|
knowledge or satisfaction regarding most of the contents of the books not all of them especially when the compilers themselves show their uncertainty about the authenticity of various traditions. He supports this claim by citing certain instances where some of the compilers themselves have stated the unknown nature of a reporter and the weakness of the links contained within some of the chains as done by al-Shaykh al-Tusi in his work al-Istibsar regarding tradition 230 and 231.
Again the statement of al-Shaykh al-Saduq10 regarding a tradition in the chapter of a guardian preventing an inheritor [from inheriting] recorded by Shaykh al-Kulayni saying "I have not found this tradition except in the book of Muhammad b Ya'qub and I have not reported it except from his path."
Had al-Saduq been of the opinion that whatever is recorded by al-Kulayni is authentic then would remain no need for him to trace the path of tradition through other chains.
Also the scrutinising of Shaykh al-Mufid of the chain of reporters concerning the tradition of the month of Ramadan never being less than thirty days contained in al-Kafi and ManLla Yahduruhu al-Faqih is indicative of his uncertainty as regards the traditions contained in those books.
All of these examples clearly show the uncertainty of the scholars regarding some of the traditions within these books.
As for the claim made by al-Asterabadi and Sayyid Bahr al-'Ulum that the tradition contained within the four books of the three Muhammads from the usul arba'ah mi'ah are continuous in relation to the chain between them and the four books just as there is continuity as regards the four books from the time of their compilation to the present day, Irawani in the same work makes an observation that continuity of the books to their authors does not necessitate the continuity of their contents. There exists a possibility of introduction or omission of matter not contained within the original works and the possibility of error especially when the books are reproduced and copied by hand as was the case.
With this in mind it would seem prudent to adhere to the precepts of caution in relation to discerning the worth of the reporters of the traditions contained within these books.
In respect of the first point (a) that the compilers themselves have asserted that whatever they have recorded in their works is authentic, the argument is that they were without a shred of doubt just people of the highest rank and in accordance with the implication of the verse of surah al-hujurat and numerous traditions their word should be taken as the truth even though there may exist a slight possibility of
|
|
