Al Hilli states:
معنى التخميس عند الغلاة لعنهم الله أن سلمان الفارسي والمقداد وعمار وأبا ذر وعمر بن أمية الضمري هم الموكلون بمصالح العالم
The meaning of al takhmis, according to the extremists (may Allah curse them), is that Salman al Farisi, al Miqdad, ‘Ammar, Abu Dharr, and ‘Umar ibn Umayyah al Damri are all entrusted with the affairs of the world.
Regarding the Mukhammisah, Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri (d. 1216 AH) states:
والربّ عندهم علي عليه السلام
The Lord, according to them, is ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam.
Perhaps these are the people who are referred to as the Nusayriyyah. Al Mulla Kani states:
لا يخفى الآن عند الشيعة عوامهم و أكثر خواصهم لا سيما شعرائهم إطلاق النصيري على من قال بربوبية علي عليه السلام
It is not hidden now among the Shia—both their common people and leading personalities (especially their poets—that the term Nusayri refers to the person who believes in the divinity of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam.
Jafar al Subhani states:
فرقة العلياوية وهم الذين يقولون بربوبية علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وربما يفسر النصيرية أيضا بهذا المعنى
Al Hilli, as per his normal practice in not accepting his adversary in creed, rejected the narration of the Mukhammis. We see this clearly under the biography of ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi when al Hilli placed him in the second category of his book that is specific to weak narrators, those whose statements are rejected and judgement is suspended. As for al Khu’i, he wrote a biography on ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi, mentioned the opinions of the scholars, remained quiet and did not express a view regarding him!
The basic principle is that al Khu’i, when he writes a biography of a person, and he does not mention any jarh or tawthiq regarding him and remains silent, the person is regarded as majhul, according to him. Anyone who reflects on the statements of the scholars, those who criticized ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi, will find them related to his belief and not necessarily accusing him of lying. Al Khu’i does not regard this as a valid form of criticism in a narrator, as is known from his reputation. Him remaining silent led to the scholars who summarized his book being confused because they know that criticism of a narrator’s creed is not actually a criticism in determining his reliability—according to al Khu’i. An example of this is as follows. Muhammad al Jawahiri ruled that ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi is majhul. In another place, he transmits the statements of the scholars whom al Khu’i mentioned and did not comment further! Bisam Murtada did something similar. This shows that the person summarizing the book has a confused view since he did not definitively mention al Khu’i’s opinion on the person.
Commenting on al Tusi’s previous words, al Khu’i clearly expressed his opinion on the false belief saying, “He is counted among those who is mutaharrij (disappointing) in his narration and reliable in terms of his integrity, even though he is mistaken in relation to the foundation of his creed. Based on this, his narrations are a binding proof—according to what we see in terms of not considering (the condition of) ‘adalah (i.e., in a narrator) in determining the authoritative value (of a solitary narration).”
This is the original position, according to al Khu’i. A person can say that al Khu’i considers him as weak because he endorsed the statements of his predecessors. (I say) this is possible; however, it contravenes the methodology of al Khu’i who comments—positively or negatively—on the statements related to ‘aqidah (creed). The clearest example for what I am saying is what al Khu’i mentioned under the biography of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi ‘Uthman – or al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Uthman Sajjadah. Al Khu’i states:
قال أبو عمرو [الكشي] على السجادة لعنة الله ولعنة اللاعنين والملائكة والناس أجمعين، فلقد كان من العليائية الذين يقعون في رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وليس لهم في الاسلام نصيب
Abu ‘Amr (al Kashshi) states, “May the curse of Allah, the curse of the cursers, the angels and everyone be on Sajjadah. He was from the ‘Aliyya’iyyah, those who defame the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They have no portion in Islam.
(Al Khu’i states:) “The man, even though ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim made tawthiq of him since he appears in the isnad of his Tafsir, however, despite that, it is not possible to rely on his narrations because of the testimony of al Najjashi that states the companions made tad’if of him. Similarly, Ibn al Ghada’iri also made tad’if of him. Yes, if there were no apparent statements of tad’if (against him), it would be possible for us to judge that he is reliable, despite his false belief. In fact, despite his kufr as well!”
Thus, we find the reason of al Khu’i suspending judgement on the narrator is not because of his kufr, or because he disparaged the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, rather, he made tad’if of him because of al Najjashi testimony (against him)! In summary, whoever disparages the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is acceptable in narration, according to al Khu’i. And his kufr is not a valid reason for criticizing him! Furthermore, the Imamiyyah come and find fault with the Ahlus Sunnah’s accepting the narration of the Nawasib! I do not know, is disparaging ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu greater and more repugnant than disparaging the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. We just require a little bit of fairness.
In summary, the original position in the methodology of al Hilli is to reject the narrations of all those who are his adversaries in creed, except for in a limited number of issues. For example, if the individual is among the people of ijma’. (On the other hand,) the original position of al Khu’i is to accept the narration of a narrator, irrespective of his belief. To such an extent that even if the narrator were to “disparage the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam” (Allah’s protection be sought), as long as he was not deemed weak by one of the earlier generation of scholars.
Tajsim/Tashbih (anthropomorphism) is a theological issue that is mentioned in some books of creed. It has nothing to do with the sciences of hadith. The different sects disputed in relation to the beliefs of every sect with Tashbih or Tajsim. Neither Tashbih nor Tajsim are clearly defined; rather, each sect interprets it according to their belief of it. Thus, we find al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 AH) defining the Mushabbihah for us saying:
الذين يذهبون إلى أن الله تعالى جسم طويل عريض
Those who believe that Allah has a broad (and) tall body.
At times, the Imamiyyah use the word “Tashbih” to mean that person who establishes the sifat (qualities ) of the Lord in a way that is befitting to Him, as stated by Ibn Taymiyyah in his refutation of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli:
وتسمية هذا الرافضي وأمثاله من الجهمية معطلة الصفات لأهل الإثبات مشبهة كتسميتهم لمن أثبت خلافة الخلفاء الثلاثة ناصبيا بناء على اعتقادهم فإنهم لما اعتقدوا أنه لا ولاية لعلي إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء جعلوا كل من لم يتبرأ من هؤلاء ناصبيا كما أنهم لما اعتقدوا أن القدمين متماثلان أو أن الجسمين متماثلان ونحو ذلك قالوا إن مثبتة الصفات مشبهة
This Rafidi and his likes from the Jahmiyyah referring to the Ahl al Ithbat—those who deny the attributes of people for people—as Mushabbihah is like them referring to the person who affirms the Khilafah of the three Khalifas as a Nasibi. Because when they believed that there is no wilayah (sovereignty) to ‘Ali except by disavowing these people, they made everyone who does not disavow from them a Nasibi. Just as they believed that the qadamayn (two feet) are similar to one another, or the jismayn (two bodies) are similar to one another, etc., they say those that affirm the attributes are Mushabbihah.
Bahr al ‘Ulum (d. 1212 AH) states:
التشبيه هو التجسيم بكل ألوانه المبحوثة في كتب الكلام، وبه يقول عامة الأشاعرة وتبرأ منه الإمامية الإثني عشرية
Tashbih is Tajsim in all of its (various) shades, as discussed in the books of kalam (scholastic theology). Most of the Asha’irah believe this and the Twelvers disassociate themselves from it.”
Had Bahr al ‘Ulum been aware of the books of narrator criticism, he would know that many senior and notable narrators of the Imamiyyah were Mujassimah Mushabbihah. Thus, when did the Imamiyyah disassociate themselves from Tajsim?
What is clear from this is that ‘Tashbih’ and ‘Tajsim’ are negative words. Everyone who this was attributed to disassociated themselves from it to such an extent that Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli judged that the Mushabbihah are najis (impure), in fact, apostates. He states:
الكافر نجس وهو كل من جحد ما يعلم ثبوته من الدين ضرورة سواء كانوا حربيين أو أهل كتاب أو مرتدين وكذا الناصب والغلاة والخوارج والأقرب أن المجسمة والمشبهة كذلك
The disbeliever is najis (impure). He is every person who rejects that which is known to be established in the religion as darurah (necessary). Regardless of whether they are combatants, People of the Book, or apostates. And, similarly, the Nasib, Ghulat (Extremists), and Khawawij. The view closest to the truth is that the Mujassimah and Mushabbihah are similar.
The one who examines the biographical works of the Imami school will find that many senior-ranking reliable narrators were Mushabbihah/Mujassimah. According to a group of them, this constitutes misguidance to such an extent that the Shia disavow and make takfir (excommunicate) of one another. Al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1206 AH) states:
إن كثيرا من الشيعة يخالف بعضهم بعضا ويذمون ويقدحون ويكفرون وربما كان ذلك من ديانتهم بأنهم كانوا يرون من الآخر ما هو في اعتقادهم باجتهادهم غلوا أو جبر أو تشبيه أو استخفاف به تعالى
Many of the Shia differ, criticize, rebuke, and make takfir of one another. Perhaps that is part of their religiosity in that they consider from the other that which they believe—according to their ijtihad—to be extreme, or Jabr, or Tashbih, or disrespect to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
The creed of Tashbih and Tajsim is the creed of the Qummis, those whom the Imamiyyah consider the leaders of the school. Al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 AH) states:
القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق به
Yesterday, all of the Qummis—without exception to any of them save Abu Jafar Ibn Babawayh—were Mushabbihah/Mujbirah. Their books and writing testify to and speak of that.
So much so that al Murtada regarded Tashbih as a sign of the people of Qum. He states:
ليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال أو قمي مشبه مجبر
How I wish that any narration would be free and safe from the fact that its root and branch contain a Waqifi, or extremist, or a Qummi Mushabbih Mujbir.
After it has become clear that Tajsim has spread among the seniors of the early generation of Imamiyyah, specifically among the people of Qum—as mentioned by al Murtada and as will be seen, what is the position of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli and Abu al Qasim al Khu’i regarding their narrations?
We have already seen that Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli is among the more stringent critics in accepting narrations from a non-Imami. However, at this juncture, we are dealing with an Imami who is (also) a Mushabbih. In general, despite his Imami creed, he contradicts al Hilli in certain (other) creedal issues. A narrator being an Imami is, according to Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, regarded to be among the accepted.
Under the biography of Muhammad ibn al Khalil al Sakkak, al Hilli states:
قال النجاشي أن له كتاب سماه التوحيد وهو تشبيه
Despite what al Najjashi stated, al Hilli placed him in the first section dedicated to those narrators who are relied upon, despite the fact that he wrote a work on Tashbih!
However, al Hilli contradicted this course of action in the biography of Muhammad ibn Jafar ibn Muhammmad ibn ‘Awn al Asadi; he placed him in the first section (of his book). And, despite that, he states in his biography:
كان ثقة صحيح الحديث إلا أنه روى عن الضعفاء وكان يقول بالجبر و التشبيه فأنا في حديثه من المتوقفين
He was reliable, sound in hadith. However, he narrated from weak narrators. And he used to believe in the doctrine of Jabr and Tashbih. Therefore, I suspend judgement on his hadith.
This is regarded to be from the contradictions of al Hilli in that he placed the narrator in the first section, despite his explicit statement of suspending judgement on his hadith. However, what is difficult to say for certain is: Why did al Hilli suspend judgement on his hadith? Is it because he “narrates from weak narrators?” Or, is it because “he believes in Jabr and Tashbih”?
Both are possible; however, the opinion closest to the truth in regards to rejecting his narration is because of the fact that he narrates from weak narrators, not because he believes in Jabr and Tashbih. This is because al Hilli accepted the narration of Muhammad ibn al Khalil al Sakkak, despite the fact that he wrote on (the issue of) Tashbih. What further emphasizes this is the fact that al Hilli also made tawthiq of Harun ibn Muslim ibn Sa’dan al Katib. In al Khulasah, he states:
ثقة وجه كان له مذهب في الجبر والتشبيه
Reliable. Distinguished. He belonged to the (creedal) school of Jabr and Tashbih.
In summary, al Hilli does not regard the creed of Tashbih a reason to make tad’if of the narrator, or to reject his narration, as is clear from the previous examples.
Back to top
On more than one occasion, al Khu’i expressed the fact that the false belief of a narrator does not negatively impact his ‘adalah. We have seen something in this regard already. Tashbih and Tajsim form part of a person’s false belief which, according to al Khu’i, has no negative impact. If al Khu’i attempted to negate this from some of the narrators, he would do so not because it is a criticism of his narration. Rather, it is merely from an academic standpoint: Is it established that he holds a false belief or not?
Commenting on al Hilli’s suspending judgement on the narration of Muhammad ibn Jafar ibn ‘Awn al Asadi, al Khu’i states:
إنا لو تنزلنا وسلمنا أن محمد بن جعفر كان قائلا بالجبر والتشبيه فلا ينبغي الشك في الاعتماد على روايته بناء على ما هو الصحيح من كفاية وثاقة الراوي في حجية روايته من دون دخل لحسن عقيدته في ذلك
If we, for the sake of argument, agree that Muhammad ibn Jafar believed in Jabr and Tashbih, then there should (still) be no doubt in the reliability of his narration. This is based on what the reliable position is; that is to say that the narrator’s reliability is a sufficient in determining the authoritative value of his narration, without any interference into the soundness (or lack thereof) of his belief.
It is proven with authentic chains of narration from Yunus ibn ‘Abdur Rahman—who is one of the senior narrators of the Imamiyyah—that he was from those who believed in the doctrine of Tajsim, to such an extent that al Khu’i affirmed the authenticity of the narration. He states:
إن هناك روايتين صحيحتين دلتا على انحراف يونس وسوء عقيدته …[منها]…. عن علي بن مهزيار قال كتبت إلى أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن موسى الرضا عليهم السلام جعلت فداك أصلي خلف من يقول بالجسم ومن يقول بقول يونس يعني ابن عبد الرحمان؟ فكتب عليه السلام لا تصلوا خلفهم ولا تعطوهم من الزكاة وابرأوا منهم برئ الله منهم وهاتان الروايتان لابد من رد علمهما إلى أهلهما وهما لا تصلحان لمعارضة الروايات المستفيضة المتقدمة التي فيها الصحاح مع اعتضادها بتسالم الفقهاء والأعاظم على جلالة يونس وعلو مقامه حتى إنه عد من أصحاب الاجماع كما مر على أنهما لو سلمنا صدورهما لا لعلة فهما لا تنافيان الوثاقة التي هي الملاك في حجية الرواية
There are two authentic narrations that prove the deviation of Yunus and his false belief… (from them) … On the authority of ‘Ali ibn Mahziyar, “I wrote to Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida ‘alayh al Salam, ‘May I be ransomed for your sake! I read salah behind someone who believes in Tajsim and believes in the belief of Yunus (i.e., ibn ‘Abdur Rahman)?’
He ‘alayh al Salam wrote, ‘Do not read behind them. And do not give them zakat. Disassociate yourselves from them, Allah will disassociate from them.’”
It is necessary that the knowledge of these two narrations be addressed by its rightful people. They are not good enough to conflict with the previously mentioned sound narrations which include the sahih as well. As mentioned, this is in addition to such narrations being supported by the fact that jurists and other great scholars acknowledge the greatness of Yunus and his high rank to such an extent that he is counted among the people of ijma’ (scholarly consensus). All of this assuming that these narrations were not mentioned because of a defect; in such a case, they still do not negate the narrator’s reliability since this is what is required in determining the authoritative value of a narration.
The point here is that al Khu’i does not regard the false belief of a narrator a valid factor such that it negates the tawthiq of a narration, even though the narrator likened Allah to His creation!
In general, ghulu (extremism ) denotes a certain transgression of boundaries. In al Miqbas, al Mamaqani states:
الغلو بمعنى التجاوز عن الحد قال الله تعالى لا تغلوا في دينكم أي لا تجاوزوا الحد وقد يقال للرجل فلان كان من أهل الطيارة ومن أهل الارتفاع ويريدون بذلك أنه كان غاليا
Extremism means to transgress the boundary. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states, “Do not commit excess in your religion,” i.e., do not transgress beyond the boundary. It can be said of a person, ‘So-and-so is from Ahl al Tayyarah and from Ahl al Irtifa’,’ intending thereby that he is extreme (in his views).
The Imamiyyah differ greatly regarding the definition of an extreme narrator. This is based on the fact that they differ upon what constitutes the foundations of creed. Al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1206 AH) states:
إن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية أيضا فربما كان شيء عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا غلوا أو تفويضا أو جبرا أو تشبيها أو غير ذلك وكان عند آخر مما يجب اعتقاده
The early generation of scholars would also differ regarding the foundations of creed. Thus, something could be considered, according to some of them, false, or constituting extreme disbelief, Tafwid (Delegation), Jabr, Tashbih, or other such related beliefs. While, according to others, believing in these issues could be essential.
What makes recognizing an extreme person from others even more difficult is the fact that there is no real distinction made between the extremists since they spread amongst and assimilated with the Imamiyyah. This is because they were directly from them. As Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri acknowledged, the Imami scholars were uncertain in applying the word ‘extreme’ to a narrator. He states:
إن الغلاة كانوا مختفين في الشيعة ومخلوطين بهم مدلسين أنفسهم عليهم فبأدنى شبهة كانوا القدماء والقميين يتهمون الرجل بالغلو والارتفاع
The extremists were hidden amongst and intermingled within the Shia. They deceitfully obfuscated themselves and lived among them. Therefore, the early generation and Qummis would accuse a person of extremism with a slight uncertainty.
On account of this difference of opinion in belief and defining what extremism is, the opinions of the scholars of narrator criticism differed in relation to many narrators who the term “from the Ahl al Tayyarah,” or “extreme,” or other similar words was applied to. To such an extent that al Mamaqani, alluding to this problem, stated:
لا يخفى عليك أنه قد كثر رمي رجال بالغلو وليسوا من الغلاة عند التحقيق
It is no secret to you that many narrators have been accused of being extreme and the reality is that they are not from the extremists.
In summary, the words of ghulu (extremism) and whatever is in its meaning are regarded to be words of dispraise.
In discussing the opinions of Ibn al Ghada’iri and Ibn al Walid, I previously mentioned something regarding the scholars’ position on the statements of Tad’if of Ibn al Ghada’iri—which is regarded as something that stems from the difference between the school of the Qummi Imamiyyah and the other Imami scholars on the meaning of ghulu.
It can also be said that it is necessary to note that when the latter-day scholars of the Imamiyyah would use the term ‘ghulu,’ for one of the narrators, it is necessary to know the intent of the scholar who is using the word. Here, al Karbasi (d. 1175 AH) in Iklil al Manhaj reproaches the Qummis for not knowing the meaning of ghulu. He states:
القميّون لم يتضح عندهم معنى الغلو ومنهم من يقول إنّ من يقول بعدم جواز السهو على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فهو غال ولأمثال ذلك أسندوا الغلو إلى كثير من أصحابنا مع صحة عقيدتهم واستقامة رأيهم
The meaning of ghulu isn’t clear to the Qummis; among them are those that say that whoever says that it is not permissible for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to commit a mistake is an extremist. For example, they attributed (this form of) ghulu to many of our companions, despite them having a correct creed and holding a sound opinion.
On the contrary, we find the statement of al Saduq (d. 381 AH):
علامة المفوضة والغلاة وأصنافهم نسبتهم مشايخ قم وعلماؤها إلى القول بالتقصير
A sign of the Mufawwidah and Ghulat and their types is their attributing Taqsir, or negligence to the mashayikh of Qum and their scholars.
And, like this, we find every scholar accusing the other of negligence and not clearly defining the meaning of ghulu; as mentioned, all of this stems from the difference of opinion on their creed.
Back to top
We have already seen the severity of al Hilli’s opinion regarding the creed of a narrator; if he is an Imami, al Hilli presumes his ‘adalah and regards him as acceptable in narration—if there is no jarh mentioned about him. However, despite his opinion of regarding the Ghulat as Imamis, we find al Hilli inserting them into the second section of his book, a section that is dedicated to weak narrators and those whose statements judgement is suspended.
This frequently occurs in his book, al Khulasah, as is the case under the biographies of Jafar ibn Muhammad Mufaddal, Sulaiman al Daylami, ‘Ali ibn Hassan ibn Kathir al Hashimi, and ‘Ali ibn Hasakah. Yes, at times, these narrators combine other negative qualities alongside extremism; however, it appears from al Hilli’s doing that extremism is among the reasons for rejecting a narration. What highlights this is the fact that al Hilli placed Nasr ibn al Sabbah in the second section and presented his biography saying:
يكنى أبا القاسم البلخي غالي المذهب وكان كثير الرواية
His agnomen was Abu al Qasim al Balkhi. Extreme in mazhab. He narrated a lot.
He did not mention a reason for placing him in the second section, despite the fact that he narrates a lot. In fact, he is a teacher of al Kashshi from whom he narrates frequently in al Rijal; however, he described him as “extreme in mazhab.”
Perhaps the reason for this is the fact that al Hilli considers the ghulat to be disbelievers and apostates. He states:
الغلاة فإنهم وإن أقروا بالشهادة إلا أنهم خارجون عن الإسلام
The Ghulat, even though they acknowledged the shahadah (testimony), they are out of the fold of Islam.
Al Hilli did not suffice in rendering them disbelievers; he also judged them to be impure. He states:
والمسلمون على اختلاف مذاهبهم، أطهار، عدا الخوارج والغلاة
The Muslims, despite their different mazhabs are pure, except for the Khawarij and Ghulat.
Similarly, he states:
الخوارج والغلاة لا يصلى عليهم
(Janazah) Salah is not to be read on the Khawarij and Ghulat.
These severe rulings show us the reason al Hilli rejects the Ghulat’s narration.
If al Hilli mentions one of the Ghulat in the first section, it is because there is a difference of opinion among the scholars regarding his condition and he preferred one of the two opinions over the other, as in the biography of Dawood ibn Kathir al Raqi:
والأقوى قبول روايته لقول الشيخ الطوسي وقول الكشي أيضا
The stronger (opinion) is to accept his narration because of al Sheikh al Tusi’s statement, as well as al Kashshi’s.
He states something similar under the biography of Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubaid.
Back to top
Al Khu’i explains ghulu to us saying:
الغلاة على طوائف (فمنهم) من يعتقد الربوبية لأمير المؤمنين أو أحد الأئمة الطاهرين فيعتقد بأنه الرب الجليل وأنه الإله لمجسم الذي نزل إلى الأرض وهذه النسبة لو صحت وثبت اعتقادهم بذلك فلا إشكال في نجاستهم وكفرهم … (ومنهم) من ينسب إليه الاعتراف بألوهيته سبحانه إلا أنه يعتقد أن الأمور الراجعة إلى التشريع والتكوين كلها بيد أمير المؤمنين أو أحدهم – ع – فيرى أنه المحيي والمميت وأنه الخالق والرازق وأنه الذي أيد الأنبياء السالفين سرا وأيد النبي الأكرم …(ومنهم) من لا يعتقد بربوبية أمر المؤمنين – ع – ولا بتفويض الأمور إليه وإنما يعتقد أنه – ع – وغيره من الأئمة الطاهرين ولاة الأمر وأنهم عاملون لله سبحانه وأنهم أكرم المخلوقين عنده فينسب إليهم الرزق والخلق ونحوهما – لا بمعنى إسنادها إليهم – ع – حقيقة لأنه يعتقد أن العامل فيها حقيقة هو الله – بل كإسناد الموت إلى ملك الموت والمطر إلى ملك المطر… فعد هذا القسم من أقسام الغلو نظير ما نقل عن الصدوق قده عن شيخه ابن الوليد إن نفي السهو عن النبي – ص – أول درجة الغلو. والغلو – بهذا المعنى الأخير – مما لا محذور فيه بل لا مناص عن الالتزام به في الجملة
The extremists are of different groups. Among them are those who believe in the divinity of Amir al Mu’minin or one of the pure Imams. And so, his belief is that ‘Ali is God incarnate that descended unto the earth. If this attribution (of creed) is correct and their belief therein is proven, then there is no doubt regarding them being impure and their disbelief.
Among them are those who attribute some form of recognition to the divinity of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala; however, they (also) believe that all the legislative and administrative affairs (of this world) are in the hands of and regulated by Amir al Mu’minin or one of the Imams. Thus, he considers him (i.e., ‘Ali) the Muhyi (One who gives life) and the Mumit (One who gives death), and that he is the Creator, Sustainer, and that he is the one who clandestinely assisted the previous Prophets as well as assisted the noble Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Among them those who do not believe in the divinity of Amir al Mu’minin and do not delegate authority (Tafwid) of worldly matters to him; rather, they believe that he and the other pure Imams are the leaders, and that they work on behalf of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, and that they are the noblest of creation by Him subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. And so, issues related to creation, sustenance, etc. are attributed to them, not in the sense of actual attribution to them since, in reality, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is the doer; rather, similar to how death is attributed to the Angel of Death, or rain to the Angel of Rain … This category is regarded to be one of the categories of ghulu, similar to what was transmitted on the authority al Saduq, from his teacher, Ibn al Walid, ‘Denying the possibility of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam committing mistakes is the first level of extremism. Extremism in this last meaning is not forbidden; in fact, on the whole, it is something that is inevitable to observe.”
Thus, al Khu’i judges a category of the Ghulat to be impure. In fact, he even made Takfir of them, as we have seen from his words. According to him, they are of varying degrees. Al Khu’i emphasizes they are not all of the same degree with his statement:
أن الغلو له درجات ولا مانع من أن يكون شخص غاليا بمرتبة ويلعن غاليا آخر أشد منه في الغلو
Extremism is of varying degrees. There is nothing in the way of a person being extreme to a certain extent and, at the same time, he curses another person more extreme than him.
Whoever knows the methodology of al Khu’i regarding ‘adalah (of a narrator), he will soon come to know his opinion on the narrations of the extremists. Al Khu’i does not suspend judgement in accepting a narration based on the false belief of a narrator. Al Khu’i’s statement emphasizes this:
لا تنافي بين فساد العقيدة والوثاقة
There is no inconsistency in (possessing) a false belief and being reliable.
A person may say that the words of al Khu’i here do not include the extremists, those whom he declared disbelievers; rather, it is only applicable to those whom he judged to be Muslim.
In response to this, I say: We have already seen that al Khu’i includes in his methodology even the disbeliever, the most extreme, such as the Mukhammisah—those whom no one doubts their apostasy. As he states under the biography of Sajjadah:
نعم لو لم يكن في البين تضعيف لأمكننا الحكم بوثاقته مع فساد عقيدته بل مع كفره أيضا
Whoever of the extremists’ narrations were rejected by al Khu’i, the reason for rejecting was not necessarily because of extremism, since this goes contrary to his normal practice. Rather, the reason for tad’if and rejecting his narrations are for reasons other than (holding a) false belief and extremism. At times, a narrator would hold a false, extreme belief in addition to the earlier generation of scholars’ stating that he is either weak, or he lies, or any other reason which, according to al Khu’i, is regarded as a reason for deeming the narrator weak. This is precisely what is found under the biographies of Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Shamun, Dawood ibn Kathir al Raqi, and ‘Abdullah ibn al Qasim al Hadrami.
In addition to the earlier generation of scholars explicitly stating he is a liar, a narrator would also be considered weak when there is documented evidence of an infallible cursing him, as is the case with Faris ibn Hatim.
At times, al Khu’i would reject the narration of a narrator, not because of the statement of an earlier, relied-upon scholar, or, because of what was attributed to him in terms of being extreme; rather, on account of there not existing a statement of tawthiq in his favour—since al Khu’i does not believe in the narrator’s presumption of ‘adalah. This is the case in the biography of Khaybari ibn ‘Ali; al Khu’i mentions the statements of the scholars regarding him, including the statement of al Najjahshi:
خيبري بن علي الطحان كوفي ضعيف في مذهبه ذكر ذلك أحمد بن الحسين يقال في مذهبه ارتفاع
Khaybari ibn ‘Ali al Tahhan is a Kufi. (He is considered) weak in his school. Ahmed ibn al Hussain mentioned this. It is said that there is extremism in his school.
Al Khu’i commented saying:
ما ذكره النجاشي، عن أحمد بن الحسين من ضعفه في مذهبه، فإن الضعف في المذهب لا يدل على ضعفه في حديثه
What al Najjashi mentioned from Ahmed ibn al Hussain that he is weak in his school; this does not mean that he is weak in his hadith.
Thereafter, al Khu’i suspended judgement on accepting his narrations, not because of his false (creedal) school; rather, because of the fact that there was no previous statement of tawthiq in his favour.
And like this, al Khu’i’s methodology in dealing with the Ghulat reveals itself. In summary, ghulu, no matter how extreme the narrator’s belief is, it does not impact the acceptance of his narrations since holding such a false belief—even if it reaches the level of disbelief—does not negatively affect the narrator.
We should know that the Mufawwidah is a sect among the Ghulat. Al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH) states:
والمفوضة صنف من الغلاة وقولهم الذي فارقوا به من سواهم من الغلاة اعترافهم بحدوث الأئمة وخلقهم ونفي القدم عنهم وإضافة الخلق والرزق مع ذلك إليهم ودعواهم أن الله تعالى تفرد بخلقهم خاصة وأنه فوض إليهم خلق العالم بما فيه وجميع الأفعال
The Mufawwidah are a group of extremists. The statement by which they separated themselves from the other Ghulat is that they acknowledged the Imams came into existence, that they were created, that they denied their eternality from them, and (denied) the act of creating and sustaining (creation) from them, as well as their claim that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala specifically created them, and that He handed over to them the affairs of the world and all actions.
Al Saduq (d. 381 AH) states:
روي عن زرارة أنه قال قلت للصادق – عليه السلام – إن رجلا من ولد عبد الله بن سبأ يقول بالتفويض قال – عليه السلام – وما التفويض؟ قلت يقول إن الله عز وجل خلق محمدا صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وعليا – عليه السلام – ثم فوض الأمر إليهما فخلقا ورزقا وأحييا وأماتا فقال كذب عدو الله إذا رجعت إليه فاقرأ عليه الآية التي في سورة الرعد
قُلۡ مَن رَّبُّ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ قُلِ ٱللَّهُۚ قُلۡ أَفَٱتَّخَذۡتُم مِّن دُونِهِۦٓ أَوۡلِيَآءَ لَا يَمۡلِكُونَ لِأَنفُسِهِمۡ نَفۡعٗا وَلَا ضَرّٗاۚ قُلۡ هَلۡ يَسۡتَوِي ٱلۡأَعۡمَىٰ وَٱلۡبَصِيرُ أَمۡ هَلۡ تَسۡتَوِي ٱلظُّلُمَٰتُ وَٱلنُّورُۗ أَمۡ جَعَلُواْ لِلَّهِ شُرَكَآءَ خَلَقُواْ كَخَلۡقِهِۦ فَتَشَٰبَهَ ٱلۡخَلۡقُ عَلَيۡهِمۡۚ قُلِ ٱللَّهُ خَٰلِقُ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ وَهُوَ ٱلۡوَٰحِدُ ٱلۡقَهَّٰرُ
فانصرفت إلى رجل فأخبرته بما قال الصادق – عليه السلام – فكأنما ألقمته حجرا أو قال فكأنما خرس
He ‘alayh al Salam said, ‘And what is Tafwid?’
I said, ‘He says that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam, and then he handed over the matter to them. Thus, they created (creation), gave (everyone) sustenance, grant (people) life, and grant (people) death).’
He said, ‘The enemy of Allah lied. When you return back to him, read to him the verse in Surah al Ra’d, “Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation [of each] seemed similar to them?” Say, “Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.”
This text explicitly proves that the descendants of Ibn Sab’a had a role to play in the spreading of many false beliefs early on among the Imamiyyah. As in this narration, the Ahlul Bayt fought and warned against such beliefs; despite this, it has become widespread among the beliefs of the Imamiyyah in these times. In fact, it is among the unescapable beliefs that are necessary to believe in!
After the Imamiyyah’s belief in the occultation of Muhammad ibn al Hassan al ‘Askari and their belief that he is the awaited Mahdi, they became confused since it contradicts the philosophy of Imamah—which is founded on leading the people. Thus, questions were raised to the Imamiyyah. Ahmed al Katib states:
السؤال الكبير الذي فرض نفسه هو إذا كانت الإمامة محصورة في هذا الشخص ولا تجوز لغيره من الناس العاديين غير المعصومين وغير المعيّنين من قبل الله تعالى فلماذا يغيب ويختفي ولا يظهر ليقود الشيعة و المسلمين ويؤسّس الحكومة الإسلامية التي لا بد منها ما دام أن الأرض لا يجوز أن تخلو من إمام والإمام الغائب لا يمكن أن يمارس إمامته وقيادة الناس؟ وما هو سر الغيبة و إلى متى يغيب وما هو واجب الشيعة في حالة الغيبة
The great question that effectively poses itself is: If Imamah is confined to this person, and it is not permissible for other ordinary people who are neither infallibles nor selected by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, then why go into occultation and hide? And why would he not appear so as to lead the Shia and Muslims, and establish an Islamic government—which is required? As long as it is not permissible for the earth to be void of an Imam, the absent Imam is unable to exercise his (function of) Imamah and lead the people. What is the secret of the occultation? And for how long will he remain in hiding? And what are the Shia to do during this occultation?
After these pressing questions, some of the Imamiyyah who disseminated the doctrine of Ghaybah (Occultation) and appropriated it afterwards embarked upon claiming the doctrine of the “Babiyyah” and that there is a bab (door) through which the Imam can be reached, or, what is referred to as the Sifarah (Mediatorship). And so, they became the link between the absent Mahdi and his followers who believe in him during the time of the al Ghaybah al Sughra (Minor Occultation).
The Imamiyyah ended up having praiseworthy ambassadors (called sufara’) and ‘doors,’ and blameworthy ambassadors and ‘doors,’ those who consume the peoples’ wealth unjustly. Al Tusi enumerated them in his book, al Ghaybah.
These people are referred to as the Babiyyah or the Sufara’. They are the old Babiyyah. In reality, they are an offshoot from the belief in Ghaybah.
The Imamiyyah granted the ‘doors,’ or ambassadors, the quality of ultimate sanctity, even after their death. According to some, this continued even after their death. In his book al Misbah, a-Kaf’ami (d. 905 AH) mentions istighathah (asking for help) through the ‘doors’ and that they continue performing the duty of ambassadorship even after their death. He mentions the words of the istighathah through them saying:
تقصد النهر أو الغدير وتعتمد بعض الأبواب إما عثمان بن سعيد العمري أو ولده محمد بن عثمان أو الحسين بن روح أو على بن محمد السمري فهؤلاء كانوا أبواب المهدي عليه السلام فتنادي بأحدهم وتقول يا فلان بن فلان سلام عليك اشهد أن وفاتك في سبيل الله وأنك حي عند الله مرزوق وقد خاطبتك في حياتك التي لك عند الله عز وجل وهذه رقعتي وحاجتي إلى مولانا صلى الله عليه وآله فسلمها إليه فأنت الثقة الأمين ثم ارمها في النهر أو البئر أو الغدير تقضى حاجتك إن شاء الله تعالى
(After reading the du’a’ of istighathah,) you proceed to the river or brook and rely on some of the Abwab (Doors); either ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id al ‘Amri, or his son, Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman, or al Hussain ibn Rawh, or ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al Samarri. These are the doors of the Mahdi ‘alayh al Salam. And so, you will call out to one of them and say, ‘O, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, peace be upon you. I bear witness that your death is in the path of Allah and that you are alive by Allah receiving provisions. I addressed you in your life that you have with Allah. This is my note and my need to our master salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Pass it on to him for you are the reliable, trustworthy one. Then, throw it into the river, or well, or brook—your need will be fulfilled, Allah willing.”
According to the Imamiyyah, the issue of the Babiyyah became an issue of creed and, according to them, the four ambassadors that were mentioned in the previous du’a’ of istighathah are beyond reproach and the formal method of ascertaining tawthiq since they reached a high-ranking and noble level.
After this overview, what then is the position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding the person who claims Babiyyah?
Al Hilli often follows his method in rejecting the narration of the ideological deviant (according to him). Based on this, al Hilli rejected the narration of the claimant of the Babiyyah because of his false belief. Despite this, he places him in the first section of his book!
Under the biography of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Bilal, al Hilli states:
من أصحاب أبي محمد العسكري ( عليه السلام ) ثقة وقال الشيخ [الطوسي] في كتاب الغيبة أنه من المذمومين أبو طاهر محمد بن علي بن بلال. فنحن في روايته من المتوقفين
From the companions of Abu Muhammad al ‘Askari ‘alayh al Salam. Reliable. Al Sheikh (al Tusi) states in Kitab al Ghaybah, “From among those that have been criticized is Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Bilal.” We suspend judgement on his narrations.”
When analyzing the actions of al Hilli, we find him mentioning the narrator in the first section and, following al Tusi, explicitly stating his tawthiq. However, al Hilli suspended judgement on his narration. The reason being is that he claimed (adherence to) the Babiyyah.
We find that al Khu’i held a view different to that of al Hilli’s; the former cited the scholars’ praise for Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Bilal. Thereafter, he followed up this praise with the following criticism:
ومع هذا كله فقد أخلد إلى الأرض واتبع هواه وادعى البابية قال الشيخ [الطوسي] ومنهم (المذمومين الذين ادعوا البابية لعنهم الله) أبو طاهر محمد بن علي بن بلال وقصته معروفة فيما جرى بينه وبين أبي جعفر محمد بن عثمان العمري نضر الله وجهه وتمسكه بالأموال التي كانت عنده للامام وامتناعه من تسليمها وادعائه أنه الوكيل حتى تبرأت الجماعة منه ولعنوه وخرج فيه من صاحب الزمان ما هو معروف…والمتلخص من جميع ما ذكرنا أن الرجل كان ثقة مستقيما وقد ثبت انحرافه وادعاؤه البابية ولم يثبت عدم وثاقته فهو ثقة فاسد العقيدة فلا مانع من العمل برواياته بناء على كفاية الوثاقة في حجية الرواية، كما هو الصحيح
And despite all of this, “he clung to earthly life and followed his carnal desires” and claimed adherence to the Babiyyah. Al Sheikh (al Tusi) states, “And among them (the reprehensible ones, those who claimed Babiyyah—may Allah curse them): Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Bilal. His story is well-known in regards to what transpired between him and Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman al ‘Amri (may Allah enlighten his face) and his hoarding the wealth that he was holding for the Imam and refusing to hand it over. As well as his claiming that he is the wakil (agent) to such an extent that the group exonerated themselves from him and cursed him. Famous judgements from Sahib al Zaman (i.e., the Twelfth Imam) have been issued against him.”
The sum-total of all that we have mentioned is that the man is upright and reliable. His deviation and claiming (adherence to) the Babiyyah is proven. Him not being reliable is yet to be proven. Therefore, he is reliable and holds a false belief. As such, there is no harm in acting on his narration based on the fact that reliability (in narrating hadith) is sufficient in determining the authoritative value of a narration—as the view correct holds.
How can he be an upright (and) reliable narrator when the Imam cursed him and, “he followed his own desire and adhered (instead) to the earth,” as al Khu’i expressed? He hoarded money that did not belong to him and falsely claimed that he was a bab (door) to the Imam and the Sahib al Shari’ah (lawgiver), until he was warned against it. In summary, the methodology of al Khu’i includes all of this and it does not negatively affect his tawthiq. What is important is that al Khu’i is satisfied with the narrator, even if he expressed what he expressed! As for the Sahabah, there is no consolation for them.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 365, no. 1435, biography of ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi. Similarly, see the book: Kitab Tatawwur al Fikr al Siyasi al Shia min al Shura ila Wilayat al Faqih of Ahmed al Katib, p. 260.
 Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri: Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal, 7/438. See also: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal of al Tusi (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 398, no. 743 under the biography of Bashshar al Sha’iri when he likened some of their ideas with the ‘Aliyyawiyyah (or the ‘Aliyya’iyyah). Al Kashshi states, “The ‘Aliyyawiyyah believe that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam fled and appeared among the Hashimi ‘Alawites. Despite being Allah incarnate, he revealed that he is His servant and His messenger, Muhammad (i.e., in his form). The companions of Abu al Khattab agreed to four individuals: ‘Ali, Fatimah, al Hassan and al Hussain ‘alayhim al Salam. And that the meaning of the three individuals, Fatimah, al Hassan, and al Hussain is a mere deception and the only reality is ‘Ali because he is the first of these individuals in the Ummah. They deny the person of Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam and claim that Muhammad is a servant (and ‘Ali is Lord). They placed Muhammad in the position of what the Mukhammisah placed Salman, and they made him a messenger of Muhammad. They agreed with them in issues related to ibahat (antinominalist behaviour), ta’til (divesting Allah of His attributes), and tanasukh (transmigration of the soul). The ‘Aliyya’iyyah are called the ‘Aliyya’iyyah Mukhammisah (Five ‘Aliyya’iyyah). They claim that Bashshar al Sha’iri, when he rejected the divinity of Muhammad and placed it into ‘Ali—and made Muhammad the servant of ‘Ali and rejected the message of Salman, he metamorphosized into “the form of a bird”. It is said (that it means) ‘alya’ that in the ocean. For this reason, they name them the ‘Aliyya’iyyah. (see: Miqbas al Hidayah of al Mamaqani, 2/361).
 ‘Ali Kani: Tawdih al Maqal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, p. 223.
 Jafar al Subhani: Kulliyyat fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, p. 418.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 365, no. 1435.
 Muhammad al Jawahiri: al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, p. 385, under the name ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al Kufi.
 Ibid., p. 383, under the name ‘Ali ibn Ahmed Abu al Qasim; Bisam Murtada: Zubdat al Maqal min Mujam al Rijal, 2/19.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 4/22, biography no. 9128 of Ismail ibn Abi Rafi’ al Sha’iri.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 571, no. 1082.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 6/78, no. 2941.
 Al Sharif al Murtada: Rasa’il al Murtada, 2/285.
 Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 2/607.
 Bahr al ‘Ulum: Rijal Bahr al ‘Ulum, under the letter ‘ha’’, 4/17.
 Al Hilli: Tahrir al Ahkam, 1/158.
 Al Wahid al Bahbahani: Ta’liqah ‘ala Manhaj al Maqal, p. 366.
 Al Sharif al Murtada: Rasa’il al Murtada, 3/310.
 Ibid., 3/310.
 Commenting on the statement of al Najjashi, “It is Tashbih,” ‘Ali al Burujirdi states, “I.e., it is not (a book on) Tawhid; rather, it is a book on Tashbih and shirk (polytheism)” (Tara’if al Maqal, 1/348, no. 2603).
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 244, no. 831.
 Ibid., p. 265, no. 943.
 Ibid., p. 291, no. 1073.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 16/180, no. 10411.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 21/226, no. 13863.
 Al Mamaqani: Miqbas al Hidayah, 2/397.
 Al Wahid al Bahbahani: Ta’liqah ‘ala Manhaj al Maqal, 1/129.
 Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri al Astarabadi: Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal, 1/77. His words are similar to what al Wahid al Bahbahani mentioned in Ta’liqah ‘ala Manhaj al Maqal (1/129); however, because of the sheer amount of difference regarding the wording, I attributed the words to al Ha’iri. It is possible that al Ha’iri narrated the words of al Bahbahani bi al ma’na (i.e., not verbatim) since the subject-matter is one, despite the different wording.
 See: al Rasa’il al Rijaliyyah of Abu al Ma’ali al Kalbasi, 3/611, 613 and beyond. He speaks about the meaning of ghulu (extremism) and the differences of opinion therein.
 Al Mamaqani: Miqbas al Hidayah, 2/397.
 See: Usul al Hadith of ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli, p. 121; Mujam Mustalahat al Rijal wa al Dirayah of Muhammad Rida Jadidi, p. 108 and 111; Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal of Abu ‘Ali al Ha’iri, 1/114 – see the marginalia for an excellent discussion on the subject-matter; al Ri’ayah li Hal al Bidayah of al Shahid al Thani, p. 123; Ma’rifat al Hadith of al Bahbudi, p. 117; al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah of al Kajuri, p. 118; Usul al Hadith wa Ahkamuhu of Jafar al Subhani, p. 169. As for what is printed among Rasa’il fi Dirayat al Hadith of al Babili, see: Wusul al Akhyar ila Usul al Akhbar of al Hussain al ‘Amili, 1/492; al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah of al Baha’i, 1/545; Manzumah Mujaz al Maqal of ‘Abdur Rahim al Asbahani al Ha’iri, line no. 145 under the title “Alfaz al Jarh,” 2/501; al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm Dirayat al Hadith of al Asfahani al Hamdani, 2/563, and other places.
 Muhammad Jafar ibn Muhammad al Khurasani al Karbasi: Iklil al Manhaj fi Tahqiq al Matlab, p. 221.
 Al Sheikh al Saduq: al I’tiqadat fi Din al Imamiyyah, p. 101. See, also: Ma’rifat al Hadith of al Bahbudi, p. 120, and: Bihar al Anwar of al Majlisi, 25/344.
 See: al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith of Hussain al Sa’idi, 1/113.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 332, no. 1307.
 Ibid., p. 350, no. 1386.
 Ibid., p. 366, no. 1439.
 Ibid., p. 367, no. 1442.
 Ibid., p. 413, no. 1676.
 Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab, 1/152, under al As’ar wa al Awani al Mushtabihah.
 Al Hilli: Tahrir al Ahkam, 1/50, under al Mudaf wa al Asar.
 Al Hilli: Tahrir al Ahkam, 1/125, under Man yusalla ‘alayhi.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 140, no. 388.
 Ibid., p. 241, no. 821.
 There will be more on Tafwid later on.
 Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 2/73-75, under the section Najasat al Ghulat.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 20/150, no. 13043.
 Al Khu’i: Kitab al Hajj, 1/29, commentary under I’tibar Idhn al Wali.
 What he means is that had it not been for some of the previous scholars, such as al Najjashi, it would be possible to judge that he is reliable.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 6/78, no. 2941.
 Ibid., 16/234, no. 10509 and 5/349, no. 2874.
 Ibid., 8/126, no. 4429.
 Ibid., 11/304, no. 7076.
 Ibid., 14/258, no. 9311.
 Al Najjashi: Rijal al Najjashi, p. 154, no. 408.
 Al Khu’i: Kitab al Hajj, 1/29, commentary under I’tibar Idhn al Wali.
 The following biography emphasizes for us the fact that al Khu’i, when he does not find any statement of tawthiq or criticism for the narrator, he is rejected in narration and has an unknown condition. Al Khu’i states under the biography of Muhammad ibn Bahr al Rahni, “The man, even though it is not proven that he is weak, we have mentioned on more than one occasion that the book that is attributed to Ibn al Ghada’iri is not actually authentically attributed to him. Additionally, his reliability is not established. What al Najjashi intended with his statement regarding his hadith and that they are “close to being sound” is that there is no extremism in them. Therefore, his uprightness is still not established since his condition is unknown.” (al Mujam, 16/133, no. 10324.)
 Al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar, 25/345.
 Surah al Ra’d: 16.
 Al Saduq: al I’tiqadat fi Din al Imamiyyah, p. 100.
 There is another, contemporary Babiyyah that was founded by Ahmed ibn Zayn al Din al Ahsa’i. It is also referred to as the Sheikhiyyah. Al Sayed al Sadr al Ahsa’i declared this (group) as disbelievers, as al Burujirdi narrated in Tara’if al Maqal (1/61 no. 131). Muhsin al Amin states, “Today, all of the people of al Ahsa’ are Shia Imamiyyah; however, most of them are Sheikhiyyah, according to what is said they following the path of al Sheikh Ahmed ibn Zayn al Din al Ahsa’i (A’yan al Shia, 1/195). See, also: Silsilat Madha Ta’rif of Dr. Ahmed al Husayyin (2/502 under the section of the Babiyyah. He has an entire chapter on them; they are a group from the Twelver Imamiyyah. Similarly, the Babiyyah are attributed to al Sheikh al Rashti, the student of al Ahsa’i. Most of the students of al Rashti are among the leaders of the Babiyyah. In any case, whoever wants details regarding the reality of the Sheikhiyyah, Babiyyah, al Ahsa’i, and al Rashti should read the book al Sheikhiyyah Nash’atuha wa Tatawwuruha wa Masadir Dirasatiha of al Sayed Muhammad Hassan Al al Talaqani.
 Ahmed al Katib: Tatawwur al Fikr al Siyasi al Shia min al Shura ila Wilayat al Faqih, p. 241.
 Al Tusi: al Ghaybah, p. 343. And see: Rijal al Khaqani, p. 175.
 Ibrahim al Kaf’ami: Jannat al Aman al Waqiyah wa Jannat al Iman al Baqiyah (al Misah), p. 405. See, also: Bihar al Anwar of al Majlisi, 99/235, 91/30.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 242, no. 825.
 Al Tusi: Rijal al Tusi, p. 401, no. 5886. Al Tusi clearly contradicts himself regarding this narrator because he criticizes him in his Kitab al Ghaybah. See: al Rasa’il al Rijaliyyah of al Kalbasi, 1/71 and 4/177.
 In reference to the Qur’an, Surah al A’af: 176. [translator’s note].
 Al Tusi: al Ghaybah, p. 400.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 17/332, no. 11305.
 In reference to the Qur’an, Surah al A’raf: 176. [translator’s note].Back to top