BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Due to the weakness of these narrations, the supporters of this theory resorted to a curious response, which is that proving the authenticity of the story of the broken rib does not require authentic chains of narration. Jafar Murtada says:
إنه ليس من حق أحد أن يطلب من الناس أن يقتصروا في ما يثيرونه من قضايا على ما ورد عن النبي والأئمة ع بأسانيد صحيحة وفق المعايير الرجالية في توثيق رجال السند لأن ذلك معناه أن يسكت الناس كلهم عن الحديث في جل القضايا والمسائل دينية كانت أو تاريخية أو غيرها بل إن هذا الذي يطلب ذلك من الناس لو أراد هو أن يقتصر في كلامه على خصوص القضايا التي وردت بأسانيد صحيحة عن المعصومين فسيجد نفسه مضطرا إلى السكوت والجلوس في بيته لأنه لن يجد إلا النزر اليسير الذي سيستنفده خلال أيام أو أقل من ذلك وقال أيضًا لو أريد الاقتصار في التاريخ على ما صح سنده حسب المصطلح الرجالي فلا يمكن إثبات أية حقيقة تاريخية إلا ما شذ وندر
It is not anyone’s right to demand that people restrict the issues they raise to what has been narrated from the Prophet and the Imams with authentic chains of narration, according to the standards of verifying the men in the chain because this would mean that people would remain silent about most issues and matters, whether religious, historical, or otherwise. Moreover, the one who demands this would find himself forced to remain silent and sit in his house, for he would find only a few narrations that would be exhausted within days, if not less.[1]
He also says:
لو أريد الاقتصار في التاريخ على ما صح سنده حسب المصطلح الرجالي فلا يمكن إثبات أية حقيقة تاريخية إلا ما شذ وندر
If we were to limit historical matters to those whose chains are authentic according to the science of Rijal, no historical truth would be established, except for what is rare.[2]
He objected to the requirement of authentic chains of narration, asking:
هل يجب توفر سند صحيح لكل قضية تاريخية وكم هو عدد القضايا التي ثبتت كذلك وهل ثبوت أية قضية تاريخية يتوقف على وجود سند صحيح وفق المصطلح الرجالي
Is it necessary to have an authentic chain of narration for every historical matter? How many issues have been established in such a way? Does the confirmation of any historical matter depend on having an authentic chain of narration according to the standards of the science of Rijal?[3]
Similarly, Hashim al Hashimi says:
إن المقياس في الأخذ بمضمون الروايات ليس هو دومًا صحة السند من ضعفه فليس كل ما لم يثبت فيه سند صحيح فإن ذلك دليل على صحة طرحه وعدم الأخذ بموجبه فإنه توجد في بعض الأحيان قرائن داخلية وخارجية تحيط بالرواية وتكتنفها تستوجب الوثوق بالصدور وتشهد لصحة محتوى الحديث وهذه القاعدة التي قررها جعفر مرتضى وأنصاره ليست إلا للتنصل من إثبات صحة سائر الروايات التي يستدل بها أنصار أسطورة كسر الضلع ولذا فهم لم يبينوا أحوال تلك الروايات إلا نادرًا ولهذا يقول نجيب مروة وهو من تيار جعفر مرتضى العاملي هل سيبقى لنا روايات وهل سيبقى لنا تاريخ إذًا خاصة إذا اعتمدنا على الروايات الصحيحة بالمعنى السندي
The criterion for accepting the content of narrations is not always the authenticity or weakness of the chain of transmission. Not everything that lacks a sound chain of transmission is automatically proof of its invalidity or disregard. Sometimes there are internal and external indications surrounding the narration that necessitate trust in its authenticity and testify to the truthfulness of the hadith.[4] This principle, established by Jafar Murtada and his supporters, is merely a way to avoid proving the authenticity of other narrations used by the proponents of the ‘Breaking of the Rib’ story. Thus, they rarely clarify the status of those narrations.[5] For this reason, Najib Marwah, who belongs to the school of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, says, “Will we still have any narrations left and will we still have any history, especially if we only rely on narrations authenticated through their chains of transmission?”[6]
The truth is that the reason they shy away from adhering to authentic narrations is their awareness that doing so would invalidate many false issues with which they have deceived the public for a long time. If they adhered to clarifying the degree of authenticity of each narration based on its chain, it would become apparent that most of their reliance is on narrations transmitted by weak, accused liars and extremists. Therefore, they avoid discussing chains of narration or the requirement of authenticity and they even dismiss the narrations of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt! Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili establishes a strange principle, saying:
إن ثبوت القضايا لا يتوقف على توفر سند صحيح لها برواية عن المعصومين
The confirmation of issues does not depend on having an authentic chain of narration from the infallibles.[7]
This is one of the strange things;[8] and it is sufficient to refute it by quoting the contradiction found in the statements of the Imamis themselves. The Imami Sheikh Fadl ‘Ali al Qazwini said, while trying to refute the accusation of Ibn Abi al Hadid that the Imamis are the only ones narrating the story of the broken rib:
إن الإمامية لا ينسبون إلى أبي بكر وعمر وغيرهما إلا ما ورد عن أئمتهم عليهم السلام بأسانيدهم المعتبرة ترزًا عن الكذب والافتراء عليهما أو على غيرهما
The Imamis do not attribute to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or others, except what has been transmitted from their Imams, peace be upon them, with their reliable chains, free from lies and slander against them or others.[9]
However, the claim that they rely on authentic chains is baseless, as we have already clarified the status of those chains, which the Marja’ Muhammad Asif Muhsini ruled as unreliable.
When Jafar Murtada and his counterparts wanted to explain the importance of the issue of the broken rib, they made it among the most significant matters of faith and belief. Yet, when they are asked to prove it with authentic chains from the Imams, they respond that this is not a requirement, knowing well that if these narrations were subjected to their own standards, they would be discredited.
How can it be conceivable that this issue is fundamental to our intellectual and spiritual life and is connected to something essential in this religion and its importance should not be underestimated or belittled,[10] yet there is no requirement for it to be narrated from the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt with authentic chains? Instead, it is only transmitted by the unknown, the weak, the accused, and the extremists!
Jafar Murtada and his supporters claimed the authenticity of some narrations, even though they are all weak, despite their small number. The most important narration relied upon by the supporters of the legend of the broken rib is the narration from the book Dala’il al Imamah. We have thoroughly responded to this and clarified that the author of al Dala’il is unknown and the book is not considered trustworthy. The chains of narration therein contain severe flaws. This is the status of the most authentic narration they rely on. And we have discussed the other narrations in detail.
Therefore, the opponents resorted to other methods to try to prove the authenticity of the narrations of the broken rib. Sometimes they claim trust in their authenticity due to the multiplicity of chains while at other times, they claim the widespread fame of this story. Some even exaggerated, claiming it to be mutawatir. We will explain in detail why this is not true in the upcoming discussions.
Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili and those who followed him among the supporters of the legend of the broken rib know very well that the narrations they rely on to prove the authenticity of this myth are plagued with serious flaws. Their narrators are between unknown, weak, or liars. Therefore, we find them avoiding any discussion about the chains of these narrations, except for a few rare ones they attempted to authenticate through weak methods. We have refuted their claims in detail when we studied the chains of these narrations, showing that they are all weak in terms of the chain of transmission. Because the supporters of the legend of the broken rib avoid delving into the chains to prevent the common people from noticing their flaws and defects, they resorted to other means to claim the authenticity of these narrations. Their goal is to prove this story regardless of the condition of its narrators, aiming to authenticate these narrations through devious methods so they can escape from proving the authenticity of the chains. Since this method they followed is their last resort to establish the legend of the broken rib, we tracked their claims, refuted them, and demonstrated their invalidity.
The supporters of the legend of the broken rib tried to claim the multiplicity of chains for this story to prove its authenticity. Jafar Murtada, responding to Muhammad al Hussaini who explained that 18 narrations which explicitly mention the beating of Fatimah are not authentic in terms of its chain, said:
إن هذا العدد أي 18 رواية ليس قليلًا فإن هذا العدد يوجب الوثوق
This number i.e. 18 narrations is not few; and this number inspires confidence.[11]
We have previously discussed this matter in detail and we said that this abundance is imaginary and has no reality. The claim of numerous chains depends on their authenticity, which we reject. If we limit ourselves to the narrations that are transmitted with reliable chains and found in books free from criticism, we find that out of all the narrations, only four remain. These are the two narrations of Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil al Ziyarat, the narration of Ibn Babawayh in al Amali, and the narration of al Karajaki in Kanz al Fawa’id. However, the two narrations of Ibn Qulawayh are transmitted with the same chain, which is centred on ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Asamm. Therefore, the claim of widespread fame rests only on three chains. So where is the alleged abundance?
As for the other narrations that included chains, they are transmitted from books that are criticised, as is the case with the four narrations from Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, the three narrations from Dala’il al Imamah, and the narration from al Khusaybi. Their presence or absence is the same and they cannot be relied upon to claim the multiplicity of chains.
This led Najib Nur al Din to criticise Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili for exaggerating the number of sources to create the illusion of numerous chains. He considered that merely mentioning narrations without conducting historical and narrational criticism and assuming that quantity compensates for verification are questionable methods that deserve criticism.[12]
He added:
قد يكون الرواة معروفين بالكذب والوضع والتدليس عند ذلك فإن عدد الروايات لا يزيد من احتمال الثبوت ولا يرفع من مستوى التأكيد بشيء
The narrators may be known for lying, fabricating, and deceiving. In that case, the number of narrations does not increase the likelihood of authenticity, nor does it raise the level of certainty in any way.[13]
Some of the Imamiyyah attempted to claim the widespread fame of the legend of the broken rib. Abu Jafar al Tusi said:
والمشهور الذي لا خلاف فيه بين الشيعة أن عمر ضرب على بطنها حتى أسقطت فسمى السقط محسنًا والرواية بذلك مشهورة عندهم وما أرادوا من إحراق البيت عليها حين التجأ إليها قوم وامتنعوا من بيعته وليس لأحد أن ينكر الرواية بذلك لأنا قد بينا الرواية الواردة من جهة العامة من طريق البلاذري وغيره ورواية الشيعة مستفيضة به لا يختلفون في ذلك
And the well-known (report) that is agreed upon by the Shia is that ‘Umar struck her in the stomach until she miscarried and the fetus was named Muhsin; the narration of that is famous among them. And when they intended to burn her house as some people had taken refuge with her and refused to give their allegiance, no one can deny this narration, for we have already clarified the narration reported by the general (Sunni) sources, through al Baladhuri and others. And the narration of the Shia is widespread and agreed upon among them.[14]
Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi said:
قضايا شهادتها بسبب ضرب عمر الباب على بطنها وضرب قنفذ بالسوط عليها مشهورة عند العامة والخاصة
The events of her martyrdom due to ‘Umar striking the door on her stomach and Qunfudh striking her with a whip are famous among both the common and the elite.[15]
Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi said:
وردت روايات مستفيضة في ضربها بالسياط وبغمد السيف بحيث صارت مجروحة
There are numerous narrations about her being struck with whips and with the scabbard of a sword, such that she became injured.[16]
‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi quoted the above statements from al Tusi and the two Majlisis, and then he compiled the statements of several Imami scholars to support the claim of the fame of this event.[17]
This alleged fame has no basis in reality, as it is a late development and did not occur until long after the event. The narrative and historical books that reported this incident during the time of the early scholars—meaning from the first century until the end of the fifth century—are very few. The major narrative works that should have been sources for this report are devoid of it. The most famous of these is al Kafi by al Kulayni, who did not mention the story of the breaking of the rib. Likewise, those who preceded him among the narrators of the Imamiyyah, such as Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Saffar in his book Basa’ir al Darajat and al Barqi in his book al Mahasin, are silent on this matter. What confirms that this story was not famous during the time of the early scholars is that Nahj al Balaghah, one of the most important books dealing with the issue of Caliphate and allegiance, does not mention anything about the incident of the broken rib. The same observation applies to the historical works. The early historians relied upon by the Imamiyyah, such as Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham ibn Muhammad al Kalbi, do not mention anything about the story of the broken rib. If this story had truly been famous, al Mufid would have mentioned it in his book al Irshad, which is considered one of the most important historical works of the Imamiyyah. However, there is no mention of the broken rib incident in it. Therefore, al Tusi’s claim that the narration of this is famous among them is a clear exaggeration. It is strange that al Tusi did not narrate anything in his works that proves the story of the broken rib despite the abundance of his books that have reached us. How could he overlook this famous narration and only mention it when refuting the words of his opponents?
The important point here is that the standard in disputed issues is to provide evidence and proof of the authenticity of the matter. As for arguing by claiming fame without providing proof or evidence, this is not acceptable in controversial matters. The correct approach is to establish the validity of the claim and then, if fame exists, use it as supporting evidence. Merely relying on fame is not considered proof by thorough investigators.[18] How many things are claimed to be famous, but upon investigation, it turns out that they have no basis? This is why you often see many scholars of the Imamiyyah relying on the statement:
رب مشهور لا أصل له
Perhaps something famous has no basis.[19]
It can be demonstrated that many historical matters have been denied by proponents of the broken rib legend, even when they have reached the level of fame. Some of these matters are based on authentic and clear evidence and denying them is baseless. For instance, the fact that Zainab, Ruqayyah, and Umm Kulthum were the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[20] Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili denied this well-established fact, even though it had surpassed the level of fame, to the point that al Mufid said about those who disagreed on this matter:
المخالف لذلك شاذ بخلافه
The one who opposes this is an outlier in his opposition.[21]
How can someone who denies that Zainab, Ruqayyah, and Umm Kulthum were the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, despite the existence of authentic narrations from both Sunni and Imami sources and despite the consensus of scholars of genealogy, history, and hadith on this matter, claim to rely on fame to prove the broken rib legend, which is not supported by any authentic chain of transmission at all?
A similar case is the denial by a group of early and contemporary Imami scholars of the marriage of Umm Kulthum al Kubra, the daughter of Fatimah and ‘Ali, to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab.[22]Despite the fact that the head of the Imami scholars of his time, al Sharif al Murtada, said about the marriage of ‘Umar to Umm Kulthum that it is known and famous; in fact, it is among the necessary matters.[23]
This indicates that fame holds no weight or value among them.
A group of Imami scholars claimed the tawatur of the narrations of the rib breaking incident. Perhaps the most prominent among them is Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi,[24] followed by later scholars such as Fadl ‘Ali al Qazwini[25] and Nasir Hussain al Hindi,[26] along with a group of contemporary scholars.[27] Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili exaggerated in his claim of tawatur to the point where he said:
الروايات بمجموعها متواترة عن أهل بيت العصمة فإذا ضم إليها ما سواها من نصوص فإنها تفوق حد التواتر
The narrations in their entirety are mutawatir from the infallible Ahlul Bayt. If we add to them other texts, they exceed the threshold of tawatur![28]
The concept of tawatur in narrations is a subject that has been discussed in the books of terminology of hadith (mustalah al hadith) and the science of hadith transmission (al dirayah). There is a significant disagreement regarding it, as tawatur is a logical concept that entered the books of legal theory (usul al fiqh), and then moved to the sciences of narration (‘ulum al riwayah). The most famous and logically sound definition of tawatur is the one chosen by Zayn al Din al ‘Amili, commonly known among the Imamis as al Shahid al Thani, in his book al Ri’ayah Sharh al Dirayah, where he says:
ما بلغت رواته في الكثرة مبلغًا أحالت العادة تواطؤهم أي اتفاقهم على الكذب واستمر ذلك الوصف في جميع الطبقات حيث يتعدد بأن يرويه قوم عن قوم وهكذا إلى الأول فيكون أوله في هذا الوصف كآخره ووسطه كطرفيه ليحصل الوصف وهو استحالة التواطئ على الكذب للكثرة في جميع الطبقات المتعددة
When the narrators of a report reach a certain number, such that it would be impossible by custom for them to agree on a lie, and this description continues across all levels of transmission, with one group narrating from another, and so on until the original source. So, its beginning in this description is like its end, and its middle is like its extremities, resulting in the characteristic which is the impossibility of collusion upon falsehood, due to the large number of narrators in all the multiple levels (of the chain).[29]
Tawatur, according to this definition, is only established if three conditions are met:
i. A large group narrating from another large group.
ii. The large number of narrators must exist in every level of the chain of transmission.
Sheikh Akram Barakat al ‘Amili, an Imami scholar, explains:
قد يكون للخبر وسائط كثيرة في النقل كالأخبار الواردة عن النبي الأكرم فحتى يكون هذا الخبر متواترًا لا بد أن تتحق الأمور السابقة في كل طبقة من طبقاته فإذا كانت هذه الأمور متحققة في كل الطبقات ما عدا واحدة فإن الخبر يعد من أخبار الآحاد لا المتواتر مثاله إذا روى الحديث مئة راو عن مئة راو عن مئة راو أيضًا بالشروط المطلوبة عن أحد الصحابة عن رسول الله فإن هذا الخبر ليس متواترًا
There may be numerous intermediaries in the transmission of the report, such as the reports transmitted from the Noble Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. For this report to be considered mutawatir, the aforementioned conditions must be met in every level of its chain. If these conditions are fulfilled in all but one level, then the report is classified as ahad (singularly transmitted), not mutawatir. For example, if a hundred narrators report the hadith from a hundred narrators, who report it from another hundred narrators, fulfilling the required conditions, from a single Companion who heard it from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then this report is not considered mutawatir.[30]
iii. The narrators must not have colluded to fabricate the report.
Achieving tawatur with these conditions is exceedingly rare. Muhammad al Hussaini transmitted this definition and then commented:
ولتعسر التوفر على تحقيق التواتر في جميع الطبقات فقد ادعى البعض ندرة التواتر إلا في عدد من الأخبار
Due to the difficulty of meeting the requirements of tawatur in all levels of transmission, some have claimed that tawatur is rare, except in a limited number of reports.[31]
Among those who made this claim is Zayn al Din al ‘Amili, who stated explicitly that he had not come across a mutawatir report with these conditions except rarely. He said:
ولم نتحقق إلى الآن خبرًا خاصًا بلغ حد التواتر إلا ما سيأتي
We have not yet confirmed any specific report that has reached the level of tawatur except for what will be mentioned.[32]
He then mentioned the hadith:
من كذب عليّ متعمدا
Whoever lies about me intentionally…
If it is said: Some scholars have claimed the tawatur of narrations based on the abundance of chains of transmission without fulfilling the conditions of tawatur. The answer to this is that such scholars have been lenient in this matter. Al Shawkani said:
قد زعم بعض من لم يكن له كثرة اشتغال بفن الحديث أن هذا الحديث أعني من حفظ على أمتي الخ متواتر والذي أوقعه في هذا كثرة طرق الحديث وتعدد من أُسنِد إليه من الصحابة وهو لا يعلم أن كل طريق من تلك الطرق مظلمة محشوة بالضعفاء والكذابين والوضاعين فهي ظلمات بعضها فوق بعض وهذا مما ينبغي التيقظ له فإن الطرق التي لم تثبت وإن بلغت عددًا متضاعفًا لا يخرج بها الحديث عن رتبته لو كان مرويًا من طريق واحدة لأن الكاذب لا يعجزه أن يكذب على عشرة أو عشرين من الصحابة فيروي عنهم حديثًا ويسوقه إلى كل واحد منهم بإسناد
Some, who have not engaged much with the science of Hadith, have claimed that this hadith, “Whoever preserves (knowledge) for my Ummah,” etc., is mutawatir. What led them to this misconception is the numerous chains of transmission and the several Companions to whom the hadith is attributed. However, they do not realise that each of these chains is obscure, filled with weak narrators, liars, and fabricators. They are layers of darkness, one above the other. This is something that requires caution because chains that are not reliable, no matter how numerous they may be, do not elevate the hadith beyond its status as if it were narrated through a single chain. A liar is not incapable of fabricating a narration and attributing it to ten or twenty Companions, transmitting it from each of them with a separate chain.[33]
Sheikh Ibrahim al Lahim said:
من اعتمد على مجرد الكثرة لإثبات التواتر وقع في محذور كما فعل السيوطي في كتابه في الأحاديث المتواترة فإنه كما تقدم اختار عدد العشرة ليكون الخبر متواترًا ثم طبق كلام شيخه في أن المتواتر لا يحتاج إلى نظر فأدخل في الكتاب أحاديث ضعيفة لا تصح
Whoever relies solely on the abundance of chains to establish tawatur falls into a mistake, as al Suyuti did in his book on mutawatir ahadith. As previously mentioned, he chose the number ten as the threshold for a report to be mutawatir. Then he applied his teacher’s opinion that mutawatir reports do not require scrutiny and thus included in the book weak narrations that are not valid.[34]
This leniency has also been observed among the Imamiyyah, as they have frequently claimed tawatur for narrations without verifying the conditions of tawatur. Zayn al Din al ‘Amili pointed this out by saying:
أكثر ما ادعي تواتره من هذا القبيل ينظر مدعي التواتر إلى تقهقه في زمانه أو هو وما قبله من غير استقصاء جميع الأزمنة ولو أنصف لوجد الأغلب خلو أول الأمر منه بل ربما صار الحديث الموضوع ابتداءً متواترًا بعد ذلك لكن شرط التواتر مفقود من جهة الابتداء ونازع بعض المتأخرين في ذلك وادعى وجود المتواتر بكثرة وهو غريب
Most of what has been claimed to be mutawatir falls under this category: the claimant of mutawatir looks at the spread of the hadith in his time or the time before it, without thoroughly investigating all periods. If he were fair, he would find that in most cases, the early stages were devoid of it. Rather, a fabricated hadith might later become considered mutawatir, but the condition of mutawatir is missing from the outset. Some later scholars have disputed this, claiming the existence of a large number of mutawatir reports, which is strange.[35]
Zayn al Din al ‘Amili criticised al Murtada for describing the narrations about the nass (designation) of ‘Ali as mutawatir. He said:
لا شبهة في أن كل واحد من تلك الأخبار آحاد
There is no doubt that each of these reports are ahad (solitary).[36]
When al Jawahiri claimed the tawatur of narrations specifying the categories upon which Zakat is obligatory, al Khu’i responded:
قد ادعى في الجواهر تواترها لكن دعوى التواتر مشكلة لاستدعائها أن يبلغ عدد الرواة في كل طبقة حدًا يمتنع عادة اشتباههم أو تواطؤهم على الكذب وليس في المقام كذلك فإن الرواة في طبقة الإمام لا يزيدون على أربعة عشر على أن الطبقة في أول السند لا تشتمل على أكثر من ثلاثة أنفار الشيخ والكليني والصدوق فإن كلها تنتهي إليهم وما بينهما من الطبقات متوسطات وهذا المقدار لا ينطبق عليه ضابط التواتر كما لا يخفى
It was claimed in al Jawahir that these reports are mutawatir. However, this claim is problematic, as tawatur requires the number of narrators in each level to reach a level where it is impossible by custom for them to err or collude on lying. This is not the case here, as the narrators in the level of the Imam do not exceed fourteen and in the first level of the chain, there are no more than three individuals: al Sheikh, al Kulayni, and al Saduq. All of these chains end with them, and the intermediate levels consist of medium numbers, which do not meet the criteria of tawatur as is evident.[37]
Thus, the application of tawatur to some reports is due to leniency and ignorance of the conditions of tawatur. With this established, know that the claim of the tawatur of the narrations regarding the breaking of the rib is a clear and evident overstatement. It would not be made by anyone who is fair and knowledgeable about the reality of these narrations. The narrations that explicitly mention the breaking of the rib and the miscarriage are few and limited in number. We have already explained in detail that the total number of narrations attributed to the Prophet, his Companions, or the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt that mention the incident of the broken rib is only twelve. However, these are derived from six sources, as shown in the following table:
Source | Number of Narrations | Their Numbers |
Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais | 4 | 1-4-5-6 |
Amali Ibn Babawayh al Qummi | 1 | 2 |
Kamil al Ziyarat | 2 | 3-15 |
Dala’il al Imamah | 3 | 7-8-11 |
Al Hidayah | 1 | 9 |
Kanz al Fawa’id | 1 | 12 |
If this is clarified, then how can one claim the tawatur of narrations whose reliance is on only six authors?
When we examine the tabaqat of these narrations, we find that all of them are devoid of the condition of equal abundance in each level. In fact, the opposite has occurred, as some narrators are repeated in multiple levels:
The two narrations transmitted from Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais and from the book al Amali by Ibn Babawayh are both narrated through Ibn ‘Abbas.
The third and tenth narration, transmitted from the book Kamil al Ziyarat, are both narrated through ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Asamm.
The fourth and fifth narration, transmitted from Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, are both narrated by ‘Ali with the same meaning.
The eighth and eleventh narration, transmitted from the book Dala’il al Imamah, are both narrated through Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari.
The ninth and twelfth narration, transmitted from Kanz al Fawa’id and al Hidayah, are both narrated through al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar.
Thus, ten of the twelve are with chains of transmission that can be traced back to only five narrators. So where is the claimed tawatur? We will illustrate this with the following diagram:
As for the remaining narrations that lack chains of transmission, they cannot be grouped with the musnad narrations to establish tawatur, as this would imply that isnad holds no value in proving tawatur. The very foundation of using tawatur as evidence is built upon the abundance of narrators of a report, with the condition that this abundance exists in all the levels of the chain, such that a large group narrates from another large group. What we have here, however, does not go beyond a khabar al wahid (solitary report) being transmitted by another solitary report. The abundance is not realised in any level of the chain of transmission. So how can they claim tawatur?
Some might object by saying that some scholars claim that in mutawatir narrations, there is no need to investigate the narrators’ conditions in the chain of transmission. This objection is often used to justify the claim of tawatur in the narrations about the breaking of the rib. The response is as follows: Those who argue that there is no need to examine the narrators’ conditions in mutawatir narrations only apply this to narrations whose tawatur has already been established and that meet the conditions of tawatur. These conditions cannot be verified without looking into the narrators and their chains. Therefore, the condition of tawatur must be verified first, before it can be said that there is no need to investigate the narrators’ conditions.
In order for tawatur to be proven, it is essential to verify that the chains are continuous and unbroken and that the narrators are trustworthy. The claim that there is no need to investigate the narrators’ conditions in all cases is not the intended meaning when speaking about mutawatir narrations. This has been clarified by a number of scholars within the Imami tradition.
Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi said:
الخبر المتواتر إنما يوجب العلم إذا كان رواته سالمين عن الطعن براء عن الاتهام وأما إذا كان رواته فسقة فجرة فلا يوجب علمًا ولا عملًا فإن اجتماع الفساق أولى بالحذر
The mutawatir narration only leads to certainty if its narrators are free from criticism and accusations. If its narrators are corrupt or sinful, it does not lead to knowledge or action. The presence of sinful narrators requires caution.[38]
Muhammad al Hussaini commented on the statement of a certain scholar:
تساءل صاحب الفضيحة لماذا يتجاهل السيد الحسيني دائمًا أن الحديث المتواتر لا حاجة للنظر في سنده ولا ندري ماذا يعني بهذا الكلام فإن كان يعني به أن الخبر بعد ثبوت تواتره لا يكون ثمة حاجة إلى البحث في الأسانيد فإنه كلام صحيح لأن التواتر يفيد العلم ولكن البحث في أصل ثبوت التواتر لأنه موضع النزاع وإن كان يعني أن حساب التواتر لا يتوقف على النظر في الأسانيد والتدقيق في الرواة والرجال فهذا أشبه بالانتحار العلمي على حد تعبيره الذي يتكرر في كتابه الفضيحة لأن حساب التواتر بلا إشكال يتوقف على النظر في الرواة وأحوالهم وذلك لأن احتمال الصدق كما يكبر بسبب عدد المخبرين كذلك يكبر بسبب نوعية المخبرين وكذلك في احتمال إلغاء الكذب والخلاف فإن احتمال الكذب كما أنه يتضاءل بتكثر عدد الرواة فإنه يتضاءل بنوعية هؤلاء الرواة ولذلك يتوقف التواتر على المضعف الكمي والكيفي
The author of al Fadihah asks why Sayed al Hussaini always ignores the fact that in a mutawatir narration, there is no need to look at its chain. We do not know what he means by this. If he means that once tawatur is established, there is no need to examine the chain, then that is correct, because tawatur leads to certainty. But the issue is in establishing tawatur itself, which is the point of contention. If he means that the calculation of tawatur does not depend on the examination of the chain and the scrutiny of the narrators, then this is akin to scientific suicide, as he repeatedly expresses in his book al Fadihah. Because the evaluation of tawatur unquestionably depends on examining the narrators and their conditions. Just as the probability of truth increases with the number of narrators, it also increases with the quality of the narrators. Similarly, the probability of eliminating lies and disagreements decreases with the number of narrators and the quality of those narrators. Therefore, tawatur depends on both the quantitative and qualitative strength of the narrators.[39]
The Marja’ Jafar al Subhani in his notes on the definition of tawatur said:
يؤمن معه من عمدهم على الكذب ويحرز ذلك بكثرة المخبرين ووثاقتهم أو كون الموضوع مصروفًا عنه دواعي الكذب أو غير ذلك
Certainty in tawatur comes with the absence of intent to deceive, which is achieved through the abundance and reliability of the narrators or by the subject matter being free of motives for lying or other similar conditions.[40]
‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli, after quoting Jafar al Subhani’s statement, affirmed:
وهي ملاحظة واردة وجيدة
This is a valid and insightful observation.[41]
Imami scholars have consistently argued that mere abundance of narrators does not absolve the need to investigate their conditions, even if tawatur is claimed. When al Majlisi claimed tawatur for certain narrations, Muhammad Asif Muhsini responded:
ادعى المؤلف أن أصل القصة متواترة تواترًا معنويًا 32 157 لكن روايات الباب متعارضة وإسنادها ضعيفة
The author claims that the essence of the story is mutawatir in a literal sense (32:157), but the narrations in this section are contradictory and their chains are weak.[42]
A number of Imami scholars have claimed the tawatur of narrations about the alteration of the Qur’an, including Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi,[43] Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri,[44] Yusuf al Bahrani,[45] and ‘Adnan al Bahrani.[46] Following them, al Nuri al Tabarsi also claimed the tawatur of such narrations in his book Fasl al Khitab.[47]
However, al Balaghi responded by saying:
إن المحدث المعاصر جهد في كتاب فصل الخطاب في جمع الروايات التي استدل بها على النقيصة وكثر أعداد مسانيدها بأعداد المراسيل عن الأئمة عليهم السلام في الكتب كمراسيل العياشي وفرات وغيرها مع أن المتتبع المحقق يجزم بأن هذه المراسيل مأخوذة من تلك الأسانيد هذا مع أن القسم الوافر من الروايات ترجع أسانيده إلى بضعة أنفار وقد وصف علماء الرجال كلّا منهم إما بأنه ضعيف الحديث فاسد المذهب مجفو الرواية وإما بأنه مضطرب الحديث والمذهب يعرف حديثه وينكر ويروي عن الضعفاء وإما بأنه كذاب متهم لا أستحل أن أروي من تفسيره حديثًا واحدًا وأنه معروف بالوقف وأشد الناس عداوة للرضا عليه السلام وإما بأنه كان غاليًا كذابًا وإما بأنه ضعيف لا يلتفت إليه ولا يعول عليه ومن الكذابين وإما بأنه فاسد الرواية يرمى بالغلو ومن الواضح أن أمثال هؤلاء لا تجدي كثرتهم شيئًا
The contemporary hadith scholar exerted effort in his book Fasl al Khitab in compiling the narrations that he used as evidence for deficiency and he multiplied the number of its chains of transmission by the number of mursal narrations from the Imams, peace be upon them, in books like the mursal narrations of al ‘Ayyashi, Furat, and others. However, a diligent researcher would be certain that these incomplete chains are taken from those chains of transmission. This, while a significant portion of the narrations trace their chains back to a few individuals, each of whom the scholars of Rijal (hadith criticism) described as either: weak in hadith, corrupt in belief, rejected in narration; or inconsistent in hadith and belief, where his hadith is both recognised and denied, and he narrates from the weak; or as a liar, accused of fabricating, such that I do not permit myself to narrate even one hadith from his tafsir, and he is known for belief in Waqf and was among the most hostile towards al Rida, peace be upon him; or he was described as an extremist liar; or weak, not paid attention to or relied upon, and counted among the liars; or corrupt in narration, accused of extremism. It is clear that the abundance of such people is of no benefit.[48]
Fath Allah al Muhammadi classified the narrations used by the author of Fasl al Khitab to argue for adulteration into several categories, including:
86 رواية من تفسير علي بن إبراهيم القمّي وسيوافيك الكلام في هذا التفسير المنسوب إلى القمّي حيث ستتحقّق من أنّه ليس من صنعه ومقدّمته من شخص قد جمع هذا التفسير وهو مجهول
83 رواية من كتاب الكافي وهي في الأساس من باب النكت والنتف وقد حكم المجلسي رحمه الله بتضعيف كل ما في الباب إلا ستة أحاديث
69 رواية من كتاب الناسخ والمنسوخ المنسوب إلى سعد بن عبد الله الأشعري منها 3 روايات فقط مسندة والبقية كلها مرسلة ومرفوعة
86 narrations from al Tafsir of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi, which will be discussed further, as it will be proven that this tafsir was not authored by al Qummi and the introduction was written by an unknown individual.
83 narrations from al Kafi, most of which belong to a section on various snippets, and al Majlisi ruled that all but six of them were weak.
69 narrations from Kitab al Nasikh wa al Mansukh, attributed to Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah al Ash’ari, of which only three narrations are linked in a sanad and the rest are mursal and marfu’.[49]
Given that the Imami scholars reject the tawatur of narrations on the adulteration of the Qur’an, even though many of these narrations are musnad and some are considered authentic according to their standards including 80 musnad narrations found in their most reliable books like al Kafi, it is even more justifiable to reject the claim of tawatur for the narrations on the breaking of the rib, especially since none of them are authentic. Al Kafi does not narrate any of them. If we borrow the words of al Balaghi regarding the mutawatir narrations on the breaking of the rib, we can say: A large portion of these narrations trace their chains back to only a handful of individuals, and scholars of Rijal have described each of them as either weak in narration, or as a liar, or as being accused of exaggeration, or as being unknown. Clearly, the large number of such narrators does not add credibility to these narrations.
A number of Zaidi scholars have explicitly rejected the tawatur of the narrations about the breaking of the rib. For example, Yahya ibn al Hassan al Qurashi said regarding the story of striking Fatimah and causing her miscarriage:
لو وقع ذلك لكان نقله ظاهرًا متواترًا لعظمه وغرابته
Had this event occurred, its transmission would have been widely known and mutawatir due to its magnitude and strangeness.[50]
‘Aziz al Din al Mu’ayyad commented on Yahya ibn al Hassan al Qurashi’s statement:
لا شك أنها لم تبلغ حد التواتر
There is no doubt that it did not reach the level of tawatur.[51]
Several Imami scholars and their writers also criticised the claim of tawatur for the narrations about the breaking of the rib. Muhammad al Hussaini criticised Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, stating:
لاحظنا على كتابه أنه يعمد إلى إطلاق دعاوى لم تثبت علميا ولا أثبتها لنا بطريق علمي من ذلك ما ادعاه العاملي من أن قضية الاعتداء بالضرب مما ثبت بالتواتر
We noticed that in his book, he tends to make claims that have not been academically proven nor substantiated with a scholarly method, such as his claim that the incident of the assault and beating is mutawatir.[52]
He also stated elsewhere:
ليس ثمة ما يشير إلى تواتر الرواية بخصوص الاعتداء بالضرب على الزهراء
There is nothing to indicate that the narration regarding the assault on Fatimah has reached the level of tawatur.[53]
Najib Nur al Din also criticised Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili’s method of gathering sources and narrations to prove tawatur, saying:
يحدث كثيرًا أن يحشد صاحب الكتاب عدة مصادر للحديث الواحد على الرغم من رجوع أكثر هذه المصادر إلى مصدر واحد فيذكر مثلًا مصدر الرواية من الكتب القديمة ويذكر أيضًا مصدرها في الكتب المتأخرة مع العلم أن الكتب المتأخرة ترجع إلى الكتب المتقدمة ويحصل كثيرًا أن يذكر أكثر من رواية مع أنها ترجع جميعها إلى رواية واحدة ذات مصدر واحد كل ذلك للإيحاء للقارئ بأن أدلة مطلبه مؤكدة وقاطعة ولا تحتمل الخلاف ويوهمه بأن الأمر متواتر أو مجمع عليه علمًا أنه يوجد بالمقابل روايات معارضة قد تزيدها في العدد وقد تقل عنها ومع ذلك فإن المؤلف يعرض عن الأدلة المعارضة ولا يذكرها
It often happens that the author gathers multiple sources for a single narration, even though most of these sources refer back to a single origin. For instance, he might mention the source of a narration from earlier books and then mention its source in later books, even though the later books are derived from the earlier ones. He often presents multiple narrations even when they all trace back to a single narration, in order to give the impression that his evidence is conclusive and irrefutable, leading the reader to believe that the matter is mutawatir or universally agreed upon. Meanwhile, opposing narrations that might increase the number or contradict his claim are ignored.[54]
It becomes clear that the claim of mutawatir narrations on the breaking of the rib has no basis, as these narrations do not meet any of the conditions for tawatur. They appear in a few, limited sources and trace back to narrators no more numerous than the fingers on one’s hand. In addition, many of them have broken chains and their narrators are either unknown or weak. Such reports cannot be considered authentic, let alone mutawatir.
NEXT⇒
[1] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 27.
[2] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 85.
[3] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 331.
[4] Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 286
[5] Jafar Murtada relied on al Majlisi’s rulings to judge the authenticity of some narrations; see: Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 2, pg. 39, 46, 58, and 69.
[6] Hatta la Takun Fitnah: Kitab Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir taht al Mijhar, pg. 206.
[7] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 28.
[8] Because Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili believes that this issue is one of the most important issues of Islam and faith as it pertains to the matter of the Imam and Imamah… and it is a very serious doctrinal matter, as stated in Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 128.
[9] Hayat al Zahra’ ba’da Abiha, pg. 68.
[10] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 138.
[11] Al Fadihah, pg. 65.
[12] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 30.
[13] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 10.
[14] Talkhis al Shafi, vol. 3, pg. 156.
[15] Rawdat al Muttaqin, vol. 5, pg. 342.
[16] Haqq al Yaqin, pg. 189.
[17] Al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 365-367.
[18] The scholar al Khu’i—who was the absolute leader of the Hawzah of Najaf in his time—is among the most famous to have refuted reliance on the concept of shuhrah (fame/popularity) and using it as a means of reasoning. He expanded on this topic in his book Misbah al Usul, vol. 2, pg. 141–146, where he dedicated a discussion to the authority of shuhrah and divided it into three types: shuhrah in transmission, shuhrah in practice, and shuhrah in legal verdicts. He then examined the validity of its authority and rejected all forms of it. See also: Durus Tamhidiyyah fi Tarikh ‘Ilm al Rijal ‘ind al Imamiyyah by Haydar Hubb Allah, pg. 398.
[19] Dhikra al Shia fi Ahkam al Shari’ah, vol. 2, pg. 78, al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 6, pg. 43 and vol. 10, pg. 219, al Bahbahani: al Rasa’il al Fiqhiyyah, pg. 81, al Khaju’i: al Rasa’il al Fiqhiyyah, vol. 2, pg. 55. The statement by Muhsin al Amin in A’yan al Shia, vol. 5, pg. 17 will also be mentioned, saying that the claim regarding the grave of Zainab al Kubra being in Syria is one of the widely held views that lacks any basis.
[20] Refer to the book: Zainab wa Ruqayyah wa Umm Kulthum Banat al Nabi la Raba’ibuhu, from the publications of Mabarrat al Al wa l-Ashab.
[21] Al Masa’il al ‘Akbariyyah, pg. 120.
[22] Refer to: Nasaban wa Sihran Ithbat Zawaj ‘Umar min Umm Kulthum, pg. 178 and 189–200.
[23] Al Murtada: Risalat Inkah Amir al Mu’minin Ibnatahu min ‘Umar, published with al Mufid: Risalat Tazwij ‘Ali Ibnatahu min ‘Umar, pg. 31.
[24] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, vol, 5, pg. 318.
[25] Refer to: Hayat al Zahra’ ba’da Abiha, pg. 45 and 64.
[26] Ifham al A’da’ wa al Khusum, pg. 93.
[27] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 89, 331, 332, Khalfiyyat Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 2, pg. 51, al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 311, 328.
[28] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 314.
[29] Al Ri’ayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 62.
[30] Durus fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 34.
[31] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 161.
[32] Al Ri’ayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 66.
[33] Wabl al Ghamam, vol. 1, pg. 57.
[34] Sharh Nuzhat al Nazar, pg. 63.
[35] Al Ri’ayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 68.
[36] Al Ri’ayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 66.
[37] Kitab al Zakat al Awwal, pg. 138–139.
[38] Sahih Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, introduction, pg. jim.
[39] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 158.
[40] Usul al Hadith wa Ahkamuhu, pg. 32–34, through al Fadli: Usul al Hadith, pg. 73.
[41] Al Fadli: Usul al Hadith, pg. 73.
[42] Mashar’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 2, pg. 50.
[43] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, vol. 12, pg. 525.
[44] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2, pg. 357.
[45] Al Durar al Najafiyyah, vol. 4, pg. 83.
[46] Mashariq al Shumus al Durriyyah, pg. 126.
[47] Fasl al Khitab, stone edition, pg. 251, Fasl al Khitab, Dar al Dirasat al Fikriyyah edition, vol. 1, pg. 660, Fasl al Khitab, Dar al Intishar al ‘Arabi edition, pg. 584.
[48] Ala’ al Rahman fi Tafsir al Qur’an, vol. 1, pg. 26, where al Balaghi’s words were cited by a group of Imami scholars such as Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah in Siyanat al Qur’an min al Tahrif, pg. 64, Jafar al Subhani in his book al Manahij al Tafsiriyyah, pg. 234, Baqir Sharif al Qurashi in Fi Rihab al Shia, pg. 59, Dr. Fath Allah al Muhammadi in his book Salamat al Qur’an min al Tahrif, pg. 119, and ‘Ali Al Muhsin in his book Lillah wa-li-al Haqiqah, pg. 468.
[49] Salamat al Qur’an min al Tahrif, pg. 121.
[50] Minhaj al Muttaqin fi Ma’rifat Rabb al ‘Alamin, printed in al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj, vol. 4, pg. 227.
[51] Al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj, vol. 4, pg. 236–237.
[52] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, introduction, pg. 13.
[53] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, introduction, pg. 30.
[54] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 29.