Rijaal of ibn Ghadairi: Ayatullah Shaykh Mohammed Sanad

'What is more severe and strange is the one who relies on Rijaal ibn Ghadairi, I do not wish to open up a topic with no order. But so the thoughts get across. For Rijaal ibn Ghadairi, even Sayed al Khoei admits, Shaykh Tusi: a contemporary doesn't say we saw it, they say it is LOST. Najjashi didn't mention it (apparently the book) DISAPPEARED. I do not know in the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century, he (ibn Ghadairi) dies in his youth, towards the end of the 4th century, he is Ahmed ibn Tawus. Ahmed ibn Husayn ibn Ubaydullah al Ghadairi. There are two ibn Ghadairi, the son and the father. The father is Husayn ibn Ubaydullah al Ghadairi. He was from generation of Shaykh al Mufid, the teacher of Najjashi and Tusi. He was from the major scholars of Baghdad. His son was Ahmed and this book has been attributed to his son (ie. Ahmed ibn Husayn) and I am surprised that this book is published with the name of Rijaal ibn al Ghadairi. This is a FRAUD which is NOT CORRECT. To publish a book with the name Ibn al Ghadairi, it has NO CHAIN. Allamah Hilli narrated from this book, but he didn't mentioned the chain. Agha Buzurg has strong proofs that this book is one of the FABRICATIONS of the scholars of the NAWASIB who were familiar with the Shia narrators, in order to put poison in the honey. Putting that aside, Agha Buzurg is not an ordinary person. PAY ATTENTION ! Agha Buzurg has written an entire section on the Rijaal of ibn al Ghadairi. In this book (of Agha Buzurg: 'al-Dharia') he brings proof that this book his book is FAKE. Leave aside the opinion of Shaykh al Najjashi or Aqa Buzurg Tehrani, who no one has superseded in the science of narrators, even Shaykh Tusi himself, who is a contemporary of the son and the father, even he says that the book is LOST and UNKNOWN. Najjashi does not even mentions the name of the book and none of those who came afterwards including Muntajab ad deen mentions the name of the book. Suddenly Allamah Hilli narrates from the book, rather Sayyed Ahmed ibn Tawus narrates from the book.

Where's the chain ?

How ?

And this book is UNKNOWN in the Hawza. This book SUDDENLY APPEARED like Fiqh ar Radawi. The strange thing is that, there is a group in this time, for example they lean towards extremism in Ilm e Rijaal and all of their basis is Rijaal of ibn al Ghadairi. This book which is UNKNOWN. Ya Allah ! You want to argue in Rijaal a concept which is which is MUSNAD from the point of chains from the famous books and the chains present inside the books. You argue with it using a book which is MURSAL, it's UNKNOWN whi made it, which is FABRICATED by a NASIBI. They rely on it with full reliance. But rather they rely on it, a group more than Najjashi, more than Tusi, more than Kishi, more than Barqi or Aqeeqi. Truly strange ! Relying on it more than all of this heritage. I am truly amazed at the reliance of something UNKNOWN which we do not know from where it came. This reliance on a FABRICATED work is truly strange. Abandoning the Musnad. This is one of the strange ironies. This is an objection which is not able to reconcile with the school of Sayyed Ahmed ibn Tawus and the school of al-Khoei. All praise is for Allah that Al-Khoei does NOT rely on ibn al Ghadairi. Not only he does NOT rely on it but also says that it's origin is UNKNOWN. All praise is for Allah, but many rely on it upon the school of Ahmed ibn Tawus. 

HOW DO THEY RELY UPON IT ?'

: Grand Ayatullah Shaykh Mohammed Sanad

Speech link 

https://youtu.be/yGiPxlQAU6A