SCIENCE OF RIJAL

Ilm al-rijal or the science of rijal literally means The Science of the People (pl. of rajul which
means man). A typical hadith consists of two parts the chain (also called as the
sanad/isnaad) and the main text or the narration (also called as the matn). The chain will bear
the names of the narrators who narrated the hadith. The study of the chain and the narrators
mentioned is called science of rijal.
When we study ahadith, we look at two steps the content and the chain. Since well be
focusing on the science of rijal, we will study the details about the sanad (chain) only. When we
study the chain, we look at it from two aspects quantity and quality of the chain.
The quantitative aspect is to determine the number of chain/s a hadith has. For example: We
wish to know how many chains does hadith al-Thaqalain have 1 or 2 or more?
The second aspect is qualitative in nature. The quality of the chain is known through the
narrators the hadith is narrated through. It thus studies the reliability of the narrators of the
hadith.
On studying the number of chains of the hadith, we classify them in 3 categories:
1. Ahad (Individual) not more than 2 ahadith and which cause doubt. The hadith has either
one chain or two chains (not more than 2 chains).
2. Mustafidh (Extensive) Hadith that has 3 or more chains and causes
assurance/satisfaction. We feel comfortable to rely on such hadith.
3. Mutawater (Consecutive) The numbers of chains are just like mustafidh i.e. 3 or more
chains, however, we must realize that narrators cannot collude to lie. A mutawater hadith
causes certainty.
Lets focus on Mutawater hadith. It is a piece of news from narrators who cannot collude to
lie. How can we make sure they did not collude to lie? There are 4 ways to ensure:
1. Place: If the narrators come from different countries/places, for example Medina, Kufa or
Iran etc. Since the narrators come from different geographical locations and have never met
each other, it means that they cannot collude to lie about the hadith/ahadith.
2. Views: If we see a Ummawi person narrating virtues of Imam Ali (a.s), such a hadith is
mutawater.
3. Sects: A Shia, Sunni or Zaidi narrate a hadith, example: Hadith al-Ghadeer.
4. Ideologies: When people having different ideologies, narrate a hadith it will be termed
mutawater. For example: People including mughali and muqassi narrate ahadith about
people knowing the unseen, have wilayat al-taqwiniya, that Ahlulbayt (a.s) know the
unseen, they performed miracles etc; such a hadith that comes from narrators holding
different ideologies, will be considered as mutawater.

Tawatur has 3 types:

1. Verbal tawatur: like hadith al-Ghadeer. All the chains mention the same statement Man
Kunto Maula Fa Haza Aliyyun Maula. The Holy Quran is an example of verbal tawater too.
2. Meaning tawatur: like hadith al-Thaqalain. We notice different words conveying the same
meaning in some versions of hadith al-Thaqalain, we are asked to follow Ahlulbayt, in
other versions, we are asked to hold onto Ahlulbayt etc. Thus, the hadith is narrated by
using a variety of words emphasizing the same meaning.
3. General tawatur: Ahadith like the bravery of Imam Ali (a.s)
Minimum chains to ascertain tawatur: Tawatur does not have a number, we only have to prove
that the people who narrated a hadith did not collude to lie. Three people will be enough to
prove tawatur, if these people dont know each other, came from different places or have
different backgrounds, have different views or ideologies.
Also, it is not necessary that the narrators have to be Shias for a narration to be accepted as
mutawater. A hadith is mutawater irrespective of narrators belonging to any sect or even a
kafir.
One can accept tawatur even if it comes from kafir.
Reference: Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoa al-Fatawa, Vol. 18, page 50.

WHAT IS HUJJAH (PROOF)?

Hujjah is a proof which leads us to reach what appears to be right. The only thing we have to do
is to pursue the truth as much as we can and clear our responsibility in doing so. During the
course, if we happen to follow something which is wrong, we shall not be punished for it,
because we did our best to reach what appears to be right, even if it is (in reality) against the
real ruling of Allah.
Since we now know what a hujjah means, how can we apply it in the science of rijal?
Firstly, we should not focus on the numbers of the hadith, in fact we should focus on what
those numbers cause (doubt/satisfaction/certainty). Thus we should not only look at whether
the ahadith is ahad, mustafeedh or mutawater, we must pay attention to what those 3
categories cause.
Secondly, the hujjah will be on those ahadith that cause confidence or reassurance. This is
because of the following proofs:
Proof 1: In the Holy Quran, Allah refrains us from relying on something which is doubtful. There
are some verses stating not to rely on doubts. On the other hand, Quran is not limiting us with
certainty, else the majority of us will not be believers! Thus, the hujjah will be something in
between assurance or comfortability.
Proof 2: We have 116 ahadith (which means that it is mutawater) mentioned in Jami' Ahadith
al-Shia by al-Burujurdi that state: If a hadith comes through a reliable narrator, then it is a
hujjah on you even if it has one chain. (These 116 ahadith have the same meaning)
Hujjah comes from satisfaction; as long as were satisfied with the numbers (of the hadith), it
will be a hujjah.
Speaking of Mutawater, since it causes certainty, it will certainly be hujjah.
Speaking of Istefadha (mustafeedh), as long as there is no sign that goes against it, and we feel
comfortable following such hadith, then it is hujjah as well.
Speaking of Ahad hadith, it is only doubt, therefore such a hadith will not be used as a proof
unless it can be supported with some sign.
And the signs are logical, Quranic, hadith and chains.
Although we have mentioned only 4 signs, in reality there is no limit to the number of signs any support or signs we can find to support a hadith, can be used. Those signs are very
important when it comes to ahad hadith because such a hadith cannot be used unless one finds
signs to support it. In Istefadha, they will be helpful, however if you dont find them, ensure
there is nothing against those ahadith. When it comes to tawatur, there is no real need of signs
because of the consecutiveness of such narrations.
3

An example using logic as a sign:

Let us assume there is a weak hadith that says: Allah does not have a place, is not limited to a
place.
This is a weak hadith, but logic supports it because we say that Allah is not limited. If we were
to say Allah is limited, then we end up having a major logical problem. Thus even though the
above hadith is weak, we accept it because a logical sign supports it.
An example using Quran as a sign:
Let us assume there is a weak hadith that says: Allah cannot be seen.
This is weak hadith, however there is a verse in Quran that states sight cannot reach Him
(6:103), thus we accept the above weak hadith because we have a Quranic sign to support it.
An example using hadith as a sign:
Lets assume there is a weak hadith that says: Imam al-Kadhim was poisoned.
Here, we look at other ahadith, and we do find an authentic hadith that states - all Prophets
and their successors will be either killed or poisoned. Thus we can use the authentic hadith to
accept the weak hadith because they agree with each other.

Using chains as a sign:

If there are no signs - no logical, Quranic or hadith signs, then we begin to check the chain of
the hadith. If the chain is authentic, then this hadith can be used as a proof. We dont have to
check the quality of the chain but it is better to do so, for if it is authentic then we have an extra
sign in support for the hadith in question.
When one writes tafseer of Holy Quran, there are many tools one can use Arabic language,
Quran itself, ahadith and logic. The more tools one uses, the better chances he has to come to
the correct meaning of the verses. The same applies to the science of rijal too. The more signs
one employs, more are the chances to reach the truth. There are some people who like to tally
everything with the Quran, which by itself is a good thing; however one should also use other
tools to really come to the correct meaning. If we speak to some people (who deny that
Ahlulbayt (a.s) know the unseen), and tell them a hadith about Ahlulbayt (a.s) knowing the
unseen, they will start using few Quranic verses to refute the hadith. However, if they had used
some other signs logical, other ahadith or perhaps checked the authenticity of the chain of
the hadith, they will realize their mistake.
The same is the case of a person who relies solely on logic. He may want to disregard a hadith
stating it goes against logic. The problem here would be: maybe his logic is wrong in the first
place! Thus one has to back it up with other signs Quranic, hadith and chains to be more
certain.
4

What if while discussing a hadith, one says it goes against logic and the hadith in question is
mutawater? Ahlulbayt (a.s) knowing the unseen is a mutawater hadith. What if one takes a few
verses from the Quran that imply nobody knows the unseen except Allah and tries to use it
against the mutawater hadith? If we were to disregard mutawater hadith and rely only on
Quranic verses, itll lead to a bigger problem, because Quran itself is proven through tawatur!
Itll thus mean either the hadith is not mutawater or the Quranic verses have been
misinterpreted.
This is the importance of the quality issue. We shall now start with the definitions of ahadith
with respect to the quality of their chains.

CHAINWISE, THEY ARE GROUPED IN 4 CATEGORIES:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Sahih - Authentic
Muwathaq - Credible
Hasan - Good
Dhaeef - Weak

1. Definition of a Sahih hadith: Narration of a just Imami who is accurate, from another
(Imami who is accurate) till it reaches Masoom (any from the 14 infallibles) without a defect,
even if the content is Shaath (abnormal/minor).
Lets break the above definition and examine the terms used in it:
Just: Justice is based on two meanings justice based on action & justice based on truthfulness.
Here, when we speak about chains, we mean the latter i.e. justice in terms of truthfulness. Thus
we are not necessarily saying that the just narrator is one who can be used as a witness in fiqh
issues, or can lead prayers, or does not backbite. This is not the kind of justice that is spoken of
in this context. Here we are only talking about his truthfulness.
Imami: Who believes in the 12 Imams (a.s)
Who is accurate: Sometimes we have a just person or a reliable person who does not lie
intentionally; or an old person who does not remember the details or mixes information.
Therefore such people are not liars, at the same time they arent accurate either. Hence we
want to take narrations from people who are accurate.
Without a defect: We need to look at any inconsistencies in the chain. There may be a chain
with all reliable narrators however on closer scrutiny we find that one narrator passed away in
the year 100 AH and the next narrator was born in the year 200 AH, this is thus a clear defect.
Hence such a chain (which is broken), cannot be termed authentic even if all the narrators are
reliable. Another kind of defect could be places - one narrator is in Yemen, the other in Iran
and we know for a fact that they neither travelled nor met each other, is also recognized as a
defect.
Content is Shaath: When the content of one hadith is in conflict with other ahadith, it means
that content of the lone hadith is shaath (abnormal/minor). Such a hadith with a good chain
with conflicting content will still be termed authentic because we are only studying the chains
and not the matn.
2. Definition of a Muwathaq hadith: Narration of a reliable non-Imami who is accurate, from
another (reliable non-Imami who is accurate) till it reaches Masoom (any from the 14
infallibles) without a defect even if the content is Shaath (abnormal/minor).

Thus ahadith from any non-Imami like Zaidis, Ismailis, Sunnis etc. would fall under this category
keeping the rest of the definition intact (accurate, without defect, Shaath).
3. Definition of Hasan hadith: Narrator of a hasan hadith who is neither reliable nor weak.
For example: A good person who pays zakah, reads Quran but one does not know whether or
not he is accurate, then narration from such a person will be considered Hasan.
4. Definition of a Dhaeef hadith: If a narration is neither Sahih, Muwathaq, nor Hasan, then it is
considered Dhaeef.
Note: When we grade a hadith as dhaeef, it does NOT mean it is fabricated. It only means we
do not have enough proofs yet to consider it reliable.
We may have to make use of other signs like logic, Quran or compare with other ahadith, and
thus be able to support it with a different sign other than quality. If not, then such a dhaeef
hadith cannot be used as a proof.

WHICH OF THE 4 CATEGORIES ARE HUJJAH?

Sahih and Muwathaq are hujjah without any disagreement.
Hasan is hujjah according to some scholars. While some other scholars do not consider it
hujjah. To be on the safer side, use Hasan hadith as a supporter to a piece of information that is
not very important. For example: knowing how many daughters did Imam Ali (a.s) have? The
safest option is to go with the Hasan hadith when it does not contradict Sahih or Muwathaq
hadith or any other sign.
Dhaeef hadith is not a hujjah by itself.

IMPORTANT RIJAL BOOKS

The books of al-Kishi, al-Najashi and al-Tusi are few of the important Shia books of rijal.
There are 4 important books, one for al-Kishi, one for al-Najashi and two for al-Tusi. One will
find many names of narrators arranged in alphabetical order, their biographies - when were
they born, when did they die, what books did they author, who were their students and
teachers, what did people say about them, people who lived during their time etc.

How should we apply the definitions mentioned earlier to those books of rijal?
We should know the following:
1. Regarding Justice: In context of the science of rijal, justice means the truthfulness of the
narrator and not his actions or idealogy.
Sheikh al-Tusi states that whoever is mistaken in his actions or is a fasiq and while he is reliable
in his narrations, such a person fulfills the justice that we are looking for.
Reference: Sheikh al-Tusi in his book al-Edda, page 382.
For Sunnis, the definition of Sahih hadith is: The narration of the just who is
accurate(continued to the rest of the definition that we have mentioned above).
For example: Bukharis Sahih claims to have all sahih narration, thus every narrator must be
just. But we find in the book, Shias narrating the hadith, we have people who are Nawasib,
Murjiya (considered as kafirs by Bukhari himself). Thus he doesnt care that they are fasiq etc.
2. How can we say if the narrator is Imami or not?
Our scholars like al-Mamaqani and al-Bahbahani said: In the books of rijal, once you see
scholars speak about the narrator and say he is reliable and they do not tell you that he has bad
ideology, you should immediately assume he is Imami.
Reference: al-Mamaqani and al-Bahbahani in Miqbas al-Hidaya, page 108
Thus they will either clearly say that the narrator is Imami or theyll tell you he is one of us, or
one of the gang.
This is what we do in our daily lives too, if we are speaking about scholars or orators and
mention names, we assume that they are one of us/belong to our sect. If not, we expect the
person who is talking about them to mention if he is a Sunni etc
3. How can we tell if a person is reliable or not?
Sheikh Jafar Subhani and Baha al-Deen al-Amili in their respective works said that if the
scholars say a narrator is reliable and do not state that he is not accurate or do not mention any
problem, then one must immediately assume that the narrator is both reliable and accurate.
Thus when we go to the biography books, the same should apply to ascertain whether or not a
8

narrator is Imami. Once the scholars state that a narrator is reliable and dont mention anything
else, then one should assume that the narrator is a just Imami who is accurate.
It is enough for one to read the word: Thiqa, thats all what is needed. If they say thiqa
without stating that he is not very accurate or he is not Imami, then one should assume he is.
References: Sheikh Jafar Subhani in his book Usool al-Hadith, page 157
Baha al-Deen al-Amili in his book Mashraq al-Shamseen, page 296
Also, there are two ways of knowing whether or not a narrator is reliable:
1. Through witness/experience: For example, if Sayyed Sistani is asked how was Sayyed alKhoei, he will say that Sayyed al-Khoei was a good person, he was reliable, honest, helpful etc.
This is because he witnessed/saw him.
Thus, the same applies to the companions of the Imams. The students of Zorarah, Yunus ibn
Abdul Rahman, Fadhl bin Shazan and other companions had students who spoke about them.
2. Through signs: To understand the reliability of a narrator through signs, we can study Abu
Hurayrah as an example. Looking at history, the content of his ahadith, the contradictions in
them, one will immediately conclude that he is a liar. He was also accused of lying by Ayesha,
Imam Ali (a.s), even Umar al-Khattab. Thus looking at the signs we can say that Abu Hurayrah is
a liar even though he lived 1400 years ago.
Likewise, Sheikh al-Tusi and al-Najashi saw signs about the companions of Imams, narrators for
example Zorarah either through his narrations or through what people said about them.
The same is the case with Sunni scholars too. Ibn Hajar Asqalani came in the 8 th century AH.
How is he then speaking about companions or tabeyeen? He is thus relying on books of scholars
who came before him.
We mentioned earlier that once we see the word thiqa, it means the narrator is reliable.
However, what if there is no mention of the word thiqa? Does it mean that the narrator is not
reliable?
The answer is No. Once has to read carefully what the scholars have written, sometimes they
write a statement or a word which is equally or sometimes more important than the word
thiqa. Often, scholars use the word wajh (face) or ayn (eye) for a narrator which means the
narrator was notable during his time. Notable would mean somebody of high caliber, for
example in todays day and age, Sayyed Sistani. He is a notable Shia and represents thousands
of his followers. One will immediately conclude that he is reliable in his narrations and does not
lie.
An example of scholar who mentions that words like notable, wajh, ayn would mean reliability
of a narrator is al-Muhaqeq al-Qummi:
Reference: al-Muhaqeq al-Qummi in his book Qawanin al-Usool, vol. 1 page 485
9

Let us take an example of a narrator who the scholars say is reliable (without the mention of
the word thiqa in rijal books)
Example: Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi
When we read the biography of this narrator, none of the books of rijal mention the word
thiqa for him, however Shia scholars have nonetheless graded him reliable for the following
reasons:
Sayyed al-Khoei said: Allamah HIlli (was speaking about Ibrahim ibn Hashim) and said: I did not
see any direct criticism for him and not a direct authentication for him but many narrate from
this person and I believe that is it is stronger to rely on him.
Reference: Sayyed al-Khoei in his enclycopedia, Vol. 1 Page 291
After stating this, Sayyed al-Khoei said: There is no reason to doubt the reliability of Ibrahim ibn
Hashim because of the following:
1. His son Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi narrates a lot from him in his tafseer and his son said that
he will only narrate from reliable people.
2. Sayyed ibn Tawous said that all Shias believe Ibrahim ibn Hashim is reliable.
3. Ibrahim ibn Hashim is the first person to spread the hadith of the Kufi people in Qum and
Qummis accepted from him while some of them were hard in accepting ahadith. Then alKhoei said: If there was any problem with Ibrahim ibn Hashim then they (Qummis) will not
accept this and the Shia will not agree on him.
4. al-Mamaqani while speaking about Ibrahim ibn Hashim mentioned scholars who did not
believe in his reliability and gave their reasons. In the end al-Mamaqani said: I feel shy not
to authenticate his ahadith.
Thus clearly Ibrahim ibn Hasim is reliable without anyone mentioning the word thiqa for him.

Are narrations of a non Imami acceptable?

Yes, as we have seen earlier, the term muwathaq is used for a narration that comes from a
reliable person who is non Imami.
Sheikh al-Tusi explained in details that one can accept narrations of non Imami, and he gave
examples of instances when Imamis relied on non Imamis.
Reference: Sheikh al-Tusi in his book al-Edda, Vol. 1, Page 379-381
This means that muwathaq in Shia books equals sahih in Sunni books because Sunnis did not
distinguish ahadith coming from another Sunni or non-Sunnis like Shias, Nawasib, or a kafirs as
long as the narrator is reliable. Thus sahih to Sunnis is muwathaq to Shia.

10

An example of a Shia scholar who says the same is:

Reference: Sheikh al-Subhani has said - muwathaq equals sahih in Usool al-Hadith, Page
157
This is the importance of quality issue in the science of rijal.
We learnt that ahadith can be ahad, mustafeedh or mutawater and we follow which is more
satisfying. If a problem cannot be solved or we want to add more signs, then we go to the next
step i.e. Quality. If the narration comes from reliable Imamis, the hadith is Sahih. If it comes
from reliable non Imamis, then it is Muwathaq. Both Sahih and Muwathaq are hujjah. If it
comes from somebody who is not very reliable, the hadith is Hasan and can be used in
unimportant issues. If we cannot prove from any of these, then it is graded Dhaeef.

11

RULINGS
Lets study 2 rulings that the majority of the Shias have a problem with.
1. Can we accept ahad hadith in everything?
2. We separate our scholars as old scholars and new scholars. While we accept the
authentication of old scholars, can we accept the authentication of new scholars as well?
1. Can we accept Ahad hadith in everything?
Yes, because any proof that one can use to prove that we are allowed to use ahad hadith in
fiqh, whether it is logical proof or a proof based on hadith, you will notice that the proof that is
being used does not separate/distinguish between ideology or fiqh or history or any other
thing. If someone asks for proof to use ahad hadith in idealogy, one should ask for proof to
prove ahad hadith in fiqh issues. You will notice that the proof will not distinguish between fiqh
or idealogy.
Also, in some of the issues where there is lots of conflict, one is forced to depend on mutwater
or mustafeedh ahadith, and is not comfortable with relying on just ahad hadith.
2. We separate our scholars as old scholars and new scholars. While we accept the
authentication of old scholars, can we accept the authentication of new scholars as well?
Unfortunately, the majority of the Shias today do not accept it. They say one can rely on a
scholar who witnesses or experiences what he is talking about. So when al-Fadhal ibn Shadhan
talks about Mohammed ibn Sinan, one accepts what he (al-Fadhal) says because he met
Mohammed ibn Sinan since it was based on experience, not guess. Thus one can accept old
scholars authentication because it is based on experience and not mere conjecture, while new
scholars authentication is based on guess, not experience. Thus one cannot rely on new
scholars.
However, what the majority of the Shias say regarding accepting authentication of old scholars
and denying those of new scholars are mistaken because the conditions of accepting old
scholars authentication should be the conditions one must use to accept new scholars
authentication. The conditions should not be different, it must be the same. The same can be
said about ahad hadith, it should have the same condition whether applied to fiqh or idealogy.
Unfortunately, people have made different conditions for fiqh and for idealogy.
Secondly, whatever is based over experience we accept it, whatever is based on guess, people
deny it. However, authentication is not just based on these two things. Sometimes it is based
over ijtehad, over signs and we accept those because we say old scholars used to authenticate
either based on experience or over signs. For example al-Najashi and al-Tusi who passed away
in 450 AH and 460 AH, never met Zorarah and they talk about companions of Prophet (s), Imam
Hasan (a.s), Imam Hussain (a.s) etc. Those scholars never saw them, how did they then know
that those people are reliable? It is because they looked at the signs, and was not based on
experience. Did we accept this? Yes, and we still can! So we should not have such a problem;
12

we should accept anything based on experience and signs, and not accept anything based on
mere guesswork. It is very obvious that after 1400 years we have signs that will make us very
certain whether a person is reliable or not, regarding Imam Ali (a.s) and Umar, we never met
them, we didnt have any experience with them, but we can say who is reliable or not, based
over the narrations we have, based on the signs we have, the content of the ahadith they
narrated, what history told us about them. Therefore when we are able to accept this, the same
goes for the rest of the narrators too.
Some people claim: If old scholars did not say anything about a certain narrator or did not say
that somebody is reliable, are the new scholars going to find any signs that the old scholars did
not see, especially when the majority of the books of rijal have disappeared?
Answer: The signs are not limited to what the old scholars have seen because old scholars
sometimes restricted the signs only to rijal books. When we study books like Tafseer al-Qummi,
Kamiluz Ziarat, or al-Mufid in his letter to Sheikh Saduq about the month of Ramadhan whether
29 or 30 days, or Sheikh al-Tusi in his book when he was refuting Waqifa, they mentioned some
statements which prove the reliability of some narrators, or they mentioned some good things
about some narrators. When we go to the old scholars we see that they havent spoken about
these narrators. Thus it is possible that the new scholars have seen things which the old
scholars have not, because they only limited themselves to rijal books, they did not go to
tafseer and other books, doing so made them miss a lot of signs like the content of hadith
which many overlook.
We have lots of ahadith from Ahlulbayt that say: Know the rank of the Shia by the type of
hadith they narrate. This is authentic and mustafeedh hadith. What does this mean? It means
that sometimes Ahlulbayt (as) have a secret which they dont tell everybody. However, if we
see that Zorarah is narrating those secrets, we realize that Zorarah is a person who Ahlulbayt
(a.s) consider reliable, he has a special rank, that is why they taught him those secrets. Those
secrets are not limited to idealogy, it can be fiqh, history like Imam Sadiq (a.s) telling people
about the details of what happened to Sayyeda Fatima (s.a), that he knows the unseen or has
control over the universe - those are secrets he doesnt tell everybody.
A fiqh issue like knowing whether or not a wife (widow) can inherit from building was also a
secret. The hukm is that they cannot. Common people did not know about it. Ahlulbayt (a.s)
only taught this to few people like Zorarah, thus we can say that Zorarah was a person who
knows secrets (and we also realize who amongst the companions of Ahlulbayt (a.s) have a
higher rank).
Another way of concluding that newer scholars can observe new signs is the following: Lets say
al-Najashi authenticates a narrator, and al-Tusi did not or vice versa. This means al-Najashi saw
some signs which al-Tusi did not or vice versa. Thus, al-Najashi did not know everything nor
does al-Tusi, therefore new scholars may be able to see some signs to authenticate narrators
too.

13

a) Shaheed al-Thaani said: The skillful man (in science of rijal) should not rely on taqleed and
he should be aware because he may find some signs that the old scholars did not pay attention
to or he may find an authentication or a weakening that they may have missed, like what I have
found. And we have mentioned it in my different places (in his book). Thus you are not allowed
to rely on taqleed, but to rely on ijtehad.
Reference: Shaheed al-Thaani in al-Bedaya, Page 63
Thus, by experience he talks what we mentioned early.
b) Bahr al-Oloom was talking about things upon which we can rely to authenticate narrators,
and was speaking about the authentication of many new scholars; he said: In regards to relying
on new scholars, sometimes we have an opinion that many new scholars agree on, we should
thus rely on such agreement.
Reference: Bahr al-Oloom in al-Fawaed al-Rijalia, Vol. 1 Page 463
[Thus if we see that Sayyed al-Khoei, Sayyed Sistani and many new scholars say that a certain
narrator is reliable, (even if none of the old scholars say he is reliable), we should hence rely on
the authentication of the new scholars and consider the narrator as reliable because the
possibility of mistake in determining the reliability of the narrator is very narrow]
There are people who say: that we cannot rely on them (new scholars) because we see
scholars authenticate a narrator but the majority of scholars did not, Sheikh Bahr al-Oloom
refuted such a claim by saying that the majority did not look at certain signs and the person
who looked at or knew those signs, he should be considered as hujjah. And he says that those
who believe that the signs are limited to the old scholars are mistaken because there are
surprises in the corner!
Later he gives some examples to prove his point, and states Sheikh al-Tusi and al-Najashi did
not see the signs each had for every narrator, thus it proves that they did not know everything.
[New scholars would include Shaheed al-Thaani, Allamah Hilli, Sheikh Tawous even though they
lived about 600 years ago. Sometimes we see that they authenticated some narrators even
though we dont know the reasons why. If they agree on the authentications, we should accept
their authentication because they must have seen some signs to authenticate the narrators].
It will only befit to offer an example here to see how one can solve contradictions between
scholars and how newer scholars can uncover signs to authenticate narrators and prove their
reliability.

14

Example: Obad ibn Yaqub

When one reads his biography in the books of rijal, one finds only two scholars who spoke a bit
on this narrator:
al-Najashi said that he (Obad ibn Yaqub) is from Kufa, he has books and al-Najashi talks about
Obads family.
Sheikh al-Tusi said: He is a sunni (that is all what al-Tusi said about Obad)
Thus, when we go to the old scholars, this is all the information we have about Obad ibn Yaqub.
However al-Mirza Noori (new scholar) said Obad ibn Yaqub is a Shia.
Therefore, we see a contradiction between old and new scholars.
Besides the contradiction of Obads madhhab, the older scholars did not speak about his
reliability either. How do we solve this?
a) About Obads madhhab: Sheikh al-Tusi said Obad is a Sunni however he did not provide
any proofs. On the other hand, when Al-Mirza Noori said Obad is a Shia, he gave reasons that
Obad had a book with 19 pure ahadith that prove he is a Shia and a stubborn person in Shiism.
Among those ahadith there are ahadith about the names of the 12 Imams (a.s), about the Shia
method of performing wudhu, about Ahlulbayts (a.s) infallibity etc.
Thus we accept al-Mirza Nooris opinion because he gave reasons as to why Obad ibn Yaqub is a
Shia, and leave aside al-Tusis opinion due to lack of proofs.
If someone still has any doubt, we can refer the Sunni rijal books to check what Sunni rijal
scholars say about this narrator. Many Sunni scholars have spoken about him (maybe this is the
reason why al-Tusi said he is a Sunni, for Obad must be famous amongst the Sunni circles too).
Here are some:
Ibn Oday said: He is a known Kufi scholar, he has ghulu because of his tashayyu and he narrated
ahadith that were denied, some were about virtues of Ahlulbayt (a.s) and some about criticizing
their enemies.
Ad-Darqutni said: Shii (he is a Shia)
Ibn Hajar Asqalani: Rafidhi and his hadith is in Sahih Bukhari. Then he said: Ibn Habban
exaggerated that we should leave his hadith.
al-Dhahabi: He is from the mughali Shia and from the heads of the innovators

15

al-Maruzi said: That I have heard Saleh talking about Obad ibn Yaqub and he said: Obad ibn
Yaqub told me that Allah is more fair than to enter Talha and Zubair to heaven. I asked him why
is that? He (Obad) said: Because they had a battle with Imam Ali (a.s)
Thus we see clearly that Obad ibn Yaqub was a persistent Shia by looking at the signs
mentioned by al-Mirza Noori and from the books of the Sunni scholars. Those signs direct us to
believe that he was a Shia.
b) About Obads reliability: Sheikh al-Najashi and al-Tusi did not speak about his reliability.
How can we know he is reliable? We can rely on Sunni scholars in this instance because if they
speak highly of a narrator and respect him and say he is reliable, being well aware of the fact
that the narrator is a Shia, then we can safely conclude that this narrator must be reliable. Lets
see what the Sunni scholars say about him:
al-Dhahabi: Obad ibn Yaqub is a sheikh, a scholar, a truthful muhaddith from the Shia
Abu Hatim: A Kufi but he is reliable
al-Darqutni: He is truthful
Ibn Hajar Asqalani: He is truthful
al-Hakim: Ibn Khuzaima used to say (when narrating from Obad): I narrate from the reliable in
his narrations, the accused in his religion
Hence, we conclude that Obad ibn Yaqub is a reliable narrator, even though none of the Shia
scholars spoke about his reliability.

16

GENERAL AUTHENTICATION
We have two kinds of authentication specific and general. In specific authentication, the
scholar is talking specifically of a certain narrator, based on either experience or ijtehad. In
general authentication, the scholar is talking about a group of people either directly or
indirectly. Often such general authentications are not found in rijal books, ideally they are
found in the books of fiqh, ideologies or tafseer etc. Thus we shouldnt be surprised if people
use arguments from non-rijal books because we mentioned earlier that one can pick up signs
from anywhere when it comes to science of rijal, just like while writing tafseer, one does not
limit himself to the books of tafseer - maybe you will find a point in the book of hadith or
history or even philosophy! We may pick a point from philosophy which could help us
understand the verse better. Science of rijal is no different. So once general authentication is
understood, a rijali can authenticate a lot of people who were previously unknown to him (and
thus unreliable) and move them to the reliable category. It is therefore equally important as
specific authentication.
Some people may claim that while relying on statements from old scholars who authenticate,
for example, a group of ahadith (like Sheikh Saduq in his introduction to Man La Yahduruhu alFaqih, said all the ahadith in this book are hujjah between him and Allah), they are not really
authenticating chains but are only authenticating content.
However this is not true, because when we can go to old scholars quotation we will see clearly
that when they authenticate ahadith, they dont just look at the content, they also look at the
chains.
We can prove this from the following two quotations of old scholars:
1. Sheikh Saduq in Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih was speaking about a hadith that says whoever fasts on the day of Ghadir, it was as if he paid kaffarah for 60 years. After mentioning
this hadith, he said the hadith is weak because my teacher Ibn al-Waleed weakened it since it is
narrated by Mohammed ibn Musa al-Hamadani who is a liar and not reliable. And then he said,
everything my teacher weakened, I weakened too.
Reference: Sheikh Saduq in Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Vol. 2, Page 90-91, Hadith no. 1817
Thus we see that he is clearly talking about the chain and not the content.
2. Sheikh al-Tusi in al-Edda was speaking about scholars who came before him (he himself is
considered to be from the older scholars and he is talking about scholars before him). He says:
we have found old scholars distinguishing between reliable narrators and unreliable narrators,
authenticating narrators and weakening narrators, relying on authentic ahadith and not relying
on weak ahadith and distinguish narrators on whom we can rely on to take ahaidth from and
those who cannot (be relied on), those who are good and those who are bad and he continued
like this till the end, until he said: this was their habit from the old days until today and if it was
allowed for us to follow narrations from weak narrators, they wouldnt have done this.
Reference: Sheikh al-Tusi in al-Edda, vol. 1 page 141-142
17

The last statement is especially important as it shows that the old scholars used to accept
ahadith based on the narrators and their reliability.

EXAMPLES OF GENERAL AUTHENTICATION

Example 1: KAMIL AL-ZIYARAAT
Our scholars are divided over 3 opinions with regards to Kamil al-Ziyaraat. They are:
a. Any narrator mentioned in the book is reliable (thus all narrators are reliable)
b. Only the first narrator i.e. the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh are reliable while the rest may not
be necessarily reliable eg. Saad ibn Abdullah, one of the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh
c. Any narrator mentioned therein is not necessarily reliable
Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil al-Ziyaraat, in the introduction was stating the reasons why he wrote the
book. He says: It is because you (the reader) asked me to do this by pushing me time and again,
asking me about ziyaraat and because I knew this subject has lots of thawaab and by doing this
I know that this will bring me closer to Allah and Mohammed (s) and Ali (a.s) and Fatima (s.a)
and the rest of the Imams (a.s), thats why I have spent some time gathering those ziyaraat and
spent efforts and I have asked Allah to help me in doing this and to present it the way you see it
right now, narrating those ziyaraat from Ahlulbayt (a.s) because I believe taking ahadith from
them is enough. And we know that we cannot everthing that they have mentioned except
those that is narrated to us through the reliable narrators from our scholars, may Allah have
mercy on them, and I have not narrated any hadith in it that is narrated from a weak narrator
who narrates it from Ahlulbayt (a.s) themselves, and did not narrate any hadith from a person
who is not famous from being a scholar of hadith and knowledge.
Reference: Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil al-Ziyarat, Page 37 in the introduction
Problems posed by other scholars in accepting the general authentication for Kamil al-Ziarat
1. Sheikh Subhani said: Ibn Qulawayh said that I will only narrate from reliable scholars from
our group (shia), May Allah have mercy on them. While he (Sheikh Saduq) said it, he narrated
from Laith ibn Salama who is a Sunni without a doubt. And he narrated from Aisha who is not
reliable, also he narrated from Umar ibn Saad who is not reliable, not a Shia and may Allah
curse him; and he narrates from Amr ibn Shimr who we dont have a proof that he is reliable.
Also he narrated from al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bataeni and his father Ali ibn Abi
Hamza al-Bataeni who there is no disagreement amongst the Shias that they are liars and the
Imams (a.s) cursed them.
Answer:
a) Laith ibn Abi Salama: First of all, Ibn Qulawayh only narrated from him once in his entire
book, secondly there is nothing in the books of rijal or any signs anywhere that would indicate
that this narrator is a Sunni. Thus one cannot use him as a refutation without proper proof of
him being a Sunni.

18

b) Aisha: Again, Ibn Qulawayh has mentioned her only once. Secondly it was not a narration
through her; it was only a story wherein a person was saying something which Aisha said about
Imam Hussain (a.s). Thus it was not a narration that goes back to Aisha, it was actually a person
simply quoting Aisha.
c) Umar ibn Saad: Ibn Qulawayh narrated through him 9 times. However, according to
Allamah Amini and other scholars, they wrote his name incorrectly. The narrator is not Umar
ibn Saad but Amr ibn Saeed, and one can find Amr ibn Saeed narrating in Kamil al-Ziyaraat with
the same chain. The proof on which Allamah Amini relied on is that the narrator who narrates
from Amr ibn Saeed is Nasr ibn Muzahim, and he (Nasr ibn Muzahim) was not alive during the
days of Umar ibn Saad. Thus they are from two different times and could not meet each other.
d) Amr ibn Shimr: As mentioned earlier, Sheikh Jafar Subhani says we dont have a proof that
this narrator is reliable. What Sheikh Subhani said is true, for when we look at the books of rijal,
we dont find any signs that affirm his reliability. However the question one should ask is: Is
there any sign that indicates Amr ibn Shimr is weak? The answer is No! Having no proofs to
prove the something is incorrect. Also, one cannot use him as a refutation because while
authenticating specifically we see disagreement amongst scholars over the reliability of certain
narrators. One scholar considers a narrator X to be reliable, while other disagrees. Such
disagreements do not lessen the importance of specific authentication or any of the scholars
who are differing on the opinion of narrator X. After studying the differing opinions, we accept
the opinion of a scholar who we think has graded the narrator appropriately. We apply the
same logic with general authentication. The most we can say is that Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil alZiyaraat has value just like other scholars who authenticate narrators specifically, he is
authenticating people, but if its proven otherwise, we should only leave that particular
narrator aside. We can do the same with Amr ibn Shimr - at the most we can say that Amr ibn
Shimr is not reliable because of disagreement between Ibn Qawleweh who thinks he is reliable
while others do not. This does not mean that we should leave the whole of Kamil al-Ziyaraat
aside and consider all the other narrators to be unreliable as well.
Secondly, there are many signs that prove Amr ibn Shimr is reliable. Three of Ashabul Ijma
narrated from Amr ibn Shimr. Another sign is that either Sheikh Saduq or Tusi has a book called
al-Majalis, where he sat with Sunni and Shia scholars and he narrated two thirds of the book
through Amr ibn Shimr. Besides, it is enough that we have one authentication from Ibn
Qulawayh since it does happen sometimes that only one scholar authenticates a particular
narrator. Here we have Ibn Qulaway authenticating Amr ibn Shimr, and that should suffice.
e) al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bataeni and his father Ali ibn Abi Hamza al-Bataeni:
When one reads their biographies, one will come across a hadith from one of the Imams who
was speaking to al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Bataeni and was talking good things about his father Ali ibn
Abi Hamza and the Imam said that he will go to heaven. This left the scholars puzzled. We must
realize that we are dealing with 4 different people with the same names! The ones that are
mentioned in Kamil al-Ziyaraat are not the same as the other al-Bataeni narrators who are liars.
We come to know this through the following:
19

 By Kamil al-Ziyaraat itself. The first sign is that the author Ibn Qulawayh states that he will
narrate only from reliable narrators
The second sign is that Ibn Qulawayh narrated 8 ahadith from al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi
Hamza and 12 ahadith from his father Ali ibn Abi Hamza, while narrating these 20 ahadith, he
never used the word al-Bataeni.
Also there is another authentic hadith where Imam Redha (a.s) has said that Ali ibn Abi
Hamza al-Bataeni is hell bound (Note: Imam said al-Bataeni)
After al-Bataeni was cursed, Shias left his hadith and did not narrate anything from him.
Ashabul Ijma have narrated from the non-Bataeni narrators.
Even if they are proven to be unreliable, it cannot be proven the same for Ibn Qulawayh. He
believed them to be reliable thus narrated those ahadith through them. If a scholar now has an
differing opinion regarding these narrators, it will simply be a case of disagreement between
scholars over narrator/s. One can disregard Ibn Qulawayh authentication for these narrators
but can still accept his authentication for the rest of them.
2) Only the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh are reliable.
However this is just a claim, it does not have a proof. Our assumption of people having such an
opinion is because of the refutations mentioned by scholars like Sheikh Jafar Subhani, while at
the same time trying to find a solution using Ibn Qulawayhs words of narrating only from
reliable narrators.
Thus, if we were to accept that all the narrators of Kamil al-Ziyaraat are reliable, we have 388
reliable narrators. If we were to accept that only the teachers of Ibn Qulawayh are reliable, we
are left with 32 reliable narrators.

20

Example 2: TARDHIYAAT AND TARAHHUM

When our scholars like Sheikh Saduq, al-Najashi and many others use words like Rahimallah or
Radhiyallahu anhu after the name of certain narrators, does it indicate authentication for the
narrator? The answer is yes, since it is a type of general authentication. If one sees a scholar
saying Rahimallah each time or a lot of times after mentioning the name of a narrator, we
understand that he has a special care towards that narrator and considers him to be reliable.
However, if he mentions the narrator 100 times and says Rahimallah only once, we cannot
decide that he considers him reliable, but if he mentions, lets say, 80 times, then we can
conclude that the scholar considers the narrator to be reliable.
With Radhiyallahu anhu it is more obvious. People use it only for special people and would
never confer it upon those who they dont consider reliable. Thus even if it is mentioned just
once after the narrator, it is considered to be an authentication for that narrator.
Problems posed by scholars against tardhiyaat and tarahhum
Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith was speaking about tarahhum and said: Tarahhum is
asking mercy from Allah towards a person, doing so is mustahhab towards any believer and
Allah tells us to ask forgiveness for all believers and our parents. Imam Sadiq (a.s) asks mercy
towards all the visitors of Imam Hussain (a.s), also for those who are fasiq like Ismael alHimyari to whom the Imam (a.s) said Rahimallah. How then is he not considered reliable, while
when scholars like Sheikh Saduq say Rahimallah after mentioning a narrator, he is considered to
be reliable?
And then Sayyed al-Khoei gives this example: Even al-Najashi made tarahhum to Mohammed
ibn Abdullah ibn Mohammed ibn Ubaidullah Ibn al-Bahlool and at the same time admitted
that scholars weakened him and that he (al-Najashi) refused to narrate from him.
Reference: Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith, Vol. 1, Page 74, No. 9
Refutation:
a) Imam Sadiq (a.s) asking mercy for the visitors: When Imam Sadiq (a.s) asked mercy for the
visitors of Imam Hussain (a.s), it was in the general sense of the term. When Imam Sadiq (a.s)
says Rahimallah to the visitors of Imam Hussain (a.s), it does not reach every single one of
them. However here we are not speaking about asking mercy in the general sense. Rahimallah
after a narrator is directed specifically at him and no one else. The same is the case with cursing
- when Imams curse Bani Umayyah, it does not reach every single person from Bani Umayyah
because there are some good people and even Shias from Bani Umayyah. Thus when cursing
Bani Umayyah does not weaken every narrator from Bani Umayyah, tarahhum for visitors of
Imam Hussain (a.s) does not make all of them reliable.
Thus, such a claim cannot be used as a refutation for tarahhum.

21

b) Ismael al-Himyari: To understand the case of al-Himyari, we need to look at the story
behind Imam saying Rahimallah to al-Himyari. Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith was
speaking about al-Himyari. Imam Sadiq (a.s) was sitting and somebody came and read a poem
to him and the Imam cried, the Imam asked whose poem it was, they replied it was Sayyed ibn
Mohammed al-Himyaris. Imam Sadiq (a.s) said Rahimallah. The narrator said: But he drinks
wine. The Imam (a.s) said Rahimallah. The narrator said: He drinks restaq. The Imam asked: Do
you mean wine? The narrated replied: Yes. Then Imam said Rahimallah.
Reference: Sayyed al-Khoei in Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith, Vol. 4, Page 90-91, No. 1432
Thus Imam said Rahimallah thrice for al-Himyari.
Answer 1: However we only have two narrations that say Sayyed al-Himyari drinks wine and
both of them are weak. Sayyed al-Khoei admitted in the same source (Mausuat Rijal al-Hadith)
on page 94 that both the narrations are weak. Thus the objection of al-Himyari also cannot be
used against the concept of tarahhum.
Answer 2: The case of al-Himyari can actually be used to rely on tarahhum and not against it,
because if one reads the second narration that says al-Himyari drinks wine which is mentioned
in Manaqeb by Ibn Shaher Ashoob, we read: That a person came to Imam Sadiq (a.s) with a
poem and when Imam asked him whose poem it was, the man said it was al-Himyaris. Imam
(a.s) said: Rahimallah thrice. The person was surprised because al-Himyari drank wine, Imam
replied in the affirmative and said that once al-Himyari heard that the Imam cursed anybody
who drank wine, al-Himyari wrote a letter to the Imam and asked him whether he (Imam)
cursed him (al-Himyari) and the Imam replied in the affirmative, al-Himyari later repented and
told Imam that he will never drink wine henceforth.
Reference: Manaqeb by Ibn Shaher Ashoob, Vol. 3 Page 370
Thus we see that Imam said Rahimallah after al-Himyari repented, not while he was drinking
alcohol. However, this hadith is weak too but if al-Himyaris case is to be used against the
concept of tarahhum, all the ahadith should be taken together since all of them are weak
instead of relying and singling out one weak hadith.
c) Mohammed ibn Abdullah ibn Mohammed ibn Ubaidullah Ibn al-Bahlool: He is the teacher
of al-Najashi who al-Najashi said Rahimallah and at the same time said: My scholars weakened
him and I avoided him.
What is the story behind Ibn al-Bahlool? Al-Najashi in Rijal al-Najashi said: Ibn al-Bahlool
travelled to gain knowledge and he was accurate in the beginning of his life and later started to
mix. Ive seen a majority of our scholars weaken him..(and al-Najashi continued) while in the
end he said: He has seen him (Ibn al-Bahlool) and he has heard from him a lot, then stopped
narrating from him (Ibn al-Bahlool) without putting someone in between them.
Reference: al-Najashi in Rijal al-Najashi, Page 396, No: 1059

22

Lets take a look at the whole case:

al-Najashi said Rahimallah but did he weaken him or not? There is a possibility that al-Najashi
did not weaken him or say anything against him. Infact al-Najashi said good things about him that Ibn al-Bahlool travelled a lot, the books that he authored like the benefits of turbah, about
visiting Imam Ali (a.s) and Imam Hussain (a.s), about taqiyyah, virtues of al-Abbas, a book of dua
etc.
Then al-Najashi said that he avoided narrating from him. He didnt say that he avoided because
he thinks Ibn al-Bahlool is weak. There is a possibility that he avoided narrating from him
because the reputation of Ibn al-Bahlool was not very good since the majority of people
weakened him but we dont know why. It could be because Ibn al-Bahlool started to mix at the
end of his life, and that by itself is not a problem, that doesnt make him a liar. He was simply
not accurate anymore. So al-Najashi avoided narrating from Ibn al-Bahlool only to protect
himself since during the days of al-Najashi, if somebody narrated from a weak person, people
would not only weaken and accuse the weak person but also weaken and accuse any scholar
who narrated from this weak person. This is the reason why al-Najashi avoided narrating from
Ibn al-Bahlool, however not completely al-Najashi said that he still narrates from him but with
a person in between them. If al-Najashi thought Ibn al-Bahlool is a liar, he would have
completely avoided taking any ahadith from him, however since he wanted his (Ibn alBahlools) ahadith while simultaneously wanted to protect his reputation too, he put a narrator
in between himself and Ibn al-Bahlool.
Thus this case too cannot be used as a refutation against the concept of tarahhum.

23

Example 3: ASHABUL IJMA

It is the group of 18 people who narrated only from reliable people.
6 narrators from the time of Imam al-Baqir (a.s)
6 narrators from the time of Imam al-Sadiq (a.s)
6 narrators from the time of Imam al-Kadhim (a.s)
al-Kishi is the oldest scholar who spoke about this authentication.
The first group al-Kishi spoke about the first 6 companions [that of Imam Baqirs (a.s) time],
and said: All Shias agreed to believe those companions of Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s)
and they followed them in their narrations; the most knowledgeable of the companions of
Imam al-Baqir are 6 Zorarah, Maruf ibn Kharbouz, Borayd, Abu Baseer al-Asadi, Fodhayl ibn
Yasar and Mohammed ibn Muslim. And the most knowledgeable amongst them is Zorarah. And
some scholar said: Instead of Abu Baseer al-Asadi, it is Abu Baseer al-Moradi.
The second group al-Kishi said: All Shias agreed to authenticate whatever is authenticated
from those and believe them in what they say and we admit and accepted their narrations
other than the other group (Note that he is talking about a new group), that we have
mentioned previously. And they are: Jamil ibn Darraj, Abdullah ibn Moskan, Abdullah ibn
Bokair, Hammad ibn Isa, Hammad ibn Uthman and Aban ibn Uthman; and Abu Ishaq al-Faqih
said that the most knowledgable of them is Jamil ibn Darraj and those are the young
companions of Imam al-Sadiq (a.s).
The third group al-Kishi said: All Shias agreed to authenticate whatever is authenticated from
those and believe them in what they say and we admit and accepted their narrations and their
knowledge and they are 6 people other than the 6 that we have mentioned before. And they
are: Yunus ibn Abdul Rahman, Safwan ibn Yahya, Mohammed ibn Abi Omair, Abdullah ibn alMughaira, al-Hasan ibn Mahboub and Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Abi Naseer. And some
scholars said: Instead of al-Hasan ibn Mahboub, it is Hasan ibn Ali al-Fadhal and Fodhal ibn
Ayub and others said that instead of Ibn Fadhaal, it is Uthman ibn Isa. And the most
knowledgeable of those are Yunus ibn Abdul Rahman and Safwan ibn Yahya.
Thus, we have in total 18 names plus 4 additional names that scholars are disagreeing about
whether or not should they be included.
Does adding additional 4 names to the 18 hurt the theory?
Sheikh Jafar Subhani in al-Kulyaat Ilm al-Rijal said: al-Mirza Noori said that there is no
disagreement amongst the names because no one is denying the other names. Thus the
question should be whether or not to add them. The fact that there are disagreements
between them, (lets say) between Abu Baseer al-Asadi and Abu Baseer al-Moradi, this means
both of them are good people and no one is denying the other. Thus we should not only
consider the 18 people but also add the other 4, and we have 22 reliable narrators.
Reference: Sheikh Jafar Subhani in Al Kulyaat Ilm al-Rijal, Page 170
24

Note: Consider all the scholars who spoke about these people. Some say Abu Baseer al-Asadi
narrates only from reliable people, other scholars say Abu Baseer al-Moradi narrates only from
reliable people. Thus it leads to the same conclusion that both Abu Baseer al-Asadi and Abu
Baseer al-Moradi narrate only from reliable people and there is no conflict.
After al-Kishi, Sheikh al-Tusi spoke something similar about it. In his book, al-Edda, he was
talking about science of rijal and was speaking about connected and disconnected narrations.
He said: We do not accept disconnected narrations except from someone who is known and
does not narrate from unreliable narrators and because of this, Shias did not differentiate
between the connected ahadith and disconnected ahadith that is narrated from Mohammed
ibn Abi Omair, Safwan ibn Yahya, and Mohammed ibn Abi Nasr and others from those who are
known not to narrate from unreliable narrators. And because of that, all Shias accept the
disconnected ahadith that comes from those (He mentioned 3 of the 18 names from Ashabul
Ijma)
Reference: al-Edda by Sheikh al-Tusi, Vol. 1, Page 154
We have 3 main opinions on the statements by al-Kishi and al-Tusi stated earlier. What do they
mean? What did Shias agree on?
1. The first opinion: Shias agreed that ONLY those 18 people are reliable.
This opinion is incorrect because if it is accepted then what about Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dhar,
Ammar ibn Yasir, Abu Hamza Thumali, Zakariya ibn Adam, al-Fadhl ibn Shadhan etc? Are there
disagreements on their reliability? No! They are all considered to be highly reliable.
There are many great fuqaha, scholars, narrators about whom there are no disagreements
whether or not they are reliable.
2. The second opinion: All Shias agreed that the content of those 18 people are acceptable.
Refutation: If we go to the book of fiqh, we wont find such an opinion. We find that many
people deny the ahadith of Zorarah, Safwan ibn Yahya, al-Hasan ibn Mahboub, and many other
names from Ashabul Ijma, because they find the content of those ahadith to be against Quran,
or majority of ahadith, or logic. Thus people do not accept every single ahadith that comes from
them, content-wise. Yes, they say it is a hujjah but if they find a stronger hujjah, they go with
the stronger hujjah. Thus, if people claim that all Shias accept the content of the ahadith
narrated by Ashabul Ijma, then in reality, is not the case.
Secondly, what do people mean when they say that they accept the hadith that comes from
those 18 people content-wise even if it is weak? They are trying to say that Ashabul Ijma do
narrate from weak and reliable people, they never said they do not narrate from weak people
however all Shias accepted the content of their ahadith because Ashabul Ijma compared their
hadith with Quran, with other ahadith hence they made ijtehaad and concluded that the
ahadith they narrate are true content-wise.

25

Thus we see that the people of second opinion are trying to say that the issue has nothing to do
with narrators being reliable or not, the content of their ahadith agrees with Quran, other
ahadith and logic, so if this proven, then we cannot use those names to authenticate the names
after them.
Answer: If one faqih says that a hadith is authentic because he compared it with Quran (even
though the hadith does not have a chain) and he believes that it is Sahih, can another faqih
accept it or should he make his own ijtehad? We all know that in Shia madhhab, our scholars
should make their own ijtehad, they should not do taqleed to other scholars. One mujtahid will
never rely on the ijtehad of another mujtahid. Thus it will be impossible that all Shia fuqaha
made taqleed to Ashabul Ijma when it comes to taking their narrations with respect to their
content.
Also, such an understanding - that of Ashabul Ijma doing their own ijtehad and later scholars
accepting their narrations based over it, do not fit the clear statement by Sheikh al-Tusi who
said that Ashabul Ijma are known not to have narrated anything from unreliable narrators.
3. The third opinion: The statement clearly means that those 18 or 22 people narrate only
from reliable narrators.
Sayyed ad-Damaad, Sheikh al-Bahai, Allamah Hilli, Bahr al-Oloom, Allamah Baqir Majlesi and
many other scholars, also said: The fact there is an agreement amongst Shias that those 18
people narrate only from reliable narrators, then this by itself is a proof.

26

FEW OTHER PROBLEMS:

Claim: Sheikh al-Tusi in al-Tahzib and al-Istibsar, accepted some ahadith that contradicted
mursalat Mohammed ibn Abi Umair. Thus al-Tusi avoided the disconnected ahadith from
Mohammed ibn Abi Umair, he did not use them but used the other ahadith.
Answer: Sheikh al-Tusi simply believes that the mursal narrations of Ibn Abi Umair is a hujjah
however, when there are contradictory connected authentic ahadith which are more in
numbers, those ahadith will be better and stronger hujjah than the sole mursal narration.
Therefore in this situation, Sheikh al-Tusi went with the connected ahadith and avoided the
single mursal of Ibn Abi Umair.
The same logic applies to one authentic hadith which is in contradiction with 5 authentic
ahadith. In this situation, one will go with the 5 ahadith and avoid the contradictory single
narration.
Therefore, Sheikh al-Tusi avoided the mursal narrations of Ashabul Ijma in some instances.
To prove that Sheikh al-Tusi did rely on the mursal narrations of Ashabul Ijma, we have the
following examples:
a) Under the issue of taharah, when discussing what is Kurr (It is an amount of liquid/water),
Sheikh al-Tusi said it is the amount of 1200 Retl. His only proof was the mursalat of Ibn Abi
Umair.
b) When does a Qurayshi lady considered to be Yaes (reached menopause)? People consider
it to be 60 years according to the only proof mursalat Ibn Abi Umair and Sheikh al-Tusi
relied on it.

27

PROBLEMS AGAINST ASHABUL IJMA

1. Claim: There are some instances which prove that Ashabul Ijma narrated from weak
narrators, thus they cannot be relied upon completely.
Answer: If at all this claim is proven, it does not mean that we can leave those 18 people i.e.
Ashabul Ijma, otherwise we may have to leave al-Najashi or al-Tusi because we can bring few
narrators where al-Najashi said they are reliable whereas Sheikh al-Tusi said they are weak or
vice versa. In these cases should we say that we cannot rely on al-Najashi or al-Tusi anymore?
No!
The same can be said about Ashabul Ijma, all we want to know is that when they narrated from
people, we believe that those people are reliable. For example, when Ibn Abi Umair narrates
from somebody, Ibn Abi Umair believes that person is reliable. al-Najashi may disagree on the
reliability of the narrator that Ibn Abi Umair narrates from but that is a different case in itself.
This does not mean that Ashabul Ijma do not have any value anymore. This is simply a case of
disagreement between scholars, just like we see in specific authentication.
People who claim that Ashabul Ijma narrated from weak narrators, were able to get hold of
only a handful of narrators who they claim are weak.
Ibn Abi Umair narrated from 400 narrators, of which some people claim 13 of those are weak.
In reality, none of them can be proven to be weak narrators! al-Fudhal ibn Umar, Mohammed
ibn Sinan, al-Moalla ibn Qunays, al-Fudhal ibn Saleh, Ali ibn Abi Hamza etc all of them can be
authenticated!
Safwan ibn Yahya narrated from 200 narrators and some people claim he narrated from 7 weak
narrators.
Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Abi Nasr narrated from 100 narrators, and some people claim he
narrated from 5 weak narrators.
Thus, some people could pick out only 17 narrators in total, who they claim are weak but in
fact theyre not. Even assuming that those narrators are weak, it does not hurt the theory of
Ashabul Ijma since we mentioned earlier that it will simply be a case of disagreement between
scholars.
2. Claim: Ijma is not hujjah until it includes the opinion of the Imams (a.s) and we cannot get
the opinion of the Imam over Ashabul Ijma, so this type of ijma is not hujjah.
Answer: This is the weakest claim ever! The ijma that is being spoken about in fiqh is different
from what it is implied here; for when we say the proof in fiqh are 4 Quran, ahadith, logic and
ijma, in reality, the only proofs are Quran and Sunnah while logic and ijma are only clarification
proofs which means that ijma here will be a proof only if we can prove that it includes
Ahlulbayt (a.s). For example, when we wash our hands for wudhu, should the water be poured
28

from the elbows downwards or vice versa? We can claim that during the days of Imams (a.s),
everybody did wudhu pouring water down from the elbows and since Ahlulbayt (a.s) did not
object, we can say that Ahlulbayt (a.s) agreed with the method too.
The wudhu example is one from fiqh, whereas here (rijal) it is a different scenario. Here we are
talking about witnessing; we want people who witnessed that Ashabul Ijma only narrated from
reliable people. In this case, the witness of only one scholar is enough for example if alNajashi is the only scholar who authenticates a narrator, it will be hujjah. Now taking this a step
further, what if we get ijma over a narrator? This would mean a stronger hujjah!
Thus in this scenario, the opinion of Ahlulbayt (a.s) is not required. Just like when we visit
doctors, if all doctors advise you to stay away from certain kind of foods, such a type of ijma is
hujjah on you. They are scholars in their own field, not fiqh.
Since it is about witnessing even if only one person witnesses, it will be a hujjah. If there is ijma
over such a witness, it means it has a much stronger hujjah.
3. Claim: Nobody before al-Kishi mentioned that Ashabul Ijma narrate only from reliable
narrators, thus we cannot rely on al-Kishi.
Answer: While authenticating or weakening a narrator, sometimes a scholar (lets say alNajashi) says that many of our scholars have weakened him and we understand this statement
to be a sign and we weaken that narrator as well. Or when the scholar says many of our
scholars believe he is reliable, thus we consider the narrator to be reliable too. The important
point that needs to be noted here is that we dont know who those scholars are. However we
accept the authentication or the weakening of the narrator because we say that al-Najashi is a
reliable person and we believe in what he says. Thus, the same must be said about al-Kishi - we
think he is reliable and he says that all scholars believed in the reliability of those 18 people.
Thus we should accept it from him. It is the same logic, if we accept from al-Najashi, we should
accept it from al-Kishi too.
Secondly, we have to note that al-Kishi lived during the days of al-Kulayni (died 329), the same
year the minor occultation ended and the final safeer passed away. So this is a very early stage
in Shiism, it is therefore possible that al-Kishi took this claim from his teachers according to
what he says (He said: Our scholars which means his teachers). Thus he must have taken this
claim from his teachers who either met some of the 18 people or they met their students. If not
a direct claim, then they must have seen signs which must have indicated that Ashabul Ijma
narrate only from reliable narrators.
4. Claim: If it is a direct statement about Ashabul Ijma narrating only from reliable narrators,
then it is alright and one can rely on such a claim. However, if it comes from signs, then it
cannot be relied upon.
Answer: We should understand that actually in these cases, signs will be much stronger hujjah
than mere statements. Signs that come from reality are stronger than statements that come
29

from claims. What do we mean here? Lets take a look at some examples as a means of further
explanation:
a. Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari: He never said that he only narrates from reliable
narrators however when one studies his nature, his lifestyle we can clearly see that he would
narrate only from reliable narrators. If one reads his biography given by Sayyed al-Khoei, we
come across an incident where Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari expelled Ahmed ibn
Mohammed ibn Khalid al-Burqi from Qom since he (al-Burqi) narrated from weak narrators.
Looking at this incident/sign, we can conclude that Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Eisa al-Ashari
himself would not narrate from weak narrators, lest somebody expels him out too. Also, we can
add what Sayyed al-Khoei said about al-Ashari. Sayyed al-Khoei said that he (al-Ashari) did not
narrate from Ibn Mahboub because some people criticized Ibn Mahboub, also he did not
narrate from Abu Hamza Thumali because.
Thus it is possible that Ashabul Ijma did something similar and their students and other scholars
noted such signs and concluded that they only narrate from reliable narrators.
b) Another proof is al-Najashi himself. al-Najashi when speaking about certain narrator said that
he (the narrator) heard ahadith and in the end of his life started to mix ahadith, and he was my
friend and friend of my father. I heard from him a lot but Ive seen my teachers weakening him
and because of that I avoided him even though he was from the people
In the example seen above, we notice that he did not narrate from that narrator simply because
his teachers weakened the narrator. Thus we see that al-Najashi himself never narrated from
unreliable people. He himself never claimed it and there is no direct statement or claim, it is
however based on signs. In the same way, al-Kishi or his teachers did not record any direct
statement, but they knew based on some signs that Ashabul Ijma did not narrate from
unreliable narrators.

30

COMPARISON BETWEEN SHIA AND SUNNI SCIENCE OF RIJAL

After studying and careful analysis of the science of rijal of both the sects (Shia and Sunni), we
conclude that the Shia science of rijal is more developed than the Sunnis for the following
reasons:
1. The Shia science of rijal was formed under the guidance of Ahlulbayt (a.s), they taught the
rules of this science - that tawatur is hujjah, that we are allowed to take from misguided
people but to leave their opinions, that weak hadith does not mean fabricated hadith and
many such issues.
2. Sunnis started with their science of rijal and their writing of ahadith after the death of
Prophet (s) in year 11 AH, but Shias had Ahlulbayt (a.s) till 329 AH, thus they had a lot of
time to study how to write ahadith, to study the science of rijal, if there were any gaps then
Ahlulbayt (a.s) helped to offer appropriate solutions, what things in rijal should be ensured
etc. Thus Shias had Ahlulbayt (a.s) for guidance, but Sunnis did not get to learn this even
while the Prophet (s) was alive.
3. The Shias do not mix the chain research with the content research we mentioned in the
definition of hadith al-Sahih it is the narration of just Imami who is reliable and accurate.
For us, a hadith will be sahih even if it is shaadh (unique or minor), but for the Sunnis it is
not. For them, the minor or shaadh hadith is not authentic, thus they mixed the shaadh
hadith with the chain and ended up having problems.
4. The Shias take narrations from misguided people focusing on their reliability. For Sunnis,
they mix things at times and it invites problems whether or not to accept ahadith from
Shias? If they deny accepting ahadith from Shias, then al-Dhahabi said that the Sunnis will
lose a lot of the traditions. The dilemma is that if they do accept narrations coming from
Shias, then the idealogy of the Sunni madhhab stands challenged. Thus we see they are
unable to solve this predicament even today. We see many example wherein if they like a
hadith which they want to use, they will accept it from a misguided person; on the contrary
if they dont want to accept a narration which goes against their school of thought, theyll
say it came from a Shia (misguided), thus rejecting it.
5. Accepting the hadith of the Nawasib Sunnis accept it, while Shias dont because nasibis
are hypocrites according to the hadith of the Prophet (s). It is not because of the hatred
Shias have towards them, since they also hate the Waqifis, Ghulat etc, however Shias accept
their ahadith because the Waqifis, Ghulat etc were not termed hypocrites by the Holy
Prophet (s).
Some of the common objections raised against the Shia science of rijal are mentioned below.

31

A] DISCONNECTION OF SHIA CHAINS

Sunnis claim that there is disconnection in Shia chains i.e. there is disconnection before our
Imams or after our Imams.
Disconnection after the Imams (a.s)
For example, all narrators who narrated from Imam Sadiq (a.s) are Kufis and he (a.s) is Medani
(resided in Medina).
We say there is no disconnection for the following reasons:
1. If it is proven that a narrator is reliable and he narrates from another reliable person, it
proves a connection.
2. Contrary to what people claim, Imam Sadiq (a.s) did travel to Iraq. al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam
al-Nubula narrated an authentic hadith about a debate between Imam Sadiq (a.s) and Abu
Hanifa in Iraq, thus it proves that Imam Sadiq (a.s) was in Iraq and those narrators took
ahadith from him while he was there.
Reference: al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam al-Nubula, Vol. 6 Page 257
3. Shias visit Mecca for the annual pilgrimage - Hajj, and Imam Sadiq (a.s) used to go for Hajj
too, thus there is a high possibility that they met Imam there and took his narrations.
4. Shias go for ziyarat (visitation) of Prophet (in Medina) which is mustahhab, thus there is a
possibility they met Imam Sadiq too, since he was a resident of Medina.
5. Since Shias believe that Imam Sadiq (a.s) is an Imam, there is no problem in believing that
people travelled to Medina from Kufa especially to meet him.
6. In Siar Alam al-Nubula, it is stated that many people travelled to Mecca not just for Hajj but
also to meet Sufyan ibn Uyyana because he is a good scholar and many people wanted to
take his ahadith. The same can be said about Shias travelling to meet Imam Sadiq (a.s).
7. If we were to accept the claim that the narrations of the Kufis from Imam Sadiq (a.s) are
disconnected and thus weak, then Sahih Muslim will be weak as well because Abu Hanifa,
Hatim ibn Ismael, al-Hasan ibn Ayyash, Hafs ibn Gheeath and Sufyan al-Thawri narrated
from Imam Sadiq (a.s) and all of these narrators are Kufis.
8. There is famous Sunni chain: Ahmed ibn Hanbal (who is from Baghdad) who narrates from
Abdul Razzak al-Sanani (from Yemen) who narrates from Muammar ibn Rashid (from Basra)
who narrates from Az Zuhri (from Medina) [Ref?]

32

Disconnection before the Imams (a.s)

Sunnis claim that there is disconnection before the Imams (a.s) too - that they narrate directly
from the Prophet (s), which is not possible thus disconnected.
Answer: There are many authentic Shia ahadith wherein Imams (a.s) have stated that their
ahadith are taken from their fathers (thus connected).
al-Mizzi says:
a) Imam Sadiq has lots from hadith from his father from Jabir from Prophet.
b) From his father from his fathers from Prophet
c) Books that he inherited from his father and Ahlalbayt
Reference: Tahdheeb al-Kamal by al-Mizzi, Vol. 5 Page 7
Thus when Imam Sadiq (a.s) says that Prophet said: it will be from one of the three chains
above and they are all reliable.

33

B] LACK OF SAHIH HADITH IN SHIA BOOKS

Sunnis claim that there are no Sahih ahadith in Shia books, according to the statement of alHurr al-Ameli:
According to al-Hurr al-Ameli: If you use the definition of sahih hadith and apply it to our
ahadith, we will not find a lot of sahih hadith in our books. This is because the definition of
sahih is: the narration of the just Imami, but when we go to the books of the narrators, they
do not describe the narrators as adil (just) except in a few places. And dont tell us that reliable
or thiqa equals adil because our scholars described people of being reliable while they are fasiq
and kafir.
Reference: al-Hurr al-Ameli in Wasail al-Shia in Vol. 30
Answer: What he said actually applies to both Shia and Sunni science of hadith. Even in Sunni
rijal works, the definition of sahih hadith is one from an adil narrator/s. Once we look in their
rijal books, we will not find many narrators who their Sunni scholars called adil. Sunnis will say
that when their scholars say thiqa it means by default that the narrator is adil. For them Shias,
Nawasib, Jahamiya are thiqa narrators, thus adil. We say the same thing! How can the Sunnis
say a hadith is sahih, if it comes from Shia narrators who they consider kafirs and are not
labeled adil?
We must understand that the adalah of the narrators mentioned here does not have anything
to do with the actions of the narrators, because the term adalah or adil actually indicates the
truthfulness of the narrators. Adalah in the context of rijal, only means that a person has to
reliably narrate a hadith, and should not be a liar.
This means that when we say that a narrator is reliable, he is adil and the hadith will be graded
sahih.
If somebody is adamant about the statement of Sheikh al-Hurr al-Ameli and says that the
Sheikh admitted there are hardly any sahih hadith in Shia books, then we can say that Sunni
scholars also have admitted that the narrators of Sunni hadith are mudalliseen (to do tadlis
means a person says something but means something else to trick other people)
1. Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: I never saw anybody from the people of hadith without being
mudallis except Ibn Aun and Amr ibn Murrah.
Reference: Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Vol. 8 Page 90
Thus, according to Ibn Hajar all scholars except two are mudalliseen!
2. al-Dhahabi said: Baqqiyah (a scholar) makes tadlees from a weak narrator NOTE and believes
it is allowed.
Reference: al-Mizan al-Etidal by al-Dhahabi, Vol. 1 Page 339

34

If this is proven (what al-Dhahabi said about Baqiyyah), then Baqqiyah is not reliable. Then alDhahabi adds this has been proven that Baqqiyah does this, so does Walid ibn Muslim and so
do many of our big scholars and it is a major mistake by them.
*NOTE: What does making tadlees from a weak narrator mean?
It means that the one who wants to make tadlees does not mention the name of the weak
narrator (or changes the name of the weak narrator) from whom hes narrating. He does this
because he wishes to trick people. If he mentioned the (real) name of the weak narrator, other
scholars will not accept the hadith from him.
Sometimes the person does tadlees with a reliable narrator. Why? Because if somebody (X)
does not like a certain narrator (Y), then he will not take the hadith from that narrator (Y) even
if that person (Y) is reliable. So the person who does tadlees skips the name of the person (Y)
while narrating a hadith to X.
Some of the companions also made tadlees. Lets look at some of the quotations by Sunni
scholars talking on this subject.
Ibn Katheer said: Shuba said that Abu Hurayrah used to make tadlees by narrating what he has
heard from Kaab al-Ahbar and what he heard from Prophet (s) without distinguishing them (so
he will tell you something from Kaab by saying that he heard from the Prophet). One day they
questioned Abu Hurayrah about a hadith : Whoever woke up in the days of Ramadhan in the
state of Janaba, then there is no fasting for him. People said did you really hear it from him
(Prophet)? Then they kept questioning him till he admitted that somebody else told him about
it, not the Prophet.
Reference: al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah for Ibn Katheer, Vol. 8 Page 117-118
(Thus, we see clearly Abu Hurayrah making tadlees. He claimed to have heard from the Prophet
when in fact it was from someone else).
Then Shuraiq said that al-Mughira said that Ibrahim said: Many of our scholars did not accept
the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, some accepted it but only when it had something to do with the
description of jannah and hell or the advices that you have to do in good things or the advices
that you have to avoid.
Reference: al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. 2 Page 608-609, and added that there is a
lot of tadlees in the level of ashaab.
Thus there are many from the companions who made tadlees, according to al-Dhahabi.
al-Hakim said: I have mentioned the 6 types of tadlees so that the students of science of rijal
will understand them but I wouldnt like to mention the names of scholars who make this type
of tadlees because I want to protect the hadith and the narrators.
Reference: Al Hakim in al-Marifat al-Uloom al-Hadith, Page 111
35

al-Dhahabi said: And it is known that we have to protect the narrators and this door on
ourselves, only a minority will survive because the majority do not know what they narrate and
they dont know those rules, the only thing they did was that they heard the hadith when they
were young and we needed the hadith when they became older.
Reference: Mizan al-Etidal by al-Dhahabi, Vol. 1 Page 4
al-Dhahabi also spoke about scholars accusing each other and then he said that we should not
rely on such accusations i.e. when scholars talk against each other and concluded: We should
not rely on al-Thawri when he accused Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa and we should not rely on
Ibn Mueen when he accused al-Shafi. And we should not rely on al-Nisaei when he accused
Ahmad and if we do this (if we rely on such accusations), no one will survive from our Imams
because all the Imams were accused by somebody else.
Thus, the conclusion we get from the statements above is that all their scholars are accused by
other Sunni scholars, their big names in rijal as well as the companions did tadlees and now
have resorted to hiding information and details to protect their science of hadith.
Dhahabi said: Every now and then, I see a reliable narrator who is being accused by another
scholar and if we open this door to ourselves, many of the companions and the tabein and the
imams will enter this door because some of the companions accused each other of being kaffir.
And there are many scholars who lived with each other at the same time, and when they
accuse each other we should not take this and we should hide it and not narrate it.
Reference: al- Dhahabi in al-Riwat al-Thiqat, Page 23
Dhahabi (while talking about scholars who lived with each other and accuse each other) said:
We should not rely on those accusations and hide and not narrate them just like when we
should hide the things that happened amongst the companions and the battles with each
other, and every now and then I see in our books, in our pages many of these things. And we
should hide it and destroy it so that the hearts will be living again. And it is wajib for everybody
to hide and not to talk about these things.
Reference: al-Dhahabi in Siar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. 10 Page 92

36

One more thing to add:

al-Amash used to attack al-Hasan ibn Omara, then al-Hasan ibn Omara sent him clothes and
after that he (al-Amash) said good things about him. [Al Amash is one of the rijal scholars for
Sunnis].
Reference: Mojam Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ziad, Vol. 1 Page 122
When someone studies such statements/quotations of the Sunni rijal scholars, one can realize
that they hide the accusations of the other scholars not just for religious matter but for
personal gains as well. We thus lose credibility of the Sunni scholars and cannot rely on them
anymore. Lets take a few more examples:
If you hear a hadith from Sunni then accept the narrator no matter what he is.
Reference: Mojam Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ziad, Vol. 1 Page 234
Thus we see clearly that the scholar says that they should accept a narrator whatever he be
like! Whether reliable or otherwise!

37