3. Narration from Dala’il al Imamah
2. Narration from Kamil al Ziyarat
November 25, 20244. The Narration of Kanz al Fawa’id
November 25, 2024BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
3. Narration from Dala’il al Imamah
The author of Dala’il al Imamah said:
حدثني أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون بن موسى التلعكبري قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني أبو علي محمد بن همام بن سهيل رضي الله عنه قال روى أحمد بن محمد بن البرقي عن أحمد بن محمد الأشعري القمي عن عبد الرحمن بن بحر عن عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله جعفر بن محمد عليه السلام قال ولدت فاطمة عليها السلام في جمادى الآخرة يوم العشرين منه سنة خمس وأربعين من مولد النبي وأقامت بمكة ثمان سنين وبالمدينة عشر سنين وبعد وفاة أبيها خمسة وسبعين يوما وقبضت في جمادى الآخرة يوم الثلاثاء لثلاث خلون منه سنة إحدى عشرة من الهجرة وكان سبب وفاتها أن قنفذًا مولى عمر لكزها بنعل السيف بأمره فأسقطت محسنًا ومرضت من ذلك مرضًا شديدًا
Abu al Hussain Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari narrated to me, saying — my father narrated to me, who said — Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Hammam ibn Suhayl narrated to me, saying — Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn al Barqi narrated — from Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Ash’ari al Qummi — from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar ibn Muhammad, who said:
Fatimah was born in Jumada al Akhirah, on the twentieth day of it, in the year forty-five of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam birth. She stayed in Makkah for eight years, and in Madinah for ten years. After her father’s death, she lived for seventy-five days, and she passed away in Jumada al Akhirah on a Tuesday, three days before the end of it, in the eleventh year of the Hijrah. The cause of her death was that Qunfudh, a freedman of ‘Umar, struck her with the back of a sword by his command, causing her to miscarry Muhsin and to suffer from a severe illness as a result.[1]
Study of the Isnad
The discussion about Dala’il al Imamah has been detailed previously, where we established that its author is unknown and its circulated version is not reliable. Nevertheless, we will examine the chain of narration, especially since this narration is a primary piece of evidence for contemporary proponents of the alleged incident of the broken rib. It is one of the few narrations that Shia scholars have affirmed as authentic and thus we have dedicated a detailed and extensive study to it because the invalidation of this narration would mean the collapse of a major narrative relied upon by supporters of the rib-breaking myth. Therefore, we say: The chain of this narration is not valid due to several defects:
First Defect: Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari: He is unknown, as discussed earlier.[2]
Second Defect: It is mentioned in the chain of narration, “Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Hammam ibn Suhayl, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated to me saying: Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi narrated.”
We say: Muhammad ibn Hammam al Iskafi states in this chain: “Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi narrated,” but he did not say: “I heard” or “he informed me” or “he narrated to me” or other expressions of hearing, and this is clear and very important. Hence, there is a problem in Muhammad ibn Hammam hearing this report from Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi, because Muhammad ibn Hammam’s choice of this expression indicates that he did not hear this report directly from al Barqi. What supports this is that Muhammad ibn Hammam al Iskafi, in his book al Tamhis, also transmitted from Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi using the expression “narrated”. He said, “Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi narrated in his major book, from Abu ‘Abdullah, peace be upon him, who said, ‘He who has not prepared patience for every calamity and gratitude for every blessing has failed.’” This confirms that Muhammad ibn Hammam does not narrate directly from Ahmed al Barqi. Either he transmitted from him through an intermediary or he is quoting from al Barqi’s book and not hearing it from him.
And if an objector were to say: The copyist here made a mistake, intending to write “from” but instead wrote “narrated”, and the evidence is that it appears in Bihar al Anwar[3] with the expression “from” instead of “narrated,” then we would rely on the version of Bihar al Anwar and not take what is found in Dala’il al Imamah.
Our response would be:
i) The established wording in Dala’il al Imamah from the edition by Mu’assasat al A’lami and the edition verified by Qism al Dirasat al Islamiyyah – Mu’assasat al Ba’thah – Qum is rawa. Whoever saw a different wording must present a version of the book Dala’il al Imamah that proves otherwise from the verified editions.
ii) In the introduction to the verified edition of al Tamhis by Muhammad ibn Hammam al Iskafi, while enumerating his teachers, it is mentioned:
أحمد بن محمد البرقي دلائل الإمامة 10 45 الظاهر أن هنا بينه وبين ابن همام سقط
Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi in Dala’il al Imamah, pg. 10 and 45, It appears that there is a missing link between him and Ibn Hammam.[4]
We say: This is correct, as the gap or disconnection in the chain of transmission is apparent.
If it is claimed that in Bihar al Anwar the term ‘an was used instead of rawa, the answer is: This is an alteration by al Majlisi, who contradicted all the printed versions available today.[5] He even contradicted the book of Muhammad ibn Hammam himself! Alternatively, this could be due to laxity in differentiating between the terms ‘an and rawa when copying narrations from their sources.
Finally, if someone argues: Muhammad ibn Hammam was a contemporary of Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Barqi, so we should interpret rawa as based on hearing directly from him.
The response is: The issue is not about contemporaneity; rather, it is about whether he actually heard from him or not. We remind you of Muhammad ibn Hammam al Iskafi’s insistence—as one of the transmitters of this report—on using the term rawa in everything he transmits from al Barqi (what we have encountered) and his explicit statement in his book al Tamhis that he is transmitting from al Barqi’s book, as previously mentioned. This is evidence that there was no direct hearing in every instance he narrates from him. Therefore, it appears that Ibn Hammam did not hear this report directly from al Barqi.
Third Defect: The sanad of the report states: from Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Ash’ari al Qummi — from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan.
‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr might be thought to be the one mentioned in al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, where al Jawahiri summarised al Khu’i’s judgement about him, stating, “Majhul (Unknown).”[6]
However, this is unlikely, as Ibn Bahr mentioned by al Khu’i narrates from Jafar al Sadiq with only one intermediary, while the Ibn Bahr mentioned by the author of Dala’il al Imamah has three intermediaries between him and al Sadiq. Therefore, it is unlikely that the two are the same person. Additionally, we have not found a biography of this ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr in the books of Rijal, making him unknown.
Note: ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr is the name that appears in all versions of Dala’il al Imamah. However, the committee at Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, which supervised the verification of the book Dala’il al Imamah,[7] replaced the unknown ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr with ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Najran, despite the fact that none of the versions they relied upon contained the name “ibn Abi Najran”! They even acknowledged that the correct name in the manuscripts they used is “ibn Bahr.” These manuscripts are:
- The manuscript from al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah, referred to as (Mim).
- The manuscript from Maktabat al Sayed al Mar’ashi, referred to as (‘Ayn).
- The version printed by al Matba’ah al Haydariyyah in 1369 AH, referred to as (Ta).
The verifiers of Dala’il al Imamah in the Mu’assasat al Ba’thah edition stated:
ابن بحر تصحيف صوابه ما في المتن من البحار والعوالم روى عن ابن سنان وروى عنه ابن عيسى في موارد كثيرة انظر معجم رجال الحديث 9: 299
Ibn Bahr is a scribal error; the correct version is what appears in the text[8] of al Bihar and al ‘Awalim. He narrated from Ibn Sinan and Ibn ‘Isa narrated from him in numerous instances. See Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/299.[9]
Their justification is based on two points:
- The claim that in Bihar al Anwar by al Majlisi and in al ‘Awalim, the name ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Najran is used.
- That Ibn Abi Najran narrated from Ibn Sinan and Ibn ‘Isa narrated from him frequently, making it necessary for him to be Ibn Abi Najran.
Following this justification, they altered the text in the body of the book, contradicting the correct name found in the two manuscript copies of the book, as well as the first printed edition they relied upon, printed by al Matba’ah al Haydariyyah.
We say in response, firstly, regarding their claim that Bihar al Anwar and al ‘Awalim contain the name ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Najran, the response can be given in two points:
a. As for their argument based on Bihar al Anwar, we say: One of the most notable specialists in Bihar al Anwar is the researcher Asif Muhsini, who mentioned that al Majlisi frequently changes names. He listed one of the criticisms of al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar as:
تغييراته في أسماء الرواة حيث أتعبني في بعض الموارد
Alterations to the names of the narrators… it exhausted me in several instances.[10]
This is a common practice of al Majlisi in many texts, as he sometimes shortens narrations or changes their wording, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This is especially relevant considering that Asif Muhsini acknowledged that al Majlisi frequently altered the names of narrators. Thus, the text of Bihar al Anwar should not be prioritised over the manuscript copies of the book as academic verification demands.
b. Regarding their argument based on the book ‘Awalim al ‘Ulum, the response is as follows: The printed versions of al ‘Awalim have discrepancies between different editions. The version used by Mu’assasat al Ba’thah has the name ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Najran,[11] whereas another edition contains ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr.[12]
Secondly, they argue that since Ibn Abi Najran is said to have narrated from Ibn Sinan and Ibn ‘Isa narrated from him frequently, it must be that he is the reliable Ibn Abi Najran, not the unknown Ibn Bahr.
The response to this is that even if this premise were accepted, Mu’assasat al Ba’thah did not adhere to it consistently. They changed the name Ibn Bahr found in all versions to Ibn Abi Najran based on the context of the teachers and students. They prioritised this approach over all manuscript versions of the book, yet strangely, they applied this method only to ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr and did not apply it to ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, who is the teacher of “Ibn Abi Najran” in the same narration!
Thus, the chain of narration after Mu’assasat al Ba’thah’s alteration is as follows: Ibn Abi Najran — from Ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan. If Mu’assasat al Ba’thah relied on the principle of differentiating narrators based on teachers and students, even though the narration of “‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan” is not well-known, and we found no narration of “‘Abdullah ibn Sinan —from Ibn Muskan” in the sources of Imami narrations, whereas the narrator from Ibn Muskan is Muhammad ibn Sinan, known for his weakness according to many Imami scholars.
Why did Mu’assasat al Ba’thah not change the name of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan to Muhammad ibn Sinan as they did with Ibn Bahr and Ibn Abi Najran, based on the principle of teachers and students? Strangely, they contradicted this methodology in another book. In their verification of al Burhan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, they found a line in one of the manuscript chains stating “Ibn Abi ‘Umair — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan” instead of “Ibn Abi ‘Umair — from Ibn Muskan”. They confirmed the correct version as “Ibn Abi ‘Umair — from Ibn Muskan” and stated:
عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان روى ابن أبي عمير عنهما ولكن لم تثبت رواية أحدهما عن الآخر
‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan: Ibn Abi ‘Umair narrates from both, but the narration of one from the other is not confirmed.[13]
Thus, they clearly stated the lack of evidence for the narration of “‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan,” which contradicts their verification in Dala’il al Imamah where they accepted the narration of “‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan” without mentioning its lack of evidence. If they were seeking the truth, they should have changed the narrator to Muhammad ibn Sinan, as is correct. It seems that their removal of the unknown “Ibn Bahr” and the substitution with “Ibn Abi Najran” is intended to strengthen the chain in their view, even though it contradicts all book versions. However, changing ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan to Muhammad ibn Sinan would likely weaken the narration according to many Imami scholars, which is why they applied the principle of the teacher and the student to Ibn Bahr and ignored it for Ibn Sinan.[14]
When Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili was asked about this chain and how ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan could have heard from Ibn Muskan, despite contradicting all sources and the principle of the teacher and the student, he said:
ما المانع من أن يروي عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان خصوص هذه الرواية حتى لو لم يرو عنه أية رواية أخرى
What prevents ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan from narrating this particular narration from Ibn Muskan, even if he did not narrate any other narration from him?[15]
We may then say in response: What prevents Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Ash’ari al Qummi from narrating this particular narration from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr, even if he did not narrate any other narration from him?
If they have the right to apply the principle of differentiating narrators based on the teacher and the one narrated from, they should apply it consistently across all chains, rather than in a way that suggests the matter is unrelated to academic research.
Thus, the accurate conclusion is that the correct name in the chain is ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr, as his name appears in all versions of the book Dala’il al Imamah.
As for those who argue that academic principles necessitate changing Ibn Bahr to Ibn Abi Najran, we may agree with them, provided they apply this principle consistently throughout the entire chain of narration. Consequently, they must also change ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan to Muhammad ibn Sinan. Will the one making this argument adhere to that?
Fourth Defect: After extensive research and following the patterns of this chain of transmission, we have discovered a clear defect. The mention of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan in this chain is an error. The correct name is Muhammad ibn Sinan for the following reasons:
1. This narration is transmitted in Kitab Tawarikh Mawalid al A’immah by Ibn al Khushshab al Baghdadi (567 AH). This narration appears in Dala’il al Imamah in a similar form, but the chain mentions Muhammad ibn Sinan rather than ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan. Ibn al Khushshab said:
حدثنا حرب قال حدثنا الحسن بن محمد عن أبيه عن محمد بن الحسين عن محمد بن سنان عن محمد بن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله الصادق عليه السلام وحدثنا صدقة بن موسى حدثنا أبي عن الحسن بن محبوب عن هشام بن سالم عن حبيب السجستاني عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي قالا ولدت فاطمة بعد ما أظهر الله نبوة نبيه وأنزل عليه الوحي بخمس سنين وقريش تبني البيت وتوفيت ولها ثمانية عشر سنة وخمسة وسبعين يوما
Harb narrated to us saying — al Hassan ibn Muhammad narrated to us — from his father — from Muhammad ibn al Hussain — from Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Muhammad ibn Muskan[16] — from Abi Basir — from Abi ‘Abdullah al Sadiq… and Sadaqah ibn Musa narrated to us saying — my father narrated to me — from al Hassan ibn Mahbub — from Hisham ibn Salim — from Habib al Sijistani— from Abi Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali…
Both[17] said: Fatimah was born five years after Allah publicised the prophethood of His Messenger and sent down revelation upon him, while the Quraysh were rebuilding the Ka’bah. She passed away at the age of eighteen years and seventy-five days.[18]
2. It is Muhammad ibn Sinan from whom narrations concerning the births and deaths of the Imams with this same chain of transmission are reported. Al Kulayni has transmitted eight narrations from him in the sections on the births and deaths of the Imams. Four of them are from the narration of Muhammad ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan, from Abu Basir, from Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar al Sadiq.[19] Two narrations with the same chain end with Abu Basir[20] and two narrations are directly from the statement of Muhammad ibn Sinan.[21] The point is that the reports on the births and deaths of the Imams transmitted from Jafar al Sadiq were only narrated through this chain that passes through Muhammad ibn Sinan, not ‘Abdullah. Thus, the correct chain of transmission affirms Muhammad ibn Sinan.
3. Both al Majlisi in his al Bihar and other sources have transmitted this narration without affirming that ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan is the one being referred to; rather, it only mentions ‘Ibn Sinan’ without specification.
4. Some Imami scholars have noted that there is no narration by ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan from ‘Abdullah ibn Muskan. Researcher ‘Abbas Tabriziyan stated:
لم تثبت رواية عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان ولكن رواية محمد عنه ثابتة
The narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan has not been established, but the narration of Muhammad from him is confirmed.[22]
When one manuscript of the book al Burhan fi Tafsir al Qur’an contained a narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan, the scholars of Mu’assasat al Ba’thah did not authenticate it and said:
في س عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان روى ابن أبي عمير عنهما ولكن لم تثبت رواية أحدهما عن الآخر
In Sin, the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan: Ibn Abi ‘Umair narrates from both of them, but no narration of either from the other has been proven.[23]
5. When a narration mentions Ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan without specifying which Ibn Sinan is intended, Imami scholars lean towards the opinion that the reference is to Muhammad, not ‘Abdullah. Ahmed Zayn al ‘Abidin al ‘Alawi said:
إن فيه قرينة على أن ما في كثير من الأخبار عن ابن سنان عن ابن مسكان عن الحلبي يراد به محمد لا عبد الله
There is evidence that in many narrations where Ibn Sinan is mentioned as transmitting from Ibn Muskan from al Halabi, what is meant is Muhammad, not ‘Abdullah.[24]
He further said:
وقع في تهذيب رواه عن الحسين بن سعيد عن ابن سنان عن ابن مسكان وهذا هو الصحيح لرواية الحسين عن ابن مسكان بواسطة ابن سنان لا بدونه ثم إنه محمد لا عبد الله فالسند ضعيف
It is recorded in Tahdhib that al Hussain ibn Sa’id transmitted from Ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan, and this is correct since al Hussain narrated from Ibn Muskan through Ibn Sinan, not directly. Furthermore, it is Muhammad, not ‘Abdullah, making the chain weak.[25]
Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn al Shahid al Thani, commenting on a narration that mentioned Ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan, said:
توهم أن ابن سنان ليس بمحمد لا يفيد إن لم يتحقق كونه عبد الله والحق تعين كونه محمدًا كما كررنا فيه القول
Assuming that “Ibn Sinan” is not Muhammad does not help unless it is verified to be ‘Abdullah, but the truth is that it must be Muhammad, as we have repeatedly explained.[26]
He further stated:
ابن سنان هو محمد على الظاهر
Ibn Sinan is Muhammad as is apparent.[27]
At another place, he added:
فيه ابن سنان وهو محمد كما قدمناه وإن احتمال عبد الله منتفٍ وما وقع في بعض الطرق من ذكر عبد الله بعد الحسين نبه الوالد قدس سره على أنه سهو وبالجملة فاحتمال عبد الله الثقة لا وجه له
“Ibn Sinan” refers to Muhammad, as we have previously clarified, and the possibility of ‘Abdullah is dismissed… What is found in some chains mentioning ‘Abdullah after al Hussain was pointed out by my father as a mistake… In summary, there is no reason to consider ‘Abdullah the reliable one in these chains.[28]
Al Hussain al Khuwanasari[29] also said:
فيه ابن سنان عن ابن مسكان وابن سنان هو محمد لا عبد الله كما هو الظاهر
In this chain, “Ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan” refers to Muhammad, not ‘Abdullah, as is apparent.[30]
Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri also commented on a chain narrated by Ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan, saying:
ضعيف بابن سنان فإنه محمد
It is weak due to Ibn Sinan, as he is Muhammad.[31]
He added elsewhere:
ابن سنان الذي يروي عن ابن مسكان قد تحقق أن اسمه محمد
The Ibn Sinan who narrates from Ibn Muskan has been confirmed to be Muhammad.[32]
He also stated:
ضعيف بابن سنان فإنه وقع التصريح به كثيرًا في الأخبار بأنه محمد بن سنان
The chain is weak due to Ibn Sinan, as it has often been explicitly mentioned in the narrations that he is Muhammad ibn Sinan.[33]
Al Khu’i asserts:
وابن سنان هذا هو محمد بن سنان الضعيف لا عبد الله بن سنان لأنه الذي يروي عنه الحسين بن سعيد وهو يروي عن ابن مسكان غالبًا دون عبد الله فالمطمئن به بحكم الغلبة أن الواقع في السند هو محمد ولا أقل من الشك والاحتمال
Ibn Sinan in this chain is Muhammad ibn Sinan, who was regarded as weak by the scholars, not ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, as al Hussain ibn Sa’id often narrates from him and he often narrates from Ibn Muskan, not ‘Abdullah. Therefore, based on the preponderance of evidence, the chain most likely includes Muhammad, or at the very least, the identity of Ibn Sinan is uncertain.[34]
Abu al Qasim al Kawakibi said:
الظاهر أن المراد بابن سنان فيها هو محمد بن سنان دون عبد الله بن سنان لأن محمد بن سنان يروي عن ابن مسكان كثيرًا وأما عبد الله بن سنان فيبعد روايته عنه فإن ابن مسكان يروي عنه ومعه يبعد أن يكون هو راويًا عنه ومحمد بن سنان ضعيف أو مجهول
It appears that the “Ibn Sinan” referred to here is Muhammad ibn Sinan, not ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, because Muhammad ibn Sinan frequently narrates from Ibn Muskan. As for ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, it is unlikely that he would narrate from him, as Ibn Muskan narrates from him, making it improbable that ‘Abdullah would also narrate from him. Muhammad ibn Sinan is weak or unknown.[35]
If it is established that the correct attribution in the chain is to Muhammad ibn Sinan and not ‘Abdullah, this further weakens the chain. Sheikh al Imami Hussain al Sa’idi summarised his condition as follows:
خلاصة القول فيه ضعيف متهم بالغلو ضعفه ابن شاذان وابن عقدة والمفيد وابن الغضائري والنجاشي والطوسي وعرده في الضعفاء العلامة الحلي وابن داود والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف والبهبودي كثير الرواية في بعضها غلو وتخليط وكذب ومنها محفوف بقرائن الصحة وعمل الفقهاء بمضامينها
In short, he is weak, accused of extremism. He was weakened by Ibn Shadhan, Ibn ‘Uqdah, al Mufid, Ibn al Ghada’iri, al Najashi, and al Tusi. Al ‘Allamah al Hilli, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi listed him among the weak narrators. He transmitted many narrations, some of which contain extremism, confusion, and lies, while others are supported by indicators of authenticity, with jurists having acted upon their content.[36]
He was also weakened by Ibrahim al Shabbut.[37]
Objection Regarding the Attribution of the Rest of the Content in this Text to Jafar al Sadiq
While studying this narration, we noticed a strong possibility that the last part of this narration, which mentions the cause of Fatimah’s death, is not part of the original narration attributed to Jafar al Sadiq. The specific part in question is as follows:
وكان سبب وفاتها أن قنفذًا مولى عمر لكزها بنعل السيف بأمره فأسقطت محسنًا ومرضت من ذلك مرضًا شديدًا
The cause of her death was that Qunfudh, the servant of ‘Umar, struck her with the hilt of his sword on his order, causing her to miscarry Muhsin and she became severely ill from that.
It appears that this portion is not from the words narrated from Jafar al Sadiq, and it is more likely that this section is not part of the original narration. Rather, it seems to be a digression that explains the cause of Fatimah’s death. This digression might be from the words of the author of Dala’il al Imamah or someone else.
We are inclined to this possibility for two reasons:
- The author of Dala’il al Imamah narrated this report earlier with a similar chain from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Jafar al Sadiq, without this addition. He said:
وُلدت فاطمة (عليها السلام) في جمادى الآخرة يوم العشرين منه سنة خمس وأربعين من مولد النبي فأقامت بمكة ثمان سنين وبالمدينة عشر سنين وبعد وفاة أبيها خمسة وسبعين يومًا وقُبضت في جمادى الآخرة يوم الثلاثاء لثلاث خلون منه سنة إحدى عشرة من الهجرة
Fatimah was born in Jumada al Akhirah on the 20th of the month, in the year 45 after the Prophet’s birth. She stayed in Makkah for eight years and in Madinah for ten years, and after her father’s death, she lived for seventy-five days. She passed away in Jumada al Akhirah on a Tuesday, the 3rd of the month, in the year 11 AH.[38]
This narration lacks the addition about the cause of Fatimah’s death. Moreover, this report has been transmitted from Jafar al Sadiq in another book without the additional part. For instance, in Tawarikh Mawalid al A’immah by Ibn al Khushshab al Baghdadi (d. 567 AH), we find the following:
حدثنا حرب قال حدثنا الحسن بن محمد عن أبيه عن محمد بن الحسين عن محمد بن سنان عن محمد بن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله الصادق عليه السلام وحدثنا صدقة بن موسى حدثنا أبي عن الحسن بن محبوب عن هشام بن سالم عن حبيب السجستاني عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي قالا ولدت فاطمة بعد ما أظهر الله نبوة نبيه وأنزل عليه الوحي بخمس سنين وقريش تبني البيت وتوفيت ولها ثمانية عشر سنة وخمسة وسبعين يوما
Harb narrated to us saying — al Hassan ibn Muhammad narrated to us — from his father — from Muhammad ibn al Hussain — from Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Muhammad ibn Muskan[39] — from Abi Basir — from Abi ‘Abdullah al Sadiq… and Sadaqah ibn Musa narrated to us saying — my father narrated to me — from al Hassan ibn Mahbub — from Hisham ibn Salim — from Habib al Sijistani — from Abi Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali…
Both said: Fatimah was born five years after Allah publicised the prophethood of His Messenger and sent down revelation upon him, while the Quraysh was rebuilding the Ka’bah. She passed away at the age of eighteen years and seventy-five days.[40]
The chain of Ibn al Khushshab is identical to that of Dala’il al Imamah in that both narrations pass through Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir from Jafar al Sadiq. Therefore, the words attributed to Jafar al Sadiq should end at “She passed away at the age of eighteen years and seventy-five days,” and what follows regarding the cause of her death is not part of the narration.
-
- Upon reviewing the narrations transmitted through Muhammad ibn Sinan regarding the births and deaths of the Imams, we found that all other reports do not mention the cause of death. Instead, they are limited to mentioning the date of death and the age of the Imam. Below are eight narrations found in the chapters on the deaths of the Imams as narrated by Muhammad ibn Yaqub al Kulayni with the chain from Ibn Sinan, which is the same chain found in Dala’il al Imamah:
Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said:
قُبِضَ الحسن بن علي وهو ابن سبع وأربعين سنة
Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali passed away at the age of 47 years.[41]
Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said:
قُبِضَ الحسين بن علي يوم عاشوراء وهو ابن سبع وخمسين سنة
Al Hussain ibn ‘Ali passed away on the day of ‘Ashura’ at the age of 57 years.[42]
Muhammad ibn Sinan —from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said:
قُبِضَ علي بن الحسين وهو ابن سبع وخمسين سنة في عام خمس وتسعين عاش بعد الحسين خمسًا وثلاثين سنة
‘Ali ibn al Hussain passed away at the age of 57 years in the year 95 AH. He lived 35 years after al Hussain.[43]
Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said:
قُبِضَ محمد بن علي الباقر وهو ابن سبع وخمسين سنة في عام أربع عشرة ومائة عاش بعد علي بن الحسين تسع عشرة سنة وشهرين
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir passed away at the age of 57 years in the year 114 AH. He lived 19 years and two months after ‘Ali ibn al Hussain.[44]
Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir who said:
قُبِضَ أبو عبد الله جعفر بن محمد وهو ابن خمس وستين سنة في عام ثمان وأربعين ومائة عاش بعد أبي جعفر أربعًا وثلاثين سنة
Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar ibn Muhammad passed away at the age of 65 years in the year 148 AH. He lived 34 years after Abu Jafar.[45]
Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir[46] who said:
قُبِضَ موسى بن جعفر وهو ابن أربع وخمسين سنة في عام ثلاث وثمانين ومائة عاش بعد جعفر خمسًا وثلاثين سنة
Musa ibn Jafar passed away at the age of 54 years in the year 183 AH. He lived 35 years after Jafar.[47]
Muhammad ibn Sinan said:
قُبِضَ علي بن موسى وهو ابن تسع وأربعين سنة وأشهر في عام اثنين ومائتين عاش بعد موسى بن جعفر عشرين سنة إلا شهرين أو ثلاثة
‘Ali ibn Musa passed away at the age of 49 years and some months in the year 202 AH. He lived 20 years minus two or three months after Musa ibn Jafar.[48]
Muhammad ibn Sinan said:
قُبِضَ محمد بن علي وهو ابن خمس وعشرين سنة وثلاثة أشهر واثني عشر يوما توفي يوم الثلاثاء لست خلون من ذي الحجة سنة عشرين ومائتين عاش بعد أبيه تسع عشرة سنة إلا خمسًا وعشرين يومًا
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali passed away at the age of 25 years, 3 months, and 12 days. He died on Tuesday, the 6th of Dhu al Hijjah, in the year 220 AH. He lived 19 years minus 25 days after his father.[49]
It is noticeable that all these narrations agree on specifying the dates of the deaths of the Imams and their ages. However, mentioning the cause of death is not usual in these narrations, even if the cause of death was tragic, as is the case with the martyrdom of al Hussain at Karbala’. The cause of his death is not mentioned, nor is it mentioned for al Hassan, even though it is claimed that he was poisoned.
Thus, what is mentioned after the narration from Dala’il al Imamah regarding the cause of Fatimah’s death is not from the narration of Muhammad ibn Sinan from Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir from Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq, because it contradicts the pattern of narrations transmitted through this chain regarding the deaths of the Imams. This is clear to anyone who examines these narrations.
Although this possibility, if proven, would suffice us from discussing the narration at all—since it has been established that it is not from the speech of an Imam but rather from an unknown speaker—we did not limit ourselves to this argument. As we have already addressed the chain of transmission, we decided to conclude by mentioning this issue to alert researchers, with Allah’s guidance.
The Opinion of Imami Scholars on the Chain of Transmission of the Narration
Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah deemed this narration weak because it is transmitted by Muhammad ibn Sinan.[50] Similarly, Asif Muhsini declared the narration unreliable in Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar.[51]
NEXT⇒ 4. The Narration of Kanz al Fawa’id
[1] Dala’il al Imamah, al Matba’ah al Haydariyyah edition, pg. 45, and Mu’assasat al A’lami edition, pg. 45, where ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Bahr appears instead of Ibn Abi Najran, and ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan instead of Ibn Sinan. In the Mu’assasat al Ba’thah edition, pg. 134, it was stated: ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Najran narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan.
[2] See narration no. 8.
[3] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 43 pg. 170.
[4] Al Iskafi: Kitab al Tamhis – Muqaddamat al Tahqiq, pg. 24, verified by the Fiqh Department at the School of Imam al Mahdi – Qum.
[5] Available editions of the book today include the Matba’at al Haydariyyah edition from 1949, the Mu’assasat al A’lami edition from 1988, which is a reproduction of the Haydariyyah edition, and the Mu’assasat al Ba’thah edition, which relied on the only two handwritten manuscripts of the book.
[6] Al Mufid min Mu’jam al Rijal al Hadith, pg. 308.
[7] Dala’il al Imamah, verified by Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, pg. 79.
[8] The correct form is: Ibn Abi Najran, as confirmed in the text of the narration.
[9] Dala’il al Imamah, Mu’assasat al Ba’thah edition, pg. 79.
[10] Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 1, pg. 31.
[11] The edition relied upon by the verifiers of Dala’il al Imamah, Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, is the edition by the Mu’assasat al Imam al Mahdi, associated with the Society of Teachers in Qum, in the year 1407 AH.
[12] This is confirmed in the edition of Mu’assasat al Imam al Mahdi with the efforts of Maktabat al Zahra’, third edition, 1415 AH, vol. 11, part two, pg. 566, narration no. 17.
[13] Al Burhan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, vol. 2, pg. 609, footnote 1.
[14] Many Imami scholars adhered to this principle and corrected errors they identified in the names of narrators in some chains by recognising the teachers of the narrator and their students, or by analogy to the narrator and the one being narrated from. This is evident from dozens, if not hundreds, of cases. Two examples: First, al Shahrudi stated in Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3, pg. 266, “It is likely that Bashr is a scribal error for Nasir, by analogy with the narrator.” Second, al Khu’i in al Mu’jam, vol. 7, pg. 282, “It appears that the error occurred in all cases and the correct name is Hamzah ibn Buzay’, by analogy with the narrator and the narrated from.”
[15] Al Sahih min Sirat al Imam ‘Ali, vol. 10, pg. 286; Mukhtasar Mufid, vol. 7, pg. 91.
[16] The correct name is ‘Abdullah ibn Muskan, because it is known that he was a student of Abu Basir and a teacher of Muhammad ibn Sinan.
[17] Jafar al Sadiq and Muhammad al Baqir.
[18] Tawarikh Mawalid al A’immah, published within a valuable collection in the history of the Imams, pg. 125.
[19] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 461, 463, 468, 472.
[20] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 475, 486.
[21] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 497.
[22] Ghana’im al Ayyam fi Masa’il al Halal wa al Haram, vol. 1, pg. 340, footnote no. 5.
[23] Al Burhan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, vol. 2, pg. 609, footnote 1.
[24] Manahij al Akhyar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 1, pg. 659.
[25] Manahij al Akhyar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 1, pg. 207.
[26] Istiqsa’ al I’tibar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 3, pg. 139.
[27] Istiqsa’ al I’tibar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 1, pg. 170; vol. 2, pg. 254.
[28] Istiqsa’ al I’tibar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 4, pg. 485 – 486.
[29] This is not Muhammad Baqir al Khuwanasari, the author of Rawdat al Jannat.
[30] Mashariq al Shumus, pg. 279.
[31] Kashf al Asrar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 2, pg. 188.
[32] Kashf al Asrar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 3, pg. 54.
[33] Kashf al Asrar fi Sharh al Istibsar, vol. 3, pg. 222.
[34] Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa Kitab al Salah, vol. 1, pg. 156.
[35] Mabani al Istinbat, vol. 1, pg. 417.
[36] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3, pg. 198.
[37] Du’afa’ al Ruwat, pg. 425.
[38] Dala’il al Imamah, Matba’at al Haydariyyah edition, pg. 9-10.
[39] The correct name is ‘Abdullah ibn Muskan, because it is known that he was a student of Abu Basir and a teacher of Muhammad ibn Sinan.
[40] Tawarikh Mawalid al A’immah, published within a valuable collection in the history of the Imams, pg. 125.
[41] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 461.
[42] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 463.
[43] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 468.
[44] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 472.
[45] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 475.
[46] This chain contains a grave error, as Ibn Muskan and Abu Basir passed away before Musa ibn Jafar al Kazim by consensus. Thus, al Tustari stated, “It appears that the mention of Ibn Muskan and Abu Basir is due to the scribe’s mistake or the copyist’s additions when they saw the chain in relation to the death dates of al Baqir and al Sadiq. The correct chain should be limited to Muhammad ibn Sinan — from Ibn Muskan — from Abu Basir, as was mentioned in the date of the death of al Rida. From al Sheikh and al Najashi, it is known that Abu Basir died 33 years before al Kazim, so how could he narrate after his death? Ibn Muskan, too, as al Najashi stated, passed away during the time of al Kazim. If we take Abu Basir as meant here, the issue remains unsolved, as he also appeared in the list of three names, even though his death date wasn’t mentioned, while Ibn Muskan, his narrator, clearly stated that he passed away before him. (Qamus al Rijal, vol, 12. pg. 466. See also: Mahdi ibn Hassan al Khuwanasari: An Unparalleled Letter on the Conditions of Abi Basir, published in the journal Mirath Hadith al Shia, issue 13, pg. 300.)
[47] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 486.
[48] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 492.
[49] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 497.
[50] Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah’s comments on the questions directed to Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma Mirza Jawad al Tabrizi, pg. 54.
[51] This is because the narration was cited by al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 43, pg. 170, in the seventh chapter, narration no. 11. Asif Muhsini, in al Mashra’ah, vol. 2, pg. 139, stated about this chapter, “There are more than fifty narrations in this chapter and the reliable ones are those numbered 14, 22, and 24.” This clearly indicates that narration no. 11 is not reliable.