it?

Also Imams ordered their companions that they should narrate the Hadiths so that the Hadiths would reach to the people of the future and they would benefit from the Hadiths.

A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqi from certain persons of his people from abu Sa‘id al-Khaybari from al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar who has said the following.
"Imam Sadiq (a.s.) said, ‘You must write down (Hadith) and spread your knowledge among your brethren. If you will die your children will inherit your books. A time will come when people will face chaos and they will find no comfort but with their books.’"
(Al-Kafi, v1, p52)

In my humble opinion, if Allah had appointed MR. 'A', 'B', 'C'....as 'reliable' to narrate the Hadithes, AND there was a proof that a Hadith was narrated through Mr. 'A', 'B' and 'C..then I would sayn the Hadith is certainly reliable.

I agree that the Hadithes are a proof for Qaim. But since, I don't see an infallible method established by human beings to say with absolute certainty a Hadith is perfectlly accurate, other than Qaim Himself confirms them. But Qaim, must first show supernatural signs from God, independent of Hadithes, to prove He is Qaim and sent by God. Once He shows the Signs from God, then I can trust Him regarding confirming and interpreting the Hadithes. This is offcourse my view.
Is this rational?

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

In my humble opinion, if Allah had appointed MR. 'A', 'B', 'C'....as 'reliable' to narrate the Hadithes, AND there was a proof that a Hadith was narrated through Mr. 'A', 'B' and 'C..then I would sayn the Hadith is certainly reliable.

I agree that the Hadithes are a proof for Qaim. But since, I don't see an infallible method established by human beings to say with absolute certainty a Hadith is perfectlly accurate, other than Qaim Himself confirms them. But Qaim, must first show supernatural signs from God, independent of Hadithes, to prove He is Qaim and sent by God. Once He shows the Signs from God, then I can trust Him regarding confirming and interpreting the Hadithes. This is offcourse my view.
Is this rational?

No this is not rational because most of the hadithes were directly recorded down when the Imams uttered them, these were then copied by trustworthy scribes one after the other until they reached us. This process is highly accurate and the Islamic manuscripts that have survived from more than a thousand years ago are nearly identical to those that we have today. The same is evident in the manuscripts of the Bible where scrolls dating back from before the time of Christ (old testament) are identical to many of those that are prevalent today. Thus there is no problem in using these hadithes and applying them, specially when one observes how these are scrutinized by the scholars to make sure they are authentic.

Your claim of having no infallible method to say with absolutely certainty that a hadith is perfectly correct, although technically correct, is greatly flawed when applied in practice and this form of double-talk can easily be applied to Baha'i scripture too, which of course you have no problem in accepting as authentic, but you are eager to use your flawed argument to undermine Shia traditions.

 

[Hendrick Laursen]

There are hadiths which can be absolutely accepted as truth. However, very few hadith fall in such immensely reductionist criteria.

Such hadith are better known as Mutawatir.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No this is not rational because most of the hadithes were directly recorded down when the Imams uttered them, these were then copied by trustworthy scribes one after the other until they reached us. This process is highly accurate and the Islamic manuscripts that have survived from more than a thousand years ago are nearly identical to those that we have today. The same is evident in the manuscripts of the Bible where scrolls dating back from before the time of Christ (old testament) are identical to many of those that are prevalent today. Thus there is no problem in using these hadithes and applying them, specially when one observes how these are scrutinized by the scholars to make sure they are authentic.

Your claim of having no infallible method to say with absolutely certainty that a hadith is perfectly correct, although technically correct, is greatly flawed when applied in practice and this form of double-talk can easily be applied to Baha'i scripture too, which of course you have no problem in accepting as authentic, but you are eager to use your flawed argument to undermine Shia traditions.

Are the original writings available in the handwriting of Imams, or in handwriting of the Imam's Scribes as they were writing what Imam was saying?

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Are the original writings available in the handwriting of Imams, or in handwriting of the Imam's Scribes as they were writing what Imam was saying?

Mostly no, but the chain of scribes is available. But now tell me, can you swear to God with 100 percent certainty that the Baha'i writings that are in the handwritings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha were penned down by them? Did you see them write these down with your own eyes and were you present then? I assume you know that throughout history there were groups of scribes whose profession was to copy other peoples handwriting style and forge writings in their names. Can you prove that the Baha'i writings are not forgeries created by these scribes?

 

[Union]

Are the original writings available in the handwriting of Imams, or in handwriting of the Imam's Scribes as they were writing what Imam was saying?

Very valid question . It demands preserved manuscript with clear dating . I don't know with my limited knowledge if anything really existed ever .

 

[Hendrick Laursen]

There are many places where I've not visited, and will probably never do.

How do I make sure that e.g. Tokyo exists? I surely haven't eyewitnessed it, and still I'd swear on a stack of bibles that Tokyo is not a dream.

This is how we count on narrations.

 

[mojtaba]

Very valid question . It demands preserved manuscript with clear dating . I don't know with my limited knowledge if anything really existed ever .

The chain of scribes is available and all of them are well-known.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

There are many places where I've not visited, and will probably never do.

How do I make sure that e.g. Tokyo exists? I surely haven't eyewitnessed it, and still I'd swear on a stack of bibles that Tokyo is not a dream.

This is how we count on narrations.

Actually, everything of the past, and I mean everything including all history and narrations and news and what not, cannot be verified according to the OP. But with a high degree of reliability these are accepted as fact by scientists and intellectuals. Somehow, OP turns a blind eye to everything he himself accepts as fact, but wants to undermine the authenticity of Shia traditions, that are rigorously scrutinized for veracity using all sorts of methods.