Shia Sahaba that they narrate from (Shia hadith)
shia narrator exposed (Shia Hadeeth)
/a-chain-of-narrators-composed-solely-of-ahlul-bayt/
liars-weak-transmitters-endorsed-by-the-shia/
www.twelvershia.net/2016/04/09/the-possibility-of-tawatur-between-sunnah-shia/
/shiite-scholarships-dependence-on-a-notorious-liar/
Ilm Al-Rijal is the discipline where the reliability and status of hadith transmitters is discerned and evaluated. It is the backbone of the hadith sciences, since the acceptance and rejection of historical reports hinges upon the reliability of their respective transmitters. The Shi’ite Rijal discipline is primarily based in the works of Al-Najashi (d. 450) and Al-Tusi (d.460). Other notable Shi’ite authorities, such as Al-Kashi (d. 350), Al-Mufid (d. 413) and Ibn Al-Ghada’iri etc., are occasionally cited as well.
The appeal to these sources, however, has posed a problem to Shi’ite theologians: the aforementioned authorities lived much later in history and never encountered most of the transmitters discussed in their works. If that is the case, then why are their verdicts authoritative and binding? Several Shi’ite theologians from the past century have thus attempted to address this question.
Al-Khoei’s Appeal
Prominent twentieth century Shi’ite cleric and hadithist, Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei, attempted to address this issue in his magnum opus, Mo’jam Rijal Al-Hadith. Al-Khoei essentially argued that the verdicts of Shi’ite rijalists actually were the opinions of previous authorities (who encountered the earlier transmitters) which were relayed to later biographers, such as Al-Tusi, Al-Najashi and others. Since these later biographers were trustworthy and reliable informants, Al-Khoei argued that the verdicts they had listed in their works may be relied upon. (Al-Khoei 1:41).
Al-Khoei’s entire appeal, however, is based on the assumption that that the verdicts in Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi’s works were not their own opinions. He thus assumed that Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi had simply relayed those verdicts from past authorities. (Al-Khoei 1:41)
Since he arguably was the most eminent Shi’ite religious figure of the late 20th century, Al-Khoei’s reasoning has prevailed in various Shi’ite scholarly circles,. Widespread acceptance of his biographical encyclopedia, Mo’jam Rijal Al-Hadith, similarly allowed for the dissemination of his rhetoric. Al-Khoei’s rhetoric, however, did not really provide a solution to the problem he attempted to address. Rather, it simply opened the door to a new problem which I like to call “The Mohseni Dilemma.”
The Mohseni Dilemma
Contemporary Shi’ite theologian and hadithist, Grand Ayatollah Asif Mohseni, recognized the flaws in Al-Khoei’s appeal. In his book, Buhuth fi ‘Ilm Al-Rijal, he took Al-Khoei’s assertion to its logical conclusion. When addressing the reliability of Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi’s verdicts, he said:
The problem is that their endorsements and condemnations of a transmitter, along with anything else they mention about the transmitters, come with a gap in time. However, they do not list the intermediaries between them [till that period] for us to analyze whether they were reliable, weak or unknown transmitters. Accepting such time-lapsed approvals of transmitters is unjustified unless we are to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they [Najashi and Tusi] only transmitted from reliable transmitters without mentioning them. In that case, how can we accept their statements? Why don’t we ask about whom they transmitted [these endorsements] from? (Mohseni 58)
Mohseni rightfully objects to Al-Khoei’s attempt to address the problem mentioned at the beginning of this article. In reality, Al-Khoei simply deflected the problem by claiming that Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi’s verdicts were merely transmitted from earlier authorities that encountered earlier transmitters . This appeal, however, does not really solve the problem, since the intermediaries between Al-Tusi/Al-Najashi and those alleged earlier authorities are unknown. The appeal is entirely based on wishful thinking and giving Al-Tusi and Al-Najashi “the benefit of the doubt”, as stated by Mohseni.
The implications of this dilemma are not minute. Rather, they may fundamentally undermine the entire basis of the Shi’ite hadith tradition, as the reliability of its biographical sources is put to to question. If the sources which provide the transmitters’ gradings are unreliable, then the entire process of authentication in the Shi’ite tradition, as a result, becomes arbitrary. Mohseni thus said
If anyone were to find me a solution to this dilemma, I would offer him a sum of money and I would be very thankful, for this dilemma makes Ilm Al-Rijal an unreliable discipline from a logical and religious perspective. (Mohseni 58)
Mohseni’s contention is further validated when one evaluates the Shi’ite biographical source known as Rijal Al-Kashi. Though we do not possess the entire book, a significant portion of it has been preserved by Al-Tusi, and it is known as Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijal. What makes this work unique when compared to other Shi’ite biographical sources is that Al-Kashi actually transmitted the endorsements/condemnations of transmitters while outlining the intermediaries between him and earlier authorities he quoted.
A careful analysis of Rijal Al-Kashi will allow us to discern the reliability of the sources early Shi’ite rijalists relied upon when transmitting biographical data. Unfortunately, it seems as though later Shi’ite rijalists relied on a plethora of unreliable sources when transmitting biographical information related to transmitters. Shi’ite hadithist, Al-Behbudi, commented on the unreliability of Al-Kashi’s sources in his book Ma’rifat Al-Hadith. He stated that out of the 1150 reports that have survived from Rijal Al-Kashi, not more than 300 are authentic (Behbudi 103). This conclusion is of grave implications: it means that only 26% of Al-Kashi’s transmission in Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijal is through reliable sources.
It is thus apparent that early Shi’ite rijalists relied on questionable information that is transmitted through dubious sources to evaluate earlier transmitters. This reality can, for example, be observed in Al-Tusi’s dependence on the forger, Abu Al-Mufaddal, for the transmission of key biographical data, as outlined in this article.
Discussion
This entire debate in the Shi’ite tradition actually stems from a more significant problem which the aforementioned figures attempted to bypass: the lack of transparency in Shi’ite biographical sources. Since not much is known about the methodologies espoused by Shi’ite rijalists nor their respective sources, Twelvers simply have to depend on them. This typically results in the fallacious appeals to authority like that of Al-Khoei.
The same, unfortunately, can be said about Mohseni, whom I greatly respect. Mohseni was critical and open enough to recognize the presence of this defect in the Twelver rijalist tradition, yet he still opted to abide by it hoping that someone will approach him with a “solution” one day. The reality of the matter, however, is that there is no solution to this historical dilemma. Early Shi’ite biographers simply did a bad job transparently outlining their sources and methodologies in their works, and the Shi’ite tradition now suffers as a result of that.
Theological “cop-outs” cannot bypass this historical dilemma either, as such appeals are often based in attempts to deflect the problem using “theological back-doors”, which often are based on simple appeals to authority.
On the other hand, this dilemma does not exist in the Sunni tradition for several reasons:
The first point is fundamental to this entire discussion. When evaluating transmitters of hadith along with their reports, early Sunni hadithists were able to outline their methodologies behind their verdicts. Let us take the 3rd century hadith critic, Al-Tirmidhi (d. 289), as an example. In his Jami’, Al-Tirmidhi described a transmitter named ‘Amr b. Dinar saying:
He is a Basran sheikh, and he is not strong in hadith. He has exclusively transmitted several hadiths from Salem b. ‘Abdillah b. ‘Umar (Al-Tirmidhi 5:370)
This statement from Al-Tirmidhi is insightful. We now know that, according to Al-Tirmidhi, exclusive transmission may be indicative of the weakness of a transmitter. Similarly, the regular corroboration of a transmitter’s transmission would be indicative of his reliability. This is an objective parameter that can be empirically evaluated independently of Al-Tirmidhi’s verdict. In other words, we can cross-reference this transmitter’s reports in search of corroborations and exclusive transmission, and we can come to our own independent conclusion regarding his status.
In fact, a friend of ours has precisely demonstrated this reality in this great video: “How do We Know if a Hadith Transmitter is Reliable?”
For other examples regarding the transparently objective methodologies espoused by the early Sunni hadith critics, refer to AM’s book, In Defense of the Hadith Method.
The second point is important as well. Sunni biographers and hadith critics, such as Ibn Sa’d (d. 230), Yahya b. Ma’in (d. 233), Ali b. al-Madini (d. 234), and Ahmed b. Hanbal (d. 241) etc., predated their Shi’ite counterparts, Al-Tusi (d. 460) and Al-Najashi (d. 450), by over two centuries. This historical precedence gave Sunni critics more access and exposure to early transmitters of hadith from the first three centuries. Some of the documented criticism of transmitters can even be authentically dated to several Tabi’in from the first century. (Al-Tirmidhi 6:233)
Conclusion
The significant gap in time between 5th century Shi’ite biographers, such as Al-Tusi (d. 460) and Al-Najashi (d. 450), and the earlier hadith transmitters mentioned in their works is a subject that continues to grab the attention of Twelver theologians today. Various evidences demonstrate that early Shi’ite rijali sources relied upon questionable sources when drawing biographical data, and the reliability of their conclusions is thus put to question. The potential implications of this dilemma are devastating, as they may render the entire process of authentication in Twelver sources totally worthless, as stated by Mohseni.
It is quite ironic that the solution to this dilemma is only found in the Sunni Rijali tradition, where we can openly demonstrate the objective reasoning behind our appeal to early rijali sources authored by the Sunni critics. It is unfortunate that many will still opt to cling onto problematic Shi’ite biographical sources after being made aware of their defective nature.
They have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against the Truth. [Quran 53:28]
And Allah is the best of witnesses.
When analyzing hadiths and historical reports, one cannot overlook the discipline of ‘ilmur-Rijaal. This science is a compilation of the hadith critics’ conclusions regarding the reliability of the numerous hadith transmitters that took part in the transmission of hadith. In this context, a transmitter could be defined as reliable (thiqah), weak (da’if), or truthful (saduq)… Similarly, defects in the transmitters’ transmission are also noted, such as a lack of retention of reports, loss of memory, lack of honesty, tadlis etc.
The implications of this science are grave since ‘ilmur-Rijaal is one of the fields where Sunnis and Shi’as often disagree. Many key transmitters of Shi’i hadith literature are deemed weak and unreliable by Sunni critics, yet they are considered reliable according to Shi’i scholars of Rijaal. Thus, a keen observer may ask: Whose opinion is more authoritative, the Sunni or Shi’i critics?
Before the answer to that question is provided, a brief background of Sunni/Shi’i ‘ilmur-Rijaal shall be presented.
Sunni criticism of rijaal goes all the way back to the first century AH. As the renowned tabi’i, Ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH) , said :
They [the muhaddiths] used to not ask about the isnad [when transmitting reports]; however, once the fitnah occurred, they would demand: “list your transmitters.”[1]
Thus, it is apparent that Sunni hadith criticism goes back to the first century of Islam, where the muhaddiths deemed it necessary to ask for the isnad of a hadith for due scrutiny.
Eventually, many other tabi’in took part in the process, and rijaal eventually developed into a whole discipline. By the 3rd century, separate books were authored in this field, where the biographies of hadith transmitters were compiled and scrutinized. Many authors and historians, such as: Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 AH), Yahya b. Ma’in (d. 233 AH), Ali b. al-Madini (d. 234 AH), Bukhari (d. 256 AH), Al-Jawzajani (d. 259 AH) , al-Nasa’i (d. 303 AH), al-‘Uqaili (d. 322 AH), Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH), Ibn ‘Adi (d.365 AH) etc., took part in this process.
These books generally elaborate on the statuses of these transmitters, while often presenting other key biographical information that pertains to their role in transmitting hadith.
Shi’i rijaal, however, primarily revolves around four books: Rijaal al-Najashi by Najashi (d. 450), Rijaal al-Tusi by Tusi (d. 460 AH), Al-Fahrast also by Tusi, and Rijaal Al-Kashi, originally by Al-Kashi (d. 350 AH) but exclusively preserved through Tusi.
A thorough analysis of the Sunni-Shi’I rijaali literature will clearly show that the Sunni hadith critics are more authoritative and reliable than the Shi’i critics for several reasons:
A simple skim of the death dates of Sunni/Shi’i critics will show the first disparity among both schools: the time gap. Sunni criticism of rijaal took place much earlier than Shi’i rijaal. In fact, authors like Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 AH), Yahya b. Ma’in (d. 233 AH), Ali b. al-Madini (d. 234 AH), Bukhari (d. 256 AH) preceded the Shi’i authors, Tusi (d. 460 AH) and Najashi (d. 450 AH), by over two centuries!
This means Sunni critics had a chance to actually meet many of the (Sunni and Shi’i) transmitters of hadith, while the Shi’i critics did not have the chance to meet any of the transmitters that lived prior to the 4thcentury. Thus, Sunni hadith critics were able to make judgements based on empirical evidence and personal experience with many of these transmitters, while Shi’i scholars, on the other hand, exclusively relied on later reports when scrutinizing these transmitters.
In fact, Shi’i scholar of hadith, Asef Mohseni, acknowledged this dilemma, and in his book Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al-Rijaal, where he says:
Regarding the claim that a consensus (ijmaa’) exists among later scholars that Tusi, Kashi and Najashi’s approvals of a transmitter are reliable, that is simply not true. Their consensus (ijmaa’) is not a devotional consensus that entails the opinion of an infallible imam.[2]
He later says:
The problem is that their [Najashi and Tusi’s] approvals and condemnations of a transmitter, along with anything else they mention about the transmitters, come with a gap in time. However, they do not list the transmitters between them [up till that period] for us to analyze whether they were reliable, weak or unknown transmitters.Accepting such time-lapsed approvals of transmitters is not justified unless we were to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they [Najashi and Tusi] only transmitted from reliable transmitters without listing them. In that case, how can we accept their statements? Why don’t we ask about whom they transmitted [these approvals] from?[3]
When talking about this dilemma, he says:
If anyone were to find me a solution to this dilemma, I would offer him a sum of money and I would be very thankful, for this dilemma makes ilmur-Rijaal an unreliable discipline from a logical and religious standpoint.[4]
As clearly stated by Mohseni, this dilemma challenges the fundamental core of the Shi’i ilmur-Rijaal discipline. If no evidence is provided to show that Tusi and Najashi had relied on authentic chains that go all the way back to the transmitters in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries when issuing their verdicts, then most (if not all) of their opinions on transmitters from these periods are quite arbitrary. When going through Tusi and Najashi’s works, one recognizes that their books are merely a compilation of their opinions on certain transmitters, along with bits of biographical data, without any evidence provided.
Another major disparity between Sunni and Shi’i rijaal is the disparity in methodology. In a special category of books, known as su’alaat, many of the Sunni hadith critics lay out their principles and methodologies showing how (and why) they would approve of or condemn certain transmitters. This is also exemplified in the books of ‘ilal, where Sunni hadith critics implemented and practiced hadith textual criticism with actual examples from hadith.
In books such as Ibn ‘Adiyy’s al-Kamil fi Du’afaa’ al-Rijal and Al-‘Uqaili’s al-Do’afaa al-Kabir, the authors actually make it a point to show the errors made by transmitters in hadith; thus, providing actual evidence to show why transmitters were deemed unreliable.
However, little (if any) is known about the methodology behind Najashi and Tusi’s approach to rijaal. Rather, the researcher finds himself stuck with Tusi and Najashi’s mere opinions without any understanding of their methodologies. These two authors have not published works where they explain their methodologies behind their analysis of transmitters, nor do they give reasons/examples to justify their conclusions. Thus, we cannot deem their conclusions reliable. In fact, we do not even know if they espoused a methodology in the first place due to the obscure nature of their works.
Another major disparity between Sunni and Shi’i scrutiny of transmitters is the lack of corroborations among the latter. When analyzing a transmitter according to Sunni critics, one will often find tens of corroborations from other critics enforcing the same opinion.
However, readers of Shi’i texts are mostly limited to Tusi and Najashi’s opinions, with very little corroborations from contemporary/earlier sources.
A great example is the famous pillar of Shi’i hadith transmission, Abu Hamza al-Thumaali (d. 148 AH). When analyzing this transmitter in early Shi’i rijaali sources, one only finds that Tusi[5], Najashi[6], and Ibn Babawayh[7] and Hamdawayh b. Nasir[8]declared him to be a thiqah (reliable). As usual, little context is provided to justify these claims.
However, when analyzing Sunni sources’ take on this transmitter, we find over 18 different Sunni hadith critics condemning him (or his transmission), and all were much closer in time to Abu Hamzah than the Shi’i critics.
Al-Jawzajani, Ibn Adiyy, Al-Dulaabi, Al-Uqaili, Abu Hatem Al-Razi, Ibn Hibban, Abu Zur’ah, al-Tirmidhi, Ahmed b. Hanbal, al-Nasa’i, al-Sulaymani, Ibn Al-Jarud, al-Daraqutni, Hafs b. Ghiyaath, Ibn Sa’d, Yahya b. Ma’in, Yazid b. Harun and Ya’qub b. Sufyan (etc.) all condemned Abu Hamzah Al-Thumaali.
In fact, Sunni critics, such as Ibn Hibban, even provide further detail as to why they deemed him weak. Ibn Hibbam, in Kitaab al-Majruhin, says:
He was very delusional in his transmission of hadith to the extent that he could not be relied upon if he exclusively transmits a report.[9]
Considering that all these critics were much closer in time to Abu Hamzah, along with the fact that their statements are heavily corroborated, there are good grounds to assert that their conclusions are more reliable and representative of reality. This is the general case for most transmitters that Sunni and Shi’ite scholarship disagree on.
Another great example is the pillar of Shi’i hadith: Jaber b. Yazid Al-Jo’fi. Al-Khoei, in Mu’jam Rijaal Al-Hadith, says:
“What must be said is that this man [Jaber] must be considered from among the revered thiqaat, due to the testimony of ‘Ali b. Ibrahim, al-Shaykh al-Mufid in his al-Risalah al-‘Adadiyyah, and the testimony of Ibn al-Ghada’eri reported by al-‘Allamah.”[10]
Thus, we can see that Al-Khoei relied upon three early Shi’i critics in determining Jaber’s reliability; however, when looking at the statements of Sunni critics, one recognizes that over 29 Sunni hadith critics condemned him!
Al-Jawzajani, Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim, Ibn ‘Adiyy, al-Bayhaqi, al-‘Uqaili, Abu Hatem al-Razi, Ibn Hibban, ‘Umar b. Shahin, Abu Hanifah, Abu Dawud, Abu Zur’ah, Abu ‘Abdillah al-Hakim, Ahmed b. Hanbal, al-Nasa’i, al-‘Ijli, Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani, al-Bukhari, al-Daraqutni, Jarir al-Dhabbi, Za’idah b. Qudamah, Sa’id b. Jubayr, Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah, Abdurrahman b. Mahdi, Layth b. Abi Sulaym, Ibn Sa’d, Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, Yahya b. Ma’in and Ya’qub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi all condemned Jabir b. Yazid al-Jo’fi.
In fact, some of these critics, such as: Sa’id b. Jubayr, Abu Hanifah, Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani, and Layth b. Abi Sulaym (etc.) were contemporaries of Jabir, and most (if not all) of the 29 critics listed above were closer in time to Jabir b. Yazid than the three Shi’i critics listed by Al-Khoei.
Thus, it is evident that this heavily corroborated stance regarding this transmitter from earlier critics is a significant factor that must be taken into consideration when analyzing this transmitter’s reliability.
Another great example is another major Shi’i transmitter of hadith, al-Asbagh b. Nubatah. Al-Khoei cites his reliability by appealing to Ali b. Ibrahim’s inclusion of al-Asbagh in his tafsir and by quoting Najashi who said: “He was one of our righteous predecessors”[11] and Tusi, who said: “He was one of the main companions of ‘Ali b. Abi Taleb.”[12]
Thus, it is apparent that Al-Khoei relies upon the statements of only three Shi’i critics to determine his reliability. However, when observing the statements of the earlier Sunni critics, one recognizes the vast disparity: over 21 different Sunni hadith critics condemned al-Asbagh b. Nubatah.
Yahya b. Ma’in, al-Jawzajani, Abu Ahmed al-Hakim, al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr b. Ayyash, Abu Hatem al-Razi, Ibn Hibban, Abu Dawud, Abu Nu’aym, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Taher, al-Daraqutni, al-Mughirah b. Miqsam al-Dhabbi, Zakariyyah b. Yahya al-Saji, Abdurrahman b. Mahdi, Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, Ibn Sa’d. Muhammad b. ‘Abdillah al-Mowseli, and Ya’qub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi all condemned al-Asbagh b. Nubatah.
Most of these critics were closer in time to al-Asbagh b. Nubatah than the three Shi’i critics that praised and approved of him.
There are many more examples that can be presented, but these three fundamental Shi’i transmitters should be more than enough to exemplify this disparity between Sunni and Shi’i Rijaal.
An observer may ask: “How can we rely upon Sunni hadith critics when analyzing Shi’i transmitters?”
The answer to that question is very simple: Across the books of Rijaal, Sunni hadith critics have displayed their clear and objective impartiality when judging transmitters of hadith. This could be exemplified in the many “non-Sunni” transmitters they deemed reliable. Going through Sunni books of hadith, one comes across tens (if not hundreds) of Shi’i, Qadari, Kharijite, Murji’, Rafidhi and Mo’tazilite transmitters that were all deemed reliable in hadith.
This can be summarized in a brief exchange documented in Su’alaat Ibn al-Junaid, where Yahya was asked about Sa’id b. Khaytham al-Hilali. Yahya responds saying:
He is a Kufan sheikh. There is nothing is wrong in his transmission, and he is a thiqah (reliable).
Then, a man interjected asking: “A Shi’ite ? “
Yahya b. Ma’in responds saying: “A Shi’ite thiqah, and a Qadari thiqah” [13]
This could also be seen in Ibn ‘Adiyy’s description of the famous Shi’i transmitter, Abaan b. Taghlub:
He has numerous hadiths and transcriptions (nusakh), and most of them are upright as long as he transmits from a reliable transmitter. He was a trustworthy individual in his transmission, even though he was a Shi’ite. [14]
Another example can be found in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, where Ibn Khuzaymah transmits a hadith from the extreme Shi’i transmitter, ‘Abbad b. Yaqub. Ibn Khuzaymah says:
“We were informed by ‘Abbad b. Ya’qub, who is suspect in his faith, yet reliable in his transmission ….”[15]
Similarly, there are tens of examples that can be presented in this context, all of which display the impartiality and objectivity of Sunni critics when analyzing the transmitters of hadith. Taking all previous arguments into account, the objectivity of the Sunni critics adds to their credibility when analyzing transmitters of hadith.
Taking all of these factors into account, we have good grounds to assert that the verdicts of the Sunni hadith critics regarding the reliability of hadith transmitters are more reliable and authoritative than those of the Shi’i critics.
[1] Sahih Muslim 2/15
[2]Buhuth fi ‘Ilm Al-Rijaal p. 58
[3]Buhuth fi ‘Ilm Al-Rijaal p. 58
[4]Buhuth fi ‘Ilm Al-Rijaal p. 58
[5]Al-Firhist p. 90
[6]FihristAsmaa’ Musannifi Al-Shi’a p. 115
[7]Man La Yahdhuruhuul-Faqih 4/444
[8]Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijaal 2/707
[9] Al-Majruhin 1/206
[10]Mo’jam Rijaal al-Hadith 4/344
[11]Mo’jam Rijaal al-Hadith 4/118
[12]Mo’jam Rijaal al-Hadith 4/119
[13]Su’alaat Ibn Al-Junaid p. 421
[14] Al-Kamil fi Du’afaa al-Rijal 2/70
[15] Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah 2/376
In Shi’ite biographical Rijal sources, various transmitters are often identified as companions and students of the Imams. Multiple Twelver hadith compilers were thus said to be the students of several Imams. After a careful analysis, however, it became apparent that these claims of companionship are very arbitrary and often inaccurate. In this article we shall explore this phenomenon in light of some notable transmitters and authors of early Shi’ite hadith collections.
It seems as though Twelver biographers and Rijalists arbitrarily claimed transmitters as companions of the Imams to simply inflate their status due to their alleged connections with the Imams.
I initially identified this problem after observing a recurring theme in Shi’ite biographical sources: Shi’ite rijalists will often label transmitters as companions of the Imams, yet many of those transmitters had never transmitted a single report directly from any of the imams. Indeed one would expect companions of the Imams to directly transmit reports from them instead of transmitting falsifiable isnads through fallible transmitters who quote earlier Imams. I later discovered that Al-Khoei voiced similar objections to earlier Shi’ite authorities.
We shall now list a few examples of this phenomenon:
1. Ibrahim b. Hashem Al-Qommi
Al-Tusi and Al-Kashi claimed that he was a companion of the 8th Imam, ‘Ali b. Musa Al-Rida. (Al-Khoei 1:290)
Al-Khoei, however, objected to this and said:
It is not far-fetched for one to definitively conclude that what Al-Sheikh [Al-Tusi] and Al-Kashi claimed is incorrect. The reasoning behind this is that Ibrahim b. Hashem, as much of a prolific transmitter as he is such that no transmitter is equivalent to him, transmitted from many teachers, and they amount to around 160 men. However, there is not a single report he transmitted from Al-Rida (as) without any intermediaries between them or Yunus.
How could Ibrahim b. Hashem be a companion of Al-Rida and Yunus, yet he does not transmit anything from them? (Al-Khoei 1:290)
2. Ahmed b. Muhammad b. Khaled Al-Barqi
Al-Tusi listed him among the companions of the 9th Imam, Al-Jawad, and the 10th Imam, Al-Hadi (Al-Khoei 3:52). Al-Barqi, himself, also claimed to be their companion (Al-Khoei 3:53).
This transmitter had actually compiled a hadith collection that has survived till this day, known as Al-Mahasin. What is bizarre, however, is that he did not directly transmit from any of these imams in his book. Rather, he actually transmitted reprots from them through intermediaries. This can be seen in the report Al-Barqi transmitted from “a man who witnessed Imam Al-Jawad.” (Al-Barqi 2:426).
Surely if he were an actual companion of Al-Jawad and Al-Hadi, one would expect to observe direct transmission from them in his works.
3. Muhammad b. Al-Hassan Al-Saffar
Al-Tusi claimed that he was a companion of the 11th Imam, Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari. (Al-Khoei 16:264).
Al-Saffar is the author of an extant hadith collection called Basa’ir Al-Darajat. However, Al-Saffar does not transmit a single report directly from Al-Hasan Al-‘Askari throughout the entire book. Surely, if he were his companion and student, he would have directly transmitted hadith from him in his book. Al-Saffar, however, opted to transmit reports from earlier imams with weak and authentic isnads.
4. ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far Al-Himyari
Al-Tusi and Al-Barqi claimed that he was a companion of the 10th and 11th Imams, Al-Hadi and Al-‘Askari. (Al-Khoei 11: 149-150)
Al-Himyari is the author of an extant hadith collection called Qurb Al-Isnad. Throughout the book, the author does not transmit anything directly from these 2 Imams. The entire point of the book was to demonstrate the author’s relatively short chains of transmission back to the Imams; thus, this would be the most suitable place for him to directly transmit from Al-Hadi and Al-‘Askari. However, there is not a single instance of direct transmission from them.
It is claimed that Al-Himyari had authored books that contain the answers of these Imams to questions pertaining to several topics; however, these alleged books are extinct. We have no way to verify whether his transmission from them was direct or through intermediaries.
Indeed, these few examples attest to a significant problem in Twelver biographical sources: the tendency of Twelver authorities to arbitrarily label various transmitters as companions of the Imams in a desperate attempt to inflate their status. After evaluating the transmission of many of these alleged students of the Imams, we find not a single instance where they directly transmitted from those respective Imams, which would be expected if they were their actual students.
The authors of early hadith collections were arbitrarily labeled as companions of the Imams even though there is no objective reason to believe that. The works of these supposed companions of the Imams similarly demonstrate that the only connection these men had with the Imams was through various intermediaries that relayed their alleged hadiths to them. This phenomenon may explain how the 2nd century Medinite, Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq, according to Shi’ite sources, ended up having around 4000 alleged students, most of whom (surprisingly) were from the distant land of Iraq.
Though the Imams of the Twelver sect are respected figures in the Sunni school, their image is not as exaggerated as they are perceived in the Twelver sect. Shi’ite scholarship, in fact, has continuously inflated the status of the Imams in an attempt to draw Muslims closer to Twelver Shi’ism.
These endeavors manifest in a variety of phenomena, such as Shi’ite scholars’ arbitrary description of random transmitters as companions of the imams. This continuous attempt to inflate the Imams’ student count eventually resulted in the exaggerated and unrealistic perceptions of the Imams we face today.
In the Twelver tradition, Ja’far Al-Sadiq, for example, is claimed to have had 4,000 companions. In Amal Al-Amil, Twelver theologian, Al-Hurr Al-‘Ameli (d. 1104), said:
Al-Mufeed in Al-Irshad, Ibn Shahr Ashoub in Ma’alim Al-‘Ulama’, and Al-Tabrasi in I’lam Al-Wara, upheld the reliability of four thousand of the companions of Al-Sadiq (as). However, we find in the books of rijal and hadith that they do not reach three thousand, and the Allamah and others said that Ibn Uqdah collected the names of four thousand [transmitters] that are mentioned in books of rijal, and some stated that Abu Al-Rabi’ is one of them.” (Al-Ameli 1/83)
Though most Twelver authorities today would not venture to claim that all of Ja’far Al-Sadiq’s companions were reliable, this statement of Al-‘Ameli is very insightful regarding Twelver perception of the Imams’ companions.
Shi’ite polemicists often accuse Sunni hadith critics of arbitrarily criticizing the Imams’ companions due to an alleged theological bias they all possessed. Thus, they argue that the Twelver hadith tradition is representative of the “true” teachings of the Imams transmitted through their companions, which were abandoned by Sunni scholarship.
This claim, however, immediately collapses once one recognizes that various companions of the Imams were declared reliable in the Sunni tradition. Sunni scholarship, in reality, had no issue with the Imams or their reliable companions. The actual point of contention between Ahlussunnah and the Shia is Shi’ite scholarship’s arbitrary endorsement of liars/forgers who claimed to be students of the imams.
In this article, I have compiled a list of Ja’far Al-Sadiq’s reliable companions according to Sunni hadith standards. I’ve listed the name of every reliable transmitter who has authentically transmitted reports from Ja’far Al-Sadiq in Sunni sources. If the transmitter is also deemed reliable in Twelver sources, I placed an asterisk (*) near his name.
This list is very interesting for several reasons: it simply is a much more realistic and plausible list than that of Twelver scholarship.
First, 15 out of 31 of Ja’far’s reliable companions in Sunni sources actually were from Medina, Ja’far’s residence. This is contrary to the Shi’ite tradition, where most of Ja’far’s alleged companions were from ‘Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Persia/Khorassan. This is a much more plausible observation which we would expect to observe among the companions of the historical Ja’far Al-Sadiq.
Similarly, the number of Ja’far’s reliable companions is more realistic and plausible than that of the Twelver tradition. It is similar to that of other eminent scholars and jurists from the same era, and not as exaggerated and blown out of proportion, as in the Twelver tradition.
What is also noteworthy is that only 5 out of 31 of these reliable transmitters were endorsed in the Twelver tradition, which demonstrates how Twelver scholarship has actually abandoned Ja’far’s true reliable companions.
This list is representative of the “historical Ja’far Al-Sadiq”, contrary to the “theological Ja’far Al-Sadiq” of the Shia, who has been exaggerated misrepresented in the Twelver tradition.
Contrary to Shi’ite claims, Sunni scholarship has endorsed various companions of Ja’far Al-Sadiq. The list of reliable companions of Ja’far in the Sunni tradition, however, is much more realistic and plausible than that of the Twelver tradition.
This reality manifests in the fact that a much more significant portion of his reliable companions in the Sunni tradition actually came from his hometown, Medina. It also manifests in the sheer number of reliable companions in the Sunni tradition, which is more realistic and characteristic of that of eminent scholars from the second century.
Ultimately, these differences come down to the disparities between the “historical Ja’far” of the Sunnis and the exaggerated “theological Ja’far” of the Twelvers, who is merely a byproduct of wishful thinking… and thousands upon thousands of Twelver fabrications/forgeries.
And Allah is the witness of Abu Al-‘Abbas.
I hear alot from shias who claim they take their religion from Ahlulbait, and Ahl-e-Sonnat have abandoned the Ahlulbait and deviated.
But lets see their prolific narrators who brought them the teachings of ‘Ahlubait’.
1. Jabir Al-Joufy جابر الجعفی
روى سبعين ألف حديث عن الباقر عليه السلام وروى مائة وأربعين ألف حديث والظاهر أنه ماروى بطريق المشافهة عن الأئمة عليهم السلام. وسائل الشیعة 151.20
Al-Hur Al-Amili in Wasael Al-Shia 20/151 says:
He narrated 70,000 Hadeeths from Al-Baqir (peace be upon him) and 140,000 from other Imams. It appears that he didn’t narrate through dictation from the Imams.
Met Imam Baqir (rah) only once and never met Imam Jafar (rah):
سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن أحاديث جابر ؟ فقال ما رأيته عند أبي قط إلا مرة واحدة، وما دخل علي قط رجال کشی ص191
Narrated by Zurarah ibn A’yan: I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about the hadiths of Jabir Al-Jafy, he replied: I saw him only once with my father and he never met me.[Rijal Kashi p:191]
Comment: This man after meeting Imam Baqir (rah) only once narrates 40,000 Hadeeths and he never met Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah). This means Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah) does’nt know him.
Jabir Al-Joufy had mental confusion and he was also accused:
جابر الجعفي : (وكان في نفسه مخلطاً ) [رجال النجاشي: ص100] (إن جابر الجعفي من المتهمين عند أكثر المؤلفين في الرجال ) [الموضوعات في الآثار والأخبار: ص 234].
2. Zurarah bin A’yan زرارة بن أعين
He is considered to be one of the greatest companions of Ahlulbait (ra). He narrated thousands of Ahadith in the shia books.
Lets read more about him.
أن زرارة بن أعين من أسرة نصرانية وجده يدعى (سنسن ) كان راهباً في بلاد الروم، وكان أبوه عبداً رومياً لرجل من بني شيبان. الفهرست للطوسي ص 104
Zurarah bin Aen had a christian family, his grandfather was a monk in the land of Rome and his father was a roman slave. [Fihrist Tusi p:104]
What Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah) said about him:
عن ليث المرادي قال: سمعت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: لا يموت زرارة الا تائها.
From al-Layth al-Mardi: I heard Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam) said: “Zurarah wouldn’t die except as a lost one”. [Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.170]
Zurarah is cursed by Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
قال أبو عبد الله : (ما أحدث أحد في الإسلام ما أحدث زرارة بن أعين من البدع عليه لعنة الله. رجال الكشي ص 149
No one has brought innovation to Islam like Zurarah did, may Allah curse him. [Rijal Al-Kashi p:149]
Zurarah lied on Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
When Imam was informed that Zurarah narrating something from him, he said:
ليس هكذا سألني ولا هكذا قلت: كذب علي والله كذب علي والله لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة، لعن الله زرارة
He didn’t ask me in this way, and I didn’t answer like this, by Allah he lied upon me, by Allah he lied upon me, May Allah curse Zurarah, May Allah curse Zurarah, May Allah curse Zurarah, May Allah curse Zurarah. [Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.168]
Similar narrations:
كذب علي والله كذب علي والله لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة
He has lied upon us by God, he has lied upon us by God, may Allah curse Zurarah, may Allah curse Zurarah. [Bihar Al-anwar]
وقال أبو عبد الله عن زرارة : كذب علي والله كذب علي والله ، لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة لعن الله زرارة
“By Allah he lied on me! By Allah he lied on me! May Allah Curse Zurarah, O Allah Curse Zurarah, O Allah Curse Zurarah” – [Rijal Al Kishi p.133]
Zurarah has nothing to do with Islam:
قال إن ذا من مسائل آل أعين ليس من ديني و لا دين آبائي
This issue (masala) is the work of Aal Ayun (referring to Zurarah ibn Ayun), it has nothing to do with my religion and the religion of my father. [Rijal Kashi, p. 137]
Those who doubted their religion:
حدثني محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني جبريل بن أحمد عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد عن يونس عن أبي الصباح قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله (ع) يقول يا أبا الصباح هلك المترئسون في أديانهم منهم زرارة و بريد و محمد بن مسلم و إسماعيل الجعفي
Imam Jafar said: O abu Sabah! those who doubted in their religion are ruined, amongst them are Zurarah and Buraidah and Muhammad bin Muslim and Ismail Jufi.[Tanqih al maqal, Vol. 3 ,p. 186]
Zurarah worse than Jews and Christian:
عن أبي عبد الله ع قال: دخلت عليه فقال: متى عهدك بزرارة؟ قال قلت ما رأيته منذ أيام قال: لا تبال وان مرض فلا تعده وان مات فلا تشهد جنازته قال قلت زرارة؟ متعجبا مما قال قال : نعم زرارة زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى
Imam Jafar asked the narrator : since how much time have you seen Zurarah? Narrator says : I haven’t seen him from some days, Imam said : Don’t care about him , and if he becomes ill, don’t visit him, and if he dies, don’t join his funeral prayer. The narrator said : You mean Zurarah? He said it while he was surprised. Imam said : Yes, Zurarah, for Zurarah is worse than Jews and Christians.[Rijal Kashi, p. 142]
Similar narration:
زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى، ومن قال: إن مع الله ثالث ثلاثة ) (رجال الكشي: ص160. رواية رقم 267)
Zurarah is worse than jews and Christians, and those who say: with Allah is 3 from 3. [Rijal Kashi p:160]
Again, he is cursed by Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
حدثني حمدوية قال؛ حدثني محمد بن عيسى عن يونس عن مسمع كرد بن ابي سيار قال سمعت ابا عبد الله (ع) يقول: لعن الله بريداً، لعن الله زرارة
Aba Abdullah (as) said: May Allah curse Buraydah!, may Allah curse Zurarah! [Rijal Kashi, p. 148]
Also See Scan images of the book: [Scan 1] [Scan 2]
Note: Buraydah is also cursed by Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah), he is another narrator.
After some conversation between him and Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah), he says:
فلما خرجت ضرطت في لحيته و قلت لا يفلح أبدا [كتاب رجال الكشي (350 هـ) الجزء 2 صفحة من 133 إلى 161]
“I came out (from the place of Jafar Sadiq) and farted on his beard and said, this person can never find prosperity.“
What Zurarah said about Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
رحم الله أبا جعفر واما جعفر فان في قلبي عليه لعنة
May Allah forgive Abu Jafar, as for the Jafar I have a curse on him in my heart. [Ikhtiyar Ma’arifatur-Rijaal – Shaykh Abu Ja`far at-Tusi]
3. Abu Basirأبو بصير
محمد بن مسعود قال حدثني جبريل بن أحمد قال حدثني محمد بن عيسى عن يونس عن حماد الناب قال : جلس أبو بصير على باب أبي عبد الله (ع) ليطلب الإذن فلم يؤذن له فقال لو كان معنا طبق لأذن قال فجاء كلب فشغر في وجه. رجال الکشی ص:116
[Sanad omitted] Abu Basir was sitting at the door of Abu Abdullah, and was asking for permission to enter, but wasn’t given permission , on this he said, if I had some plate [of dish, money etc] , I would have been given permission, and a dog came and peed on his face.[Rijal Kashi, p. 116]
Abu Basir was disobedient to Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
عن الأسدي ، عن النخعي ، عن النوفلي ، عن البطائني ، عن أبي بصير ، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال قلت له: أخبرني عن الله عز وجل هل يراه المؤمنون يوم القيامة .
قال: نعم وقد رأوه قبل يوم القيامة .
فقلت: متى ؟
قال: حين قال لهم: أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى . ثم سكت ساعة ثم قال: وإن المؤمنين ليرونه في الدنيا قبل يوم القيامة ، ألست تراه في وقتك هذا ؟ قال أبو بصير فقلت له: جعلت فداك فأحدث بهذا عنك ؟ فقال لا
I asked Abu Abdullah: Will the believers see Allah on the day of judgement? He said: Yes, and they saw God even before that. I said: When? He said : When He [swt] said: أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ . Than after silence of a moment, he said : The believers see everything even before the day of judgement and aren’t you seeing everything now?
Abu Basir said: May I be sacrificed on you, should I narrate this hadith of yours (to others)? He (the infallible imam) said : No.
[Bihar al anwar 4/44]
Comment: But he indeed narrated this hadith to others and the proof is this hadith itself, so Abu Basir was disobedient to the Imam.
4. Muhammad bin Muslim محمد بن مسلم
Muhammad bin Muslim is perhaps one of the most important narrators in the Shia hadith system, he has narrated thousands of hadith but he is also cursed by Imams. He claims to have heard 30,000 ahadith from Imam Al-Baqir (ra), and 16,000 from Imam Jafar Sadiq (ra). (See Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391)
Imam Jafar (rah) cursing Muhammad bin Muslim:
حدثني محمدبن مسعود، قال حدثني جبريل بن أحمد، عن محمد بن عيسيى، عن يونس، عن عيسى بن سليمان وعدة، عن مفضل بن عمر، قال: سمعت ابا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول:«لعن الله محمد بن مسلم كان يقول ان الله لايعلم الشئ حتى يكون
“May the curse of Allah be on Muhammad bin Muslim!, he says that Allah does not know of a thing till it comes into existence” [Ikhtiyar Ma’arifatur-Rijaal – Shaykh Abu Ja`far at-Tusi]
5. Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar
Al-Mufaddal ibn is regarded by eminent Shia hadith scholars as pious and a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. (Al-Ardabili Jami’ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258)
Lets see what Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah) said about him:
Imam Jafar (ra) addressed Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar:
“You Kafir! You Mushrik!” [Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat ar-Rija vol.2 p.612]
In another lenghty narration, he is cursed by Imam Jafar Sadiq (rah):
Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr Ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha’ah Al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Jafar] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Jafar] said: ” By Allah no one besides Allah determinse our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and though hard about it, until I mananged to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and his messenger disown him.”[Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat ar-Rijal vol.2 p.614]
Al-Kashi says, Mufaddal ibn Umar belonged to the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs were derived directly from Ibn Saba.
Comment: These are the people who ‘brought’ the teachings of Ahlulbait (ra) to shia. They lied upon the Imams (rah) and they are cursed. So how can the shia claim they follow Ahlulbait (ra)?
The Imams (rah) cursed them and called them Mushrik, liar, Christian etc. The shia hate and attack Abu Huraira (ra), who was praised by the messenger of Allah (swt), but they love and accept these narrators who are hated by Imam Jafar (rah) and other Imams (rah).
Conclusion: Most of those branded as “Majhoul” in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah are in fact famous scholars and historians, we know quite a lot about a good number of them, we just don’t know if they’re good or qualified narrators of Hadith. The Shia on the other hand have a huge group of unknown narrators, only Allah knows who they are, nothing is known about them except their names.
This science is applied by Ahlul-Sunnah with excellence as they perfected it, it is used to better understand the narrations and to extract the authentic religious rulings and historical information after filtering out all the lies, the mistakes, the fabrications, the exaggerations and the inaccuracies which distort the texts.
The Shia on the other hand by trying to mimic Ahlul-Sunnah, they tried to do the same. However, due to their negligence and ignorance and extremism, they avoided these sciences and believed in whatever they wished, and now when faced with the criticism of the opponents, they try to shovel the calamities they recorded in their books, they try to bury the mistakes and reconcile the contradictions while failing to explain many of the major conflicts in their `Aqeedah. Success was not on their side and Success is only from Allah.
…….
There are plenty of ways to illustrate this deficiency in the Shia Madhab and prove academically the success and great victory for Ahlul-Sunnah. I’ve read more than one study on this subject by Arab students of knowledge, each more informative than the other, each illustrating with clear evidence the weakness of the Shia sources.
In the science of Ahlul-Sunnah, a narrator could be weak in a way that his narrations are abandoned altogether, he could be weak but his narrations are written, he could be slightly weak but strengthened with follow-ups or Mutaba`at, he could be trustworthy but with a bad memory, or reliable but got confused at the end of his life, and we are able to distinguish who heard from him before or after his confusion, a narrator could be reliable when narrating from some men but weak when narrating from others, a narrator could be reliable when narrating from his own books but weak after he lost his books when narrating from memory, a narrator could be reliable and he could have lived in the time of another reliable narrator but we know that they never met so their narration from each-other is weak, a narrator could be reliable but attributes narrations to those whom he never met, a narrator could be an innovator so whatever he exclusively narrates to support his innovation is rejected, a narrator could be honest but not very reliable in narration, a narrator could be trustworthy but makes mistakes every now and then, a narrator could be knowledgeable about the narrations and narrators of Kufa more than those of al-Sham, a narrator could have lived in the time of another but was too young to narrate from him without a middle man, a narrator could be a liar or one who is accused of lies or fabrication and so on and so forth…
In the science of the followers of Ibn Saba, we observe that there is no attention whatsoever to all the above, the case is usually that either they consider a man Thiqah (reliable) or Majhoul (unknown), it’s as if they just have a stamp and they stamp it on the forehead of every man like robots. The dates of birth and death are not recorded for the vast majority of their narrators which is problematic for the connectivity of the narrators, there is no information on who a man’s teachers are, any narrator can attribute anything to any other man. In fact the huge number of unknown narrators makes it obvious that unlike Ahlul-Sunnah, the Imamiyyah took their narrations from random Koufans and Qummies, most of which aren’t Imams or scholars or Huffaz, just grocers and blacksmiths and merchants and other individuals from that society. Another issue is that they invented rules to make Tawtheeq or authenticate unknown individuals, such as authenticating anyone al-Saduq praised or anyone in the chains of Tafseer al-Qummi and so on and so forth…
So how can we quickly compare? The books of Rijal are huge and complicated, especially those of Ahlul-Sunnah?
The answer is simple, pick a reliable book from each school that summarizes the matter.(which I attempted at the end of this post)
I stumbled upon this yesterday when reading one of Yahya bin Ma`een’s books.
He said in his book when commenting on a narrator called Shu`bah:
[These are the names of those that Shu`ba heard from from the Kufis that Sufiyan didn’t hear from:
Sayyar Abu Al-Hakam – Hajjaj bin Omar Al-Muharibi – Al-Waleed bin Al-Aizar – Abdullah bin Abi Al-Mujalid – Muhil bin Khalifa – Abu Bakr bin Hafs – Abdullah bin Jabr – Abu Ziyad Al-Tahhan – Al-Hakam bin Utaiba – Yahya bin Al-Husain – Nu’aim bin Abi Hind – Habeeb bin Al-Zubair – Ammar Al-Absi – Abu Ma’shar.”
Al-Duri then asked Yahya: “How many narrations Shu`bah narrated from Abi Ma`shar?”
Yahya said: “Two hadiths.”
Yahya then continued: “A’ith bin Nusaib – Uqba bin Huraith – Abu Al-Mukhtar Hayyan Al-Bariqi – Za’idah bin Umair – Al-A’alaa’ bin Badr – Abu Al-Safar Najia – Ali bin Mudrik – Talha bin Musrif – Al-Minhal bin Amr – Adi bin Thabit – Yahya Al-Bihrani – Simak Al-Hanafi – Sa’eed bin Abi Burda – Asim bin Amr Al-Ghanawi.”]
It is amazing that this amount of detailed information was gathered about the Sunni narrators of Hadith by their scholars, this pushed me to write this short piece that I am sharing with all our dear readers.
The reliability or should I say quality of the narrator, reflects the quality and reliability of the report. The Muslims take their religion and their beliefs from the various books of Hadith which they deem reliable and popular and authoritative, these books contain many reports, some reports contradict other reports, some are un-Islamic beliefs, some are fabrications and lies, some are authentic and correct, others correct in meaning but not accurate in text and so on and so forth…
The most reliable of texts reaches us through the most correct of chains in the utmost of accuracy. The text that reaches us through the clearest and purest chain is more worthy of being followed than the other texts.
We take the example of three narrations that we made up, so we can better explain this:
Narration #1:
`Amr (Great reliable scholar) from Zayd (Firm reliable and popular) from Qays (Reliable):
“The Muslims defeated the Persians after three days, then chanted: Truly victory is only from Allah.”
Narration #2:
Wahb (Trusted) from `Ali (Honest makes mistakes) from Qays (Reliable):
“The Muslims chanted: Victory comes from Allah, After they defeated the Persians on the second day.”
Narration #3:
Sa`eed (Trusted with bad memory) from Sahl (Reliable Mudallis) from `Umar (Acceptable):
“The Muslims defeated the Persians after three weeks of brutal fighting then chanted: Ya `Ali Madad.”
Judging the Narrators and Narrations:
1 All three narrators are reliable, meaning “Thiqah” which is the highest form of praise for a narrator’s quality in Hadith. The text of this narration is of the utmost in reliability.
2 Wahb is Saduq, meaning trustworthy but does not excel in the art of narrating, `Ali is honest so he wouldn’t lie but he makes mistakes in narrating, the third narrator is Qays, the same man in the first narration and he is Thiqah reliable. The text of this narration is good, it is “Hasan”, and the only difference between it and the first is the number of days, the first narration gets priority as it is more reliable.
3 Saeed is trusted but has bad memory, this can affect his texts. Sahl is reliable in and of himself but may make Tadlees, meaning he may not have actually heard this narration fromUmar. Umar as a narrator is barely acceptable, he doesn’t lie, but he isn’t reliable either. The text of the narration appears completely different, the period of 2-3 days is suddenly stretched to two weeks! and the Dua or chant at the end is Munkar, it opposes the others and opposes Islamic creed, this text is completely un-acceptable although none of the narrators are “liars” or “unknown” or even “weak”.
This is a very small and primitive example to show how the quality of narrators is reflected on the quality of texts, how judging each narrator’s reliability and firmness in Hadith is key when comparing different religious and historical reports to reach the final conclusion as to what exactly happened in the event we research.
Books of this comparative study:
1- Ahlul-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah:
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani al-Shafi`i has a good small Rijali summary called Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb, in this book he mainly sums up the condition of the narrators of al-Imam al-Mezzi’s book Tahdheeb al-Kamal. al-Mezzi’s book contains the names of all the narrators from the six Sunni main books plus a lot of others that al-Mezzi decided to include as well, sadly it doesn’t contain the names of many other Sunni narrators.
2- Imamiyyah Ithna `Ashariyyah:
Shaykh al-Jawahiri wrote a summary called al-Mufeed min Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith, this book sums up the opinions of al-Khu’i in his Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith. al-Khu’i wrote his encyclopedia to collect all the Shia narrators and document what the early Shia Rijalists said concerning each man.
The two books mentioned, although they’re summaries, yet they’re still quite big and going through each book from beginning to end is very time consuming. I thought of the easiest and quickest way to reach the results without sacrificing much in the accuracy of the study and without ending up with a big error margin as that would be a waste of my time.
What I decided in the end, was to use the computer and the software as this would make the search automated and thus much quicker. How would I do this? Well as the readers know, each of the authors lists a number, then lists the name of the narrator, and next to this he states whether the man was Thiqah or Hasan-ul-Hadith or Da`eef or Majhoul etc… So I would write the word “Thiqah” in the search engine and it would give me the number of times the author ruled on the Wathaqah of a narrator. Now you ask, well this isn’t very accurate, we know for example that the Shia usually praise some of their narrators by saying “Thiqah Thiqah”, this would be counted twice for one single man! I say, this is true, the goal was never to be 100% accurate, I believe the difference will be so huge between both, and the result will be so clear, that such small exceptional cases would not affect the study, the error margin wouldn’t be more than 3 to 6% per-my estimation, the proof is that those described as “Thiqah Thiqah” in al-Mufeed are only about 43 individuals out of around 15,678 narrators in the book, hardly 0.2%.
The Sunni book is going to be much much harder, since there are many more terms, the author does not work in binary of Thiqah or Majhoul, so it’s tricky and I need to place much more of an effort to write its resulsts.
With this said, InshaAllah and Bismillah we begin,
The Results:
NOTE: These are all not 100% accurate, so keep this in mind since I don’t want to keep repeating “around this or that much” I’ll abbreviate it with Tilde “~”.
1- The Sunni book of Rijal, al-Taqreeb li-ibn Hajar:
Published by Dar al-Rasheed, Syria.
Total number of Rijal: Around 8,826 men.
There are many terms used to described narrators in the science of Ahlul-Sunnah, the matter isn’t restricted to Thiqah vs Majhoul like the Shia book, so I’ll just select a few common ones.
Thiqah Thabt (ثقة ثبت) are ~ 137
Thiqah (ثقة) are ~ 2,304
Saduq (صدوق) are ~ 1,833
Maqboul (مقبول) are ~ 1,522
Layyin (لين) are ~ 211
Da`eef (ضعيف) are ~ 423
Matrouk (متروك) are ~ 145
Mastour (مستور) are ~ 157
La Yu`raf (لا يعرف) are ~ 75
Majhoul (مجهول) are ~ 785
There are many other terms which we did not write such as Thiqah Mutqin or Laysa bil-Qawi or Lahu Awham or Katheer al-Khata’ etc… but these are enough to give us a clear image of what the situation is. Obviously the terms of praise range from Sahabi or Lahu Suhbah, to Imam Hafiz or Thiqah Jaleel, or Thabt and these indicate the highest forms of reliability, followed by Thiqah and it is for the reliable narrator, then Saduq or Hasan or Salih al-Hadith for the trusted narrators who aren’t renowned reliable Muhadditheen. Then terms of weakness such as “Maqboul” and he is the one whose narrations are barely acceptable, and the “Layyin” whose weakness isn’t much, and Shadeed al-Du`f or Munkar al-Hadith or Matrouk for those of extreme weakness, then after that come terms such as the “Mouttahameen” those accused of fabricating, then the Kazzab and Wadda` for fabricators and liars, and then the Mastour and Majhoul and La Yu`raf for those whose identities are not known or those whose condition is not known and so on…
Based on the simplified list above, we see that the matter isn’t as black and white as we find in the Shia books, the author seems to have accurately placed each man in his rightful position, we find the weakness of narrators classed into several levels and so is their strength, making the process of grading Hadith deeper and richer.
2- The Shia book of Rijal, al-Mufeed lil-Jawahiri:
Published by Mahillati, Iran.
Total number of Rijal: Around 14,194 men. (After subtracting the term: Muttahid Ma` to reduce repetition)
Thiqatun-Thiqah (ثقة ثقة) are ~ 40.
Thiqah-`Ayn (ثقة عين) are ~ 43.
Thiqah (ثقة) are ~ 1,346.
Saduq (صدوق) are ~ 12.
Da`eef (ضعيف) are ~ 234.
Majhoul (مجهول) are ~ 8,054.
Majhoulah (مجهولة) are ~ 87.
The number of the above does not reach the total because many narrators were not judged, the author says that so and so met the Mahdi or was praised by so and so, but they don’t have a clear ruling on them, in this case they’d be Majaheel (unknowns), and many others are simply repetitions of the same person. There are also some other terms such as “Mamdouh” (praised) and Madhmoum (criticized) and Mal`oun (cursed) which are small in number so no use collecting them.
Regarding the “Majhoul” or unknown Sunni & Shia narrators, still Ahlul-Sunnah have a higher standard, because “Majhoul” according to Ahlul-Sunnah is not just one group of unknown people, they have levels and categories, from the most important are:
1-Majhoul al-`Ayn: This is a narrator that we know nothing about except his name or age or place of residence.
2-Majhoul al-Hal: This is a narrator whose identity is known, we know that he is a grand scholar or famous respectable historian. However, we do not know his condition when it comes to narrating.
As you can see, there is a great unbalance taking place on the Shia side, the vast majority are either Majhoul or Thiqah. Thiqatun Thiqah is the strongest praise but is very rare. Thiqah and Thiqah `Ayn are technically the same thing. Saduq or trustworthy is the rarest which exposes a deep problem in how they judge narrators and their Dhabt. There are a few weak narrators, but stumbling upon one would be unlikely. The Majaheel whether male or female are abundant, they make up the vast majority. There are about thirty or so narrators that are “praised” which is another form of Majhoul, another thirty or forty are criticized by the Imams or cursed.
Evaluating examples of instances where forgers were identified and caught red-handed indeed is a very interesting endeavor. In such examples, one is exposed to the epitome of textual criticism and the meticulousness of Sunni scholarship with regards to the transmission of hadith. The examples become even more fascinating when the hadith critics provide a story and/or the context behind their verdicts, which allows us to fully grasp their reasoning.
Around a year ago, I came across a very interesting example of this phenomenon. It involved a 4th century Shi’ite transmitter known as Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath. Muhammad was a Kufan transmitter who eventually settled in Egypt in the vicinity known as Saqifat Jawad. The hadith critic, Al-Daraqutni (d. 385) described him saying: “He was a wonder among Allah’s wonders. He fabricated that book, Al-‘Alawiyyat.” (Al-Sahmi 101)
Though Al-Daraqutni’s statement is sufficient and insightful, it does not provide much context behind his verdict. Fortunately, however, another notable hadith critic witnessed and documented the entire story behind Muhammad’s exposé. This critic, in fact, was a direct student of Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath.
How the Forger was Identified
In his book, Al-Kamil fi Du’afaa’ Al-Rijal, the 4th century hadith critic, Ibn ‘Adiyy (d. 365) relayed his own account regarding the forger in question today. He said:
I transcribed hadith from him. His staunchness in Shi’ism led him to disseminate a transcription that consisted of around 1000 reports transmitted from Musa b. Isma’il b. Musa b. Ja’far, from his father, from his grandfather, from his fathers, with a soft handwriting and new parchment. Most of it consisted of disapproved reports (مناكير).
We then brought this up to Al-Husain b. ‘Ali b. Al-Husain b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali b. Al-Husain Al-‘Alawi, the sheikh of Ahlulbait in Egypt. He stated that Musa was his neighbor in the city for 40 years and that he never mentioned that he had transmission from his father or anyone else. (Ibn ‘Adiyy 7/565)
Ibn ‘Adiyy then concluded his entry saying:
I have copied this book from him, and it consists of around 1000 hadiths written in soft handwriting. I have copied most of it from him along with these hadiths and other disapproved reports in this book. It contains some reports that match the contents of the reports of truthful transmitters, and he was suspected of fabricating this book. I did not find an Asl for him in this book. He used to simply present it to us in soft handwriting and new parchment. (Ibn ‘Adiyy 7/567)
In Muhammad’s biographical entry, Ibn ‘Adiyy listed some of the preposterous forgeries he observed in the book, which clearly are fabricated Prophetic traditions.
What Happened?
I’d like to take this opportunity to dissect Ibn ‘Adiyy’s account and direct the reader to the subtle and explicit indicators this hadith critic appealed to when issuing his verdict.
Ibn ‘Adiyy began his account by stating that he had actually transcribed hadith from Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath. This is a valuable piece of data, as we now know that Ibn ‘Adiyy knew him on a personal level and that he was acquainted with his practices in transmission. Ibn ‘Adiyy is not simply criticizing someone he knows nothing about. As a student and acquaintance of Muhammad, Ibn ‘Adiyy then made note of his staunch Shi’ite leanings. This too is a valuable bit of information, since it informs us of a motive and a bias this transmitter may have possessed in the context of hadith transmission.
Ibn ‘Adiyy then mentioned that Muhammad’s staunch Shi’ite leanings led him to disseminate an entire book of 1000 hadiths he had allegedly transmitted from Musa b. Isma’il b. Musa b. Ja’far. Perhaps some context is needed to clarify this point: Musa b. Isma’il is an absolutely unknown and obscure transmitter in both the Sunni and Shi’ite traditions (Al-Jawaheri 624). It is indeed very bizarre that such an absolutely unknown figure would be a prolific transmitter of reports, since frequent transmission usually granted transmitters exposure to various authorities who would be able to identify them. The fact that Muhammad exclusively transmitted 1000 reports from this obscure and allegedly prolific transmitter is a major red flag.
Another notable point is that the obscure Musa b. Isma’il was the grandson of the 7th Shi’ite imam, Musa b. Ja’far, and the great-great-grandson of the 6th imam, Ja’far Al-Sadeq. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath ascribed the reports in his book to Musa b. Isma’il → Isma’il b. Musa → Musa b. Ja’far → Ja’far Al-Sadeq. We are aware of Muhammad’s theological leanings, which would entice him to ascribe reports to the following figures. We can thus conclude that Muhammad’s transmission in his book is in-line with any theological motive he may have possessed in that context.
More than once, Ibn ‘Adiyy made note of the fact that Muhammad’s book was written on new parchment. This, in light of the other indicators, is another red flag. It means that the text was only recently written, and that the transcription was not an aged document which had been preserved by Muhamamd years after his transmission from Musa b. Isma’il. Ibn ‘Adiyy similarly made note of the fact that the reports in the book are bizarre and disapproved traditions (مناكير).
These major red-flags (rightfully) were enough of a reason to arouse suspicion in Ibn ‘Adiyy. Since Muhammad had exclusively ascribed ~1000 reports to Isma’il b. Musa, Ibn ‘Adiyy consulted a member of Isma’il b. Musa’s household: Al-Husain b. ‘Ali Al-‘Alawi, the sheikh of Ahlulbait in Egypt at the time. Al-Husain b. ‘Ali confirmed Ibn ‘Adiyy’s suspicions: he was Musa b. Isma’il’s neighbor for over 40 years, yet he never heard him transmitting anything from his father or anyone else!
At that stage, it became apparent that Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath was a forger who had fabricated the entire book and ascribed its contents to Isma’il b. Musa. It probably was easier for him to ascribe the book to an obscure figure, like Isma’il, since ascribing it to a more eminent figure of many students would have probably lead to his immediate exposé.
Note: Ibn ‘Adiyy importantly noted that some of the contents in the book were taken from the reports of truthful transmitters and then arbitrarily ascribed to Muhammad’s chain of transmission. Thus, the fact that some of the reports in Muhammad’s book may be found in other sources does not absolve him from the forgery of this book.
The Blunder of Shi’ite Biographical Sources
Muhammad’s own student, Ibn ‘Adiyy (d. 365), assessed a variety of significant textual indicators and thus accused Muhammad of forging the book. The great hadith critic, Al-Daraqutni (d. 385), similarly concluded that he was behind its forgery. What is surprising, however, is that later Shi’ite biographical sources ended up endorsing the reliability of Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Ash’ath!
Al-Najashi (d. 450) described him saying:
He is reliable and among our companions in Egypt. He authored Kitab Al-Hajj. In it, he mentioned the reports the ‘Ammah (Sunnis) transmitted from Ja’far b. Muhammad regarding Hajj. (Al-Khoei 18/200)
Al-Tusi (d. 460) described him saying:
He is nicknamed Abu ‘Ali, and his residence was in Egypt in Saqifat Jawad. He transmitted a transcription from Musa b. Isma’il b. Musa b. Ja’far, from his father: Isma’il b. Musa b. Ja’far, from his father: Musa b. Ja’far (as). (Al-Khoei 18/200)
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have Muhammad’s own contemporaries meticulously evaluating his transmission and concluding that he cannot be relied upon. More than one hundred years later, Shi’ite authorities who never met Muhammad mysteriously (and ambiguously) concluded that he was a reliable transmitter! It is evident, however, that Muhammad is a problematic transmitter (to say the least). Ibn ‘Adiyy’s account gives the reader a brief glimpse into the critical methods espoused by the competent hadith critics of the past.
Indeed this example is but another reason to cast doubts upon the reliability of Shi’ite biographical (rijali) sources and their respective verdicts. What is further damning is that this forged waste of paper has survived till this day, and it has been printed and circulated in some Shi’ite circles as a valid primary source. The book is now referred to as الأشعثيات or الجعفريات.
I have amassed a list of analogous instances where Shi’ite sources have endorsed known liars, forgers, and weak transmitters, and perhaps I shall publish it here soon, God willing.
And Allah is the best of witnesses.
Abdul Rahman bin Abi Najran told us, on the authority of Asim bin Hamid, on the authority of Abu Hamza Al-Thumali, on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, said: Ali told Hassan that the people of Medina were very wise for choosing Abu Bakr, for it was an era of peace & prosperity, may Allah forgive my brother Abu Bakr. He then continued saying that may Allah forgive my brother Umar, for he was a just ruler and his son, Abdullah, would have been the best candidate to succeed him.
Comment: this was said by Ali as Taqiya.
Safwan bin Yahya, may God be pleased with him, told us: Abu Ayyub Ibrahim bin Ziyad Al-Khazzaz told us, he said: Abu Hamza Al-Thumali told us, on the authority of Abu Khalid Al-Kabli, he said: I entered upon my master Ali bin Al-Hussein bin Ali bin Abi Talib, peace be upon them, and I asked him whether he has knowledge of the unseen. He said: God Almighty said: Say, “No one in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah” [An-Naml: 65]. And God Almighty said, commanding His Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Say, ‘I do not say to you that I have the treasures of God, nor do I know the unseen’” [Al-An’am: 50], And God Almighty said: Say, [o Muhammad]“I have no control.” There is no benefit to myself or any harm except what God wills. And if I had known the unseen, I would have abounded in goodness. [Al-A`raf: 188]. The prophet of Allah didn’t know the unseen. Why would I have such knowledgè, if he didn’t. God Almighty may assign to whomever He wills what He wills, but He has declared - and there is no follow-up to His ruling - that no one has knowledge of the unseen except His messengers. And it is not God that He will make known to you the unseen. [Al Imran: 179], and God Almighty said: He knows the unseen, so He does not reveal His unseen to No one except one whom He approves of as a Prophet. [Al-Jinn: 26-27]. I am not a prophet.
Comment: this was said as taqiya.
Ahmed bin Ishaq bin Abdullah Al-Ash’ari told us, saying: I heard Abu Muhammad Al-Hasan bin Ali Al-Askari, peace be upon them, saying: “The Banu Abbas claim that I have a son and popularise the myth that he is in occultation and that he is represented by 4 ambassadors, who are Abbasid agents. I asked: why? He said: they plan to make their enemies [the Safavids] sleep and wait until a saviour appears to free land from injusticè. They also want their enemies to become poor by having them bury a fifth of their earnings below Earth for this saviour.“
Comment this was said as Taqiya.
As all Shia scholars know, there are no authentic narrations (according to Twelver majoosi standards) that list the names of the 12 Imams. So their solution: forgery.
Ithbat Al-Raja, like most of Al-Fadl Ibn Shazan’s (d. 260) books, is “missing”, but in the 11th century, the book was ”discovered” after being lost for centuries upon centuries. It is strange that in the book there are some narrations with a clean chain of transmission that revolve around issues related to the Imamate and the naming of the Imams and the Mahdi, and these narrations deal with nothing but this issue. This book was only known to have been quoted by Al-Hurr Al-Amili in his Ithbat Al-Hudaat and has not been quoted by anyone that came before him. None of the early sources above quote these clean chains when they were much needed and there is little doubt that this dubious work has been falsely attributed to Al-Fadhl. It is also important to make note that there is no manuscript for this work apart from one that was written in the year 1350 AH, under a hundred years ago, and it was supervised by Al-Hurr Al-Amili himself. (See the printed Mukhtasar p. 68)
Another issue with the book is that it has arrived Al-Hur Al-Amili through wijada. In other words, he “stumbled upon it“ without knowing its origin. (See the Mukhtasar p. 68). Just like the narrations, I quoted above, which my Sheikh stumpled upon.
Actually, accepting the narrations I quoted above as authentic is even more reasonable than accepting the forgery of Al-Amili. This work is extremely important for the cleanliness of its chains of transmission (according to Shiite standards). So how did the great hadith scholars such as Al-Kulayni, Al-Saduq, and Al-Khazzaz Al-Qummi neglect it, despite their interest in mentioning what they found of the narrations that list the names of the imams? How did they neglect the narrations of Al-Fadl bin Shazan, when he was one of the major hadith scholars in the third century? How did they adopt weak chains of narration in the chapters devoted to narrating such hadiths in their books, even though this book was accessible? These are all general signs that come to mind that indicate that the book is forged. This is contrary to the narrations that I quoted earlier, as they deal with trivial issues. So my narrations being “lost“ makes a lot more sense than those of Al-Fadhl.
A more important reason to question the contents of the work is due to the attributions of those that are not aware of who the Twelve Imams were according to authentic hadiths.
Ahlulbayt have always refuted Shias, yet Shias have the audacity to reject their teachings by claiming that they were compulsive liars misguiding their own students (even their own family members)
http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/03/22/ali-al-baqir-and-al-sadiq-authentically-praise-umar/
http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/03/28/al-baqir-endorses-ibn-umar/
http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/03/04/al-sadiq-al-baqir-learn-islam-from-the-sahabah/
can the imams, who are greater than the prophets (audhubillah) and are supposed guides for the ummah, mislead the public like this?
Even when the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in Makkah and was being persecuted he never once did taqiyyah, he صلى الله عليه وسلم boldly proclaimed Tawhid and the religion! Because the guide of the people cannot conceal the religion, there has to be someone to guide the people to the right path.
But now the imams didn’t follow his example- they mislead people into rejecting their imamah! And rejecting one imam itself is kufr! How can Ja’far as sadiq and the rest of the imams lead their people towards __kufr__?
What does Allah say about this?
**2:159
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَآ أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ ٱلْبَيّنَـٰتِ وَٱلْهُدَىٰ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّـه للناسِ فِى ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ ۙ أُو۟لـئك يَلْعَنُهُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ ٱللَّـعنُون ١٥٩
Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers.**
Twelver theologians have made universal generalizations upon the Imams from a limited and incomprehensive pool of reports. When such generalizations are based on limited sets of data, it is not a surprise that the generalizations will be fundamentally flawed, hence the various authentic reports that conflict with Twelver theology.
Shi’ite theologians often argued for the necessity of an infallible guide to lead the masses. A fallible guide, according to them, may commit errors which would then be upheld by the masses. Twelver theologians thus argued that the masses would not be able to discern the right from wrong in a fallible guide’s actions, hence the need for an infallible guide.
These claims of Taqiyyah, however, backfire on this entire argument. If the Imam openly disseminated distorted Prophetic teachings out of fear for his personal safety, what exactly is the point of infallibility? The end result is one: the imam publicly conveys erroneous teachings that eventually lead to confusion and distortion of the religion. The only difference is that the “infallible” imam does it out of fear for his safety, but the “fallible” leader does it out of error.
The end result is one: Twelver theologians, centuries later, attempt to piece the puzzle together by meddling with the body of reports ascribed to the Imams. It is safe to say, however, that such attempts are futile, as their methodologies embodied various logical fallacies and misleading appeals.
There are hundreds of other examples of this phenomenon in classical Twelver hadith collections. The examples presented today, however, shall suffice to demonstrate the flawed framework espoused by Shi’ite authorities as they navigated through their tradition.
Nevertheless, the Truth becomes clearer and more apparent by the day: Shi’ite polemicists are simply inviting Muslims to a self-contradicting tradition that is weaker than a spider’s web.
Who is better? Those who laid the foundations of their building on righteousness and the quest for Allah’s approval; or those who did so on the edge of a crumbling cliff that tumbled down with them into the fire of Hell?
And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
[Quran 9:109]
www.twelvershia.net/2017/04/29/who-holds-onto-thaqalayn/
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1PA-K4UxbsqQJi1TDiHebVelNa3wu4C1wAtlPzKX-BgE/edit?usp=sharing
If the imams did taqqiyah and said wrong and false things just to protect themselves then it means it is their fault that so many Muslims became misguided. Imagine seeing a divinely appointed imam and he tells you he is not an imam and that he likes Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra). Is it really the muslim world's fault for believing them and writing their words down? Yet apparently I'm going to be sent to hell because I reject imamate even though some of the imams clearly said they weren't imams.
Quite obviously the shia narrative is false and just a desperate attempt to answer some very hard questions. I'm pretty sure the imams weren't practicing taqqiyah and they meant what they said when they praised Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) or when they denied being an imam etc...
The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) went to the house of Zayd to ask for him so he saw Zaynab sitting in her room preparing food. He opened the door and looked at her and she was beautiful, so the prophet (saw) said: “Subhan Allah the creator of Noor and Tabarak Allahu, (who is) the best of creators”. Then he went back home and Zaynab was in his heart…
Majlisi said: Maybe this is Taqiyya.
Source: “Bihar al Anwar” 22/216.
According to this, the Imam is tarnishing the reputation of the prophet (saw) and spreading filthy rumors as Taqiyya? Just to save his life?
al-Sadiq from his fathers:
The Prophet (saw) prayed with Jahr (an audible voice) while reciting. When he finished he asked his companions: “Did I drop (forget) any verse from the Qur’an?” They were silent. He then asked “Is Ubay ibn Ka`b among you?” They said yes, so he asked him “Did I drop anything from it?” He said “Yes O messenger of Allah, you dropped so and so…”
Al Majlisi said: we can consider this Taqiyya.
Source: “Bihar al Anwar” 84/242, “Mustadrak al Wasael” Noori al Tabrasi 4/111.
as-Sadiq:
“Take your shoes off, because it was from the skin of a dead donkey.”
Al Amili and al Majlisi said: it’s apparent that this is Taqiyya.
Source: “Bihar al Anwar” 83/237, “Wasael al Shia” 4/344.
By Allah! These so called Shia have no shame! His title was as-Sadiq (The Truthful)! Why do you invent narrations to make him look like a compulsive liar?
Imam Baqir(ra) and Imam Jafar(ra) denied being “infallible Imam” or divinely appointed Imam and dissociated themselves from such people who believed in it, and even from those who dissociate themselves from Abubakr and Umar. (al-Kafi vol.7 pg.203)
Shia Imams misguided their own followers here by practicing taqiyah, since they considered that if Shias have common teachings then they will be guided to Imams, which will put the Imams in trouble. (Al-kafi 1/65)
The Shia narrations prove without the shadow of a doubt that the infallible Shia Imams were a source of misguidance to their own followers before anyone else. (Bihar al-Anwar by al-Majlisi (73/33) (69/178), Tahtheeb al-Maqal fi Tanqeeh Kitab Rijal al-Najashi by Muhammad `Ali Abtahi (3/464),) Due to the misguidance of “infallible“ Shia Imams from contradictory teachings, Shia Scholars and laymen left Shiism. This matter has become so serious that some of your biggest scholars left the Madhab (al-Kafi 1/65. Tahtheeb Al-Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect al Tusi, al-Rasael al-Arba’ah” pg.201, Asas ul Usool, p. 15, al-Hada’iq al-Nadirah” vol.1 pg.5)
, such as the teacher of their leader al-Tusi, in “Rasa’il fi Dirayat al-Hadith” by abu al-Fadl al-Babili vol.2 pg.223 & in “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” vol.1 pg.2 we read: [Then he(al-Tusi) mentions about his teacher abu al-Hassan al-Harouni al-`Alawi, that he used to believe in the truth(Shia Madhab), and that he took Imamah as his religion, but he left it when he became confused because of the conflicting narrations, and he abandoned the Madhab.]
Ali(ra) admitted his fallible human nature. The shias can change a day to a night by their commentary and interpretation, but the fact is that hz ali(ra) said these words to the people, shias can make lame excuses when they find their imams supplicating Allah to forgive their sins, and they can say the imams did this out of humbleness, but Imam Ali(ra) was not directing his words towards Allah, but towards the people. If he taught his followers about his infallibility then in no way he(ra) would have said those words to the people, because these words were against his own teachings. (Nahjul balagha, sermon 215)
your books claim Rasoolallah would forget stuff “Man la yahduruhul faqih” 1/359 and make mistakes (Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in his “Biharul anwar” 25/350)
Even Imam Jafar(ra)[6th Shia Imam] and Imam al Rida(ra)[8th Shia Imam] debunked the Shia belief of Wilayet Takweeniyah and disassociated themselves from the shias who believed in (Uyun akhbar al redha, Aitqadat, Page 101, by Shaikh Sadooq]
From awaited Mahdi:
“He was asked is reciting better or is making Tasbeeh better in the last two Raka`at? He said: recitation.”
Al Amili said: This can be considered Taqiyya.
Source: “Wasael al Shia” 6/127.
why the hidden Mahdi of the Shia is doing Taqiyya if he is already not in danger?
I ask the Shia who fear Allah, is this acceptable? The divine Imams who are sent from God to guide men and rule the nation are living by Taqiyya misguiding and confusing everyone?
![[Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.170]](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/laan_zurarah.jpg%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1731174282155452%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1qB7g4_Alx3GCXiUhWF7b0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1731174282258648&usg=AOvVaw3GjTOrpO_FvATbDt0mVK60){kind=link}
![[Ihtiyar marifatul rijal p.168]](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/laan_zurarah-3.jpg%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1731174282156684%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw11m3K8bJBCNb2PnAKOv1Ry&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1731174282258962&usg=AOvVaw2cXJ2fiNdplFOIz6-Ig1pC){kind=link}
![[Scan 1]](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ihtiyar_cover.jpg%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1731174282161492%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2JsGp28eZIeEkQYrKYUIRz&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1731174282260221&usg=AOvVaw0Zo_ZugqOFfujIvdy_v2mF){kind=link}
![[Scan 2]](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/laan_zurarah.jpg%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1731174282161742%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3aiWnmcl12v_-2KTYg0QCX&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1731174282260268&usg=AOvVaw2HTh35P9EkYAPQogHKm8U4){kind=link}
![[Ikhtiyar Ma’arifatur-Rijaal – Shaykh Abu Ja`far at-Tusi]](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/zurarah_ala_imam-2.jpg%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1731174282163120%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw306U-_cHAYOCA2vrwx7GWM&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1731174282260579&usg=AOvVaw1_it2-GUs8Vw4W4usv3KhA){kind=link}