RSS Feed

Deeds not accepted without Wilayat?

Deeds not accepted without Wilayat?

Here is the text of the Riwaayah narrated in Al-Kaafi with its Sanad:

وعن محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، وعن عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، جميعا، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن هشام بن سالم، عن عبد الحميد بن العلاء، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السّلام – في حديث – قال: والله لو أنّ إبليس سجد لله بعد المعصية والتكبّر عمر الدنيا ما نفعه ذلك، ولا قبله الله عز وجل ما لم يسجد لآدم كما أمره الله عزّ وجل أن يسجد له، وكذلك هذه الأمّة العاصية المفتونة بعد نبيّها (صلّى الله عليه وآله)، وبعد تركهم الإمام الذي نصبه نبيّهم (صلّى الله عليه وآله) لهم، فلن يقبل الله لهم عملًا ولن يرفع لهم حسنة حتّى يأتوا الله من حيث أمرهم، ويتولوا الإمام الذي أُمروا بولايته، ويدخلوا من الباب الذي فتحه الله ورسوله لهم.

From Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, and from a number of our companions, from Sahl bin Ziyaad, from al-Hasan bin Mahboob, from Hishaam bin Saalim from Abdil Hameed bin al-Alaa, from Abi Abdillah (as) – in a Hadith – he said:

“By Allah, if Iblees were to prostrate before Allah after disobedience and arrogance for as long as the lifespan of the earth, it would not benefit him, nor would Allah Accept him, until he prostrated before Adam as Allah (SWT) had commanded him to prostrate before him, and the same is the case with this disobedient and mischievous Ummah which has been tested after its Prophet (SAWW) and after having abandoned the Imam whom the Prophet (SAWW) appointed for them. Therefore, Allah Will not accept any Amal (act) and will not Record for them any Hasanah (good deed) from them until they come from where Allah has commanded them, and (until) they embrace the Wilaayah of the Imam whose Wilaayah they have been asked to embrace, and (until) they enter from the door which Allah and His Messenger has opened for them.”

Reference: Furoo Al Kaafi, vol. 8. part 7, Hadith no 14847

Let’s examine its Sanad which is as follows:

وعن محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، وعن عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، جميعا، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن هشام بن سالم، عن عبد الحميد بن العلاء

The narrator Sahl bin Ziyaad’s full name is Abu Saeed Sahl bin Ziyaad al-Aadamiyy al-Raazi, a contemporary of the 9th, 10th and 11th Imam (as).

All the great classical scholars of Ilme Rijaal and Hadith such as Sheikh Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa al-Qummi, Sheikh Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Waleed, Sheikh Sadooq, Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, Al-Najaashi, and even Sheikh Toosi, agreed on the Tajreeh (declaration of unreliability) of this narrator, i.e. they were unanimous in discrediting him and calling him a liar.

Here is the verdict of al-Najaashi (the top expert of Ilme Rijaal according to Ayatullah Sayyid Khui) concerning this narrator:

قول النجاشي في رجاله (ص 185) عنه: “490 – سهل بن زياد أبو سعيد الآدمي الرازي: كان ضعيفاً في الحديث، غير معتمد فيه. وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى يشهد عليه بالغلو والكذب وأخرجه من قم إلى الري وكان يسكنها“.

Sahl bin Ziyaad Abu Sa’eed al-Aadamiyy al-Raazi: he was dhaeef (weak) in Hadith and unreliable. Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa (who was the chief of the scholars of Qum during his time) testified that this narrator was a ghaali (exaggerator) and a liar, and he expelled him from Qum, since he used to live in Qum.

Reference: Rijaal al-Najaashi, pg. 185, narrator no. 185

Here is the verdict of Ibn al-Ghadhaairi (who is the top authority on Ilme Rijaal according to Ayatullah Sayyid Ali al-Seestani) concerning this narrator:

ابن الغضائري: “سهل بن زياد أبو سعيد الآدمي الرازي: كان ضعيفاً جداً فاسد الرواية والمذهب، وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى الأشعري أخرجه من قم وأظهر البراءة منه ونهى الناس عن السماع منه والرواية ويروي المراسيل ويعتمد المجاهيل“. أحمد بن الحسين بن الغضائري، رجال ابن الغضائري، طبع قم، مؤسسه اسماعيليان، 1364هـ. ق.، ج3 ، ص 179

Sahl bin Ziyaad Abu Saeed al-Aadamiyy al-Raazi, he was very dhaeef (Weak) narrator of Hadith, he was Faasidu Riwaaya wal Mazhab, i.e. he was corrupt in his Aqeedah/Mazhab and was corrupt in narrating Hadith, and Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Isa (the Sheikh of the Qummiieen during his time) expelled him from Qum, and did Tabarra from him (i.e. he disassociated himself from him), and forbade people from listening to his narrations and also from narrating them, and this narrator relies on Maraseel (i.e. broken chains) and relies on Majaaheel (i.e. Majhool narrators).

Source: Rijaal Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, vol. 3, pg 179

This narrator has also been discredited in Rijaal al-Kasshi, one of our oldest textbooks of Ilme Rijaal on the basis of the testimony of al-Fadhl bin Shaadhaan, one of the companions of our later Imams:

رجال الكشي (ص 566) ذيل الترجمة رقم (1068) الخاصة بـ”أبي الخير صالح بن أبي حماد الرازي” وفيها: “قال عليُّ بن محمد القتيبي… كان أبو محمد الفضل [بن شاذان] يرتضيه وَيمدحه وَلا يرتضي أبا سعيد الآدمي وَيقول هو الأحمق“.

Al Fadhl bin Shaadhaan used to refer to Sahl bin Ziyaad as “al-Ahmaq”, i.e. the fool, and was not pleased with him.

Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui further endorses and attests to the Tajreeh (discrediting/declaration of unreliability) this narrator has received in his biographical encyclopaedia on Ilme Rijaal; here is Sayyid Khui’s statement:

قال آية الله أبو القاسم الخوئي في كتابه معجم رجال الحديث: “وكيف كان فسهل بن زياد الآدمي ضعيف جزماً، أو أنه لم تثبت وثاقته.”

“In any case, Sahl bin Ziyaad al-Aadamiyy was a weak narrator, there can be no doubt about this, or his reliability has not been established.”

Source: Sayyid Khui, Mu’jam Rijaal al-Hadith, vol. 9. pg. 356

Advertisements

4 responses »

  1. My question is: is this a proof, that without accepting the wilaya, a muslim cant enter the paradise? or ist it just a notice that THIS above mention narration is wrong BUT actually every follower of ahlul bait MUST(?)accept the wilaya as a base to enter paradise?
    thanks!

    Like

    Reply
    • In order to analyze the topic “can a person enter paradise without wilayat of ahlulbayt”, we will need to discuss all narrations in this regard and also compare that with Quran.

      This narration is just one of those narrations.

      If Allah (swt) helps us inshallah we will write about it in detail.

      Our understanding is that “love” of Ahlulabyt (as) is very important and it is something which is very clear in shia and sunni narrations. But we cannot always impose our definition of love on others.

      Secondly, since the matter of Wilayat in the sense of “divine appointment” of the successor of Prophet (saww) is not a matter clearly mentioned in Quran, therefore it is not a deciding factor for paradise and it is not in usul e deen, as has been said by many scholars like Ayatullah Baqir as Sadr (ra), Ayatullah Ali al Amine (ra)… etc.

      Like

      Reply
  2. my other question is, if we use ilme rijal to make a proof on ahadith, than whats happen with all these narrations in which the prophet forgot to pray the fajr prayer and ayatollah khui confirmed this several times? is ilme rijal the ultimate source to understand the nature of a hadith or is there any other sources which we can use?

    Like

    Reply
  3. Ilm al rijal for us is a secondary and fallible tool. The main tool is the Quran, but unfortunately now says this is just in theory, hardly ever do ulema reject narrations because of contradiction with Quran.

    There are two different things:

    1) level of certainty that something has originated from Ahlulbayt (as).

    2) proof that something is “hujjat” (authority upon us).

    As for case one, its not necessary that a sahih hadith is from Ahlulbayt (as), nor is it necessary that a daeef hadith is not from Ahlulbayt (as).

    As for case two, which is the main issue for us, whether something is an authority upon us to follow it.
    In this the are 3 things, first beliefs (aqaid), second jurisprudence (fiqh), third is history (tareekh).

    In aqaid the conditions are very strict since we cannot compromise on aqaid, so we accept only that which is almost 100% proven, and that is only a clear verse of Quran or “mutawatir” narrations (and they should have authentic sanad, some scholars say if there are many narrations then sanad doesnt matter, but with that standards the resurrection of Jesus is also mutawatir lol). This is because ulema of hadith have a consensus that “khabar al wahid” does not give certain knowledge, it only gives “dhann”.

    As for fiqh, most scholars believe that authentic khabar al wahid can be used for fiqh, some disagree.

    As for history, people pick and choose what they like lol. In controversial issues it is better to go with sahih narrations, but you can never be certain about historical events with this standard.

    I hope that helps.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: