2. The Narration of al Amali

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

2. The Narration of al Amali

 

Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, known among the Shia as al Sheikh al Saduq (381 AH), said:

 

حدثنا علي بن أحمد بن موسى الدقاق قال حدثنا محمد بن أبي عبد الله الكوفي قال حدثنا موسى بن عمران النخعي عن عمه الحسين بن يزيد النوفلي عن الحسن بن علي بن أبي حمزة عن أبيه عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس … أن النبي كان جالسًا ذات يوم فأقبل الحسن والحسين وفاطمة وعلي واحدًا بعد واحد فكلما دخل منهم أحد يبكي النبي فلما سأله أصحابه عن سبب بكائه ذكر فضائل كل واحد منهم ثم قال وأما ابنتي فاطمة فإنها سيدة نساء العالمين من الأولين والآخرين … وإني لما رأيتها ذكرت ما يصنع بها بعدي كأني بها وقد دخل الذل بيتها وانتهكت حرمتها وغصبت حقها ومنعت إرثها وكسر جنبها وأسقطت جنينها وهي تنادي يا محمداه فلا تجاب وتستغيث فلا تغاث … فعند ذلك يؤنسها الله تعالى ذكره بالملائكة فنادتها بما نادت به مريم بنت عمران فتقول يا فاطمة إن الله اصطفاك وطهرك واصطفاك على نساء العالمين يا فاطمة اقنتي لربك واسجدي واركعي مع الراكعين ثم يبتدئ بها الوجع فتمرض فيبعث الله عز وجل إليها مريم بنت عمران تمرضها وتؤنسها في علتها فتقول عند ذلك يا رب إني قد سئمت الحياة وتبرمت بأهل الدنيا فألحقني بأبي فيلحقها الله عز وجل بي فتكون أول من يلحقني من أهل بيتي فتقدم علي محزونة مكروبة مغمومة مغصوبة مقتولة فأقول عند ذلك اللهم العن من ظلمها وعاقب من غصبها وأذل من أذلها وخلد في نارك من ضرب جنبها حتى ألقت ولدها فتقول الملائكة عند ذلك آمين

‘Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Musa al Daqqaq narrated to us saying — Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Kufi narrated to us saying — Musa ibn ‘Imran al Nakha’i narrated to us — from his uncle al Hussain ibn Yazid al Nawfali — from al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah — from his father — from Sa’id ibn Jubayr — from Ibn ‘Abbas:

The Prophet was sitting one day when al Hassan, al Hussain, Fatimah, and ‘Ali entered one by one. Whenever one of them entered, the Prophet would cry. When his Companions asked him why he was crying, he mentioned the virtues of each of them and then said, “As for my daughter Fatimah, she is the Queen of the women of the worlds from the first to the last… I remembered what will be done to her after me, as if I see her being humiliated, her sanctity violated, her right usurped, her inheritance withheld, her side broken, and her fetus miscarried, while she cries out, ‘O Muhammad!’ but she is not answered, and seeks help but is not helped…

At that moment, Allah, the Exalted, mentions her with the angels, and they call her with the same call used for Maryam, the daughter of ‘Imran, saying, ‘O Fatimah, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. O Fatimah, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow.’ Then she falls ill. Allah Almighty will send Maryam the daughter of ‘Imran to care for her and comfort her in her illness. Then she will say, ‘O Lord, I have become tired of life and weary of the people of the world, so join me with my father.’ So, Allah Almighty will join her with me and she will be the first of my family to join me, coming to me sorrowful, distressed, oppressed, and murdered. At that moment, I will say, ‘O Allah, curse those who wronged her, punish those who usurped her, humiliate those who humiliated her, and perpetuate in Your fire those who struck her side until she miscarried her child.’ At that moment, the angels will say, ‘Amin.’”^[1]

 

Study of the Isnad

This chain of transmission is wholly unreliable, as several of its narrators are unknown, suspected of lying, weak, or even cursed. Here is the analysis:

‘Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Musa al Daqqaq

• Al Jawahiri summarised al Khu’i’s verdict saying, “Unknown.”^[2]

 

Musa ibn ‘Imran al Nakha’i

• There is no doubt that he is unknown as the books on Rijal did not mention his status.
• Sheikh Lutf Allah al Safi Gulpayigani stated, “The scholars of Rijal did not mention him neither in praise nor in criticism. Being among the narrators of Kamil al Ziyarat is not enough to consider him trustworthy.”^[3]
• He was judged as unknown by al Mamaqani^[4], Ibrahim al Shabut^[5], Muhsin al A’raji^[6], Muslim al Dawari^[7], and ‘Abbas al Hajiyani al Dashti.^[8] Therefore, those who considered him trustworthy based on weak evidence were incorrect; the correct view, according to the science of Rijal, is that he is weak.

 

Al Hussain ibn Yazid al Nawfali

• Hussain al Sa’idi summarised the verdict on him saying, “He was considered weak by al ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi. It is apparent from his narrations that they are fabricated and concocted.”^[9]
• He was declared weak by al Shahid al Thani^[10], al Majlisi al Awwal, Bahr al ‘Ulum^[11], and ‘Ali Panah al Ishtahardi.^[12]

 

Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini

• He is weak according to the majority of Rijal scholars.
• ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn Faddal^[13] said about him, “A liar, cursed… I do not permit myself to narrate even a single hadith from him.”^[14]
• Ibn al Ghada’iri said in his book of biographical evaluation, “He is weak in himself.”^[15]
• He was declared weak by Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli^[16], ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri^[17], Muhsin al A’raji^[18], al Mamaqani^[19], Ibrahim ibn Hussain al Dunbuli al Khu’i^[20], Abu al Qasim al Khu’i^[21], Muslim al Dawari^[22], and ‘Ali al Abtahi.^[23]
• Muhammad Jafar Shams al Din reported consensus on his weakness.^[24]

 

‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini, the father of al Hassan

• Ibn al Ghada’iri said, “May God curse him. The origin of Waqf (a sect).”^[25]
• He was declared weak by Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli^[26] and al Shahid al Thani.^[27]
• Al Khuwanasari quoted Ismail al Khaju’i who stated the agreement of the Shia on criticising him except for a few. He said, “Up to now, I have not found any scholar except al Sheikh in this book who considers ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini trustworthy or relies on his narrations when he is alone because he is evil, a Waqifi, a liar, and condemned.”^[28]
• Al Fani al Isfahani said, “There is no trace of anyone considering ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah trustworthy; rather, it has been stated about his evil and lies, and there is much condemnation and criticism about him.”^[29]
• Al Sheikh Muhammad Talib Yahya said, “The famous opinion among early and latter scholars is his weakness.”
• In summary, it was said that ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini is a Waqifi and weak in the broadest sense, and his reports are invalid as evidence.^[30]
• Al Khu’i also judged him as weak.^[31]

 

Note on the misleading of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’

Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili attempted to mislead the reader when he mentioned this narration in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’ among the narrations that prove the occurrence of the rib fracture, attributing this narration to Fara’id al Simtayn, which is attributed to Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al Juwayni (730 AH)^[32], to give the impression that the narration is transmitted through Sunni sources. However, the truth is that this narration is the same as the narration in al Amali narrated by Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, and it is found in Fara’id al Simtayn with an isnad that ends with ‘Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Musa al Daqqaq, the same narrator from whom Ibn Babawayh transmitted the same isnad exactly.

The author of Fara’id al Simtayn states:

 

أنبأني الشيخ أبو طالب علي بن أنجب بن عبيد الله بن الخازن عن كتاب الإمام برهان الدين أبي الفتح ناصر بن أبي المكارم المطرزي عن أبي المؤيد ابن الموفق أنبأنا علي بن أحمد بن موسى الدقاق قال أنبأنا محمد بن أبي عبد الله الكوفي قال أنبأنا موسى بن عمران عن عمّه الحسين بن يزيد النوفلي عن الحسن بن عليّ بن حمزة عن أبيه عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عبّاس قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Sheikh Abu Talib ‘Ali ibn Anjab ibn ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Khazin informed me — from the book of Imam Burhan al Din Abu al Fath Nasir ibn Abi al Makarim al Mutarrizi — from Abu al Mu’ayyad ibn al Muwaffaq — from ‘Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Musa al Daqqaq who said that —Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Kufi informed us who said that — Musa ibn ‘Imran informed us — from his uncle al Hussain ibn Yazid al Nawfali — from al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah — from his father — from Sa’id ibn Jubayr — from Ibn ‘Abbas — who said that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said …^[33]

 

and then he mentioned the narration. This isnad is the same as that of al Amali, and not from the isnads of Sunni sources.

Moreover, this isnad is fabricated and stolen. Its fabricator stole the isnad from the book of Ibn Babawayh and added another isnad from Ibrahim al Juwayni, then joined the two isnads and concocted the text of the narration from al Amali to the author of Fara’id al Simtayn. However, due to his ignorance, he made a grave error by making Abu al Mu’ayyad al Khawarizmi narrate directly from al Daqqaq! This is a major blunder as al Khawarizmi was born in 484 AH^[34], and there is a significant time gap between him and al Daqqaq, as al Daqqaq died before 400 AH at the latest. If this is established, how could it be imagined that al Khawarizmi narrated directly from al Daqqaq?

Muhammad Baqir al Mahmudi, the editor of the book Fara’id al Simtayn, noticed this issue and commented on this chain of narration by saying:

 

الرجل ليس من مشايخ أبي المؤيد الموفق بن أحمد بل هو من مشايخ ابن بابويه وقد حذف من الأصل الواسطة بين أبي المؤيد وهذا الرجل ولم يتيسر لنا تحقيق ذلك والظاهر أن الحديث ذكره الخوارزمي في مقتل الإمام الحسين عليه السلام ورواه أيضًا ابن بابويه في الحديث الثاني من المجلس 24 من أماليه ص 112 عن علي بن أحمد بن موسى الدقاق عن محمد بن أبي عبد الله الكوفي

The man is not one of the teachers of Abu al Mu’ayyad al Muwaffaq ibn Ahmed, but he is one of the teachers of Ibn Babawayh. The intermediary between Abu al Mu’ayyad and this man was omitted from the original text and we were unable to verify that. It appears that the hadith was mentioned by al Khawarizmi in Maqtal al Imam al Hussain. It was also narrated by Ibn Babawayh in the second hadith of the 24th majlis from his al Amali on page 112, from ‘Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Musa al Daqqaq, from Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Kufi.^[35]

 

The response is that what he mentioned about the presence of an omission in the chain does not hold. Rather, the correct view is that this is severe negligence by the fabricator of this narration. Moreover, the original fabricator of the chain made a mistake in the name of al Khawarizmi by calling him Abu al Mu’ayyad ibn al Muwaffaq, while in reality, al Muwaffaq is a title for Abu al Mu’ayyad. The editor did not notice this and left the chain as it is. The excuse that there was an omission in the chain is far-fetched.

When it becomes clear that the origin of this narration is from the book al Amali and that the other sources cited by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili have no value because they derive this narration from al Amali, the flaw in Jafar Murtada’s work becomes evident. It also shows that his purpose is to exaggerate by amassing sources and increasing their number. This strange method of inflating footnotes with sources that all refer to a single book is common among many writers who attempt to validate the narratives of Fatimah’s rib-fracture. They deliberately mislead the reader into thinking that the story is mentioned in numerous sources by filling their books with page numbers and references to both old and new sources until they reach dozens of sources for a single narration. The original source is just one, as is the case with this narration. The narration of al Amali which is our present concern, scholars have judged the narrators of this narration to be unknown or accused of lying. The original chain of this narration in its primary source is not reliable for evidence, as these writers try to circumvent the weakness of the narration by inflating the number of sources in which it appears. This makes the reader mistakenly believe that this abundance indicates the authenticity of the narration, which is undoubtedly a methodological flaw, if not outright deception to the readers. If the source of a narration is only one book, Jafar Murtada and those who follow his path, such as Wafiq al ‘Amili^[36] and others, should have sufficed with its primary source. This would spare researchers the trouble of wasting time following this plethora of sources that they amass to deceive the public and attempt to convince them of the authenticity of the narration through the sheer number of sources.

 

The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad

The scholars of the Imamiyyah differed in their judgement on this narration in two views:

 

i. The Weakness of the Narration

Hashim al Hashimi, in his dialogue with al Sayed Fadl Allah, judged this narration to be weak and disconnected.^[37] Muhammad Asif Muhsini did not include it among the reliable^[38] narrations, and Muhammad al Hussaini said:

 

ليست صحيحة لوقوع ا لرواة التالية أسماؤهم النوفلي لم يوثق وثقه الخوئي بناء على التوثيق العام الحسن بن علي ضعيف والده علي بن أبي حمزة ضعيف جدًا

It is not authentic due to the following narrators: al Nawfali, who is not reliable. Al Khu’i considered him reliable based on general reliability. Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali is weak; and his father ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah is very weak.^[39]

 

Muhammad Ismail al Khawaju’i judged the narration containing Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Kufi, Musa ibn ‘Imran al Nakha’i, al Hussain ibn Yazid al Nawfali, and ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini as unknown or weak. He said:

 

الكوفي والنخعي مجهولان والنوفلي قد رماه قوم من القميين في آخر عمره بالغلووالبطائني قائد أبي بصير واقفي ورد فيه ما ورد عن الرضا عليه السلام من الطعن واللعن فالرواية بين كونها مجهولة أو ضعيفة السند

Al Kufi and al Nakha’i are unknown. Al Nawfali was accused by some Qummis of fanaticism in his later years. Al Bata’ini, the leader of Abu Basir, was a Waqifi, and there are criticisms and curses reported from al Rida ‘alayh al Salam against him. Therefore, the narration is either unknown or weak in the chain of narration.^[40]

 

ii. The Authenticity of the Narration

Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi described this narration’s isnad reliable in Jala’ al ‘Uyun. However, it has been noted that the chain is replete with unknowns and those accused of lying and weakness, in addition to the presence of curses against them. Indeed, al Majlisi himself declared al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah weak in his book al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm al Rijal,^[41] and he frequently criticised him in his books Maladh al Akhyar^[42] and Mir’at al ‘Uqul.^[43] How then did he consider the chain valid in Jala’ al ‘Uyun? This is undoubtedly a contradiction.

Thus, it becomes clear that the correct view is with those who judged this narration to be weak among the Imamiyyah scholars.

 

Discussion on the Narration’s Text

The narration contains elements of exaggeration about Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and lies about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in two places:

First: It attributes to the Prophet the statement:

 

فعند ذلك يؤنسها الله تعالى ذكره بالملائكة فنادتها بما نادت به مريم بنت عمران فتقول يا فاطمة إن الله اصطفاك وطهرك واصطفاك على نساء العالمين يا فاطمة اقنتي لربك واسجدي واركعي مع الراكعين

At that moment, Allah, the Exalted, mentions her with the angels, and they call her with the same call used for Maryam, the daughter of ‘Imran, saying, “O Fatimah, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. O Fatimah, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow.”

 

This is definitely false and implies that revelation did not end after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam!

Second: It attributes to the Prophet the statement:

 

فيبعث الله عز وجل إليها مريم بنت عمران تمرضها وتؤنسها في علتها

Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, will send Maryam to her, to nurse and comfort her in her illness.

This is similar to the previous falsehood, and it is inconceivable that rational people would believe such fairy-tales.

 

NEXT⇒ 3. The Narration of Kamil al Ziyarat

---

^[1]  Al Saduq: Al Amali, pg. 99, majlis 24, narration 2.

^[2]  Muhammad al Jawahiri: Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 384.

^[3]  Fiqh al Hajj Buhuth Istidlaliyyah fi al Hajj, pg. 84.

^[4]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/156. He said about him, “Muhmal (undefined), majhul (unknown).”

^[5]  Dirasat fi Mashyakhat al Faqih, pg. 543. He said, “The man is unknown and the foundational sources of hadith narrators did not mention him.”

^[6]  ‘Uddat al Rijal, 2/213.

^[7]  Idah al Dala’il fi Sharh al Wasa’il, 1/314. Al Dawari commented, “Yes, it is mentioned in the second part of the exegesis, and in the chain of Kamil al Ziyarat, but he is not among his mentors.” To clarify al Dawari’s statement, we say: Yes, it is mentioned in the second part of the exegesis, meaning Tafsir al Qummi. Al Dawari does not consider those found in the second part included in the issue of authenticating the narrators of Tafsir al Qummi because he sees that the second part is specific to the narrations of Abu al Jarud added by Abu al Fadl al ‘Abbas in Tafsir al Qummi. This part is not covered by the authentication certificate as indicated by Muslim al Dawari in Usul ‘Ilm al Rijal, 1/276 and 1/313.

Secondly: Regarding al Dawari statement, “In the chain of Kamil al Ziyarat, but he is not among his mentors,” he means that the issue of authenticating the narrators of Kamil al Ziyarat is specific to the mentors of Ibn Quluwayh and does not include everyone mentioned in the chains of Kamil al Ziyarat. He pointed this out in his book Usul ‘Ilm al Rijal, 1/319. Thus, Musa ibn ‘Imran would be unknown in his view and does not fall under any general authentication rules.

^[8]  Nukhbat al Maqal fi Tamyiz al Isnad wa-al Rijal, pg. 509.

^[9]  Al Du’afa’ fi Rijal al Hadith, 1/500.

^[10]  Al Majlisi said about a narration in which al Nawfali is mentioned, “Al Nawfali from al Sakuni, and both are weak.” (Rawdat al Muttaqin fi Sharh man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, 3/74.)

^[11]  Rijal Bahr al ‘Ulum, 4/85.

^[12]  Madarik al ‘Urwah, 12/67.

^[13]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 36.

^[14]  Al Kashshi, pg. 552, number: 1042.

^[15]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 51.

^[16]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 334.

^[17]  Hawi al Aqwal, 3/381.

^[18]  ‘Uddat al Rijal, 1/265.

^[19]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/36.

^[20]  He included it in the fourth section dedicated to the weak in Mulakhkhas al Maqal fi Tahqiq Ahwal al Rijal, stone printing pg. 207, and modern printing, 3/158.

^[21]  Muhammad al Jawahiri: Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 145.

^[22]  Idah al Dala’il fi Sharh al Wasa’il, 1/245.

^[23]  Tahdhib al Maqal fi Tanqih Kitab al Rijal, 2/15.

^[24]  Sharh Mashyakhat al Faqih, pg. 242, new edition.

^[25]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 83-84, number: 107.

^[26]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 362.

^[27]  Masalik al Afham ila Tanqih Shara’i’ al Islam, 6/212.

^[28]  Rawdat al Jannat, 6/228.

^[29]  Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg. 90.

^[30]  Sidrat al Kamal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg. 388 and 400.

^[31]  Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 381.

^[32]  The attribution of the book Fara’id al Simtayn to al Juwayni requires a detailed study, which is not the place here. However, what we can be certain of is the presence of significant issues regarding the edition verified by Muhammad Baqir al Mahmudi, relying on two manuscripts, which requires comparing the manuscript with the printed version.

^[33]  Fara’id al Simtayn, 2/34.

^[34]  Al Jawahir al Mudi’ah fi Tabaqat al Hanafiyyah, 2/188.

^[35]  Fara’id al Simtayn, 2/34.

^[36]  Wafiq al ‘Amili in his book Ayna al Insaf, pg. 92, cited several sources in the footnote when he referenced this narration, including: Al Fada’il by Ibn Shadhan, Fara’id al Simtayn, Amali al Saduq, Ithbat al Hudat, Irshad al Qulub, Bihar al Anwar, al ‘Awalim, Jala’ al ‘Uyun, Basharat al Mustafa, and others. The truth is that all these sources only transmit the narration from Amali al Saduq.

^[37]  Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawla al Zahra’, pg. 285.

^[38]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/44.

^[39]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 155.

^[40]  Jami’ al Shatat, pg. 1882.

^[41]  Al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg.188.

^[42]  Al Majlisi said about one of the ahadith in Maladh al Akhyar, 2/98, “Weak according to the famous view as it appears to be Ibn Abi Hamzah,” and also said in al Maladh, 7/290, “Ibn Abi Hamzah, weak according to the famous view,” and said in another place 16/196, “Weak according to the famous view based on the assumption that Ibn Abi Hamzah is ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini”.

^[43] Al Majlisi said in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 7/71 commenting on one of the ahadith, “The first hadith: authentic as per some manuscripts by Abu Hamzah, and weak according to the famous view if it is by ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah as per some manuscripts,” and he said similarly in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 13/256. (Kamil al Ziyarat, pg. 329, 840.)