3.3 The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding non-Shia narrators

3.2 Intra-creedal adversaries from the non-Imami Shia
February 10, 2022
3.4 The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding non-Muslim narrators
February 10, 2022

BACK Return to Table of contents


3.3 The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding non-Shia narrators


This topic deals with the narrators that have nothing to do with Shi’ism. It will include such narrators whom the Shia deem completely out of their framework and creed, such as the Nawasib. Those who the Imamiyyah refer to as the ‘Ammah (commonality). With this term, they imply the Ahlus Sunnah and Khawarij.



Before getting into an explanation of al Hilli and al Khu’i’s respective positions on these groups, it is necessary to first explain a very important matter. Namely, that the Imamiyyah do not see a difference between the Nawasib and the Ahlus Sunnah (the ‘Ammah). This is clear from the statements of Imami scholars themselves and also from what they attribute to the Ahlul Bayt—who they themselves are free from. The evidence for this is as follows. Ibn Idris al Hilli (d. 598 AH) mentions in his book, Mustazrafat al Sara’ir:


عن محمد بن علي بن عيسى قال كتبت إليه [يعني علي بن محمد الهادي] أسأله عن الناصب هل أحتاج في امتحانه إلى أكثر من تقديمه الجبت والطاغوت واعتقاد إمامتهما فرجع الجواب من كان على هذا فهو ناصب

On the authority of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa: I wrote to him (i.e., ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al Hadi[1]) asking him regarding the Nawasib: When testing him (i.e., the Nasib), do I require anything more than asking him regarding him giving preference to al Jibt and al Taghut[2] and the belief of their Imamah?

He responded, “Whoever is upon this is a Nasib.”[3]


This text clearly proves that the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah—the ‘Ammah—are Nawasib because of their view of giving preference to the Imamah of the Sheikhayn (i.e., Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) and ‘Uthman over ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

There is another equally explicit text. Under the heading “Meaning of the Nasib”, al Saduq narrates on the authority of Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam:


ليس الناصب من نصب لنا أهل البيت لأنك لا تجد رجلا يقول: أنا أبغض محمدا وآل محمد , ولكن الناصب من نصب لكم وهو يعلم أنكم تتولونا و أنكم من شيعتنا

The Nasib is not someone who shows enmity to us, the Ahlul Bayt, because you will not find a person that says, ‘I hate Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.’ Rather, a Nasib is the one that shows enmity to you while knowing that you take care of us and are from among our Shia.[4]


Thus, al Saduq—who is one of their predecessors—explains to us the meaning of a Nasib and, as such, includes the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah in his narration, those who oppose the Imamiyyah.

The reality of the matter is that the Nasib and the Sunni are synonymous according to most of the Imamiyyah. Yusuf al Bahrani (d. 1186 AH) states:


والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار أن مظهر النصب المترتب عليه الأحكام والدليل عليه إما تقديم الجبت والطاغوت أو بغض الشيعة من حيث التشيع فكل من اتصف بذلك فهو ناصب تجري عليه أحكام النصب نعم يجب أن يستثنى من خبر تقديم الجبت والطاغوت المستضعف كما عرفت من الأخبار المتقدمة وغيرها أيضا فيختص الحكم بما عداه وعموم ذلك لجميع المخالفين بعد إخراج هذا الفرد [المستضعف] مما لا يعتريه الريب والشك بالنظر إلى الأخبار المذكورة كما عليه أكثر أصحابنا المتقدمين الحاكمين بالكفر وكثير من متأخري المتأخرين كما قدمنا نقل كلام بعضهم

What is gathered from these reports is that the phenomenon of Nasb—upon which actual rulings are applicable and evidenced for—is either through giving preference to al Jibt and al Taghut, or through simply having hatred of the Shia because of the nature of Shi’ism itself. Accordingly, everyone who is described with that is a Nasib and the relevant rulings of Nasb[5] will apply to him. Yes, as you are well aware, it is necessary to exclude the weak report of giving preference to al Jibt and al Taghut from the previous reports and others as well. Accordingly, the ruling will apply to everything else. After removing this individual (weak) report, the above ruling will apply across the board to all of the opposition. And, just as most of our earlier generation of companions (those who regard the opposition as disbelievers) and many of the latter, latter-day scholars held, there is no doubt and uncertainty in this when considering the aforementioned reports. This is clear from some of their statements we cited earlier.[6]


Abu al Hassan al ‘Amili states:


الحق أن كل من نصّب غير الأئمة فهو في الحقيقة ممن نصب العداوة للأئمة

The truth is that every person who designated other than the Imams is, in reality, among those who have erected enmity towards the Imams.[7]


Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri (d. 1112 AH) states:


روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: أن من علامة النواصب تقديم غير علي عليه

It was narrated from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “Verily, among the signs of the Nawasib is preferring others over ‘Ali.”


Then he stated:


إن الأئمة عليهم السلام و خواصّهم أطلقوا لفظ الناصبي على أبي حنيفة و أمثاله مع أن أبا حنيفة لم يكن ممن نصب العدواة لأهل البيت عليهم السلام بل كان له انقطاع إليهم ويظهر لهم التودد

Verily, the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam and their close associates applied the word Nasibi to Abu Hanifah and his likes, despite the fact that he was not among those who displayed enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam. In fact, he was devoted to them and expressed his love for them.”[8]


Thereafter, al Jaza’iri held the view that it is permissible to kill the opposition and that it is (legally) permissible to usurp their wealth.[9]

Perhaps I may end this note with a statement from Hussain al ‘Usfur. He states:


أخبارهم [يقصد أهل البيت بزعمه] تنادي بأن الناصب هو ما يقال عندهم سنيا

Their reports (he means the Ahlul Bayt, according to him) state that a Nasib is the one that is referred to by them as a Sunni.[10]


And so, we conclude that the Nasibi and the Sunni are synonymous according to the majority of the Imamiyyah. What is forthcoming in terms of separating the Nasibi into one section and the Sunni into another is merely from the perspective of the said narrator being described as such in the biographical works. Accordingly, if it is mentioned that he is a Nasibi, I added him to the section on the Nawasib. And if he is described as being an ‘Ammi, I added him to the section on the ‘Ammah, even though I maintain that the two schools, or the two words are, according to the Imamiyyah, synonymous.


1. The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding the Nawasib

When the scholar understands the philosophy of Imami thought (which is based on the fact that the reason for the existence of all of creation is the Ahlul Bayt, and that they are the proofs of Allah in this world that are to be obeyed and given preference to over others), he will then come to realize the danger of the Nawasib in the view of the Imamiyyah. This is because the Nasib is someone who displays enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt[11] and, in this way, he is in direct opposition to the Imami creed. As a result, the Nawasib represent the polar opposite of Imami thought because of their hatred towards ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, and their giving others preference over him.

For this reason, as Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri (d. 1112 AH) cited a consensus stating that the Imamiyyah regarded the Nasibi in the following manner:


أنه أنجس من الكلب وأنه شر من اليهودي و النصراني و المجوسي و أنه كافر نجس بإجماع علماء الإمامية

He is more impure than a dog, eviler than a Jew, Christian, and Zoroastrian. And he is an impure disbeliever by consensus of the Imami scholars.[12]


The position of al Hilli regarding the Nawasib

We have already seen that al Hilli does not accept the narrators that are in (doctrinal) opposition to him from among the sects of the Shia, despite the fact that they are from the Shia—those who revere ‘Ali and prefer him over others. They only oppose the Imamiyyah in relation to secondary issues and not primary. So, what will be his position on the person who completely rejects Imamah and displays hostility towards it? If we were to extrapolate based on his methodology, we would know that he would, a priori, reject the narration of the Nawasib. I have not found any textual evidence in al Hilli’s book on the issue of a narrator’s Nasb.


The position of al Khu’i regarding the Nawasib

Al Khu’i followed his methodology that believed there is no correlation between the creed and ‘adalah of a narrator and accepting or rejecting his narrations. It is from here we come to know his opinion on the Nawasib, those whose Nasb, or hostility to the Ahlul Bayt is inconsequential to their tawthiq. An example is as follows. In regards to Ahmed ibn Hilal al ‘Abrata’i, al Khu’i mentions:


لا ينبغي الإشكال في فساد الرجل من جهة عقيدته بل لا يبعد استفادة أنه لم يكن يتدين بشئ ومن ثم كان يظهر الغلو مرة، والنصب أخرى، ومع ذلك لا يهمنا إثبات ذلك، إذ لا أثر لفساد العقيدة أو العمل، في سقوط الرواية عن الحجية بعد وثاقة الراوي والذي يظهر من كلام النجاشي صالح الرواية أنه في نفسه ثقة ولا ينافيه قوله يعرف منها وينكر إذ لا تنافي بين وثاقة الراوي وروايته أمورا منكرة من جهة كذب من حدثه بها بل إن وقوعه في إسناد تفسير القمي يدل على توثيقه إياه

There should be no issue regarding the incorrectness of the person in terms of his creed. In fact, it is not farfetched to say that he was entirely irreligious. Hence, at times, he would express extreme views and, at other times, he would express Nasb. Despite all of this, determining such things is of no concern to us since such false beliefs or actions are of no consequence in lessening the authoritative value of the narration—after establishing the narrator’s reliability. From al Najjashi’s words “salih al hadith (suitable in hadith),” it appears that he himself is a thiqah and that his statement “yu’raf wa yunkar (i.e., he narrates things that are both known and unacceptable)” does not negate this. This is because there is no inconsistency in the narrator’s reliability and him narrating unacceptable things from those who falsely narrate them to him. In fact, his appearing in the isnad of Tafsir al Qummi proves his tawthiq.[13]


Al Khu’i also states:


قيل في حقه [أحمد بن هلال] ما سمعنا بمتشيع رجع عن تشيعه إلى النصب إلا أحمد بن هلال وكان يظهر الغلو أحيانا ولذا استفاد شيخنا الأنصاري أن الرجل لم يكن يتدين بشئ للبون البعيد بين الغلو والنصب فيعلم من ذلك أنه لم يكن متدينا بدين وكان يتكلم بما تشتهيه نفسه ولكن كل ذلك لا يضر بوثاقة الرجل وأنه في نفسه ثقة وصالح الرواية ولا تنافي بين فساد العقيدة والوثاقة

It was said about Ahmed ibn Hilal: “We have not heard about a Shia who retracted from his (belief in) Shi’ism to Nasb except for Ahmed ibn Hilal. At times, he would express such extreme views that our teacher al Ansari concluded that the man was entirely irreligious because of the vast difference that existed between his extreme views and his Nasb. From this, it becomes known that he was not religious in terms of a particular religious viewpoint; he would (rather) speak based on his inner desires. Still, all of this does not negatively affect his reliability; he is in and of himself a thiqah and salih (suitable) to narrate. There is no inconsistency in the false belief of a person and his reliability (as a narrator).[14]


And he stated:

أن الأظهر أنه ثقة وإن كان فاسد العقيدة بل كان خبيثا

The preponderant view is that he is a thiqah, even though he holds a false belief. In fact, he is evil.[15]


Although al Khu’i attempted to deny some of the charges laid against Ahmed ibn Hilal, he also stated:


أن أحمد بن هلال أيضا موثق وقابل للاعتماد على رواياته على ما بيناه في محله وأن ما ذكروه في حقه مما لا أساس له وعلى تقدير صحته وتماميته غير مناف لوثاقته

Ahmed ibn Hilal is also reliable and his narrations are worthy of being relied upon. This is based on what we have (already) explained in its appropriate place. There is no basis for whatever they have mentioned about him. Even if it is assumed to be completely sound and accurate, it does not negate his reliability (as a narrator).[16]


And he stated:


رفضه كثير من الأصحاب وطعنوا في دينه لأنه كان يتوقع الوكالة فلما خرج التوقيع باسم أبي جعفر محمد بن عثمان وكيل الناحية المقدسة توقف فيه ورجع عن التشيع إلى النصب بل قيل إنه لم يسمع شيعي رجع إلى النصب ما عداه… والذي تحصل لدينا بعد التدبر في حاله أن الرجل فاسد العقيدة بلا إشكال إلا أن ذلك لا يقدح في العمل برواياته ولا يوجب سقوطها عن الحجية بعد أن كان المناط فيها وثاقة الراوي عندنا لا عدالته وعقيدته

Many of the companions rejected and criticized him in relation to his religious practice. This is because he expected (the function of) wakalah (agency). And when a signature with the name of Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman came out as the wakil (agent) (i.e., instead of him), he stopped and retracted his belief in Shi’ism for Nasb. In fact, it is said that it was never heard that a Shia retracted (his views) for Nasb except for him… After reflecting on his condition, we have come to realize that the man unequivocally holds a false belief. However, that does not impact acting on his narrations, and it does not necessitate lessening their authoritative value, especially considering the fact that the ‘illah, or causative reasoning (for accepting or rejecting narrations) is, according to us, the reliability of the narrator himself, not his ‘adalah and belief.[17]


In summary, al Khu’i mentions the allegations raised against Ahmed ibn Hilal. They are as follows:

  • He is a Nasibi, extremist;
  • He is not particularly religious;
  • He is a sufi, a fraud, and a cursed profligate[18];
  • He is evil; (and)
  • He speaks based on his inner desires.

He refutes some of these allegations and then states, “Even if it is assumed that it is completely sound and accurate, it does not negate his reliability (as a narrator).”

Thus, contrary to al Hilli, we find that (the doctrine of) Nasb, or hostility towards the Ahlul Bayt, has no impact on determining whether a narrator’s narration is to be accepted or rejected. This is according to al Khu’i. However, because there was some perceived benefit in (rejecting) Ahmed ibn Hilal, al Khu’i overturned his normal methodology and stated about one of the narrations:


ضعيفة السند لوجود أحمد بن هلال والحسين بن أحمد

(It has) a weak chain because Ahmed ibn Hilal and al Hussain ibn Ahmed exist in it.[19]


2. The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah


The position of al Hilli regarding the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah

In general, al Hilli’s position on narrators of the Ahlus Sunnah is no different to the standard position he holds against his adversaries. As such, the basic principle in relation to the Ahlus Sunnah is that their narrations are rejected for no other reason than the fact that they, according to al Hilli, doctrinally oppose him, even though such narrations contain reliable narrators. This extreme methodology has been successively transmitted from al Hilli, whether in his jurisprudential works, or in his book Khulasat al Aqwal. The evidences for this are many, including the following.

In refuting one of the narrations, al Hilli states:


الرواية ضعيفة السند لأن عمارا عامي وابن فضَّال فطحي وكذا مصدق بن صدقة وعمر بن سعيد فإذن سقط الاحتجاج بها

The narration has a weak sanad because ‘Ammar is an ‘Ammi (i.e., a Sunni), Ibn Faddal is a Fathi, as is Musaddiq ibn Sadaqah and ‘Umar ibn Sa’id. Thus, the narration is inadmissible as a form of proof.[20]


This is explicit in the fact that the narration is rejected simply because of al Hilli’s difference of opinion in mazhab (theological school) with them.

Here is another example. Al Hilli mentions:


قد روى الشيخ [الطوسي] عن طلحة بن زيد عن جعفر عن أبيه عن علي عليه السلام قال لا جمعة إلا في مصر يقام فيه الحدود [قال الحلِّي] لأنا نقول أن طلحة بن زيد عامي فلا تعويل على روايته ويمكن أن يحمل على التقية

Al Sheikh (al Tusi)[21] narrated on the authority of Talhah ibn Zaid, from Jafar, from his father, from ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam who said, “There is no jumu’ah except in a city in which the hudud (legal punishments) are carried out.” (Al Hilli states:) Because we say that Talhah ibn Zaid is an ‘Ammi (i.e., Sunni), his narration, therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is possible to interpret this as Taqiyyah.[22]


This is clear in the fact that al Hilli rejected the narration simply because the narrator is described as an ‘Ammi. Had al Hilli not believed the narrator is weak, he would not have resorted to the statement, “It is possible to interpret this as Taqiyyah,” since stating Taqiyyah is an acknowledgment of the correctness of the narration’s issuance.

In summary, according to al Hilli, among the reasons of criticism against a narrator is the fact that he belongs to the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, even though he has not been accused of being weak, or lying, or other such reasons of rejection.

Regarding Khulasat al Aqwal, al Hilli’s opinion is clearly discernable through tens of narrators’ biographies. This is because he included the narrators from the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah in the second section of his book for no reason other than the fact that they are, in his view, from the ‘Ammah. Examples of this are many, including the following:

  • Ahmed ibn ‘Abdullah al Asfahani al Hafiz Abu Nuaim (the author of Hilyat al Auliya’)

Al Hilli narrates from Ibn Shahr Ashub that he is an ‘Ammi. And for this reason, he placed him in the second section.[23]

  • Asram ibn Hawshab al Bajali

Al Hilli states, “‘Ammi thiqah (reliable Sunni).” And with this, he included him in the second section![24]

  • ‘Abbad ibn Yaqub al Rawajini

Paradoxically, al Hilli described him as an ‘Ammi and, thus, included him in the second section. However, this ‘Abbad, according to the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, is accused of being a Rafidi![25]

  • Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad

Al Hilli states, “A Basri, thiqah, ‘Ammi.”[26]

  • Muhammad ibn Ishaq

Al Hilli states, “The author of al Siyar. From among the companions of al Baqir ‘alayh al Salam. ‘Ammi.”[27] Al Hilli did not mention a reason for him being weak except for his describing him as an ‘Ammi.

  • Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari

Al Hilli states, “The author of al Tarikh. An ‘Ammi in his (creedal) school.”[28]

  • Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan

Al Hilli states, “Abu Zakariyya: Thiqah, ‘Ammi.”[29] And despite describing him as a thiqah, he is including in the section of weak narrators for no other reason than him being from the Ahlus Sunnah!

  • Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah

In explaining the reason as to why he placed him in the second section, al Hilli states, “He is neither from our companions nor counted among them.”[30]

  • Sufyan al Thawri

Al Hilli states, “He is not from our companions.” Similarly, we find no convincing reason from al Hilli as to why he rejected many of the greats—despite the fact that he described them as reliable—other than a difference in mazhab!


Al Hilli discarded his own methodology when there was no benefit in adhering to it. We have already seen much of this. I will mention another example specific to the narrators of the Ahlus Sunnah. Al Hilli states:


وحفص [بن غياث] وإن كان عاميا إلا أن روايته مناسبة للمذهب

And Hafs (ibn Ghiyath), even though he is an ‘Ammi, his narrations are appropriate for the mazhab.[31]


And like this, his narrations are considered, accepted, and acted upon, despite al Hilli’s criticism of him since there is, according to him, a perceived benefit in his narrations being in accordance with the mazhab.


The position of al Khu’i regarding the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah (al ‘Ammah)

Al Khu’i continued with his methodology in accepting the narration of the (creedal) opposition, even if the difference (in creed) leads to disbelief. Accordingly, al Khu’i paid no attention to the creed of a narrator. He has explicitly stated accepting the narration of an ‘Ammi (Sunni), even though he is not an ‘adil, or upright as a narrator, according to his view. His statement reads:


إنا لا نعتبر العدالة في الراوي فلا يلزم أن يكون إماميا بل تكفي مجرد الوثاقة وإن كان عاميا

We do not take into consideration ‘adalah (integrity) in the narrator. Thus, it is not necessary for him to be an Imami; rather, reliability is sufficient—even if he is an ‘Ammi.[32]


In refuting those who make tad’if of Ismail al Sukuni–al Sha’iri, al Khu’i states:


روايته حجة على ما نراه من عدم اعتبار العدالة في الحجية…[وقال الخوئي ردا من ضعّفه] احتمال أن التضعيف لأجل أن السكوني كان عاميا فكان الضعف في مذهبه لا في روايته

His narration is authoritative based on what we consider in terms of the non-consideration of ‘adalah in establishing authoritative value (of the report) … (In refuting those who make tad’if of him, al Khu’i states) There is a possibility that the tad’if is because of the fact that al Sukuni is an ‘Ammi. Therefore, him being weak is in relation to his (doctrinal) school of thought, not because of his narrations.[33]


This is not always the case with al Khu’i. He does not always reject a narration on account of a narrator believing in an opposing school of thought; rather, he (also) rejects him if one from the earlier generation of Imami scholars criticized him. In this instance, he accepts the criticism if the chain to the critic is verified and the criticism about him is proven to be true. Here, the reason for rejection is because of the criticism, not because of the creedal difference—which al Khu’i has stated on numerous occasions that the ‘adalah of the narrator is not considered. Rather, the reason for acceptance is, according to him, the (narrator’s) reliability.

What further emphasizes this is al Khu’i’s comments on a narration which contains Ismail ibn Abi Ziyad al Sukuni as one of its narrators. He states:


قيل إنه عامي إلا [أنه] غير قادح في وثاقته في الرواية

It is said that he is an ‘Ammi; however, (he) is not criticized in terms of his reliability in narration.[34]


Under the biography of ‘Abbad ibn Suhayb, he states:


لا إشكال في وثاقة عباد بن صهيب بشهادة النجاشي وعلي بن إبراهيم في تفسيره وكذا لا إشكال في كونه عاميا

Because of the testimony of al Najjashi and ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim in his Tafsir, there is no contention regarding the reliability of ‘Abbad ibn Suyahb. Similarly, there is no disagreement regarding the fact that he is an ‘Ammi.[35]


In providing a basis for and explaining a certain principle that he understood from the words of al Najjashi, al Khu’i states under the biography of Ghiyath ibn Kalub:


وذكر الشيخ في العدة أنه من العامة ولكنه عملت الطائفة بأخباره إذا لم يكن لها معارض من طريق الحق ويظهر من مجموع كلامه أن العمل بخبر من يخالف الحق في عقيدته مشروط بإحراز وثاقته وتحرزه عن الكذب وعليه فيحكم بوثاقة (غياث بن كلوب) وإن كان عاميا

Al Sheikh mentioned in al ‘Uddah that he is from the ‘Ammah (i.e., the Ahlus Sunnah). However, the group (i.e., the Shia) acted upon his reports when there is no opposing evidence that comes via the truth (i.e., the Shia). It appears from the sum total of his words that acting on the narration of someone whose creed differs with the truth (i.e., the Shia) is conditional upon ascertaining the narrator’s reliability and assuring he is free from lying. Based on this, Ghiyath ibn Kalub is ruled to be reliable, even though he is an ‘Ammi.[36]


Thus, the (creedal) school of the narrator, according to al Khu’i, did not affect his tawthiq of the individual in the aforementioned instances. However, al Khu’i in other instances assumes Taqiyyah, even though its isnad is reliable. When he wanted to bolster the position of his legal school on the issue of the possibility of menstruation and pregnancy occurring at the same time, he rejected the narration which was at odds with his opinion. He states:


[ما] رواه النوفلي عن السكوني عن جعفر عن أبيه (ع) أنه قال قال النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) ما كان الله ليجعل حيضا مع حبل، يعني إذا رأت الدم وهي حامل لا تدع الصلاة إلا أن تري على رأس الولد إذا ضربها الطلق ورأت الدم تركت الصلاة وهي وإن كانت واضحة الدلالة على عدم اجتماع الحيض مع الحمل إلا أنها لا تقاوم الأخبار الصحيحة الكثيرة الدالة على جواز اجتماعهما وذلك لأنها وإن كانت موثقة بحسب السند غير أنها موافقة للعامة والراوي عن الإمام (عليه السلام) هو السكوني وهو عامي فتحمل الرواية على التقية لا محالة

What al Nawfali narrated on the authority of al Sukuni, from Jafar, from his father ‘alayh al Salam who said that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Allah would not make menstruation (occur) with pregnancy.” In other words, when she sees blood—and is pregnant, she should not forgo the prayer. However, if she sees the head of the child when the labour pains begin and she sees blood, she should leave the prayer.

This, despite its meaning being unambiguous in that menstruation (i.e., menstrual blood) does not gather together with pregnancy, it cannot contend with the many (other) authentic reports that indicate that it is possible for them to come together. This is because, even though it is reliable in terms of its sanad, it is in accordance with the (view of the) ‘Ammah. And, the narrator from the Imam ‘alayh al Salam is al Sukuni; he is an ‘Ammi. Therefore, the narration must be assumed to, without a doubt, have been narrated because of Taqiyyah.[37]


And like this, when there is a perceived benefit in rejecting the narration of an ‘Ammi, al Khu’i assumes it was because of Taqiyyah. Or, he explicitly states that the narrator is an ‘Ammi, even though he is reliable in another place. An example of this is al Khu’i’s rejection of the narration:


عن علي (ع) قال إذا مات الرجل في السفر مع النساء ليس فيهن امرأته ولا ذو محرم من نسائه قال يوزرنه إلى ركبتيه ويصببن عليه الماء صبا ولا ينظرن إلى عورته ولا يلمسنه بأيديهن.وهي وإن كانت صريحة الدلالة على المراد إلا أن في سندها الحسين بن علوان وهو عامي لم يوثق

On the authority of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam who said, “When a man dies on a journey with women, and there isn’t among them his wife and other mahrams (unmarriageable kins) of his, they should place a lower garment over him until his knees and pour a fair amount of water over him. They should not look at the ‘awrah (areas of his body that are legally required to be covered) and not touch him with their hands.” This narration, even though it is clear in its meaning, has a sanad that contains al Hussain ibn ‘Alwan. He is an ‘Ammi whose tawthiq has not been verified.[38]


Here we find al Khu’i saying:


الحسين بن علوان وهو عامي لم يوثق

Al Hussain ibn ‘Alwan. He is an ‘Ammi whose tawthiq has not been verified.


While in the Mujam, we find al Khu’i making tawthiq of him and justifying this position of his.[39] In fact, we find him emphasizing his tawthiq in the same Kitab al Taharah (as above). On the authority of al Hussain ibn ‘Alwan, he states:


وثقه ابن عقدة حيث قال وأخوه الحسن أوثق منه فإنه أفعل التفضيل فيدل على أن الحسين ثقة أيضا غاية الأمر أن الحسن أوثق فلا إشكال في سند الرواية من هذه الجهة أيضا

Ibn ‘Uqdah made tawthiq of him when he stated, “His brother, al Hassan, is more reliable than him.” This is an ism al tafdil (elative form) and so it indicates that al Hussain is also reliable. At most, al Hassan is more reliable. And so, from this perspective, there is also no issue in the narration’s sanad.[40]


Based on this, I do not know what he means by the statement, “In its sanad is al Hussain ibn ‘Alwan. He is an ‘Ammi who has not been verified.” However, I will say the following: We have (already) seen how al Hilli dealt with narrators of the Fathiyyah in that he makes tawthiq of them if there is some perceived benefit in doing so. On the other hand, he will criticize them if there is a perceived benefit in doing so. Al Khu’i does the same thing in these instances. Therefore, the methodology in this particular instance is one and the same, even though they establish a foundational basis for the acceptance and rejection of narrations in another place. As such, the entire issue goes back to his perceived benefit in any given instance, irrespective of whether it is a jarh or a tawthiq. Whoever critically analyzes the overall methodology of the Imami scholars, and not just al Hilli and al Khu’i’s, he will safely say without a shadow of doubt that they place absolutely no importance on asanid. Even those that claim that they are the latter-day Usuli Shia and the only thing to be considered, according to them, is being aligned with the mazhab. And how is this not the case? They authenticate Nahj al Balaghah and it is without any isnad at all! Similarly, they (also) authenticate al Tabarsi’s book, al Ihtijaj!


3. The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding the Khawarij

Al Shahrastani (d. 548 AH) states:


كل من خرج عن الإمام الحق الذي اتفقت الجماعة عليه يسمى خارجيا سواء كان الخروج في أيام الصحابة على الأئمة الراشدين أو كان بعدهم على التابعين بإحسان والأئمة في كل زمان

Every person who dissents from the rightful Imam—he upon whom the jama’ah (group) agrees upon—is called a Khariji, whether the dissent occurred in the time of the Sahabah against the Rightly Guided Imams, or after them against the Tabi’in (Followers) of good and the Imams in every time.[41]


Ibn Taymiyyah states:


الخوارج الحرورية الذين كانوا من شيعة عليَّ ثم خرجوا عليه وكفروه وكفروا من والاه ونصبوا له العداوة وقاتلوه ومن معه … وهؤلاء هم الذين نصبوا العداوة لعلى ومن والاه وهم الذين استحلوا قتله وجعلوه كافرا وقتله أحد رؤوسهم عبدالرحمن بن ملجم المرادي فهؤلاء النواصب الخوارج المارقون إذ قالوا إن عثمان وعلي ابن أبي طالب ومن معهما كانوا كفار مرتدين

The Haruriyyah Khawarij—those who were from the group of ‘Ali and then revolted against him, charged him with disbelief, charged those who supported him with disbelief, founded hostility towards him, fought him and those who were with him… These are the people who founded hostility towards ‘Ali and his supporters. They are the ones who deemed it permissible to kill him and made him a disbeliever. One of their leaders, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljam al Muradi[42] killed him. Therefore, they are the Nawasib Khawarij defectors because they said that ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, and those with them are disbelievers and apostates.[43]


Therefore, the Khawarij share with the Nawasib in their hatred of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. Based on this, it is possible to say that ever Khariji is a Nasibi but every Nasibi is not necessarily a Khariji since the Nawasib did not revolt against the Ummah with the sword, as did the Khawarij.


The position of al Hilli regarding the Khawarij

Al Hilli rejected many narrations of narrators merely on account of having a different belief. What then if the narrator combines between beliefs of Nasb and Khuruj (i.e., the beliefs of the Nawasib and the Khawarij)?

There is no doubt that the position of his is clear. He has explicitly mentioned that they are ritually impure[44], their dead are not to be washed[45], and that prayer should not be performed behind them[46]. In fact, al Hilli believed that they are disbelievers. He states:


عندنا أن الخوارج كفار وأن من سب الإمام وجب قتله

According to us, the Khawarij are disbelievers and that it is compulsory to kill whoever curses the Imam.[47]


On the whole, the Khawarij are very few in number in the biographical dictionaries of narrators of the Shia because they mostly existed in the generation that fought ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. As such, there is no possibility for them to have narrated from him or his descendants. I am not claiming that they do not exist in some asanid; rather, the aim here is merely to point out that their narrators rarely exist and are practically not even mentioned. If they are mentioned in the biographical dictionaries of narrators, we will find them, in general, being mentioned in stories and situations narrated about them, not in the sense of being actual narrators in the asanid. Whoever looks up Rijal al Tusi under the biographies of ‘Abdullah ibn al Kawa (no. 711), Mirdas ibn Uthaybah (no. 828), and Nawfil ibn Farwah (Qurrah) al Ashja’i (no. 843) will see that all of these individuals existed in the generation of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Similarly, al Shaharudi mentioned in Mustadrakat ‘Ilm al Rijal a number of people whom he regarded as being from the Khawarij; however, they too are not mentioned in the asanid. Rather, they are mentioned in battles, situations, and stories.[48]

Based on this, I did not find any of the Khawarij mentioned in al Khulasah of al Hilli except for what was mentioned in the biography of Ash’ath ibn Qais al Kindi.[49] Al Hilli states regarding him:


ارتد بعد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) في ردة أهل ياسر، زوجه أبو بكر أخته أم فروة، وكانت عوراء، فولدت له محمدا، وكان من أصحاب علي (عليه السلام)، ثم صار خارجيا ملعونا

He apostatized after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam during the apostasy of the family of Yasir. Abu Bakr married his sister, Umm Farwah, to him. She was one-eyed. She gave birth to Muhammad. He was from the companions of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam and then he became an accursed Khariji.[50]


Similarly, under the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn al Kawa and Nawfal ibn Qurrah. As I mentioned, we do not find these individuals in the asanid of the of Imamiyyah; rather, only stories (about them) and positions (they took) are transmitted from them. If they are mentioned, it is merely done so prefatorily and to explain the Imamiyyah’s position on them. Perhaps this is what prompted al Hilli to completely drop them and outrightly reject their narrations. Based on my findings, he only had reason to mention them in his book in these places.


The position of al Khu’i regarding the Khawarij

We know the methodology of al Khu’i which states that the narration of every (creedal) opponent is accepted. However, I did not find a specific opinion of al Khu’i on the Khawarij in terms of narration. Yes, he mentioned some of the Khawarij; however, he did not address what we are dealing with in terms of the affect the narrator’s creed has on the acceptance or rejection of a narration. Despite this, when we take into consideration al Khu’i’s opinion on those who are normally in (creedal) opposition to him, the narrator that is described to be from the Khawarij is not to be regarded as a barrier to accepting his hadith in his view. As he stated, “There is no contradiction between possessing a false creed and being reliable (as a narrator).”[51]

Al Khu’i states:


فساد العقيدة لا يضر بصحة رواياته على ما نراه من حجية خبر الثقة مطلقا

Based on what we consider in terms of the unrestricted authoritative value of a reliable person’s report, a false creed does not impact the authenticity of his narrations.[52]


Despite this, and despite my efforts, I could not find any textual evidence from al Khu’i wherein he made tawthiq of any one from the Khawarij.


NEXT⇒ 3.4 The position of al Hilli and al Khu’i regarding non-Muslim narrators

[1] He is ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Musa ibn Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum since Ibn Idris al Hilli mentioned the narration under the heading, “What we have extracted from the book, Masa’il al Rijal wa Mukatabatuhum Mawlana Aba al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali…” See: Mustazrafat al Sara’ir, p. 581.

[2] He means Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma with his statement “al Jibt and al Taghut.”

[3] Ibid. See, also: Wasa’il al Shia of al Hurr al ‘Amili, 9/491 under the chapters of Sadaqah, “Wujub al khums fi al Ma’adin Kulliha min al Dhahab wa al Fiddah wa al sufr, no. 12560.

[4] Al Saduq: Ma’ani al Akhbar, p. 365. He also narrates this in Thawab al A’mal, p. 207, under the chapter, “The punishment of someone who makes salah and leaves out salutation on the Prophet.

[5] By ‘rulings,’ he is referring to those related to najasah (ritual impurity), hadr al damm (thwarting of blood), the usurping of wealth, and other such things that are associated with the warring disbelievers.

[6] Yusuf al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 5/186, under “The ruling on the opposition”. Some of the Imami scholars have attempted to object to those who hold this view. However, Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi states, “It is possible to make the dispute between the two groups in wording only, khilaf lafzi (i.e., and not in meaning). It can be said that the meaning of erecting enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam is that which broadly includes erecting enmity towards them with their leading personalities and erecting enmity towards them under a broad principle, such as if it were to be said, ‘We hate everyone who hates the Sheikhayn” (al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, p. 452). It is true what he is saying. The difference (of opinion) and the attempt at making a distinction between a Nasibi and a Sunni by some Imami scholars ceases to exist when we understand what both of their ultimate fates will be in the end; each of them will remain forever in the fire because of not believing in, according to them, a foundational pillar of Islam—Imamah. It may be said that the harm (inflicted) will be based on the degree of disbelief since Kufr itself is of varying degrees. As such, the Nasibi who openly displays enmity will be considered more of a disbeliever than the Sunni who, in his actual state, is a Nasibi who does not open display enmity. The truest example of this are the narrations that I have mentioned and those that explicitly prove that the Sunni is a Nasibi.

[7] Abu al Hassan al ‘Amili: Muqaddimat Tafsir Mir’at al Anwar wa Mishkat al Asrar, p. 308 under the chapter “al Nun min al butun wa al ta’wilat. In the marginalia, the author has an excellent discussion around the authenticity of the Tafsir’s attribution to the author. He cites from the book Mawqif al Shia min Ahlus Sunnah of Muhammad Mal Allah, p. 25.

[8] Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri: al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/307. There is an error in the book Mawqif al Shia min Ahlus Sunnah of Muhammad Mal Allah. He mentions that the page numbers are 206 and 207. However, when going back to the primary source, it turns out there was a typo. What I have asserted (here) is correct.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Hussain ibn Ahmed ibn Ibrahim ibn ‘Usfur al Darazi al Bahrani: al Mahasin al Nafsaniyyah fi Ajwibat al Masa’il al Khurasaniyyah, p. 145; cited from the book Mawqif al Shia min Ahlus Sunnah of Muhammad Mal Allah, p. 20.

[11] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/306.

[12] Ibid., 2/306.

[13] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 3/152, no. 1008.

[14] Ibid., 1/29, Kitab al Hajj, under the commentary of “i’tibar idhn al wali.

[15] Ibid., 5/38, Salat al Tawaf.

[16] Ibid., 1/259, Kitab al Salah, under the commentary of the section “turuq fi ma’rifat al zawal (al Da’irah al Hindiyyah).

[17] Ibid., 2/308, Kitab al Sawm under “sawm al dayf bi dun idhn mudifihi”.

[18] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 3/150, no. 1008.

[19] Al Khu’i: 9/330, Kitab al Taharah, under the chapter “min al mustahabb lada al mashhur ghusl yawm al mubahalah jumlah ma qila bistihbab ghusliha”.

[20] Al Hilli: Mukhtalif al Shia, 3/553, Afdaliyyat tatabu’ al qada’ ‘ala tafriqihi.

[21] Al Tusi: al Istibsar, 1/420, no. 1617, under the chapter “al qawm yakununa fi qaryatin hal yajuzu lahum an yajtami’u aw la?

[22] Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab, 1/319, under “salat al jumu’ah”.

[23] Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 324, no. 1274. Of note, al Shaharudi mentioned in his book Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith that al Hafiz Abu Nuaim al ‘Allamah al Sunni is from the forefathers of al Majlisi al Shia, the author of Bihar al Anwar and Mir’at al ‘Uqul (1/346, no. 1098).

[24] Ibid., p. 326, no. 1286.

[25] Ibid., p. 380, no. 1526. The reader would be perplexed at how al Hilli described ‘Abbad as being from the Ahlus Sunnah when he is among the most infamous of people described as being a Shia and holding extreme views therein! The statements of the Ahlus Sunnah scholars regarding ‘Abbad ibn Yaqub and him being attributed to the Shia and the Rafidah are many. Among them, what Ibn Hibban stated, “He was a Rafidi who used to call towards Rafd.” (al Majruhin, 2/172, no.797). Al Dhahabi states, “(He was a) staunch Shia” (al Kashshaf, 1/532, no. 2581). Ibn Hajar (Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 5/95) mentioned statements of the scholars regarding him, including the following, “Al Hakim stated that Ibn Khuzaimah used to say, “‘Abbad ibn Yaqub: a thiqah in his narration and suspected in his religion—narrated to us.” Abu Hatim stated, “(He is a) reliable scholar.” Ibn ‘Adi stated, “I heard ‘Abdan mention on the authority of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah or Hannad ibn Sari that both of them, or one of them declared him a fasiq and attributed to him the fact that he used to curse the Salaf.” Ibn ‘Adi stated, “‘Abbad has ghuluww (extremism) in his Shi’ism. He narrated ahadith that he was criticized for related to virtues and criticisms.” Salih ibn Muhammad stated, “He would curse ‘Uthman. I heard him saying, ‘Allah is more just than to place Talhah and Zubair into Jannat since they pledged their allegiance to ‘Ali and then they fought him.’’’ Al Khu’i made tawthiq of him in al Mujam (10/236, no. 6517).

[26] Ibid., p. 387, no. 1553. Al Khu’i made tawthiq of him in al Mujam, 14/352, no. 9446.

[27] Ibid., p. 392, no. 1577.

[28] Ibid., p. 399, no. 1605.

[29] Ibid., p. 417, no. 1690.

[30] Ibid., p. 355, no. 1407.

[31] Al Hilli: Muntaha al Matlab, 1/168, “‘Adam najasat ma la nafas lahu sa’ilah min al hayawanat bi al mawt”.

[32] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Sawm, 1/294. commentary under the chapter of “Ma yujib al kaffarah al iftar ‘ala muhrim kaffarat al jam’”.

[33] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 4/22, no. 1290.

[34] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 4/427, “Mawarid karahat mubasharat al ghayr”.

[35] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 10/233, no. 6146.

[36] Ibid., 14/254, no. 9302.

[37] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 6/102, “Ijtima’ al hayd ma’a al irda’ wa al haml”.

[38] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 8/161, “inhisar al mumathil fi al mukhalif”.

[39] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 7/34, no. 3508.

[40] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, 9/99, “hukm ma idha kana al mayyit tiflan”.

[41] Al Shahrastani: al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/132.

[42] It comes in Lisan al Mizan, 3/439 of Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani, “‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljam al Muradi, that Khariji deceiver. He is not deserving of hadith being narrated from him. I don’t think he has any narrations. He was a devout servant of Allah. However, his ending was not favourable; he killed Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in order to draw near to Allah with his blood, as he claimed. His arms, legs, and tongue were cut off. His eyes were gouged out and then he was burned. We ask Allah for forgiveness and well-being… Before this, he was from his Shia.” In al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah (5/109), Ibn Hajar states, “He lived in the Age of Ignorance and migrated during the Caliphate of ‘Umar. He read to Muaz ibn Jabal. This was mentioned by Abu Sa’id ibn Yunus. Thereafter, he became one of the senior members of the Khawarij. He is the most wretched of this Ummah because of killing ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. This is established by a verified text from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Because of this, ‘Ali’s children killed him. As mentioned by al Dhahabi, this took place in the month of Ramadan in the year 44 (AH).”

[43] Ibn Taymiyyah: Majmu’ al Fatawa, 4/467.

[44] Al Hilli: Tahrir al Ahkam, 1/50, al Mudaf wa al Asar.

[45] Ibid., 1/117, Ghusl al Amwat – al Taghsil.

[46] Al Hilli: Tadhkirat al Fuqaha’, 2/398, Hukm al Salah fi al Makan al Maghsub – furu’.

[47] Ibid., 9/409, fi hukm al Khawarij.

[48] As in the following biographies: al Akhnas ibn Qais, he said: “Amir al Mu’minin killed him.” (no. 1895); al Ashras ibn Hassan: “He rebelled against Amir al Mu’minin” (no. 2021); Burj ibn Mushir: “From the Khawarij.” (no. 2058); al Ja’di ibn Na’jah: “From the leaders of the Khawarij.” (no. 2487); Hurqus ibn Zuhayr: “Leader of the Khawarij. Amir al Mu’minin killed him.” (no. 3235); Zur’ah ibn Burj: “From the leaders of the Khawarij. (He has) his ugly words with Amir al Mu’min.” (no. 5734). And like this, they are mostly mentioned in situations and stories, not because they are narrators of an isnad. For this reason, it is known that they are scarce in both the asanid and in the biographical works of the Imamiyyah. Al Shaharudi was concerned with collecting most of their names because his book is a completion on the biographical works of the Imamiyyah. Accordingly, he collected whatever was not mentioned by his predecessors. As such, he mentioned most of the Khawarij after al Tusi’s book.

[49] Ibn Hajar states in al Isabah, 1/87, “Al Ash’ath ibn Qais ibn Ma’dikarib ibn Muawiyah ibn Jabalah ibn ‘Adi ibn Rabi’ah ibn Muawiyah al Akramin ibn Thawr al Kindi. His agnomen was Abu Muhammad. Ibn Sa’d states, ‘He visited the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the tenth year (AH) with seventy riders from Kindah. He was one of the kings of Kindah. He was the companion of Mirba’ Hadramawt. Ibn al Kalbi stated this.’ Al Bukhari and Muslim included his narrations in their respective Sahih collections. His name was Ma’dikarib.”

[50] Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, p. 325, no. 1278 in the second section. As for al Hilli’s statement, “He apostatized after the death of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,” it is true. However, al Hilli rejected his return to Islam and that he participated in al Qadisiyyah, Nahawand, and Jalula’, as mentioned by Ibn ‘Abdul Barr in al Isti’ab. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr also mentioned: “Aslam, the mawla (client) of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab: It is as if I am looking at al Ash’ath ibn Qais (after he was captured in the wars of apostasy. He was chained speaking to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was saying to him: ‘I did and I did.’ Until the end of that, I heard al Ash’ath saying, ‘Keep me behind for your war and marry me to your sister.’ Abu Bakr did so.” He also mentioned something which proves that he repented, turned back, and was remorseful. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr (1/42) states, “Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated on the authority of Ismail ibn Abi Khalid who said: ‘I witnessed a funeral in which Jarir and al Ash’ath were present. Al Ash’ath came to Jarir and said, ‘I became an apostate and you did not.’” As for al Hilli’s statement that “he became a Nasibi,” it is at variance with the biography of al Ash’ath in that he was among the supporters and those who were loyal to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Bukhari narrates in al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/59, on the authority of Hayyan Abu Sa’id al Taymi who said, “Al Ash’ath ibn Qais was cautioned about the fitan. It was said to him, ‘Are you going out with ‘Ali?’ He said, ‘And who do you have as an imam (that is) the likes of ‘Ali?’” Ibn Sa’d mentioned in his Tabaqat, 3/37, the following: “Al Ash’ath ibn Qais sent his son, Qais ibn al Ash’ath on the morning ‘Ali was struck. He said, ‘O, my son. See how Amir al Mu’minin is this morning. He went, looked at him, and then returned. He said, ‘I saw his eyes deep in its sockets.’ Al Ash’ath said, ‘My eyes have been struck, by the Lord of the Ka’bah.’ How is it possible for al Hilli to claim that al Ash’ath was a Nasibi when these texts clearly show his love and affection for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, even more than this. In Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/294, it states, “Ismail ibn Abi Khalid stated on the authority of Hakim ibn Jabir, ‘When al Ash’ath ibn Qais passed away and his daughter was under al Hassan ibn ‘Ali, al Hassan said, ‘When you wash him, do not move him until you inform me. They informed him and so, he came and washed his body with camphor (water).’ We have mentioned on the authority of more than one person that he died in the year 40 (AH).” We have the right to ask: How did al Hassan read salah on an apostate Nasibi? Perhaps this is sufficient in explaining the inauthenticity of al Hilli’s words and his extreme prejudice against al Ash’ath ibn Qais. As for al Hilli’s describing Umm Farwah as ‘one-eyed,’ I have tried my utmost but I could not find one of the scholars of biographical narration mentioning this description. Therefore, I do not know where al Hilli got this from. Assuming it is proven to be true, it (still) is not indicative of any shortcomings of Umm Farwah. May Allah be pleased with her and have mercy on her.

[51] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Hajj, 1/29, commentary under “i’tibar idhn al wali”.

[52] Al Khu’i: Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 3/153, no. 1008 under the biography of Ahmed ibn Hilal.