Al-Hurr Al-Amili on the weakening by At-Tusi

Muhammad Al-Hurr Al-Amili writes:

أما تضعيف الشيخ (الطوسي) بعض الأحاديث بضعف راويه فهو تضعيف غير حقيقي، لما تقدم، وإنما هو تضعيف ظاهري، ومثله كثير من تعليلاته كما أشار إليه صاحب المنتقى في بعض مباحثه، حيث قال: والشيخ مطالب بدليل ما ذكره إن كان يريد بالتعليل حقيقته وعذره وما ذكره في أول التهذيب من رجوع بعض الشيعة (الإمامية) عن التشيع بسبب اختلاف الحديث فهو كثرا ما يرجح بترجيحات العامة على أن الأقرب هناك أن مراده أنه ضعيف بالنسبة إلى قوة معارضه لا ضعيف في نفسه، فلا ينافي ثبوته ومما يوضح ذلك أنه لا يذكره ألا في مقام التعارض، بل في بعض مواضع التعارض. وأيضا فإنه يقول: هذا ضعيف لان راويه فلان ضعيف، ثم نراه يعمل برواية ذلك الراوي بعينه، بل برواية من هو أضعف منه في مواضع لا تحصى وكثيرا ما يضعف الحديث بأنه مرسل ثم يستدل بالحديث المرسل، بل كثيرا ما يعمل بالمراسيل وبرواية الضعفاء ويرد المسند ورواية الثقات، وهو صريح في المعنى الذي قلناه، على أن فعل غير المعصوم عليه السلام ليس بحجة

“As for the weakening by the scholar At-Tusi of some of the narrations due to the weakness of its narrator,  so, based on what has preceded it, it is not an actual, but only a superficial weakening and its example is present in his explanations in numerous places, as the author of the work Al-Muntaqa pointed out in some of his investigations when he said: “The scholar would be required to bring proof of what he has mentioned, if by justification he meant it being actual and being exempt from it, and what he mentioned at the beginning of the work At-Tahdhib about the apostacy of some of the followers (of the imams) from the followership, due to the contradiction of the traditions, is mostly that, which he weights with the gradings of the general public. The most obvious fact here is that weak (Da’if) is a reference to the strength of its contradiction, whereby it is not weak (Da’if) in itself.” Therefore the confirmation of this is not rejected, and what makes this even more clear, among the other things, is that he only mentions it at the contradictory reports, and much more so only at some of the contradictory reports, and even when he says: “This is weak (Da’if), for its narrator is weak (Da’if), so and so.” So we see that he is following a tradition with the same narrator, and much more than that, in numerous places he is following the tradition of the one who is even weaker than him and as much as he weakens a tradition, by the fact that it is interrupted (Mursal), he uses as proof a tradition that is interrupted (Mursal) and even more he follows numerous interrupted reports and traditions of weak narrators and rejects complete reports and traditions of trustworthy narrators and there is obviously the meaning we were talking about. The deed of the one, who is not an infallible (a.), is not a proof.” [Wasa’il-ush-Shi’ah, volume 30 page 279]