BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
When commencing with the discussion on Ibn ‘Uqdah, it is necessary to firstly explain a number of issues so as to know who this person is, his mazhab, what has been said about him, and how several scholars of the Imamiyyah used him to promote and publicize their own mazhab. Three different positions can be spoken about here:
Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) sums up the position of the Ahlus Sunnah on Ibn ‘Uqdah. He states:
أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد بن عقدة الحافظ أبو العباس محدث الكوفة شيعي متوسط ضعفه غير واحد وقواه آخرون قال بن عدي صاحب معرفة وحفظ وتقدم في الصنعة رأيت مشائخ بغداد يسيئون الثناء عليه ثم قوى بن عدي أمره …. عن الدارقطني قال اجمع أهل الكوفة أنه لم ير من زمن بن مسعود احفظ من أبي العباس بن عقدة …. وقال البرقاني قلت للدارقطني أيش أكثر ما في نفسك من بن عقدة قال الإكثار بالمناكير … [ قال ] الدارقطني كان رجل سوء يشير إلى الرفض [وقال] لم يكن في الدين بالقوي وأكذب من يتهمه بالوضع إنما بلاؤه هذه الوجادات وقال أبو عمر بن حيويه كان بن عقدة يملي مثالب الصحابة أو قال مثالب الشيخين فتركت حديثه…[قال] أبو بكر بن أبي غالب بن عقدة لا يتدين بالحديث لأنه كان يحمل شيوخا بالكوفة على الكذب يسوي لهم نسخا ويأمرهم أن يرووها ثم يرويها عنهم … وقال بن عدي وسمعت بن مكرم يقول كنا عند بن عثمان بن سعيد في بيت وقد وضع بين أيدينا كتبا كثيرة فنزع بن عقدة سراويله وملأه منها سرا من الشيخ ومنا فلما خرجنا قلنا ما هذا الذي تحمله فقال دعونا من ورعكم هذا قال، [قال] عبدان ابن عقدة قد خرج عن معاني أصحاب الحديث فلا يذكر معهم وقال حمزة السهمي ما مثل أبي العباس بالوضع…وقال مسلمة بن قاسم لم يكن في عصره أحفظ منه وكان يزن بالتشيع والناس يختلفون في أمانته فمن راض ومن ساخط به وقال أبو ذر الهروي كان ابن عقدة رجل سوء وقال بن الهرواني أراد الحضرمي أبو جعفر يعني مطينا أن ينشر أن بن عقدة كذاب ويصنف في ذلك فتوفي رحمه الله قبل أن يفعل
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id ibn ‘Uqdah al Hafiz Abu al ‘Abbas—the muhaddith of Kufah. A moderate Shia. More than one (critic) has judged him to be weak, while others have strengthened his status as a narrator. Ibn ‘Adi states, “A man of knowledge, possessing of a (strong) memory, and advanced in the science. I saw the mashayikh of Baghdad misusing/abusing his praise, then Ibn ‘Adi strengthened his affair…” On the authority of al Daraqutni who said, “The people of Kufah agreed that, since the time of Ibn Mas’ud, they never saw someone with a greater memory than Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn ‘Uqdah…” Al Barqani states: “I said to al Daraqutni, ‘What is the most detestable thing about Ibn ‘Uqdah, according to you?’ He said: ‘(The fact that he) frequently cites manakir (wholly unacceptable reports).’” Al Daraqutni states, “He was an evil man; he inclined to (the doctrine of) Rafd.” Al Daraqutni states, “He was not firm in the religion. Whoever accuses him of fabricating is a liar; his problem is on account of these wijadat.” Abu ‘Umar ibn Hayyawayh stated, “Ibn ‘Uqdah would dictate the shortcomings of the Sahabah (or he said, “the shortcomings of the Sheikhayn (i.e., Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) and so I abandoned his hadith.” (He also said) Abu Bakr ibn Abi Ghalib ibn ‘Uqdah is not trustworthy with hadith because he would make the shuyukh to lie; he would equate (different) copies (of books) and order them to narrate from them. Thereafter, he would narrate it from them… Ibn ‘Adi stated, “I heard Ibn Mukarram saying, ‘We were with Ibn ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id in a house. He placed a large number of books in front of us. Thereafter, Ibn ‘Uqdah removed his lower garment and filled it with the books away from the sight of us and the Sheikh. When we left, we said, ‘What is this you are carrying?’ He said, ‘Leave us from this piety of yours.’ ‘Abdan ibn ‘Uqdah said, ‘He departed from the meanings of the people of hadith and so he is not mentioned with them.’ Al Hamza al Sahmi stated, “There isn’t the likes of Abu al ‘Abbas in relation to forgery (of hadith) …” Maslamah ibn Qasim stated, “There was no one in his era who memorized more hadith than him. He was accused of Tashayyu’ and the people differed regarding his trustworthiness; some were pleased with him and others were not.” Abu Dharr al Harawi stated, “Ibn ‘Uqdah was an evil man.” Ibn al Harwani stated, “Al Hadrami Abu Jafar (i.e., Mutayyin) wanted to spread that Ibn ‘Uqdah was a liar and he wanted to write something in this regard. He died before he could do so.”
This, in summary, is the opinion of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah regarding Ibn ‘Uqdah. He is one of the narrators about whose condition there is a difference of opinion. As mentioned, some have criticized him in detail.
Al Tusi states:
أمره في الثقة والجلالة وعظم الحفظ أشهر من أن يذكر وكان زيديا جاروديا وعلى ذلك مات و إنما ذكرناه في جملة أصحابنا لكثرة روايته عنهم وخلطته بهم و تصنيفه لهم
His affair in terms of reliability, greatness, and vast memory is too famous to be mentioned. He was a Zaidi Jarudi and he died with this belief. We only mentioned him amongst our companions because of the large number of narrations he has from them, his interacting with them, and his writings for them.
And like this, we find al Najjashi venerating him and (also) mentioning a very important and beneficial point in that he is: “Zaidi Jarudi.” Thus, he is not from the Imamiyyah. Al Najjashi mentioned something similar. Therefore, there is no validity for what al Tustari stated in that Ibn ‘Uqdah is an Imami Twelver because I could not find anyone of the early generation of Imami scholars to state this.
Some Imami researchers attempted to exploit the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah’s praise of Ibn ‘Uqdah and conceal the criticism raised against him in order to propagate their Imami mazhab. I will mention their and discuss them accordingly.
Ahmad al Rahmani al Hamdani stated:
أيها القارئ أحب أن تسير معي حتى ننظر في تراجم رجال من الموالين لأهل البيت عليهم السلام فإنهم رضوان الله عليهم نبذوا و قدحوا لتشيعهم ومقتوا لولايتهم جزاهم الله عن صاحب الولاية خير الجزاء…[ثم ذكر منهم ابن عقدة ثم قال]…ومن دسائس المعاندين لأهل البيت التي دسوها لإبطال كل ما ورد في فضل علي عليه السلام أنهم جعلوا آية تشيع الراوي وعلامة بدعته وروايته فضائل علي عليه السلام ثم قرروا ما يرويه المبتدع فيه تأييدا لبدعته فهو مردود ولو كان من الثقات والذي فيه تأييد التشيع عندهم هو ذكر فضل علي عليه السلام فعلى هذا لا يصح حديث في فضله عليه السلام لأن فيه تأييدا لبدعة الراوي في نظرهم فإذا وجدت أحاديث متواترة أو كانت في صحاحهم ولم يجدوا طريقا إلى الطعن فيها يميلون إلى مسلك آخر وهو أن يتأولوها ويصرفوا ألفاظ الأحاديث بما يوافق أهواءهم
O, reader! I would love for you to journey with me so that we can see the biographies of men who were loyal to the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam. They were rejected and criticized because of their Tashayyu’ and disliked because of their wilayah. May Allah reward them on behalf of Sahib al Wilayah with the best reward… (then he mentioned Ibn ‘Uqdah and stated) And from the machinations of the Ahlul Bayt’s adversaries—those who conspire to invalidate everything that has been narrated about the virtue of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam—is that they made the act of narrating virtues of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam a sign of the narrator’s Tashayyu’ and his heresy. Then, they established that whatever the innovator narrates in support of his heresy is rejected, even though he may be from the reliable narrators. What is considered as support for Tashayyu’ is the mentioning of ‘Ali’s ‘alayh al Salam virtue. Based on this, a hadith narrated on his virtue is inauthentic.
This is because it contains, according to them, evidence that supports the innovator’s heresy. Thus, if you find mutawatirah ahadith (mass transmitted reports) in their authentic collections, and they could not find fault with them, they adopt another method; that is, they interpret and manipulate the words of the ahadith in accordance with their whims.
In his attempting to let pass a number of weak ahadith, al Mahmudi states:
تلقى الفريقان رواياته بالقبول مع كونه تابعا و مؤمنا بمناقب بعض أئمة أهل البيت (ع) وهو ذنب غير مغفور عند بعض من يدعي الإسلام
Both groups have received his narrations as accepted, despite his following and believing in the virtues of some of the Ahlul Bayt’s Imams. This is an unforgiveable sin, according to some of those who claim (to profess) Islam.
Hamid al Naqwi states:
فظهر أنه لا ذنب لابن عقدة إلا ماذكره السيوطي بقوله وعنده تشيع
It appears as though there is no fault with Ibn ‘Uqdah except for what al Suyuti mentioned, “He has Tashayyu’.”
This is how the statements are presented. (If taken) literally, someone who does not know the reality of things will be confused and astonished.
Firstly, al Rahmani, al Mahmudi, and al Naqwi ignored what is stated about Ibn ‘Uqdah regarding the detailed criticism and the difference of opinion regarding his condition according to the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, and, likewise, the Imamiyyah.
Secondly, what al Mahmudi mentioned (“Both groups have received his narrations as accepted.”) is far from the truth, as it will soon come. In fact, it is a baseless claim, if we do not say and assume that it is an outright lie.
Thirdly, the detailed answer will be two-fold:
The statement, “Then, they established that whatever the innovator narrates in support of his heresy is rejected, even though he may be from the reliable narrators,” which al Rahmani used to describe the Ahlus Sunnah, as well as al Naqwi’s statement, “There is no fault with Ibn ‘Uqdah except for what al Suyuti mentioned, ‘He has Tashayyu’’” can both be responded to by the fact that Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli mentioned in al Khulasah high-praise of Ibn ‘Uqdah and his exalted rank; however, he placed him in the second category of his book, under the title, “Mentioning the weak narrators, and those whose statements I reject, or those whose opinions I suspend judgement on.”
Based on this, it can be said to al Naqwi that there is no fault of Ibn ‘Uqdah in that al Hilli placed him in the second category except that he is a Zaidi! Where, then, is the agreement between the two groups that his narrations are acceptable, as al Rahmani claims!
Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli isn’t the only person to reject his narrations. Ibn Dawood al Hilli—a contemporary of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli—placed him in the second category of his book that is dedicated to “unknown and criticized (narrators).” Ibn Dawood mentioned the pre-eminence of Ibn ‘Uqdah and his vast memory. This fact did not ‘intercede’ for him, according to Ibn Dawood, because of his Zaidi Jarudi mazhab.
As for al Rahmani’s statement criticizing the methodology of the Ahlus Sunnah, “Then, they established that whatever the innovator narrates in support of his heresy is rejected, even though he may be from the reliable narrators,” the answer is as follows. It is similar to what al Bahbudi confirmed regarding the methodology of the latter-day Imami scholars in dealing with the people of heresy. He describes them saying:
و المتأخرون منهم يوردون أحاديثهم في أبواب الفقه فإذا كانت موافقة لرأيهم يسكتون عن الطعن فيهم و إذا كانت مخالفة لرأيهم يردون أحاديثهم بالطعن فيهم مشيا على الخطة التي أبدعها أبو جعفر الطوسي في كتابه تهذيب الأحكام كأنهم في سعة وخيار
The latter-day scholars among them reject their ahadith in the chapters of fiqh. When they are in accordance with their opinion, they remain silent and raise no criticisms against them. And when they go against their opinion, they reject their ahadith by raising criticisms against them. All of this in following the method created by Abu Jafar al Tusi in his book, Tahdhib al Ahkam. As if they had the ability and choice (i.e., to do this on their own).
Therefore, what many of the Imami scholars found reprehensible from the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, is actually found in their own methodology and theory. However, this is only propagated for the sake gaining support for their mazhab to those who do not know the realities of the issues.
Presenting the condition of Ibn ‘Uqdah as if he the well-pleased Imam, and as if he is acceptable according to both groups, as we have seen, is rejected by what was mentioned by the Imami scholar, ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi. Under the biography of Ibn ‘Uqdah, he mentions three distinct opinions of the Imami scholars’ regarding accepting his opinions related to al jarh wa al ta’dil:
If we were to ask the scholars of the Imamiyyah: What is the reason for the difference of opinion when you agree to Ibn ‘Uqdah’s vast memory and exalted status? The answer: The difference of opinion is in the mazdhab, nothing else! All of this with the caveat that none of the Imami scholars have criticized the person of Ibn ‘Uqdah, as did the Ahlus Sunnah. As mentioned, some of them have provided a detailed criticism of him. As for the second issue, it will be discussed in detail in the section on the Zaidiyyah.
Whoever peruses the book of al Hilli will find him, in several places, relying on his statements related to al jarh wa al ta’dil without commenting further. In other places, he regards his words as merely lending weight to others’ (opinions), nothing more. Or, he does not rely on him. Examples are as follows:
Under the biography of Muhammad ibn Habib al Nadri, Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli states:
من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عداده في الشاميين، قال ابن عقدة في حديثه نظر
(He is) from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He is counted among the people of Sham. Ibn ‘Uqdah states, “His hadith are questionable.”
Accordingly, al Hilli added him in the category of weak narrators on account of what Ibn ‘Uqdah stated.
Under the biography of al Harith ibn Abi Risn, al Hilli stated:
قال ابن عقدة أنه أول من ألقى التشيع في بني ود
Ibn ‘Uqdah stated, “He is the first person to introduce Tashayyu’ to Bani Wudd.”
Thus, al Hilli relied on his words without any compunction, and placed him in the first category of relied-upon narrators’. This occurs a lot, including biography numbers 377, 431, 765, and others.
Commenting on a narration, al Hilli states:
وهذا الحديث وإن كان في طريقه الحسين بن المختار وهو واقفي إلا أن ابن عقدة وثقه
Even though this hadith contains al Hussain ibn al Mukhtar—who is a waqifi—in its chain; however, Ibn ‘Uqdah made tawthiq of him.
Under the biography of al Hassan ibn Saif ibn Salman al Tammar, al Hilli states:
قال ابن عقدة عن علي بن الحسن أنه ثقة قليل الحديث ولم أقف له على مدح ولا جرح من طرقنا سوى هذا والأولى التوقف فيما ينفرد به حتى تثبت عدالته
Ibn ‘Uqdah stated on the authority of ‘Ali ibn al Hassan, “He is reliable. He narrates few hadith.” From our chains, I have not come across any statement of praise or criticism except for this. It is better to suspend judgement on what he narrates in isolation until his integrity is established.
Here, al Hilli did not consider what Ibn ‘Uqdah stated.
Under the biography of al Hakam ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Nuaim, al Hilli stated:
روى ابن عقدة عن الفضل بن يوسف قال الحكم بن عبدالرحمن خيارثقة ثقة وهذا الحديث عندي لا أعتمد عليه في التعديل ولكنه مرجح
Ibn ‘Uqdah narrated on the authority of al Fadl ibn Yusuf who said, “Al Hakam ibn ‘Abdur Rahman is outstanding. He is reliable, reliable.” I do not rely on this hadith in relation to (statements of) ta’dil; however, it can be used to lend weight to others’ opinions.
It seems as though al Hilli considered the narration of Ibn ‘Uqdah only inasmuch as a murajjih (to lend weight to others’ opinions). Therefore, he placed the narrator in the first category.
The evidences for this are many in al Hilli’s al Khulasah, as in biography numbers 272, 273, and 211.
Responding to two hadiths, al Hilli states:
بضعف سندهما، أما الأول فإنه مرسل وأما الثاني فإن راويه كان ابن عقدة وهو زيدي وفي رجاله من لا نعرف فلا احتجاج
Because both their chains of narration are weak. As for the first, it is mursal (halted). As for the second hadith, its narrator is Ibn ‘Uqdah. He is a Zaidi. And among the narrators are those who we do not know. Therefore, it is not admissible as proof.
And like this, we do not find a precise opinion for al Hilli regarding Ibn ‘Uqdah; at times, he judges him to be weak, and, other times, he relies on him.
While Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli judges Ibn ‘Uqdah to be weak and places him in the category of weak narrators in his book, we find al Khu’i making tawthiq of him and accepting his narrations and statements related to al jarh wa al ta’dil. The basis for this difference of opinion goes back to the difference in their methodological approach. According to al Hilli, the narrator who is not a Twelver Imami is outright considered rejected, whereas al Khu’i’s methodology is based on accepting the narrator, irrespective of his mazhab and his ‘adalah. Al Khu’i’s methodology even includes the kuffar, if they are deemed reliable—as will come in due course.
Al Khu’i states:
ذكرنا أنه لا يعتبر في حجية الخبر العدالة ولهذا نعتمد على توثيقات أمثال ابن عقدة و ابن فضَّال وأمثالهما
We have mentioned that he does not consider ‘adalah (integrity) in establishing the authoritativeness of a report. Therefore, we rely on the statements of tawthiq from the likes of Ibn ‘Uqdah, Ibn Faddal, and others.
Al Khu’i has a detailed discussion with regard to what is transmitted from Ibn ‘Uqdah. It is as follows:
Al Khu’i does not accept what Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli transmitted from Ibn ‘Uqdah. Al Khu’i takes the reason for his rejecting it to be the weakness of al Hilli’s chain to Ibn ‘Uqdah. If al Hilli says: “Ibn ‘Uqdah says,” there is, according to the methodology of al Khu’i, to be no consideration given to it. Examples of this are many. Al Khu’i states:
قد يتفق أن العلامة [الحلِّ] وابن داود يحكيان عن ابن عقدة توثيقا لأحد إلا أنهما لا يذكران مستند حكايتهما والعلامة [الحلِّي] لم يذكر فيما ذكره من الكتب التي له إليها طريق في إجازته الكبيرة كتاب الرجال لابن عقدة
It may happen that al ‘Allamah (al Hilli) and Ibn Dawood transmit a (statement of) tawthiq of Ibn ‘Uqdah of someone; however, they do not mention the basis for their transmission. Al ‘Allamah (al Hilli) did not mention Kitab al Rijal of Ibn ‘Uqdah as one of the books that he has a chain to in his al Ijazah al Kabirah.
In another place, he states:
إن توثيق ابن عقدة و إن كان يعتمد عليه، إلا أنه لم يثبت فإن العلامة [الحلِّي] ذكره مرسلا و الطريق إليه مجهول
The tawthiq of Ibn ‘Uqdah, even though it is relied-upon, it is not proven. This is because al ‘Allamah (al Hilli) mentioned it as mursal (halted) and the chain to it is majhul (unknown).
Al Khu’i’s criticism of al Hilli’s chain to Ibn ‘Uqdah is massively transmitted from him in his Mujam, as in the following biographies: Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amm al Hassan, Hamd ibn ‘Uthman, Musaddiq ibn Sadaqah. However, al Khu’i makes a distinction between what Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli transmits from Ibn ‘Uqdah and what al Najjashi transmits from Ibn ‘Uqdah. While al Khu’i drops the chain of al Hilli to Ibn ‘Uqdah, we see him accepting what al Najjashi transmits from Ibn ‘Uqdah. An example of this is what al Najjashi mentioned under the biography of Dawood ibn Zirbi:
ثقة ذكره ابن عقدة
Reliable. Ibn ‘Uqdah mentioned him.
Al Khu’i states in his Mujam:
سقوط كلمة (ثقة) عن نسخة النجاشي الواصلة إلينا وفي شهادتهما كفاية على الثبوت وحينئذٍ لا ينبغي الإشكال في وثاقة الرجل بشهادة المفيد وبشهادة ابن عقدة على ماذكره النجاشي
The word thiqah (reliable) is dropped from the copy of al Najjashi’s book that reached us. Their testimony is sufficient to prove it. In that case, there should be no issue with the reliability of the man because of the testimony of al Mufid and Ibn ‘Uqdah, based on what al Najjashi mentioned.
This follows al Hilli’s position from what al Tusi mentioned on the authority of Ibn ‘Uqdah. Here, we find al Khu’i confused. While we find him authenticating the chain of al Tusi to Ibn ‘Uqdah in one place, we find him saying that the (same) chain is unknown in another place. An example of this is as follows. After judging the chain of al Saduq to Ibn ‘Uqdah as weak, al Khu’i states:
لكن طريق الشيخ [الطوسي] إليه صحيح وإن كان فيه أحمد بن محمد بن موسى الأهوازي [ابن الصلت] لأنه من مشايخ النجاشي
However, the chain of al Sheikh (al Tusi) to him is sound, even though it contains Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Musa al Ahwazi (Ibn al Salt)—since he is from the teachers of al Najjashi.
However, al Khu’i states under the biography of Abu Khalid al Qammat:
تقدم عن الشيخ [الطوسي] في ترجمة كنكر عن ابن عقدة أن اسم أبي خالد القماط كنكر…[ثم قال الخوئي لرد ما قاله الطوسي]…وأما كنكر فلم تثبت تكنيته بأبي خالد القماط و إنما هو مكنى بأبي خالد الكابلي فإن طريق الشيخ [الطوسي] إلى ابن عقدة مجهول
Under the biography of Kankar on the authority of Ibn ‘Uqdah, it has already been mentioned from al Sheikh (al Tusi) that the name of Abu Khalid al Qammat is Kankar… (Thereafter, al Khu’i states in refutation of what al Tusi stated) … As for Kankar, his agnomen, Abu Khalid al Qammat, is not proven. Rather, his agnomen is Abu Khalid al Kabuli. (This is given preference) because the chain of al Sheikh (al Tusi) to Ibn ‘Uqdah is majhul (unknown).”
Thus, it becomes clear for us that the tawthiq of the (different) chains, according to al Khu’i, is based on the perceived benefit that can be derived from it. If it is in his best interest to authenticate the chain, he states: ‘sahih (authentic),’ even though it contains so-and-so. And if there is a perceived benefit in deeming the chain weak, he will render it weak and pay no attention to his previous reason of tawthiq!
In order for this idea to be clear, I will mention this example. We have already seen that al Khu’i confirms the invalidity of what al Hilli transmitted from Ibn ‘Uqdah; however, when he desired to make tawthiq of al Hassan ibn ‘Ulwan, he stated:
قال ابن عقدة إن الحسن كان أوثق من أخيه [الحسين] و أحمد عند أصحابنا ذكره [الحلِّي] في الخلاصة القسم الثاني…[قال الخوئي معقبا] أقول في كلام ابن عقدة دلالة على وثاقة الحسين وكونه محمودا
Ibn ‘Uqdah stated: “Al Hassan is more reliable than his brother (al Hussain) and more praiseworthy according to our companions. (Al Hilli) mentioned him in al Khulasah in the second category…’ (Al Khu’i comments) Ibn ‘Uqdah’s words indicate towards the reliability and praiseworthiness of al Hussain.”
Thus, al Khu’i did not mention any criticism related to the chain of al Hilli to Ibn ‘Uqdah, as is his habit. Simply put, he desired to make tawthiq of al Hussain ibn ‘Ulwan and so he took the words of Ibn ‘Uqdah and transmitted it as if it was generally accepted! This, knowing that al Khu’i stated under the biography of al Hassan ibn ‘Ulwan:
وثقه ابن عقدة أيضا ذكره العلامة في ترجمة الحسين بن علوان في القسم الثاني ولكن طريقه إلى ابن عقدة مجهول فلا يمكن الاعتماد عليه
Ibn ‘Uqdah also made tawthiq of him. Al ‘Allamah mentioned him under the biography of al Hussain ibn ‘Ulwan in the second category. However, his chain to Ibn ‘Uqdah is unknown. Therefore, it is not possible to rely upon it.
And so, he uses as binding proof and employs the same text in one place, and rejects it in another!
‘Abbas al Qummi states:
“يطلق ( ابن فضَّال ) على : 1- علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضَّال. 2- الحسن بن علي بن فضَّال.”
Ibn Faddal can apply to:
Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri (d. 1216 AH) states:
ابن فضَّال علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضَّال وقد يطلق على أخويه أحمد و محمد وعلي أبيه الحسن ومن بين الثلاثة في الأخير أشهر
Ibn Faddal: ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal. At times, the name Ibn Faddal applies to his brothers, Ahmad, Muhammad, and ‘Ali. His father is al Hassan. Among the three, the last (i.e., ‘Ali) is the most famous.”
Al Khu’i states:
إن ابن فضَّال يطلق على الحسن بن علي بن فضَّال وعلى أبنائه علي وأحمد ومحمد والمشهور منهم الحسن وابنه علي
Ibn Faddal applies to al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal, and his children, ‘Ali, Ahmad, and Muhammad. The more famous from them is al Hassan and his son, ‘Ali.
The issue revolves a number of narrators. However, what al Qummi and al Khu’i mentioned is correct: Those who are known in relation to al jarh wa al ta’dil and frequently narrating are: ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal and his father, al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal. Here are their conditions.
1. ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal
Al Tusi states:
فطحي المذهب ثقة كثير العلم واسع الرواية والأخبار جيد التصنيف غير معاند كان قريب الأمر من أصحابنا
(Belonging to the) Fathi school. Reliable. (Possesses) a lot of knowledge and narrates extensively. Writes well. Not stubborn. He was close to our companions.
Al Najjashi states:
كان فقيه أصحابنا بالكوفة ووجههم وثقتهم وعارفهم بالحديث والمسموع قوله فيه سمع منه شيئا كثيرا ولم نعثر فيه على زلة فيه ولا ما يشينه وقل ما روى عن ضعيف وكان فطحيا ولم يروِ عن أبيه شيئاً
He was the jurist of our companions in Kufah, their prominent personality, their trustworthy one, their knowledgeable scholar of hadith—whose words are heeded. Much was heard from him. We have not come across any fault in him nor anything (negative) to detract from his reputation. Rarely did he narrate from a weak narrator. He followed the Fathi school. He did not narrate anything from his father.
This is the condition of the man; there is no difference of opinion in the fact that he is a Fathi and not from the Imamiyyah. Therefore, after mentioning the scholars praise for him, al Hilli—who has difficulty in accepting (the narrations of) non-Imamis—states:
فأنا أعتمد على روايته وإن كان فاسد المذهب
Thus, I rely on his narrations, even though he follows an incorrect school (of thought).
2. Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal
Al Tusi states:
كان فطحيا يقول بإمامة عبدالله بن جعفر ثم رجع إلى إمامة أبي الحسن عليه السلام عند موته…كان جليل القدر عظيم المنزلة زاهدا ورعا ثقة في حديثه ورواياته
He was a Fathi. He would believe in the Imamah of ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar. Then he reverted back to (following) the Imamah of Abu al Hassan (i.e., Musa al Kazim) ‘alayh al Salam before his death. He was highly venerated and of great stature. He was an ascetic, pious, and reliable in his hadith and narrations.
Al Najjashi states:
كان الحسن عمره كله فطحيا مشهورا بذلك حتى حضره الموت فمات وقد قال بالحق رضي الله عنه
Al Hassan was a Fathi for his entire life and known for this until (just before) death appeared. He died with the truth (i.e., he believed in the Imamah of Musa al Kazim before passing away).
Al Najjashi bases his opinion on al Hassan ibn Faddal’s retraction (in creed) on a narration that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zurarah ibn A’yan narrated for us. However, both al Mamaqani and Muhsin al Amin transmit the statement of al Shahid al Thani for us under his commentary on al Khulasah of al Hilli:
في هذا السند محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة وحاله مجهول
In this sanad is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zuraray. His condition is unknown.”
Bahr al ‘Ulum ascribed this opinion to the commentary of al Shahid al Thani on al Khulasah of al Hilli (manuscript).
In short, there is a difference of opinion regarding whether or not he actually retracted his original doctrinal position of the Fathi’s and followed the school of the Imamiyyah. This is based on the authenticity of this narration. And despite both al Tusi and al Najjashi praising him, and the fact that al Hilli placed him in the first category of narrators that are relied-upon, Ibn Idris al Hilli (d. 598 AH) states:
هذين الخبرين المرسلين وراوي أحدهما فطحي المذهب كافر ملعون مع كونه مرسلا وهو الحسن بن فضَّال وبنو فضَّال كلهم فطحية و الحسن رأسهم في الضلال
These two reports are mursal (halted) and the narrator of one of them follows the Fathi school. He is an accursed disbeliever—in addition to the hadith being mursal. He is al Hassan ibn Faddal. The sons of Faddal all follow the Fathi school. Al Hassan is their leader in misguidance.
Al Hilli included him in the first category of narrators specific to those who are relied-upon. Perhaps al Hilli remained silent when placing him in the first category—despite his false belief—goes back to al Hilli’s authenticating the narration of his reverting back to the Imamiyyah, the narration which al Shahid ruled that one of its narrators is majhul (unknown).
After explaining the condition of Faddal’s children, we will now see how both Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli and Abu al Qasim al Khu’i dealt with them.
Al Hilli frequently uses as authoritative proof the statements of Faddal’s children related to al jarh wa al ta’dil. For example, under the biography of Dawood ibn Farqad, al Hilli states:
قال ابن فضَّال داود ثقة ثقة
Ibn Faddal states, “Dawood is reliable, reliable (thiqah thiqah).”
Under the biography of Hafs ibn Salim, al Hilli states:
قال ابن فضَّال…ثقة لا بأس به
Ibn Faddal states… “Reliable. No problem with him.”
Under the biography of Ismail ibn Huqaybah (it is also said that his name is Ibn Jufaynah), al Hilli states:
قال محمد بن مسعود سألت علي بن الحسن بن فضَّال عن إسماعيل بن جفينة قال صالح وهو قليل الرواية
Muhammad ibn Mas’ud said, “I asked ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal about Ismail ibn Jufaynah and he said, ‘(He is) salih (righteous). He has few narrations.’”
However, al Hilli significantly contradicted himself regarding the sons of Faddal. After placing both of them in the category of accepted narrators in Khulasat al Aqwal and some of his other jurisprudential works, using their statements of al jarh wa al ta’dil as authoritative and learning (via them) about narrators, we also find him frequently criticizing them as well! At times, we find him saying:
وما رواه الحسن بن فضَّال في الموثق
And that which al Hassan ibn Faddal narrated is among the relied-upon.
Here, he regarded his hadith among the reliable (ones). In another place, we find him responding to one of the narrations saying:
وعن الرواية بضعف السند فإن في طرقها علي بن الحسن بن فضَّال عن أبيه وهما ضعيفان
And regarding the narration, because of the weakness of the chain. This is because in its chains is ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal, from his father. And both of them are weak.
Al Khu’i was clearer than al Hilli in dealing with the statements of Faddal’s sons related to al jarh wa al ta’dil. He clearly states:
نعتمد على توثيقات أمثال ابن عقدة وابن فضَّال وأمثالهما
We rely on the statements of tawthiq from the likes of Ibn ‘Uqdah, Ibn Faddal, and their likes.
In regards to ‘Amr ibn Khalid al Wasiti, he states:
وثقه ابن فضَّال وحيث أن بني فضَّال موثقون فنعتمد على توثيقاتهم
Ibn Faddal made tawthiq of him. And since the sons of Faddal are reliable, we rely on their statements of tawthiq.
For al Khu’i’s tawthiq of Ibn Faddal, we see him giving preference to his statements over the principle that assumes tawthiq of all the narrators of Tafsir al Qummi. In presenting the issues through which it is possible to make tawthiq of ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini, al Khu’i states:
وقوعه في تفسير علي ابن إبراهيم…وهذا الوجه وإن كان صحيحا إلا أنه معارض بما تقدم عن ابن فضَّال من قوله إن علي بن أبي حمزة كذاب متهم فلا يمكن الحكم بوثاقته وبالنتيجة يعامل معاملة الضعيف
Him existing in the Tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim … This angle, although it is sound, it goes against what was already mentioned by Ibn Faddal that ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah is a liar and accused (of forgery). Therefore, it is not possible to judge him to be reliable. As a result, he is to be treated as weak.
It appears from the opinion of al Khu’i that the Ibn Faddal whom he narrates statements of al jarh wa al ta’dil from is ‘Ali ibn Faddal. He states:
وقد سأل محمد بن مسعود علي بن فضَّال عن مثل ذلك كثيرا فأجابه ابن فضَّال ببيان حال الوثاقة وعدمها
Muhammad ibn Mas’ud asked ‘Ali ibn Faddal about that a lot and Ibn Faddal answered him by explaining the condition of reliability and lack thereof (of a narrator).
Relying on the venerable status of Ibn Faddal, some of the Imami scholars invented a principle to make tawthiq of majhul (unknown) narrators. For example, in regards to Hammad al Nawa’, al Khu’i states:
قال الوحيد البهبهاني (1206هـ ) روى عنه ابن فضَّال لعل فيه إيماء إلى اعتداد ما به [فقال الخوئي] أقول ظهر مما ذكرناه غير مرة أنه لا وجه للحكم بحسنه و الاعتداد به
Al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1206 AH) states, “Ibn Faddal narrated from him. Perhaps there is an indication in this that he relies upon what he narrates.” (Al Khu’i states) It appears from what we have mentioned on more than one occasion that there is neither a reason to judge him to be a good narrator nor to rely on him.
The reason for this ruling is that when a reliable person narrates from a person it does not necessarily demonstrate his tawthiq (for that narrator), according to the methodology of al Khu’i.
The scholars of the Imamiyyah consider the statements of Ibn Numair related to al jarh wa al ta’dil as admissible proof. Yet, they differ as to who this Ibn Numair actually is, despite agreeing that he is from the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah: Is he “‘Abdullah”, or his son, “Muhammad?” The reason for the difference of opinion is because al Hilli only mentions him as “Ibn Numair,” without specifying (his full name). According to al Khu’i, he is “Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Numair.” Under the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Numair, he states:
الظاهر أن ابن نمير الذي ينقل العلامة في الخلاصة عنه توثيقا أو تضعيفا ولكنه لم يعتمد على قوله….هو محمد بن عبد الله هذا
Ostensibly, the Ibn Numair who al ‘Allamah transmits statements of tawthiq and tad’if from in al Khulasah (even though he does not rely on his statements) … is this Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah.
Al Ardabili (d. 1101 AH) held that none of the two names should be specified. He states:
ابن نمير هو عبد الله و ابنه محمد من علماء العامة…إنما ذكرته مع كونه من رجال المخالفين لأن العلامة كثيرا ما ينقل منه توثيق بعض الرواة فينبغي أن يكون معلوما
Ibn Numair: he is ‘Abdullah and his son is Muhammad. He is from the scholars of the ‘Ammah (i.e., the Ahlus Sunnah) … I only mentioned him—despite him being from the narrators of the opposition (i.e., the Ahlus Sunnah)—because al ‘Allamah frequently transmits the tawthiq of several narrators from him and, as such, it should be known.
In short, to make a distinction between the two is difficult and the matter is merely plausible, nothing more. However, the situation is easy to resolve because both the father and son are reliable and from the Ahlus Sunnah. Al Tustari mentioned that the father is ‘Abdullah.
Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) states:
عبد الله بن نمير بنون مصغر الهمداني أبو هشام الكوفي ثقة صاحب حديث من أهل السنة من كبار التاسعة مات سنة تسع وتسعين وله أربع وثمانون
‘Abdullah ibn Numair al Hamdani Abu Hisham al Kufi. Reliable. A person of hadith from the Ahlus Sunnah. From the seniors of the ninth generation. He died in the year 299 and was eighty-four years old.”
Ibn Hajar states:
محمد بن عبد الله بن نمير الهمداني بسكون الميم الكوفي أبو عبد الرحمن ثقة حافظ فاضل من العاشرة مات سنة أربع وثلاثين
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Numair al Hamdani al Kufi Abu ‘Abdur Rahman. Reliable. Hadith master. Virtuous. From the tenth generation. He died in the year 234.
Thus, Ibn Numair, as Ibn Hajar mentioned, is from the huffaz (hadith masters) of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. Despite this, we find the Imamiyyah using his statements of al jarh wa al ta’dil as admissible proofs in their books. This, too, despite the difference of opinion they have about accepting his statements.
The statements of Ibn Numair related to al jarh wa al ta’dil recur in al Hilli’s al Khulasah; however, at times, he mentions and affirms without any remarks, and other times, he only considers them as murijjihat, or statements to lend weight (to others’ pre-existing opinions).
Under the biography of ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Dhi’b, al Hilli states:
ضعفه ابن نمير وليس هذا عندي موجبا للطعن لكنه من مرجحات الطعن
Ibn Numair made tad’if of him. This, according to me, does not necessitate an actual criticism against him; rather, it can serve as lending weight to his criticism.
Under the biography of Jamil ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Nafi’, al Hilli states after mentioning Ibn Numair’s tawthiq of him:
وهذه الرواية لا تقتضي عندي التعديل لكنها من المرجحات
This narration does not necessitate, according to me, a ta’dil; however, it can serve as lending weight to it.
This is how al Hilli deals with the statements of al jarh wa al ta’dil of Ibn Numair. Perhaps the reason for this (contradictory behaviour) is the fact that he is regarded as one of the Ahlus Sunnah’s huffaz (hadith masters)—those people whose opinion cannot be relied upon when there is a difference in creed. And, as such, their statements can only go so far as being considered murijjihat, or to lend weight to other (Shia) opinions, nothing more.
Al Khu’i’s opinion differs to what al Hilli believed. While al Hilli generally considered the statements of Ibn Numair as authoritative only to the extent that it can lend weight to other (Shia) opinions, we see al Khu’i not considering them at all. Commenting on the words of al Hilli under the biography of Jamil ibn ‘Abdullah, al Khu’i states:
قال العلامة [الحلِّ] في الخلاصة روى ابن عقدة عن محمد بن عبد الله بن أبي حكيمة قال سألت ابن نمير عن محمد بن جميل بن عبد الله بن نافع الخياط فقال ثقة وقد رأيته وأبوه ثقة ثم قال [الحلِّي] وهذه الرواية لا تقتضي عندي التعديل لكنها من المرجحات أقول [هو الخوئي] بل لا تكون من المرجحات أيضا فابن نمير لم يوثق من طرقنا ومحمد بن عبد الله مجهول
Al ‘Allamah (al Hilli) states in al Khulasah, “Ibn ‘Uqdah narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Hakimah who said, ‘I asked Ibn Numair about Muhammad ibn Jamil ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Nafi’ al Khayyat and he said, ‘Reliable. I saw him. His father is (also) reliable.’” Thereafter, he (al Hilli) states, “This narration does not necessitate, according to me, a ta’dil; however, it can serve as lending weight to it (murajjihat).”
I say (al Khu’i): In fact, it can’t even lend weight to others’ opinions. Ibn Numair was not considered reliable via our (Shia) chains. Furthermore, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is majhul (unknown).
Al Khu’i states:
أما توثيق ابن نمير فلا أثر له
As for Ibn Numair’s tawthiq, it holds no weight.
And he states:
ابن نمير لم تثبت وثاقته وغير بعيد أن الرجل من العامة
Ibn Numair’s reliability has not been verified. And it is highly plausible that the man is from the ‘Ammah (i.e., the Ahlus Sunnah).
NEXT⇒ 2.3 The Methodology of al Hilli and al Khu’i when the scholars’ statements of al jarh wa al ta’dil contradict
 The term wijadat refers to hadith which are discovered and then subsequently narrated without formally receiving it from a teacher. [translator’s note]
 Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani: Lisan al Mizan, 1/263 (summarized).
 Al Tusi: al Fihrist, p. 56 (biography no. 86).
 Al Najjashi: Rijal al Najjashi, p. 93 (biography no. 233).
 Al Tustari: Qamus al Rijal, 1/604 (no. 546).
 I say: Simply paging through the two Sahih collections of Imam al Bukhari and Imam Muslim can dispel this claim. They have both dedicated entire chapters to the virtues of ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu, all of which are authentically traced back to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The authentic virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib are sufficient such that they spare us the need to rely on falsely attributed reports.
 Ahmed al Rahmani al Hamdani: al Imam ‘Ali, pp. 280-281.
 Al Mahmudi: Nahj al Sa’adah, 7/470.
 Hamid al Naqwi: Khulasat ‘Abaqat al Anwar, 1/98.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 321 (biography no. 1263).
 Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Dawood al Hilli: Kitab al Rijal, p. 229 (biography no. 39) under the second section “Bab al Hamzah.”
 Muhammad al Bahbudi: Ma’rifat al Hadith, p. 148.
 ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi: Takmilat al Rijal, 1:243.
 Ibn Hajar states, “Muhammad ibn Habib al Nadri—with a ‘nun.’ It has been said his name is al Misri—with a kasrah on the ‘mim…’ Ibn Mandah states, ‘He is unknown among the people of Sham and neither the people of Egypt. He is mentioned among the Sahabah’” (al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah, 6:/0). In Tahdhib al Tahdhib (9/94), Ibn Hajar states, “He is counted among the Sahabah. He has one hadith—there is a difference (of opinion) regarding its chain… Ibn al Sakan states, ‘The hadith of this Muhammad is not proven. It is famously narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn al Sa’di. This Muhammad is not known among the Sahabah.’”
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 391 (biography no. 1575).
 A person can say: Al Hilli added this Sahabi in the category of weak narrators because he is counted among the people of Sham—in other words, he is from the companions of Muawiyah who waged war against ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib—and this, according to al Hilli and others from the Imamiyyah, necessitates him being weak. I would say: This is possible; however, ostensibly speaking, he relied on what Ibn ‘Uqdah stated. Had his intention been that he is from the companions of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, he would have explicitly stated so.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 123 (biography no. 320).
 Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 1/304 (under “‘adam jawaz mass al muhdith kitabat al Qur’an).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 108 (biography no. 271 – under the first category: those relied upon)! The scholars of the Imamiyyah mention the contradiction of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli in that he makes tawthiq of the man, at times, and places him in the category of weak narrators! Or, he suspends judgement on him, as is the case in this biography. And despite that, he places him in the first category. This is a clear contradiction, contrary to the methodology and chapters of the book. Thus, we find al Khu’i commenting on the opinion of al Hilli stating, “As for al ‘Allamah’s suspending judgement, on the one hand, it has not been proven that the man is from the truthful sect. This is based on his concluding that the report of the Waqifah and others is not considered as authoritative proof.” (al Mujam, 5/348, biography no. 2869).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal. p. 131 (biography no. 348).
 Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab fi Tahqiq al Mazhab, 4/164 (under Kitab al Salah – the section of the Qiblah).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 1:41.
 Ibid., 1:45.
 Ibid., 8/95.
 Ibid., 17/258 (biography no. 11133).
 Ibid., 17/292-293 (biography no. 11243).
 Ibid., 19/187 (biography no. 12403).
 Al Najjashi: al Rijal, p. 160 (biography no. 424).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 8/106 (biography no. 4396). In the copy of al Najjashi’s book that I relied on; the editor verified the word “thiqah” (p. 160, biography no. 424).
 Ibid., 3/66 (biography no. 871 of Ibn ‘Uqdah).
 Ibid., 22/152 (biography no. 14240). In Maladhdh al Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al Akhbar (16/698), Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi judged the chain of al Tusi to Ibn ‘Uqdah as majhul (unknown). The chain of al Tusi to the books of Ibn ‘Uqdah in Tahdhib al Ahkam is the same chain which al Tusi mentions in al Fihrist. See: al Fihrist (p. 56, biography no. 86).
 He is al Hassan ibn ‘Ulwan al Kalbi, the brother of al Hussain ibn ‘Ulwan—the person al Khu’i wanted to make tawthiq of.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 7/34 (biography no. 3508). What he transmitted from al Hilli’s book is on p. 338 (biography no. 1337).
 Ibid., 5/376 (biography no. 2929).
 ‘Abbas al Qummi: al Kuna wa al Alqab, 1/432-433 (summarized).
 Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri al Mazandarani: Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal, 7/326 (biography no. 4046). Al Ardabili states the exact same thing in Jami’ al Ruwat (2/435).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 24/17 (under the first biography of this volume, no. 15159). ‘Ali Akbar al Turabi mentions him in a similar manner in al Mawsu’ah al Rijaliyyah and Mujam Rijal al Wasa’il (p. 557, no. 7428).
 Al Shahrastani states in al Milal wa al Nihal (1/195), “The Aftahiyyah consider Imamah as having transferred from al Sadiq to his son, ‘Abdullah al Aftah. He is the brother of Ismail from him maternal and paternal side. Their mother is Fatimah bint al Hussain ibn al Hussain ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali. He was the oldest of the children. They claimed that he stated, ‘Imamah is to be (handed over) to the oldest child of the Imam.’” Al Kashshi states, “They consider ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar ibn Muhammad as the (rightful) Imam. They were called that because it was said that he (i.e., ‘Abdullah al Aftah) had a flat head. Some of them said he had flat feet.” (Rijal al Kashshi, p. 254, no. 472). Al Kashshi has more on this which can be reviewed in its place. Ibn Manzur states, “’Fath’ ‘al fatah,’ broad space in the centre of the head… An ‘aftah’ man is someone who has a flat head” (Lisan al ‘Arab).
 Al Tusi: al Fihrist, p. 122 (no. 393).
 Al Najjashi: Rijal al Najjashi, p. 257 (no. 676).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 177 (no. 526).
 Al Tusi: al Fihrist, p. 76 (no. 164).
 Al Najjashi: Rijal al Najjashi, p. 35 (no. 72).
 Al Mamaqani: Tanqih al Maqal, 1/299.
 Muhsin al Amin: A’yan al Shia, 5/208.
 He mentioned this in the marginalia of his edited version of ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi’s book, Takmilat al Rijal (1/402). Commenting on the narration of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zurarah, Ahmed ibn Tawus states, “(I say) I did not verify the condition of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zurarah. The remaining narrators are reliable” (al Tahrir al Tawusi, p. 76 (biography no. 95 of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal).
 Muhammad ibn Mansur ibn Ahmed ibn Idris al Hilli: al Sara’ir al Hawi li Tahrir al Fatawi, 1/495. He stated this under “Taqsim al Khums li Aqsam Sitta.”
 Al Hilli Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 98 (no. 223)
 Ibid., p. 141 (no. 389).
 Ibid., p. 127 (no. 333).
 Muhammad ibn Mas’ud ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ayyash (known as al ‘Ayyashi) is highly venerated by the Imamiyyah. He frequently transmits the statements of ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal. Al Mamaqani mentioned that the person from whom Muhammad ibn Mas’ud transmits from in terms of relying and depending on in matters related to al jarh wa al ta’dil is ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal (Tanqih al Maqal, 1/299).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 57 (no. 48).
 Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 4/216 (under “Hukm Qat’ al Sa’i”). Something similar is found on p. 212 under the third chapter “Al Sa’i Hal al Taharah Shart fihi?”
 Ibid., 3/414 (under “al Ikhtilaf fi Muftiriyyat al Huqnah”).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam al Rijal, 1/41.
 Kitab al Taharah, 9/100 (commentary) “La yajuz aqwal min khams takbirat – salat al mayyit.”
 Al Khu’i: Mujam al Rijal, 12/246 (biography no. 7846).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam al Rijal, 19/176 (biography no. 12384).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam al Rijal, 7/258. Wahid al Bahbahani has elucidated in his annotations to Manhaj al Maqal li Astarabadi (1/145) that amongst the indications of tawthiq is an “esteemed (jalil) person narrating from him” and “esteemed people narrating from him”, when his annotations to the book were added to the begigning of the book during its publication. Al Khu’i rebutted him in numerous places, saying, “Esteemed people narrating from a person or even people of consensus narrating from him, or even the early generation relying on him, does not indicate his reliability.” (Al Mujam, 14/117) He later clarifies the reason for his opinion, “It is mentioned that the narrations of an esteemed individual from another is an indication of his reliability and strength, similarly is the case when a group of esteemed individuals narrate from him, or a reliable narrator from his teachers [is proof that his teacher is reliable], this has been rebutted on more than one occasion previously; that those knowledgeable in Fiqh and Hadith on many occasions narrate from unreliable individuals.” He stated this in Kitab al Taharah, 1/520, Kayfiyah Ta’alaq al Nadhr bi al Nafilah.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 24/54 (biography no. 15203).
 Al Ardabili: Jami’ al Ruwat wa Izahat al Ishtibahat ‘an al Turuq wa al Isnad, 2/437. Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri Muhammad ibn Ismail al Mazandarani states exactly the same thing in his book, Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal, 7/331 (biography no. 4065). The text reads, “I only mentioned them because al ‘Allamah, in several places, narrates his tawthiq, from Ibn ‘Uqdah.”
 Muhammad Taqi al Tustari: Qamus al Rijal, 6/:641 (biography no. 4561).
 Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani: Taqrib al Tahdhib, 1/327.
 Ibid., 1/490.
 Among them, al Tusi in al Rijal—under the biography of ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Dhi’b (p. 293, biography no. 3284).
 As in al Hilli’s al Khulasah under the biography of al Harith ibn Ghussain (p. 123, no. 321).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 376, biography no. 1500.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 93, biography no. 211.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 5/135 (biography no. 2376).
 Ibid., 8/32 (biography no. 4206 of Khalid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman).
 Ibid., 7/220 (biography no. 3951).