...
abu bakr and umar stayed with the prophet most of his life do u follow them ?
Why are you asking ME this question?
"Staying with prophet alone" is a criterion created by yourself. We say that character of person is also important besides staying with prophet.
judgeing narraters for reliability DOES NOT mean passing a judgement on their character
Just "staying closer with Prophet" does not justify accepting hadith from a person.
Character of a person counts THE MOST when judging narrators for reliability. I will be skeptical of ANY hadith taken from an enemy of Ahle Bait; or from a rebel, a thief, a murderere, a rapist, for example.
And I will be skeptical of people who accept ahadith from people like above, for example, Bukhari.
Not all ahadith in Bukhari are false. What gave you the idea that anyone would think that?
All the three Ahadith have been narrated from Dhul Joushan, father of Shimr. Being relative of a bad person does not make one bad also. Ubaydullah Bin Abbas was grandson of Imam Ali and he deserted Imam Hassan and joined Muawiyah, does that make his father untrustworthy?
And as for the saying of Bukhari, he merely speculates that Narrations have come through son of Dhul Joushan rather than directly from him. And most importantly, one has to see the content of narration also, if it is sameas other narrations from different narrators, why should there be any problem.
Shimr, the son of Sahabi Zil Jawshan, himself is a medium in those hadiths.
And we have no issues with the notion that a believing person could father a non-believer or vice versa. A good example is Yazid's own son, Muawiya Ibn Yazid, who was a true believer and refused to sit on the masnad e Khilafat on the grounds that it only belongs to the Aal e Mohammad (saww).
Just "staying closer with Prophet" does not justify accepting hadith from a person. Character of a person counts THE MOST when judging narrators for reliability. I will be skeptical of ANY hadith taken from an enemy of Ahle Bait; or from a rebel, a thief, a murderere, a rapist, for example. And I will be skeptical of people who accept ahadith from people like above, for example, Bukhari.
Not all ahadith in Bukhari are false. What gave you the idea that anyone would think that?
in other words u pick and choose the evidence from bukhari what suits ur theological agenda and ignore the rest.
thats very convenient but thats not scholarship
remember u said this
[QUOTE]
False. I seldom engage in religious discussions at all. That's not my field.
[/QUOTE]
Shimr, the son of Sahabi Zil Jawshan, himself is a medium in those hadiths.
And we have no issues with the notion that a believing person could father a non-believer or vice versa. A good example is Yazid's own son, Muawiya Ibn Yazid, who was a true believer and refused to sit on the masnad e Khilafat on the grounds that it only belongs to the Aal e Mohammad (saww).
He is not.
Why are you asking ME this question? "Staying with prophet alone" is a criterion created by yourself. We say that character of person is also important besides staying with prophet.
The first people to accept Islam have a character that we cannot ever ever compare to.
He is not.
check with a scholar...
Umar Ibn Saad, Ibn Ziyad (who is also glorified as a man of power!), are also considered thiqa by Sunni scholars of hadith such as Imam Nasai, Asqalani etc.
that is strange...........brother why did Bukhari who lived during the same time as imam ali raza, imam ali naqi, ali hadi and ali askari did not take any narrations from them? specially the 8th imam since he was widely known in iran, place where bukhari hailed from?