The Shia split into numerous sects. Many scholars of the Imamiyyah alluded to this in their biographical works. As a result, they would attribute to the narrator his mazhab, or (creedal) school, and what group he belonged to. In this section, I will mention the four most important Shia sects other than the Twelvers and how al Hilli and al Khu’i dealt with them.
Hussain al Shakiri states:
الواقفة أو الواقفية فرقة من الشيعة أنكروا وفاة الإمام الكاظم موسى بن جعفر (عليه السلام) وأنكروا بذلك إمامة ولده الرضا (عليه السلام) وتسمى هذه الفرقة أيضا الممطورة أو الكلاب الممطورة
The Waqifah, or the Waqifiyyah, is a sect from the Shia that deny the death of al Imam al Kazim Musa ibn Jafar ‘alayh al Salam. In this manner, they deny the Imamah of his son, al Rida ‘alayh al Salam. This sect is also named the Mamturah, or the Kilab Mamturah.
Hussain al Shakiri also states:
هم الواقفون على الإمام الكاظم (عليه السلام) والقائلون إنه حي يرزق وإنه هو القائم من آل محمد (عليهم السلام) وأن غيبته كغيبة موسى بن عمران عن قومه ويلزم من ذلك – على ضوء هذا الادعاء – عدم انتقال الإمامة إلى ولده الإمام الرضا (عليه السلام)
They are those who stop at al Imam al Kazim ‘alayh al Salam and believe that he is alive and being given provisions. And that he is al Qa’im, or the one that carries out the order of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala from the family of Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam. And that his ghaybah is like the occultation of Musa ibn ‘Imran from his people. Based on this claim, it is inevitably not possible for the Imamah to transfer to his son, al Imam al Rida ‘alayh al Salam.
Al Rashti, famously known as Shari’atmadar mentions that “the Sab’iyyah and the Malahidah” are among their nicknames.
The Imami scholars judged this Shia sect to be disbelievers and out of the fold. They also frequently criticize them and describe them with the most repugnant of words, such as “dogs,” “like donkeys and cows.” For this position, the scholars of the Imamiyyah cite as evidence narrations attributed to the Ahlul Bayt. In fact, they even cite verses of the Qur’an that were (allegedly) revealed about them. Al Kashshi narrates on the authority of ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini—he was the leader of the Waqifah:
قال أبو إبراهيم [ موسى بن جعفر ] عليه السلام إنما أنت وأصحابك يا علي أشباه الحمير
Al Kashshi narrates on the authority of ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Zubairi who said:
كتبت إلى أبي الحسن عليه السلام أسأله عن الواقفة فكتب الواقف حائد عن الحق ومقيم على سيئة إن مات بها كانت جهنم مأواه وبئس المصير
I wrote to Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam asking him about the Waqifah.
He wrote, “‘The Waqif deviates from the truth and persists in evil. If he dies with this belief, Jahannam is his abode—and what a miserable abode (it is).”
Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of al Rida ‘alayh al Salam said:
سئل عن الواقفة فقال يعيشون حيارى ويموتون زنادقة
He (i.e., al Rida) was asked about the Waqifah and he said, “They live confused and die as zindiqs (heretics).”
Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of Yusuf ibn Yaqub who said:
قلت لأبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام أعطي هؤلاء الذين يزعمون أن أباك حي من الزكاة شيئا؟ قال لا تعطهم فإنهم كفار مشركون زنادقة
I said to Abu al Hassan al Rida ‘alayh al Salam, “Should I give some zakat to these (people) that claim your father is alive?”
He said, “No. Do not give them. For indeed they are zindiqs (heretics), polytheists, disbelievers.”
The Imamiyyah were not satisfied with criticizing the Waqifah until they (also) made the Qur’an to be revealed about them! Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of Bakr ibn Salih who said:
سمعت الرضا عليه السلام يقول ما تقول الناس في هذه الآية؟ قلت جعلت فداك فأي آية قال قول الله عز وجل وَقَالَتِ ٱلۡيَهُودُ يَدُ ٱللَّهِ مَغۡلُولَةٌۚ غُلَّتۡ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَلُعِنُواْ بِمَا قَالُواْۘ بَلۡ يَدَاهُ مَبۡسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيۡفَ يَشَآءُۚ قلت اختلفوا فيها قال أبو الحسن عليه السلام ولكني أقول نزلت في الواقفة إنهم قالوا لا إمام بعد موسى، فرد الله عليهم بل يداه مبسوطتان واليد هو الإمام في باطن الكتاب وإنما عنى بقولهم لا إمام بعد موسى بن جعفر
I heard al Rida ‘alayh al Salam saying, “What do people say about this verse?”
I said, “May I be made your ransom! Which verse?”
He said, “The statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, ‘And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills.”’
I said, “They differ regarding it.”
Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam said, “However, I say that the verse was revealed regarding the Waqifah. They say that there is no Imam after Musa. And so, Allah refuted them, “Rather, both His hands are extended.” The hand is the Imam in the innermost (meaning of the) Book. What is meant by their statement is that there is no Imam after Musa ibn Jafar.”
Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn ‘Asim who said:
سمعت الرضا عليه السلام يقول يا محمد بن عاصم بلغني أنك تجالس الواقفة؟ قلت نعم جعلت فداك أجالسهم وأنا مخالف لهم قال لا تجالسهم فان الله عز وجل يقول وَقَدۡ نَزَّلَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡكِتَٰبِ أَنۡ إِذَا سَمِعۡتُمۡ ءَايَٰتِ ٱللَّهِ يُكۡفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسۡتَهۡزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقۡعُدُواْ مَعَهُمۡ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُواْ فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيۡرِهِۦٓ إِنَّكُمۡ إِذٗا مِّثۡلُهُمۡۗ يعني بالآيات الأوصياء الذين كفروا بها الواقفة
I heard al Rida ‘alayh al Salam saying, “O, Muhammad ibn ‘Asim. It has reached me that you sit with the Waqifah?”
I said, “Yes, may I be made your ransom! I sit with them but I oppose them.”
He said, “Do not sit with them. For indeed, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states, “And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them.”
By “the verses,” he means the awsiya’ (guardians), those whom the Waqifah deny.”
Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of Sulaiman ibn al Jafari who said:
كنت عند أبي الحسن عليه السلام بالمدينة إذ دخل عليه رجل من أهل المدينة فسأله عن الواقفة فقال أبو الحسن عليه السلام مَّلۡعُونِينَۖ أَيۡنَمَا ثُقِفُوٓاْ أُخِذُواْ وَقُتِّلُواْ تَقۡتِيلٗا والله إن الله لا يبدلها حتى يقتلوا عن آخرهم
I was by Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam in Madinah when a person from Madinah entered and asked him about the Waqifah.
Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam said (quoting the verse), “‘Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.’ By Allah, Allah will not change them until the last of them are killed.”
Al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH) commented on this narration saying:
لعل المراد قتلهم في الرجعة
On the authority of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Rida ‘alayh al Salam:
أن الزيدية والواقفية والنصاب عنده بمنزلة واحدة
Al Kashshi narrated on the authority of Ibn Abi ‘Umair, from the person who narrated to him who said:
سألت محمد بن علي الرضا عليه السلام عن هذه الآية وُجُوهٞ يَوۡمَئِذٍ خَٰشِعَةٌ قال نزلت في النصاب والزيدية والواقفة من النصاب
I asked Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Rida ‘alayh al Salam about the verse: “[Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled.”
He said, “It was revealed about the Nassab and the Zaidiyyah. The Waqifah are from the Nassab.”
The Imami scholars were not satisfied with describing them as “resembling (of) donkeys,” “disbelievers,” “heretics,” “apostates,” “polytheists,” and the fact that their “abode is Jahannam—and what a terrible abode (it is),” and that “they live confused and die as zindiqs (heretics),” and many other such words. They even likened them to impure dogs and cows. Al Majlisi states:
كانوا يسمونهم وأضرابهم من فرق الشيعة سوى الفرقة المحقة الكلاب الممطورة لسراية خبثهم إلى من يقرب منهم
Yusuf al Bahrani (d. 1186 AH) transmitted from al Sheikh al Baha’i (d. 1030 AH) that he said:
إن متقدمي أصحابنا كانوا يسمون تلك الفرق بالكلاب الممطورة أي الكلاب التي أصابها المطر مبالغة في نجاستهم والبعد عنهم
Our earlier companions would name those sects “Al Kilab al Mamturah,” i.e., the dogs that were hit by rain as an exaggeration of their impurity and (maintaining) distance from them.
Al Nuri al Tabarsi (d. 1320 AH) disputed ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi for describing ‘Ammar al Sabati al Fathi as being from the Al Kilab al Mamturah. He states:
قوله من الكلاب الممطورة اشتباه لا ينبغي صدوره من مثله فإن البقر تشابه عليه والكلاب الممطورة من ألقاب الواقفة الجاحدين المكذبين لا الفطحية وبينهما بعد المشرقين
His statement, ‘from al kilab al mamturah,’ is a misgiving that should not have been issued by someone like him. For “indeed, (all) cows look alike to him.” Al Kilab al Mamturah is from the names of the Waqifah, the deniers, not the Fathiyyah. The difference between the two is (like) the difference between the East and the West.
I have mentioned their condition at length so that the reader is aware of the extent to which the Imami scholars were concerned with defaming and insulting them, despite their being Shia and sharing with the Imamiyyah in the foundational doctrine of Imamah. So how about someone who does not believe in Imamah at all!?
After this harsh stance of the Imamiyyah towards the Waqifah Shia, we will see how al Hilli and al Khu’i dealt with them.
Al Hilli’s methodology in his book, al Khulasah, is characterized by strictness and rigidity towards narrators of the Waqifah. Consequently, he accepts nothing from them. And despite their large number, he included them in the second section of his book that is dedicated to both weak narrators and those whose statements are rejected. He also rejected much from them, despite admitting that they are reliable. In fact, it is said about some of them that they are “thiqah thiqah!” Examples of this are many, including the following.
Under the biography of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar ibn Hayyan al Taghlibi, his statement:
ثقة عين روى عن أبي الحسن موسى (عليه السلام) قاله النجاشي وقال أبو جعفر بن بابويه إنه واقفي فإنا في روايته من المتوقفين
Noteworthy (and) reliable. He narrated from Abu al Hassan Musa ‘alayh al Salam. Al Najjashi stated this. Abu Jafar ibn Babawayh stated, “He is a Waqifi.” Accordingly, we suspend judgement on his narration.
Al Hilli mentioned him in the first section. Despite that, he suspended judgement on his narration—even though there is textual evidence of his tawthiq from al Najjashi. Ibn Babawayh did not criticize him; rather, he only stated that he is a Waqifi.
Al Hilli suspended judgement on the person who al Najjashi stated is “thiqah thiqah” for no other reason than his (creedal) school, as is the case with ‘Abdul Karim ibn ‘Amr ibn Salih al Khat’ami. Under his biography, al Hilli states:
قال النجاشي أنه كان ثقة ثقة عينا وكان واقفيا وذكر الشيخ الطوسي رحمه الله والكشي أنه كان واقفيا وقال ابن الغضائري إن الواقفة تدعيه والغلاة تروي عنه كثيرا [قال الحلِّي] والذي أراه التوقف عما يرويه
Al Najjashi states, “He is a thiqah thiqah and noteworthy. He was a Waqifi.” Al Sheikh al Tusi and al Kashshi mentioned that he was a Waqifi. Ibn al Ghada’iri states, “The Waqifah claim him and the Ghulat (Extremists) narrate much from him.” [Al Hilli states] I consider suspending judgement on what he narrates.
This is regarding a narrator about whom there is textual evidence of his tawthiq. As for the narrator whose narration he rejects for no other reason than (the issue of) Waqf (i.e., being a Waqifi), they are tens of such narrators. Examples of this are many. In fact, in the first three biographies in the second section, he rejects their narrations because they are Waqifah.
This harshness is not without exception. What al Hilli states in his book, al Khulasah, is at variance with what he mentions in his other writings—if there is a perceived benefit in this. For example, al Hilli states here:
هذا الحديث وإن كان في طريقه الحسين بن المختار وهو واقفي إلا أن ابن عقدة وثقه
This hadith, even though its chain contains al Hussain ibn al Mukhtar (who is a Waqifi), Ibn ‘Uqdah made tawthiq of him.
Bearing in mind that, according to al Hilli, Ibn ‘Uqdah is da’if!
Al Hilli also supports the narration of a Waqifi when most of his companions’ act on it, and also when the narration is famously known. He states:
عن أبي بصير قال سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن الكر من الماء كم يكون قدره قال إذا كان الماء ثلاثة أشبار ونصفا في مثله في ثلاثة أشبار ونصف في عمقه في الأرض فذلك الكر من الماء.وهذه الرواية عمل عليها أكثر الأصحاب إلا أن في طريقها عثمان بن عيسى وهو واقفي لكن الشهرة تعضدها
On the authority of Abu Basir who said, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam about a quart of water. How much is it?’’
He said, “When the water is three-and-a-half hand spans and the same amount into the ground, then this is a quart of water.”
Most of the companions act on this narration even though its chain (of narration) contains ‘Uthman ibn ‘Isa. He is a Waqifi. However, the fact that it is well-known notoriety strengthens it.
Contrary to the harshness of al Hilli, we find al Khu’i accepting the narration of the Waqifah, without any objection. And, why not? He even accepts the narration of the extreme Mukhammisah!
Al Khu’i explicitly stated that he accepts the narrations of the Waqifah, despite the severe criticism laid against them that has already been mentioned in the narrations that they attribute to the Ahlul Bayt. In fact, al Khu’i, at times, even defends the Waqifah and refutes Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli. Under the biography of al Hussain ibn al Mukhtar, al Khu’i states:
ذكره العلامة في القسم الثاني…وترك العمل بروايته من جهة بنائه على أنه واقفي والأصل في ذلك شهادة الشيخ في رجاله على وقفه ويرده أولا أن الوقف لا يمنع العمل بالرواية بعد كون راويها ثقة والحسين بن المختار ثقة كما عرفت
Al ‘Allamah mentioned him in the second section… He left acting on his narration based on the fact that he is a Waqifi. The basis for him being regarded as a Waqifi is the testimony of al Sheikh in his book, al Rijal.
The response to this is, firstly, that (the doctrine of) Waqf does not prevent a person from acting on the Waqifi’s narration after it is proven that he is a thiqah. And, as you know, al Hassan ibn Saif is a thiqah.
In a similar manner, al Khu’i explains the methodology of al Hilli regarding the Waqifah. Under the biography of al Hassan ibn Saif, he states:
أما توقف العلامة رحمه الله فمن جهة أنه لم يثبت كون الرجل من الفرقة المحقة على ما بنى عليه من عدم حجية خبر الواقفة ونحوهم
As for al ‘Allamah (may Allah have mercy on him) suspending judgement, it is based on the fact that it has yet to be proven that the man (i.e., the narrator) is from the correct sect. This is premised upon his view that the report of the Waqifah and their likes holds no authoritative value.
This does not mean that al Khu’i accepts the narration of every Waqifi; rather, he requires that the narrator’s tawthiq is proven, irrespective of his (creedal) school. And so, he deals with him like an Imami; if a tawthiq has been issued in his favour, he (too) makes tawthiq of him. And if his weakness is established for a reason other than his (creedal) school, he (too) considers him weak. And if there is no criticism or praise established about him, then he remains unverified and his narration is rejected. An example of this is what al Khu’i mentioned—after a long discussion—under the biography of Hamzah ibn Buzay’:
فالمتحصل مما ذكرناه أن الرجل واقفي لم يوثق
Based on what we have mentioned, the conclusion is that the man is a Waqifi whose tawthiq has not been made.
And with this, the position of al Khu’i is clear to us; he does not see anything wrong with accepting the narration of the Waqifah, even though they were described by Imami scholars as “resembling donkeys,” “disbelievers,” “heretics,” “apostates,” “their abode is Jahannam—and what a terrible abode (it is),” “they live confused and die as zindiqs (heretics),” “polytheists,” “cows,” and “impure dogs”!
Al Shahrastani (d. 548 AH) states:
الأفطحية قالوا بانتقال الإمامة من الصادق إلى ابنه عبدالله الأفطح، وهو أخو إسماعيل من أبيه وأمه وأمهما فاطمة بنت الحسين بن الحسين بن الحسن ابن علي وكان أسن الأولاد زعموا أنه قال الإمامة في أكبر أولاد الإمام
The Aftahiyyah consider Imamah as having transferred from al Sadiq to his son, ‘Abdullah al Aftah. He is the brother of Ismail from his 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 for the oldest child of the Imam.”
Al Kashshi dedicated an entire separate chapter to them and said:
هم القائلون بإمامة عبد الله بن جعفر بن محمد وسموا بذلك لأنه قيل إنه كان أفطح الرأس وقال بعضهم كان أفطح الرجلين وقال بعضهم إنهم نسبوا إلى رئيس من أهل الكوفة يقال له عبد الله بن فطيح والذين قالوا بإمامته عامة مشايخ العصابة وفقهاؤها مالوا إلى هذه المقالة فدخلت عليهم الشبهة لما روي عنهم عليه السلام أنهم قالوا الإمامة في الأكبر من ولد الإمام إذا مضى ثم منهم من رجع عن القول بإمامته لما امتحنه بمسائل من الحلال والحرام لم يكن عنده فيها جواب ولما ظهر منه من الأشياء التي لا ينبغي أن يظهر من الإمام. ثم إن عبد الله مات بعد أبيه بسبعين يوما فرجع الباقون إلا شذاذا منهم عن القول بإمامته إلى القول بإمامة أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام
‘They consider ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar ibn Muhammad as the (rightful) Imam. They were given that name because it was said that he (i.e., ‘Abdullah al Aftah) had a flat head. Some of them said he had flat feet. Some of them said that they were associated to a leader from the people of Kufah who was known as ‘Abdullah ibn fatih.
Most of the scholars of the group and its jurists were inclined towards this view. Uncertainty came into them because of what was narrated about them that they said, “Imamah is for the oldest child of the Imam if he lives.”
Subsequently, there were those among them who withdrew from the opinion of his Imamah when he was tested with issues related to halal and haram and had no answers. Also, because of the fact that certain things manifested themselves that were not appropriate to have come from the Imam. Furthermore, ‘Abdullah passed away seventy days after his father and so the others reverted from the opinion of his Imamah to the Imamah of Abu al Hassan Musa ‘alayh al Salam save a few among them.
The Imamiyyah’s position on the Fathiyyah is different to their position on other sects of the Shia. This is because the hostility of the Imamiyyah to the Fathiyyah was significantly less compared to their hostility towards the other dissenting sects. Perhaps the reason for this is what al Kashshi previously mentioned, “Most of the scholars of the group and its jurists are inclined towards this view.”
Al Nuri al Tabarsi explains the reason why the Imamiyyah did not criticize the Fathiyyah so much. He states:
اعلم أولا أن الفطحية أقرب المذاهب الباطلة إلى مذهب الإمامية وليس فيهم معاندة وإنكار للحق وتكذيب لأحد من الأئمة الإثني عشر (عليهم السلام) بل لا فرق بينهم وبين الإمامية أصولا وفروعا أصلا إلا في اعتقادهم إمامة إمام بين الصادق والكاظم (عليهما السلام) في سبعين يوما لم تكن له راية فيحضروا تحتها ولا بيعة لزمهم الوفاء بها ولا أحكام في حلال وحرام وتكاليف في فرائض وسنن وآداب كانوا يتلقونها ولا غير ذلك من اللوازم الباطلة والآثار الفاسدة الخارجية المريبة غالبا على إمامة الأئمة الذين يدعون إلى النار سوى الاعتقاد المحض الخالي عن الآثار الناشئ عن شبهة حصلت لهم عن بعض الأخبار وإنما كان مدار مذهبهم على ما أخذوه من الأئمة السابقة واللاحقة صلوات الله عليهم كالإمامية ومن هنا تعرف وجه عدم ورود لعن وذم فيهم، وعدم أمرهم (عليهم السلام) بمجانبتهم كما ورد ذم الزيدية والواقفة وأمثالهما ولعنهم
Firstly, know that the Fathiyyah are the closest of false (creedal) schools to the school of the Imamiyyah. There is no opposition, denial of the truth, and belying any of the Twelve Imams ‘alayhim al Salam. In fact, there is no actual difference between them and the Imamiyyah in terms of their legal theory and (its) branches. However, in their creed is (the belief of) the Imamah of an Imam between al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam and al Kazim ‘alayh al Salam for seventy days. He did not have a banner for them to rally under, nor any allegiance they were obliged to fulfill, nor any halal and haram rulings (to advise on), nor were there any duties related to fara’id (compulsory acts), sunan, and adab (etiquettes) for them to receive from him, nor any other types of false requirements and incorrect external reports that mostly cause doubt regarding the authority of those leaders who call people to the Hell Fire. There is only a sheer belief, free from any reports. A belief which stemmed from a misgiving concerning certain reports. Their doctrine was based on what they received from the previous and subsequent Imams ‘alayhim al Salam, such as the Imamiyyah. From here, you understand the reason for not cursing and rebuking them, and also why the Imams did not instruct (their followers) to abstain from them, as the Imams were reported to have ordered the rebuking and cursing of the Zaidiyyah, Waqifah, and their likes.
For this reason, they were the closest of groups to the Imamiyyah to such an extent that some of the Imami scholars described some of the Fathiyyah as “from the companions,” or, “(possessing of) integrity.” Other Imamis have objected to this to such an extent that al Khu’i rejected those who objected to Muawiyah ibn Hakim—despite being a Fathi—being described as ‘adal, or possessing of integrity. Al Khu’i states:
أما توصيفه بالعدالة فقد ذكرنا في ترجمة محمد بن سالم بن عبد الحميد أن المراد بالعدالة في كلام الكشي هو الاستقامة في مقام العمل بالمواظبة على الواجبات والاجتناب عن المحرمات وهذا لا ينافي فساد العقيدة من جهة كونه فطحيا وأما عده من فقهاء أصحابنا والاعتناء بشأنه فهو من جهة التزامه بالأئمة الاثني عشر وإن زاد عليها واحدا وهو عبد الله الأفطح فالمراد من أصحابنا من يلتزم بإمامتهم ومعاوية بن حكيم منهم ومما يكشف عن ذلك قول النجاشي في ترجمة علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضَّال كان فقيه أصحابنا بالكوفة ووجههم وثقتهم وكان فطحيا وأما ما احتمله بعضهم من حمل كلام الكشي على أنه كان فطحيا أولا، ثم رجع عن ذلك بعد موت عبد الله بن أفطح فهو عجيب فإن معاوية بن حكيم لم يدرك زمان عبد الله الأفطح جزما على أنه خلاف ظاهر عبارة الكشي من أن معاوية بن حكيم فطحي على الاطلاق
As for him being described as possessing of ‘adalah, we have mentioned under the biography of Muhammad ibn Salim ibn ‘Abdul Hamid that the meaning of ‘adalah in the words of al Kashshi is to be upright in terms of upholding the compulsory acts and refraining from the prohibited ones. This does not contradict the false belief he holds of being a Fathi. As for regarding him “among the jurists of our companions” and “granting him prominence,” it is because of his adherence to the Twelve Imams—even though he added one more to them, ‘Abdullah al Aftah. The meaning of “from our companions,” is he who adheres to their Imamah. And Muawiyah ibn Hakim is from them. What reveals this is the statement of al Najjashi under the biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Faddal, “He was the jurist from our companions in Kufah, their luminary, and their reliable personality. He was a Fathi. As for some of them upholding the words of al Kashshi that he was firstly a Fathi and then he renounced that after the death of ‘Abdullah ibn Aftah, this is odd; Muawiyah ibn Hakim categorically did not reach the time of ‘Abdullah al Aftah. Nevertheless, it is at variance with the text of al Kashshi which states that Muawiyah ibn Hakim is, unrestrictedly, a Fathi.
By means of all of this compassion with the Fathiyyah, al Majlisi comes along and explains the opinion of the Imami scholars about them without any Taqiyyah. He states:
كتب أخبارنا مشحونة بالأخبار الدالة على كفر الزيدية وأمثالهم من الفطحية والواقفة وغيرهم من الفرق المضلة المبتدعة
The books of our (hadith) reports are replete with reports indicating to the disbelief of the Zaidiyyah and their likes from the Fathiyyah, Waqifah, and other heretical, misguided sects.
When we understand this background to the position of the Imamiyyah on the Fathiyyah, it becomes possible for us to know the opinion of both al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding them.
The methodology of al Hilli in dealing with the Fathiyyah is not very much different to how he deals with the other opposing sects, despite the former being the closest in belief to the Imamiyyah. This is taking into consideration the difference of opinion that exists on account of which al Hilli rejects the tawthiq of a narrator—unless of course a claim of consensus is made; in which case al Hilli accepts and makes tawthiq of him, even though he, in al Hilli’s view, holds a false belief. The following biographies will clarify this for us.
Al Hilli states:
[قال الكشي] إن عبدالله بن بكير ممن اجتمعت العصابة على تصحيح ما يصح عنه واقروا له بالفقه، [فقال الحلِّي] فأنا اعتمد على روايته وإن كان فاسد المذهب
(Al Kashshi states:) ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr is from those whom the group agrees upon regarding authenticating what is authentically established from him. They admit to his fiqhi abilities. (Al Hilli states:) Therefore, I rely on his narrations, even though he holds a false belief.
Al Hilli refuted those who questioned the tawthiq of Ibn Bukayr even though he was not an Imami. He states:
لا يقال في طريق الرواية ابن بكير وهو فطحي فكيف جعلتم الرواية في الصحيح لأنا نقول قال الكشي أجمعت العصابة على تصحيح ما يصح عن ابن بكير
It cannot be said that the chain of narration contains Ibn Bukayr—who is a Fathi. And so, how can you place the narration in the authentic (category)? (We do so) because we say that al Kashshi states, “There is a consensus among the group (of Shia) on authenticating what is authentically transmitted from Ibn Bukayr.”
This clearly shows that he made tawthiq of him because of the ijma’.
Al Hilli mentions the previous statement of al Kashshi and his claiming consensus on accepting some narrators, among them Aban ibn ‘Uthman. Thereafter, al Hilli states:
والأقرب عندي قبول روايته وإن كان فاسد المذهب للإجماع المذكور
Accepting his narrations is, according to me, (the opinion) closest (to the truth). This, despite the fact that he, by the aforementioned consensus, holds a false belief.
Thus, the tawthiq of al Hilli goes back to the ijma’ which al Kashshi mentioned, not because they are, in his view, reliable narrators.
والوجه عندي أن روايته مرجحة
The correct view, according to me, is that his narrations are favourable.
Thus, we find al Hilli treating his narrations as favourable, despite al Najjashi’s explicit statement (of tawthiq) and the infallible’s narration in praise of him. However, under the biography of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Faddal—who is a Fathi, he states:
شهد له بالثقة الشيخ الطوسي والنجاشي فأنا اعتمد على روايته وإن كان مذهبه فاسدا
Al Tusi and al Sheikh al Najjashi testified to his reliability. Therefore, I (too) rely on his narrations, even though his (doctrinal) school is false.
In summary, when al Hilli sees the statements of both al Tusi and al Najjashi in agreement regarding the tawthiq of a narrator, he gives preference to their tawthiq over his own principle of rejecting the narrations of his (creedal) opposition.
It can be said that al Hilli makes tawthiq of narrators who hold opposing beliefs for several reasons, including when:
However, al Hilli did not adhere to all of these issues. He made tawthiq of a man in al Khulasah and considered him weak in his (other) jurisprudential works, and vice-versa. This, despite the fact the he is from the opposing sects. Thus, the reason for deeming him to be weak is only because he opposes him in his belief. An example of this is when he made tawthiq of ‘Ali ibn Asbat. In the first section of al Khulasah, he states:
فأنا اعتمد على روايته
Therefore, I rely on his narrations.
Similarly, as we have already seen, he made tawthiq of ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr. And when there was a perceivable benefit in deeming a narration weak, he stated:
أنه ضعيف السند فإن ابن بكير فطحي المذهب وإن كان ثقة وفي طريقه علي بن أسباط وهو فطحي أيضا وسهل بن زياد وهو ضعيف
It is weak in terms of its sanad because Ibn Bukayr is a Fathi in his (creedal) school, even though he is reliable. ‘Ali ibn Asbat, who is also a Fathi, is in the chain. Sahl ibn Ziyad is also in the chain and he is weak.
Thus, he rejected the hadith on account of three reasons, among which is the fact that Ibn Bukayr is a Fathi. In the same book just a few pages before this, we find him saying:
عبد الله بن بكير وإن كان فطحيا إلا أن المشائخ وثقوه
‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr, even though he is a Fathi, the scholars made tawthiq of him.
If a person were to say that this is an error from al Hilli, or, perhaps he simply made a mistake, I would unequivocally state that it is an actual methodology that he is following. The examples clearly demonstrate what I have mentioned since his actual position is based on where there lies more of a perceived benefit. Likewise, al Hilli deemed Ibn Bukayr weak in another place. Commenting on a narration, he states:
بالمنع من صحة السند فإن في طريقه القاسم بن عروة ولا يحضرني الآن حاله وابن بكير وهو فطحي
The sanad cannot be authentic. It contains al Qasim ibn ‘Urwah—his condition is not coming to me at this time—and Ibn Bukayr. He is a Fathi.
Also, under the previously mentioned ‘Ali ibn Asbat, he states about him after rejecting his narrations in his book, Mukhtalif al Shia:
وفي طريقها علي بن فضَّال وهو فطحي وعلي بن أسباط وإن كان فطحيا إلا أن الأصحاب شهدوا لهما بالثقة والصدق
In its chain of narration is ‘Ali ibn Faddal. He is a Fathi. (It also contains) ‘Ali ibn Asbat, and even though he is a Fathi, the companions have testified to their reliability and truthfulness.
In each of the books, he has an opinion at variance with his other opinion. For this reason, the scholar is unable to accurately determine the methodology of al Hilli because he himself did not follow a clear method on narrators. Even Muhammad al Bustani (who wrote an introduction to the book, Muntaha al Matlab) acknowledged this reality, even though he initially attempted to exonerate al Hilli from such a claim. And so, when he felt that his attempt at exonerating him fell short, he presumed incertitude because the matter lacked clarity. In a lengthy discussion that is very important, he states:
إسقاط المؤلف [الحلِّي] حينا الرواية ثم العمل بها حينا آخر حيث يصرح في الحالة الأولى بسبب ذلك وهو ضعف الراوي كما لو كان فطحيا أو واقفيا أو غيرهما من أمثال سماعة وعمار وابن فضَّال وابن بكير وسواهم ولكنه وفي الحالة الثانية يصرح بأن الراوي ثقة مع أن الراوي هو نفسه في الحالتين أي إنه بسبب من كون أولئك الرواة قد تأرجح القول في وثاقتهم وعدمها حيث وثقهم البعض وقدح فيهم بعض آخر حينئذ نجده عند التأييد لوجهة نظره يصرح بوثاقتهم من قبل أهل التعديل والجرح مع أنه في كتابه الرجالي المعروف يحسم الموقف حينا فيميل إلى الترجيح بوثاقتهم ويتردد بالنسبة إلى آخرين وأما في حالة أخرى نجده يقدح بهم وهذا ما يمكن ملاحظته على سبيل الاستشهاد بالنسبة إلى ابن فضَّال حيث نجده في ذهابه إلى عدم إجزاء الغسل عن الوضوء يسقط رواية ابن فضَّال القاضية بالأجزاء قائلا بأنه فطحي كذلك بالنسبة لإسقاطه روايتين لحظناهما عند حديثنا عن روايات تبييت النية في سفر رمضان حيث أسقطهما لمكان ابن فضَّال فيهما ولكنه بالنسبة لحكم الحائض المبتدئة مثلا يعلق على رواية في طريقها ابن فضَّال نفسه قائلا وهو فطحي إلا أن الأصحاب شهدوا له بالثقة والصدق بل نجده في إيراده لرواية أخرى لابن فضَّال تتعلق بوجوب الغسل في صحة الصوم بالنسبة إلى الحائض يستشهد بقول النجاشي عن ابن فضَّال فقيه أصحابنا بالكوفة ووجههم وثقتهم وعارفهم بالحديث إلخ والأمر كذلك بالنسبة إلى رواة آخرين مثل عمر وإسحاق و حيث يسقط رواياتهم عند الرد ويضفي عليهم طابع الوثاقة عندما يعزز برواياتهم وجهة نظره مشيرا إلى أن الأصحاب شهدوا بالثقة لهذا الراوي أو ذاك إنه من الممكن أن نقول المؤلف حينما سكت عن عمار أو سماعة أو ابن فضَّال أو غيرهم فلأن مناقشيه يعتمدون رواياتهم مثلا وأنه لا يعتمدهم في حالة تقديمه لأدلته الخاصة لكن حينما يؤكد على أن الأصحاب شهدوا لهم بالثقة حينئذ كيف يسوغ له أن يرفض رواياتهم التي لا تتسق مع وجهة نظره وبكلمة جديدة إن المؤلف إما أن يكون مقتنعا بوثاقتهم وهذا هو الصحيح بدليل أنه وثقهم كما لحظنا في النماذج السابقة فضلا عما أوضحه أيضا في كتابه الرجالي وإما أن يقتنع بعدم وثاقتهم، فحينئذ لا معنى للاعتماد على رواياتهم إلا في حالة الإلزام وهذا ما لا ينطبق على حالة الرواة المشار إليهم طبيعيا لو كان المؤلف مقتنعا بعدم وثاقتهم كما هو الحال بالنسبة إلى راو مثل أحمد بن هلال مثلا فحينئذ عندما يسكت عن الظن به نفسر ذلك بأنه يستهدف إلزام المخالف بروايته كما حدث بالنسبة إلى استدلاله على مطهرية المستعمل في رفع الحدث الأصغر وعند ما يطعن بالرواية نفسها كما حدث بالنسبة إلى استدلاله على مطهرية المستعمل في رفع الحدث الأكبر حيث نفت الرواية ذلك حينئذ نفسر موقفه بأن قناعته الحقيقية بعدم وثاقة الراوي المذكور تفرض عليه ذلك وأن عدم طعنه إنما جاء إلزاما للمخالف فحسب أما في حالة كونه قد اقتنع بوثاقة الراوي كما هو الحال بالنسبة لبعض الفطحيين والواقفيين حينئذ فإن رفض رواياتهم يظل محل تساؤل
The author (al Hilli) dropping a narration in one instance and then acting on it in another such that he explicitly mentions in the first situation the reason—which is because of the narrator being weak on account of being a Fathi, or Waqifi, or something else like Samma’ah, ‘Ammar, Ibn Faddal, Ibn Bukayr, and others. However, in the second situation, he explicitly mentions that the narrator is a ‘thiqah,’ despite the fact that the narrator is the same (person) in both situations. In other words, because of the fact that there is uncertainty regarding the narrators’ “reliability or lack thereof” such that some of them have made their tawthiq and others have criticized them, then, in such an instance we find him, when supporting his point of view, explicitly stating their reliability by means of the people of jarh and ta’dil. This, “despite the fact that in his famous book on narrators the position is, at times, settled; he inclines towards preferring their tawthiq and remains hesitant in relation to others.” In another situation, we find him criticizing them. This can be seen, by way of example, with Ibn Faddal. In holding his view that ghusl is not sufficient for wudu’—he drops the narration of Ibn Faddal that says it (i.e., ghusl) is sufficient (for wudu’). He claims that he is a ‘Fathi.’
Similarly, in relation to dropping two narrations, we noticed them when we were speaking about the narrations in relation to renewing the intention (for fasting) while on journey in Ramadan. He dropped them because of Ibn Faddal’s position in the narrations. However, regarding the ruling of a lady who first experiences her menstruation, for example, he comments on a narration narrated by Ibn Faddal himself saying: “He is a Fathi. However, the companions have testified in favour of his reliability and truthfulness.” In fact, in relation to the necessity of a menstruating woman to make ghusl for her fast to be valid, we find him mentioning another narration of Ibn Faddal by citing al Najjashi’s statement, “He was the jurist from our companions in Kufah, their luminary, reliable personality, and their knowledgeable hadith scholar…” It is the same situation in relation to other narrators, such as ‘Umar, Ishaq, and others; he drops their narrations “when disproving” and labels them “reliable” when reinforcing his view with their narrations, indicating that the companions have testified in favour of this or that narrator’s reliability. It is conceivable for us to say that the author, when he remains silent about ‘Ammar, or Samma’ah, or Ibn Faddal, or others, it is as if his interlocutors rely on their narrations, for example. And that he does not rely on them if he presents his own evidence. However, when he affirms that the companions have testified to their reliability, in this instance, how is it possible for him to reject their narrations which are not in harmony with his point of view. Stated differently, the author is either convinced of their reliability—which is the correct view—because of the proof that he made tawthiq of them. This is clear from the previous examples, in addition to what he also clarified in his book on narrators. Or, he is convinced that they are not reliable. In such an instance, there is no meaning to relying on their narrations except in the instance of ilzam, or forcing proof on someone to accept an argument. This does not apply to the case of the narrators referred to (above). Naturally, if the author was convinced with them not being reliable, as is the case with the narrator Ahmed ibn Hilal, for example, then when he remains silent and has no opinion on him, we interpret that to mean that he is looking to impose a proof on his interlocutor with that narrator’s narration. This is precisely what happened when he attempted to prove the that the purity of water (remains) after it was used for removing a minor impurity. When he ‘criticized’ an actual narration, as it happened when he attempted to prove the that the purity of water (remains) after it was used for removing a major impurity—when the narration denies that. In this instance, we interpret his position such that his actual conviction that the aforementioned narrator is unreliable was imposed upon him. And the fact that he did not criticize him only came because he wanted to “force proof” on his interlocutor (to accept the argument). As for the situation where he is convinced of the narrator’s reliability—as is the case with some of the Fathi and Waqifi narrators—then, the rejection of their narrations remains questionable.
For me, this is not just a question, but I consider it a clearly defined methodology that al Hilli follows and is satisfied with. This methodology is that he does not adhere to the principles he laid out when there is no perceived benefit in doing so. Adherence to these principles only occurs when there is a perceived benefit therein. This is one of the greatest criticisms of the Akhbariyyah against those Usuli scholars who claim to follow a method of critical analysis. At the head of this (Usuli school), is al Hilli. Perceiving this reality, al Bahrani al Akhbari (d. 1186 AH) states:
فلاضطراب كلامهم في الجرح والتعديل على وجه لا يقبل الجمع والتأويل فترى الواحد منهم يخالف نفسه فضلا عن غيره فهذا يقدم الجرح على التعديل وهذا يقول لا يقدم إلا مع عدم إمكان الجمع وهذا يقدم النجاشي على الشيخ وهذا ينازعه ويطالبه بالدليل وبالجملة فالخائض في الفن يجزم بصحة ما ادعيناه والبناء من أصله لما كان على غير أساس كثر الانتقاض فيه والالتباس
Because their words related to al jarh wa al ta’dil are confusing such that they can neither be reconciled nor (reasonably) interpreted. Thus, you will see one of them contradicting himself, let alone others. This person gives preference to the jarh over the ta’dil. This (other) person says that it (i.e., the jarh) is only to be given preference when there is no possibility of jam’ (reconciliation). This (other) person prefers al Najjashi over al Sheikh (al Tusi). This (other) person disagrees with him and demands proof (for his claim). In summary, anyone who gets into the science will conclusively agree that what we are claiming is correct. When an edifice lacks a foundation, there is much criticism and confusion.
Al Khu’i dealt with the narrators of the Waqifah similar to how he dealt with other narrators. As mentioned previously on numerous occasions, having a false creed has no bearing, according to al Khu’i, on determining the acceptability of a narrator’s narration. An example of this is the documented text of al Khu’i on (the doctrine of) Waqf not negatively affecting the tawthiq of a narrator. Under the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr, he states:
إنك قد عرفت توثيق عبد الله بن بكير من الشيخ والمفيد وعلي ابن إبراهيم وعد الكشي إياه من أصحاب الاجماع فلا ينبغي الاشكال في وثاقته وإن كان فطحيا
You already know of the tawthiq of ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr from al Sheikh, al Mufid, and ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim. Al Kashshi counted him among the people of consensus. Thus, there should be no problem with his reliability, even though he is a Fathi.
Al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 AH) defines them as:
“أول من شذ عن الحق من فرق الإمامية “الكيسانية” وهم أصحاب المختار، وإنما سميت بهذا الاسم لأن المختار كان اسمه أولا كيسان، وقيل إنما سمي بهذا الاسم لأن أباه حمله وهو صغير فوضعه بين يدي أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام قالوا فمسح يده على رأسه وقال كيس كيس فلزمه هذا الاسم وزعمت فرقة منهم أن محمد بن علي عليه السلام استعمل المختار على العراقيين بعد قتل الحسين عليه السلام وأمره بالطلب بثأره وسماه كيسان لما عرف من قيامه ومذهبه وهذه الحكايات في معنى اسمه عن الكيسانية خاصة فأما نحن فلا نعرف إلا أنه سمى بهذا الاسم ولا نتحقق معناه وقالت هذه الطائفة بإمامة أبي القاسم محمد بن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ابن خولة الحنفية وزعموا أنه هو المهدي الذي يملأ الأرض قسطا وعدلا كما ملئت ظلما وجورا وأنه حي لم يمت ولا يموت حتى يظهر الحق وتعلقت في إمامته بقول أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يوم البصرة أنت ابني حقا وأنه كان صاحب رايته كما كان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام صاحب راية رسول الله [صلى الله عليه وسلم] وكان ذلك عنده الدليل على أنه أولى الناس بمقامه
The first sect of the Imamiyyah to deviate from the truth was the Kaysaniyyah. They are the companions of al Mukhtar. The reason they were given this name is because al Mukhtar’s name was originally Kaysan. It is said that he was given this name because his father carried him when he was young and placed him before Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam. They (i.e., those that were present) said that he wiped over his head and said: ‘Kayyis (Intelligent). Kayyis.’ From then on, this name stuck with him.
One of their sects claimed that Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam elected al Mukhtar to govern over the ‘Iraqis after al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam was killed. He ordered him to seek revenge and named him Kaysan because of what he knew of his (outstanding) performance and manner.
These incidents are in reference to the meaning of his name originating from the Kaysaniyyah. As for us, we only know that he was given this name without knowing the particular reasons as to why. This sect believes in the Imamah of Abu al Qasim Muhammad ibn Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam, Ibn Khawlah al Hanafiyyah. They claim that he is the Mahdi that will “fill the earth with equity and justice” as it was “filled with oppression and tyranny.” They also claim that he is alive and has not died, and that he will not die until the truth manifests. Regarding his Imamah, they attach the statement of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam on the day of Basrah, “You are truly my son.” And that he was his flagbearer just as Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam was the flagbearer of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This was sufficient evidence for him to conclude that he is the most deserving of people for this position.
Concerning narration number 204, al Kashshi states:
والمختار هو الذي دعا الناس إلى محمد بن علي بن أبي طالب ابن الحنفية وسموا الكيسانية وهم المختارية وكان لقبه كيسان ولقب بكيسان لصاحب شرطه المكنى أبا عمرة وكان اسمه كيسان وقيل إنه سمي كيسان بكيسان مولى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وهو الذي حمله على الطلب بدم الحسين عليه السلام ودله على قتلته وكان صاحب سره والغالب على أمره وكان لا يبلغه عن رجل من أعداء الحسين عليه السلام أنه في دار أو في موضع إلا قصده فهدم الدار بأسرها وقتل كل من فيها من ذي روح وكل دار بالكوفة خراب فهي مما هدمها
Al Mukhtar is the one to call people to Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ibn al Hanafiyyah. They are called the Kaysaniyyah. They are the Mukhtariyyah. His nickname was Kaysan. He was given the nickname after one of his personal; bodyguards, known as Abu ‘Amrah (and) whose name was Kaysan. It is said that he was named Kaysan because of Kaysan, the (prominent) mawla (client) of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam. He is the one who made him seek revenge for the blood of al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam and directed him to kill him. He was his secret keeper and he reigned over his affair. The news of a man from the enemies of al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam that he was in a (particular) house or in a (certain) place would not reach him except that he pursued him. he destroyed the house with its people (inside) and killed everyone therein with a soul. Every house that is in ruins in Kufah was destroyed by him.
However, al Khu’i rejected what al Kashshi mentioned. Under the biography of al Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaidah al Thaqafi, he states:
أنه نسب بعض العامة المختار إلى الكيسانية وقد استشهد لذلك بما في الكشي من قوله والمختار هو الذي دعا الناس إلى محمد بن علي ابن أبي طالب ابن الحنفية وسموا الكيسانية وهم المختارية وكان [لقبه] كيسان… إلى آخر ما تقدم، وهذا القول باطل جزما فإن محمد بن الحنفية لم يدع الإمامة لنفسه حتى يدعو المختار الناس إليه وقد قتل المختار ومحمد بن الحنفية حي وإنما حدثت الكيسانية بعد وفاة محمد بن الحنفية وأما أن لقب مختار هو كيسان فإن صح ذلك فمنشؤه ما تقدم في رواية الكشي من قول أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام له مرتين يا كيس يا كيس فثنى كلمة كيس وقيل كيسان
Some of the ‘Ammah attributed al Mukhtar to the Kaysaniyyah. The statement of al Kashshi was cited for this (claim), “Al Mukhtar is the one to call people to Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn al Hanafiyyah. They were named the Kaysaniyyah. They are the Mukhtariyyah. His nickname was Kaysan…”
This statement is patently false. Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah did not call to Imamah for himself until al Mukhtar called people towards it. Al Mukhtar was killed while Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah was alive. The Kaysaniyyah only came into being after the death of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. As for the claim that the nickname of Mukhtar was Kaysan, if it is correct, then it is based on the statement of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam that was previously mentioned in the narration of al Kashshi, ‘O, Kayyis. O, Kayyis.’ He repeated the words ‘Kayyis’ twice. It was said (that he said) ‘Kaysan.’”
In summary, the Kaysaniyyah are a sect from the sects of the Shia that claim Imamah for Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The position of al Hilli on the Kaysaniyyah is no different to the other opposing sects of the Shia. This sect practically does not exist and its narrators are very few. Therefore, al Hilli only mentions the great Sahabi, Abu Tufayl ‘Amir ibn Wathilah.
He included him in the section of weak narrators and only mentioned the following:
عامر بن واثلة بالثاء المنقطة فوقها ثلاث نقط كيساني
‘Amir ibn Wathilah is a Kaysani.
Al Hilli did not mention a reason to place him in the section of weak narrators except for the fact that he described him as a Kaysani!
Despite earnestly searching, I could not find anything of al Khu’i related to the Kaysaniyyah in terms of accepting or rejecting their narrations. However, what has been consistently reported from al Khu’i regarding his ruling on the people of different sects proves to us his opinion on a Kaysani narrator. This is because he does not reject the narration of a narrator merely because of his (creedal) school, as he states in relation to one of the narrators of the Waqifah:
أن الوقف لا يمنع العمل بالرواية بعد كون راويها ثقة
(The belief of) Waqf does not prevent acting on a narration after establishing the narrator is reliable.
Under the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr, he states:
فلا ينبغي الإشكال في وثاقته وإن كان فطحيا
Thus, there should be no problem with his reliability, even though he is a Fathi.
From what we know of al Khu’i’s methodology, when we extend it, it can also apply to the Kaysaniyyah.
Al Shahrastani (d. 548 AH) defines the Zaidiyyah saying:
أتباع زيد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنهم ساقوا الإمامة في أولاد فاطمة رضي الله عنها ولم يجوزوا ثبوت الإمامة في غيرهم إلا أنهم جوزوا أن يكون كل فاطمي عالم زاهد شجاع سخي خرج بالإمامة أن يكون إماما واجب الطاعة سواء كان من أولاد الحسن أو من أولاد الحسين رضي الله…وجوزا خروج إمامين في قطرين يستجمعان هذه الخصال ويكون كل واحد منهما واجب الطاعة
وزيد بن علي لما كان مذهبه هذا المذهب أراد أن يحصل الأصول والفروع حتى يتحلى بالعلم [فتتلمذ] في الأصول لواصل بن عطاء الغزال الألثغ رأس المعتزلة…وصارت أصحابه كلهم معتزلة…ولما سمعت شيعة الكوفة هذه المقالة منه وعرفوا أنه لا يتبرأ من الشيخين رفضوه حتى أتى قدره عليه فسميت رافضة …… [الزيدية] أصناف ثلاثة: جارودية وسليمانية وبترية
The followers of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They supported the function of Imamah within the children of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and did not permit it outside of them. However, they permitted every Fatimi scholar that is generous, brave, and an ascetic that proclaims Imamah as an Imam who it is compulsory to obey, whether he is from the children of al Hassan or the children of al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma… They (also) permitted two Imams in two (different) areas to come out who share these qualities and whose obedience is compulsory.
And when this mazhab was Zaid ibn ‘Ali’s mazhab, he desired to acquire (knowledge pertaining to) the usul and furu’ (i.e., of the religion) so that he may be adorned with knowledge. (As such, he studied) in usul under Wasil ibn ‘Ata’ al Ghazzal al Althagh, the leader of the Mu’tazilah… All of his companions became Mu’tazilah… When the Shia of Kufah heard this rhetoric from him and they knew that he did not renounce the Sheikhayn, they rejected him until his destiny came to him. And so, they were named the Rafidah… They (the Zaidiyyah) are three groups: Jarudiyyah, Sulaimaniyyah, and Batriyyah.
On the whole, they are from the sects of the Shia. Al Majlisi transmits for the ruling of the Imamiyyah regarding the Zaidiyyah with his statement:
The books of our (hadith) reports are replete with reports indicating to the disbelief of the Zaidiyyah and their likes from the Fathiyyah, Waqifah, and other heretical, misguided sects.
This is the overall position of the Imamiyyah regarding them; they are disbelievers for their denial of one of the Twelve Imams of the Imamiyyah. Al Khu’i explicitly stated this. In a discussion that includes the Zaidiyyah and the other non-Imami Shia sects, he states:
[إن] إنكار الولاية والأئمة (عليهم السلام) حتى الواحد منهم والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة وتدل عليه الأخبار المتواترة الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات
(Indeed,) denying the Wilayah (Successorship), the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam—even one of them—and belief in fictitious beliefs other than their khilafah, such as Jabr and the likes necessitates disbelief and Zandaqah. This is indicated by the clear, massively-transmitted reports regarding the disbelief of the person who denies the Wilayah and the disbelief of the person who holds the aforementioned beliefs and other similar misguided beliefs.
In fact, it comes in al Kulayni’s al Kafi on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn al Mughirah who said:
قلت لأبي الحسن (عليه السلام) إن لي جارين أحدهما ناصب والآخر زيدي ولا بد من معاشرتهما فمن أعاشر فقال هما سيان من كذب بآية من كتاب الله فقد نبذ الإسلام وراء ظهره وهو المكذب بجميع القرآن والأنبياء والمرسلين قال ثم قال إن هذا نصب لك وهذا الزيدي نصب لنا
I said to Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam, “I have two neighbours that I must interact with, one is a Nasib and the other is a Zaidi. Who should I associate with?”
He said, “They are the same. Whoever belies a verse from the Book of Allah has flung Islam behind his back. He has (also) belied all of the Qur’an, the Prophets, and the Messengers.”
Al Hilli continued with his methodology in rejecting the narration of a non-Imami. This also holds true for the Zaidiyyah. As such, he rejected the narrations of many Zaidis, as it appears in al Khulasah. Al Hilli made the reasons for accepting the narration of the Zaidi the fact that he left his school and entered into the school of the Imamiyyah. This is evident from many biographies, including the following.
Al Hilli states:
كان زيديا أولا ثم انتقل إلى القول بالإمامة وصنف فيها وفي غيرها
Al Hilli added him to the first section because he reverted from his school to the Imamiyyah. Had this not been the case, his place would be in the second section of his book, al Khulasah.
Al Hilli states:
وكان زيديا ثم عاد إلينا
He was a Zaidi. Then he reverted back to us.
He is like the previous person.
Among the reasons that al Hilli placed narrators into the first section of his book is the fact that they debated with the Zaidiyyah. Under the biography of Khalid ibn Sa’id Abu Sa’id al Qammat, al Hilli states:
قيل أنه ناظر زيديا فظهر عليه فأعجب الصادق (عليه السلام) ذلك
As for the remaining Zaidiyyah, regardless of their different denominations, al Hilli included them in the second section of al Khulasah. There are tens of such narrators, including:
And like this, we find al Hilli adding the Zaidiyyah—with all of their (different) denominations—to the second section (of his book) because of their lack of ‘adalah, according to him. This, despite the fact that he would regard some of them as reliable, as is the situation with Ibn ‘Uqdah. Al Hilli narrates for us praise of him saying:
جليل القدرعظيم المنزلة
Exalted ranking (and) lofty standing.
Despite this, al Hilli included him among the weak narrators and those whose narrations are rejected!
Several times already have we seen the position of al Khu’i on those who hold false beliefs—in his view; he does not consider such false beliefs as an impediment to accepting such a person’s narrations and deeming him reliable, even if it reaches disbelief. Regarding Ziyad ibn al Mundhir Abu al Jarud, al Khu’i states:
وأما أبو الجارود فهو وإن كان زيديا فاسد العقيدة ولكن الظاهر أنه موثق لوقوعه في إسناد كامل الزيارات ولشهادة الشيخ المفيد، في الرسالة العددية بأنه من الأعلام الرؤساء المأخوذ عنهم الحلال والحرام و الفتيا والأحكام الذين لا يطعن عليهم ولا طريق إلى ذم واحد منهم
As for Abu al Jarud, he is, ostensibly (even though he is a Zaidi possessing a false belief), reliable since he appears in the isnad of Kamil al Ziyarat. And also due to the fact that al Sheikh al Mufid testified in numerous letters that he is among the prominent leaders from whom halal and haram are taken, as well as legal opinions and rulings. Such individuals who can neither be censured nor disparaged in any way.
Al Khu’i even regards the ahadith of the Zaidiyyah and others in creedal opposition to him among the authentic in terms of authoritative value. He states:
إن أكثر الرواة بين زيدي أو فطحي أو واقفي أو غير ذلك من الفرق غير الإثني عشرية وقد أثبتنا في محله أن الموثق حجة كالصحيح
Most of the narrators are between being a Zaidi, or Fathi, or Waqifi, or other non-Twelver sects. We have already established in its (appropriate) section that the reliable narrator is an admissible proof, just like the sahih.
This is how al Khu’i establishes his methodology; the Zaidi is a thiqah, even though he holds a false belief. At times, his hadith can reach a level equal to a sahih hadith in terms of its authoritative value. How different is his opinion and the opinion of al Hilli who completely disregards them!
 I did not mention the sect of the Ismailiyyah, those who believe in the Imamah of Ismail ibn Jafar al Sadiq because I did not find any narrators described as being an Ismaili with sufficient academic merit deserving of a comment. I am not claiming that it does not exist; however, this is based on what I was, after a fair amount of effort, unable to find.
 Al Hajj Hussain al Shakiri: Mawsu’ah al Mustafa wa al ‘Itrah, 13/287 (under the marginalia). I chose this definition over others because of the others lack of clarity, or because they are too lengthy in the other books of the sects. See: Rijal al Khaqani, p. 137; Tawdih al Maqal of Mulla Kani p. 223; al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah of al Kajuri, p. 124; Kulliyyat fi ‘Ilm al Rijal of al Subhani, p. 412. Al Kashshi dedicated an entire chapter on them (p. 455, narrations 860 to 909).
 Al Hajj Hussain al Shakiri: al Nahlat al Waqifiyyah, p. 16 (Silsilat al Thaqafat al Islamiyyah, 15).
 Al Jilani al Rashti: Risalat fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah which is printed among Rasa’il fi Dirayat al Hadith of al Babili, 2/340.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 404, no. 757.
 Ibid., p. 455, no. 860.
 Ibid., p. 456, no. 861.
 Ibid. p. 456, no. 862.
 Ibid., p. 456, no. 863.
 Ibid., p. 457, no. 864.
 Ibid., p. 457, no. 865.
 Referring to the Shia doctrine which claims that the Imams and some of their supporters as well as their enemies will be brought back to life and return with the emergence of the Twelfth Imam. (Translator)
 Al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar, 48/265.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 460, no. 873.
 Ibid., p. 460, no. 874.
 Al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar, 48/267.
 Al Muhaqqiq Yusuf al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 5/190, under the heading “Those who leave the Twelver sect from among the Shia sects.
 ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi: Takmilat al Rijal, 2/222 (under the biography of ‘Ammar al Sabati).
 In reference to Surah al Baqarah: 70 (translator’s note).
 Al Nuri al Tabarsi: Khatimat al Mustadrak, 5/20. Perhaps al Kazimi was correct with this description because the Waqifah, despite them being famously known as al kilab al mamturah by the Imami scholars, it does not mean that the other opposing sects to the Imamiyyah cannot be described as such. This is what al Bahrani cited from al Baha’i when he said, “Our earlier companions would name those sects “al kilab al mamturah, i.e., the dogs that were hit by rain. These words of his are not restricted to the Waqifah. This is self-evident.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 262, no. 921 under the first section.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 381, no. 1532 in the second section.
 Such as biography numbers 1236, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1301, 1302, 1332, 1334, 1335, 1336, and many others.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 313 and 314, nos. 1228, 1229, 1230.
 Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 1/304-305, the impermissibility of touching the writing of the Qur’an without wudu’.
 Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab, 1/39, the amount constituting a kurr (quart). He states the same thing under, proving the (menstrual) habit of a woman, 2/312.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 337, no. 1332.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 7/94, no. 3653.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 108, no. 271.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 5/348, no. 2869.
 Ibid., 7/279, no. 4035.
 Al Shaharastani: al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/195.
 This proves that the ahadith that the Imamiyyah use for proving the doctrine of Imamah and for textually stating the Imams with their names were not known among the scholars of the Imami sect. It is for this reason there is a dispute every time an imam dies as to who will succeed him. Muhammad al Bahbudi acknowledged this reality and said, “The context of Imamah in the Twelve Imams with their personalities and characters—as we know them today —was not penned out from the beginning. Rather, it developed in different stages and times. Accordingly, our companions in the time of al Imam Abu Jafar al Baqir, after understanding the meaning of Imamah and believing in his Imamah and the Imamah of his forefathers, would only believe that the Imams are twelve. This belief was without them knowing who they specifically were in terms of their persons, names, characteristics, and qualities, except for the past Imams and the Imam currently in their presence. This is why we find that some of the elite among them coming to the present Imam and asking him to introduce them to the Imam Qa’im (i.e., the one who will carry out the orders of Allah) who will come after him. And so, he would not answer them except in a confined location and safe from enemies out of fear for themselves and for being assassinated. Therefore, the texts were few and the reports were obscure to them. Dark suspicions entered their hearts every time an Imam from the Imams of the pure family passed on. The Shia differed regarding the Imam Qa’im after him; they did not know who to follow and what they are returning to? This, despite having senior jurists, masters of hadith, theologians, and faithful people among them. If they had at their disposal these many texts that were narrated from the era of the Minor Occultation and shortly before it, the issue at hand would not have led them to this glaring division and belief in these false desires.” (Ma’rifat al Hadith, p. 153). This proves to us that the ahadith the Imamiyyah use to prove the Imams varied in the time of the Ghaybah Sughra (Minor Occultation) and beyond.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 254, no. 472.
 Al Nuri al Tabarsi: Khatimat al Mustadrak, 5/13.
 Al Kashshi described him like this. In describing a number of Fathi narrators, he states about him, “All of these people are Fathi (in creed). They are among the most prominent scholars upright jurists” (Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi) of al Tusi, p. 563, no. 1062. Al Najjashi described him saying, “Reliable. Venerable.” Al Najjashi did not mention anything concerning his (doctrinal) school (Rijal al Najjashi, p. 412, no. 1098.)
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 19:/223, no. 12471.
 Al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar, 37/34.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 375, no. 705. Al Hilli does not transmit the text verbatim; rather, he does so in meaning (bi al ma’na). This is because al Kashshi mentions him under the heading, Tasmiyat al fuqaha’ min ashab Abi ‘Abdullah, among a number of (other) narrators and not individually.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 195, no. 609.
 Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 7/51, under the chapter “al ‘Aqd ‘ala al ukhtayn murattaban”.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 74, no. 121.
 Al Najjashi: Rijal al Najjashi, p. 290, no. 779.
 Al Tusi: Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al Rijal (Rijal al Kashshi), p. 406, no. 763. It is the first opinion of Abu al Hassan (al Kazim Musa ibn Jafar), “I asked Allah to gift me with ‘Ammar al Sabati and He granted him to me!”
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 382, no. 1533.
 Ibid., p. 177 (biography no. 526).
 Ibid., p. 185, no. 549.
 Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 3/100, under “Salat al safar hukm al musafir li al tijarah”.
 Ibid., 3/71, “Law tabayyana fisq al iIam aw kafara ba’d al salah.
 Ibid., 1/280, Istihbab al madmadah wa al istinshaq fi al wudu’”.
 Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab, 2/368, “Ahkam al hayd wa kayfiyyatuhu”.
 Introduction to Muntaha al Matlab, 1/68. The examples I mentioned are different to the examples mentioned by al Bustani. This was done in order for the discussion to be (more) complete and for the information therein to be more certain.
 Al Muhaqqiq al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/23.
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 11/131, no. 6745.
 Al Sharif al Murtada (also named ‘Alam al Huda): al Fusul al Mukhtarah, p. 296.
 Among the things the reader will find strange is al Khu’i’s statement that this is something the ‘Ammah attributed to al Mukhtar. And by the ‘Ammah, he means the Ahlus Sunnah! Abu ‘Amr al Kashshi mentioned this in his book—and he is from the early generation of Imamiyyah. Al Tusi did not omit this when he worked with al Kashshi’s book. And so, what is the Ahlus Sunnah’s connection to what al Kashshi mentioned? Al Kashshi did not attribute this opinion to anybody. In fact, he mentioned it as a personal opinion of his. However, this skeptical approach practiced by some Imami scholars, whereby they lay every criticism found in the books of the Imamiyyah on the opposition is incorrect and lacks academic integrity. And what confirms the fact that those who described al Mukhtar as a Kaysani are the scholars of the Imamiyyah, as Ibn Dawood al Hilli mentioned in his work on narrators. Under al Mukhtar’s biography, he states, “Some of our companions suggested that he is of the Kaysaniyyah.” Therefore, I do not know why al Khu’i neglected the statement of al Kashshi and the admission of Ibn Dawood al Hilli and threw the blame on the Ahlus Sunnah!
 In the Mujam of al Khu’i, it is written as “wa kana baqiyyat Kaysan.” However, what I have stated here is correct because it’s transmitted from al Kashshi.
 Al Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) states that al Mukhtar “called, in secret, to his Imam, the Mahdi, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He is Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. He gave him the nickname al Mahdi. Accordingly, many of the Shia followed him in this and left (the ranks of) Sulaiman ibn Surad. The Shia became two factions, the majority of whom were with Sulaiman wanting to go out to the people so they can avenge (the death of) al Hussain. The other faction was with al Mukhtar wanting to go out and call to the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. This was without the instruction and approval of Ibn al Hanafiyyah. Rather, they fabricated these words and projected them on to him in order to spread it to the people and to achieve their corrupt goals” (al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/248). Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar states, “It is said that he was initially a Khariji, then a Zaidi, and then a Rafidi” (al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah, 6/349).
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 19:102, 109, 110, no. 12185.
 Al Dhahabi states, “‘Amir ibn Wathilah, Abu Tufayl al Kinani. He saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and narrated from him, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Muaz. Al Zuhri, Qatadah, and Maruf ibn Kharrabudh narrated from him. He was from the ardent lovers of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. With him, the (era of the) Sahabah came to an end. According to the correct view, he died in the year 110 AH (al Kashif, 1/527). He was the last Sahabi to pass away radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 379, no. 1523. Al Hilli isn’t the only person to regard this great Sahabi as weak; ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri also made tad’if of him in his book, Hawi al Aawal, 4/153, no. 1901. They did not mention any reason for this tad’if except for (being from) the Kaysaniyyah!
 Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 7/94, no. 3653.
 Ibid., 11/131, no. 6745.
 Al Shahrastani: al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/135 (summarized from the original text).
 Al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar, 37/34.
 The words of al Khu’i “even one” includes every non-Imami sect of the Shia
 Al Khu’i: Misbah al Faqahah, 1/504, “Hurmat al ghaybah mashrut bi al Iman”. Al Khu’i has a similar discussion scattered in some of his jurisprudential works. However, if he explicitly states the opponents are from the people of Islam, he intends thereby that they are ostensibly Muslim, in relation to this world only. If he does not explicitly state this, then they are, in reality, disbelievers. After a long discussion, al Khu’i states, “Thus, the correct ruling is that all opponents of the Twelver Shia are tahir (pure) and their Islam is correct, ostensibly. There is no difference in this between the people of disagreement and others, even though all of them are, in reality, disbelievers. These are the people we refer to as “Muslims in the world and disbelievers in the hereafter” (Kitab al Taharah, 2/87 under the section “Hukm ghayr al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah min firaq al Shia”). For a more detailed discussion on the Imamiyyah’s takfir of (their) opponents, see: Mawqif al Shia min Ahlus Sunnah of Muhammad Mal Allah; Mawqif al Shia al Imamiyyah min Baqi Firaq al Muslimin of ‘Abdul Malik al Shafi’i. Without a doubt, this is the finest and most extensive book on the subject. It is some 444 pages. He also has the book, al Fikr al Takfiri ‘inda al Shia Haqiqatun am Iftira’?;
Al Bara’ah min al Mushrikin bayna al Ma’na al Shar’i wa al Ta’wil al Shia of ‘Abdur Rahman ‘Abdullah Al ‘Ali; Al Shia al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah wa Takfiruhum li ‘Umum al Muslimin of ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Salafi; Zahirat al Takfir fi Mazhab al Shia of ‘Abdur Rahman Dimashqiyyah.
 Al Kulayni: al Kafi, 8/235, hadith no. 314; Mir’at al ‘Uqu” of al Majlisi, 26/180.
 For more information, see: Nazrat al Imamiyyah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah li al Zaidiyyah bayna ‘Ada’ al Ams wa Taqiyyat al Yawm of Muhammad al Khidar.
 Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 49, no. 10 – section one.
 Ibid., p. 265, no. 945 – section one.
 Ibid., p. 137, no. 371 and p. 295, no. 1099, under the biography of Yazid Abu Khalid al Qammat.
 Ibid., p. 324, no. 1271.
 Ibid., p. 329, no. 1300.
 Ibid., p. 337, no. 1330.
 Ibid., p. 348, no. 1378.
 Ibid., p. 321, no. 1263. Al Sheikh Hassan, author of Ma’alim [al Din], states in his book, Muntaqa al Jamman, “Al Hafiz Ibn ‘Uqdah, even though he follows a false (creedal) school, his condition related to his exalted rank, reliability, and trustworthiness is famous among our companions. It cannot be denied.” (1/203). And thus, they make the Imami scholar the criterion in determining whether or not to act on the narrations of a non-Imami narrator. If there is some perceivable benefit in making his tawthiq, they say as the author of Muntaqa al Jamman says. And if there is some perceivable benefit in rejecting his narrations, they argue, as is the methodology of al Hilli, that he is a Zaidi who follows a false (creedal) school.
 Al Khu’i: Kitab al Hajj, 4/179, commentary under “Qatl al baqq wa al barguth”.
 In general, the Imamiyyah divide ahadith into:
Sahih (authentic): That which is narrated by a thiqah (reliable) Imami;
Hassan (fair): That which is narrated by a mamduh (praiseworthy) Imami;
Muwaththaq (reliable): That which is narrated by a non-Imami thiqah;
Da’if (weak): That which falls short of the aforementioned conditions.
For more information, see: Usul al Hadith of ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli, p. 106. The authoritative value of every hadith differs according to its rank. As such, the hassan will not be preferred over the sahih when they contradict each other. With the previous text, al Khu’i wanted to explain the authoritative value of the muwaththaq hadith which is narrated by a non-Imami so that it can reach the same level of admissible proof as the sahih hadith. In doing so, he is rejecting the opinion of those who believe that only the sahih hadith is admissible as proof. Consequently, it becomes necessary to accept the muwaththaq ahadith because most of the Imamiyyah’s narrations revolve around non-Imamis.
 Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 8/154, commentary under “Fima law inhasara al mumathil bi al kafir”.