4. The Narration of Kanz al Fawa’id
3. Narration from Dala’il al Imamah
November 25, 2024Second Two – Non-Musnad Narrations
November 26, 2024BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
4. The Narration of Kanz al Fawa’id
Abu al Fath al Karajiki said:
ومما حدثنا به الشيخ الفقيه أبو الحسن بن شاذان قال حدثني أبي قال حدثنا ابن الوليد محمد بن الحسن قال حدثنا الصفار محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا محمد بن زياد عن مفضل بن عمر عن يونس بن يعقوب قال سمعت الصادق جعفر بن محمد عليهما السلام يقول ملعون ملعون كل بدن لا يصاب في كل أربعين يومًا ملعون ملعون من رمى مؤمنًا بكفر ومن رمى مؤمنًا بكفر فهو كقتله ملعونة ملعونة امرأة تؤذي زوجها وتغمه وسعيدة سعيدة امرأة تكرم زوجها ولا تؤذيه وتطيعه في جميع أحواله يا يونس قال جدي رسول الله ملعون ملعون من يظلم بعدي فاطمة ابنتي ويغصبها حقها ويقتلها
Among what was narrated to us by Sheikh al Faqih Abu al Hassan ibn Shadhan who said — my father told me saying — Ibn al Walid Muhammad ibn al Hassan narrated to us saying — al Saffar Muhammad ibn al Hussain[1] narrated to us saying — Muhammad ibn Ziyad narrated to us — from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar — from Yunus ibn Yaqub who said: I heard al Sadiq, Jafar ibn Muhammad say:
Cursed, cursed is everybody that is not afflicted at least every forty days. Cursed, cursed is he who accuses a believer of disbelief. He who accuses a believer of disbelief is as if he has killed him. Cursed, cursed is a woman who harms and distresses her husband, and blessed, blessed is a woman who honours her husband, does not harm him, and obeys him in all matters. O Yunus, my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, said, “Cursed, cursed is he who oppresses my daughter Fatimah after me, usurps her right, and causes her death.”[2]
Study of the Isnad
This chain is an example of the fabrication and insertion of false narrations attributed to the Ahlul Bayt, with fabricated chains being concocted for narrators who never uttered them. The fabricator of this narration, being ignorant of the sciences of Hadith, Rijal, and chains of transmission in Imami heritage, committed significant errors. He pieced together chains that are clearly spurious to those familiar with the field. It is not sufficient for a chain to be valid merely because its narrators are trustworthy; there must also be verification of the connection between narrators, among other conditions. The first requirement in defining an authentic hadith, as al Shahid al Thani said:
ما اتصل سنده إلى المعصوم بنقل العدل الإمامي
A narration whose chain of transmission is connected to the infallible through the transmission of a just Imami narrator.
This is something the fabricator neglected, as he was satisfied with assembling narrators, he believed to be reliable, overlooking the issue of the chain’s continuity. Here is the truth about this fabricated chain:
- It is narrated in the chain of transmission:
الصفار محمد بن الحسين قال حدثنا محمد بن زياد
Al Saffar Muhammad ibn al Hussain said — Muhammad ibn Ziyad narrated to us.
There are two possibilities in this chain:
The first possibility is that the chain is as it appears, but there is a scribal error where al Hassan was mistakenly written as al Hussain, because al Saffar’s name is Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Farrukh, and al Najashi declared him trustworthy.[3] He died in 290 AH. Here he narrates from Muhammad ibn Ziyad, who is Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair whom Sheikh al Tusi declared trustworthy.[4] He died in 217 AH. If this is the case, did al Saffar actually hear from Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair?
When asked:
Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you. Esteemed Sheikh Muslim al Dawari. May your blessings continue. I previously sent a question, and you kindly responded. However, I have now rephrased the question and apologise for the inconvenience. The corrected version is as follows: Has it been established that Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair heard directly from Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Saffar, especially considering the absence of any narration by Ibn Abi ‘Umair from al Saffar directly in Basa’ir al Darajat or in al Kutub al Arba’ah of the scholars of the sect? After researching and reviewing Kitab al Ruwat by al Mulla al Ardibili, may Allah sanctify his soul, can we now conclude that there is a gap or omission in the chain, as established in the science of the tabaqat of narrators?
Sheikh Muslim al Dawari answered this question by saying:
لم يثبت سماع محمد بن الحسن الصفار عن ابن أبي عمير فإنه يروي عن ابراهيم بن هاشم وهو يروي عن ابن أبي عمير كثيرًا إذًا هو متأخر من حيث الطبقة ومقتضى تاريخ وفاتهما أيضًا ذلك فإذا وُجد في السند محمد بن الحسن عن ابن عمير فالظاهر هو محمد بن الحسين عن ابن أبي عمير كما وقع نظيره في بعض الموارد
It has not been proven that Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Saffar heard from Ibn Abi ‘Umair, as he narrates from Ibrahim ibn Hashim, who often narrates from Ibn Abi ‘Umair. Thus, al Saffar is from a later generation, as their death dates also suggest. Therefore, if we find Muhammad ibn al Hassan narrating from Ibn ‘Umair in a chain, the apparent conclusion is that it is Muhammad ibn al Hussain narrating from Ibn Abi ‘Umair, as has happened in other instances.[5]
What al Dawari said is correct, as it is not proven in al Kutub al Arba’ah nor in Basa’ir al Darajat by al Saffar, that he narrated, even once, from Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair. This confirms the issue with this chain.
The second possibility is that there has been an omission or transcription error in the chain, as pointed out by Muslim al Dawari. The original chain could have been al Saffar — from Muhammad ibn al Hussain — from Muhammad ibn Ziyad, and the word ‘an (from) was omitted between al Saffar and Muhammad ibn al Hussain. This is because al Saffar’s name is Muhammad ibn al Hassan, and he narrates from Muhammad ibn al Hussain. Muhammad ibn al Hussain was a student of Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair, as proven in several places in Basa’ir al Darajat by al Saffar[6] and al Kafi by al Kulayni[7]. Al Khu’i has explicitly stated that Muhammad ibn al Hussain is among the narrators from Ibn Abi ‘Umair[8]. He is Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn Abi al Khattab, Abu Jafar al Zayyat al Hamadani, and al Saffar was his student and the narrator of his books[9]. This possibility seems to be the closest to the truth. If this is proven, then the discussion on the chain will focus on the narrators after them.
- It is also narrated:
المفضل بن عمر بن عن يونس عن يعقوب
Al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar from Yunus ibn Yaqub.
Before discussing al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar’s status, it is important to note that there is no record in the four primary books—or even the eight canonical works[10]—of any narration from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar from Yunus ibn Yaqub, except for this particular instance found in Kanz al Fawa’id by al Karajiki!
The issue raised by Muslim al Dawari about the discontinuity between al Saffar and Ibn Abi ‘Umair applies here as well. However, in this case, it is even clearer, as the narration of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar from Yunus ibn Yaqub goes against the well-known chains among the Imamiyyah, as the commonly accepted chain is al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar from Yunus ibn Zabyan from al Sadiq. This is a well-known path, unlike this narration, which conflicts with all known chains of transmission.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that there is a discontinuity, scribal error, or omission in this chain, as indicated by Sayed Ahmed al Madadi, a scholar of Hadith and a teacher at the seminary in Qum.
When asked:
هل ثبت سماع المفضل بن عمر من يونس بن يعقوب مباشرة خصوصا مع عدم الظفر بأي رواية للمفضل عن يونس بن يعقوب مباشرة في الكتب الأربعة فهل بعد هذا يمكن الحكم بالإرسال بينهما أو السقط في السند إن وجد كما هو مقرر في علم طبقات الرواة
Is there any evidence to prove that al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar heard directly from Yunus ibn Yaqub, especially since no direct narration from al Mufaddal to Yunus ibn Yaqub can be found in the four primary books? Does this allow for the conclusion of an interrupted chain or omission in the chain, as established in the science of transmitter levels?
Al Madadi replied:
يونس بن يعقوب متأخر طبقة عن المفضل بن عمر والتفصيل موكول إلى محله
Yunus ibn Yaqub belongs to a generation later than al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, and further details are left to their appropriate context.[11]
Thus, two scholars of the science of narrators have confirmed the discontinuity in two places within this chain and that is sufficient evidence to disprove the validity of this fabricated narration.
Even if we overlook the issue of the omitted or broken link and assume that the correct name should be Yunus ibn Zabyan—which is not far-fetched, as he was a teacher of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar in many instances—Sheikh Hussain al Sa’idi summarises the status of Yunus ibn Zabyan:
غال ضعيف جدًا كذاب يضع الحديث ضعفه محمد بن مسعود العياشي والفضل بن شاذان والكشي وابن الغضائري والنجاشي عده من الضعفاء العلامة وابن داود والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف والبهبودي له عدة روايات في الكتب الأربعة وغيرها يظهر من بعضها التخليط والوضع
He was an extremist, very weak, a liar, and fabricator of narrations. He was discredited by Muhammad ibn Mas’ud al ‘Ayyashi, al Fadl ibn Shadhan, al Kashshi, Ibn al Ghada’iri, and al Najashi. He was also classified among the weak by al ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi. He has several narrations in the four canonical books and other works, and from some of them, fabrication and confusion are apparent.[12]
Furthermore, we say, he was declared weak by al Mamaqani[13], al Khu’i;[14] and ‘Abdul Nabi al Kazimi said:
واعلم أن هذا قد ضعفه أكثر أهل الرجال
Know that most of the scholars of narrators have deemed him weak.[15]
What has been previously mentioned is sufficient for any fair-minded person to reject this narration, as the discontinuity is evident in two places.
- Among the narrators in this chain is al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, who is known to be one of the heads of the extremist sect.
Abu al ‘Abbas al Najashi said about him:
فاسد المذهب مضطرب الرواية لا يعبأ به وقيل إنه كان خطابيا وقد ذكرت له مصنفات لا يعول عليها
He had a corrupt creed and was unreliable in narration, and he is of no regard. It has also been said that he was from the Khattabiyyah sect. He has written works, but they are not dependable.[16]
Al Najashi’s statement is given precedence over others according to the majority of scholars of narrator criticism.
Sheikh Hussain al Sa’idi, after an in-depth study of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar’s case, stated:
جاء في مدحه عدة روايات أكثرها ضعيفة وإن صرحت فهي قاصرة الدلالة ومعارضة بعدة روايات صحيحة السند في ذمه ووصفه بالغلو وضعفه النجاشي وابن الغضائري ورجح تضعيفه كل من العلامة الحلي وابن داود الحلي والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف والبهبودي ويظهر من رواياته التخليط والغلو والارتفاع والوضع والاختلاق
There are several narrations that praise him, most of which are weak, and even if they clearly state his merits, they lack evidential strength. These narrations are contradicted by numerous sound narrations criticising him and describing him as an extremist. He was discredited by al Najashi, Ibn al Ghada’iri, and his weakening was favoured by al ‘Allamah al Hilli, Ibn Dawood al Hilli, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi. His narrations are marked by confusion, extremism, exaggeration, fabrication, and falsification.[17]
Muhammad Rida al Sistani studied the case of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar in a lengthy research paper, where he discussed all the opinions about him. He summarised his conclusion by stating:
تحصل مما تقدم أن أقل ما يمكن أن يقال بشأن المفضل بن عمر الجعفي هو أن حاله ملتبس ولا يمكن الاطمئنان بوثاقته فضلًا عن جلالته والله تعالى هو العالم بحقيقة الأمور
From what has been mentioned, the least that can be said regarding al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al Ju’fi is that his condition is ambiguous and one cannot be confident in his trustworthiness, let alone his greatness. And Allah, the Exalted, knows the reality of matters.[18]
Discussion on the Narration’s Text
In the text of the narration, there is behaviour that contradicts the culture of the Ahlul Bayt and their method of addressing the general public, as it includes frequent curses in a manner that raises astonishment. This is not to suggest that there is no record of the Ahlul Bayt cursing a specific individual or action, but the repetition of these curses in a suspicious manner seems far removed from the guidance of the Prophets and scholars, and closer to the reasoning of ignorant preachers. The word “accursed” is mentioned more than twenty times!
This logic points to a clear cultural difference from the speech of Imam Jafar al Sadiq, his excellent rhetoric, and his wide intellect. It is certain that he would not have uttered such words in such a weak context.
[1] In both editions of the book, the name is recorded as Muhammad ibn al Hussain, and this is what we found in the manuscript of Kanz al Fawa’id, preserved at al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah (manuscript no. 224, folio 58/b). It is possible that “al Hussain” is a scribal error and the correct name is “al Hassan,” the father of Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Saffar. Alternatively, the name Muhammad ibn al Hussain could be accurate, but a word was dropped between “al Saffar” and “Muhammad ibn al Hussain.” Al Saffar’s full name is Muhammad ibn al Hassan, and one of his teachers, from whom he narrates, is Muhammad ibn al Hussain, who narrates from Ibn Abi ‘Umair.
[2] Kanz al Fawa’id, Haydariyyah printed edition, pg. 63; Dar al Adwa’ edition, vol. 1, pg. 149.
[3] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 354, entry no. 948.
[4] Al Fihrist, pg. 218, entry no. 617.
[5] On the website “Muslim Dawi” by the Imam al Rida Foundation for Research and Investigation, an answer was provided concerning the authenticity of hearing from certain narrators. See the link here. http://www.ridhatorath.com/content/masael/masael_questionanswer.aspx?questionid=96
[6] Basa’ir al Darajat, pg. 56, 102, 130, 234, 236, 327, 447, 541.
[7] Al Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 51; vol. 1, pg. 107; vol. 2, pg. 420, among others.
[8] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 15, pg. 300.
[9] See his biography in Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 16, pg. 309.
[10] These are: al Kafi by al Kulayni, Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih by al Saduq, al Tahdhib and al Istibsar both by Sheikh al Tusi, al Wafi by al Fayd al Kashani, Wasa’il al Shia by al Hurr al ‘Amili, Mustadrak al Wasa’il by al Nuri al Tabarsi, Bihar al Anwar by al Majlisi.
[11] On the website of Ahmed al Madadi: http://www.madadialmusavi.com/arabic/qa/13539. Was it confirmed that al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar directly heard narrations from Yunus ibn Yaqub? The page was viewed on 30/08/2022.
[12] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3, pg. 463.
[13] Tanqih al Maqal, vol. 1, pg. 169.
[14] As mentioned in al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith by al Jawahiri, pg. 679.
[15] Takmilat al Rijal, vol. 2, pg. 626.
[16] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 416, entry number 1112.
[17] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3, pg. 350.
[18] Qabasat min ‘Ilm al Rijal, vol. 1, pg. 567.