Part 2: Imami Narrations
March 18, 2025The position of the Sunni scholars on the rib-breaking myth
March 19, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Corrections
First correction
Some Imami scholars have transmitted the narration of Dala’il al Imamah under discussion but contradicted what is present and confirmed in the copies of Dala’il al Imamah by changing the name Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi to Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi like al Majlisi[1] and Hadi al Najafi who indicated that he was quoting from the book Dala’il al Imamah, published by Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, yet he distorted the name and quoted from it something other than what is present in it.[2] ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi in his book al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah did the same as Hadi al Najafi.[3]
There is no doubt that this is a mistake and those who changed the name of the narrator should have explained the reason for this change. They should not have changed the name of the narrator while referring to the book Dala’il al Imamah without indicating that they changed the name of the narrator.
Second correction
After it became clear that al Majlisi, Hadi al Najafi, and ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi contradicted what is proven in the copies of Dala’il al Imamah and confirmed the name Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi in the isnad, we say—even if we agree with them for argument’s sake and accept that their changing the name of the narrator is permissible—that the problem in the isnad remains, because al Khu’i rules out that Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn al Walid narrated from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi. He says:
إن المذكور في كلام الشيخ رواية ابن الوليد عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله البرقي والمذكور في كلام النجاشي روايته عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي علي البرقي وأبو علي البرقي هو الحسن بن خالد أخو محمد بن خالد على ما مر في ترجمته فأحمد هذا هو حفيد الحسن عم أبي عبد الله البرقي وغير بعيد أن يكون ما ذكره النجاشي هو الصحيح إذ لم يعهد رواية ابن الوليد عن أحمد ابن أبي عبد الله البرقي بل هو بعيد في نفسه فإن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله توفي قبل أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى المتوفى حدود سنة 280 على ما مر في ترجمته وابن الوليد توفي في 343 فيبعد رواية ابن الوليد عنه بلا واسطة ويؤيد ذلك أن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله له رواية كثيرة وهو من مشاهير الرواة وكذلك ابن الوليد فلو أدرك ابن الوليد أحمد بن أبي عبد الله لشاعت روايته عنه وكثرت مع أنا لم نجد له ولا رواية واحدة بل إن روايات ابن الوليد عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله البرقي بواسطة سعد بن عبد الله كما في طريق الصدوق إلى أحمد بن أبي عبد الله نفسه
What is mentioned in the words of al Sheikh is the narration of Ibn al Walid from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah Al Barqi and what is mentioned in the words of al Najashi is his narration from Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Ali al Barqi and Abu ‘Ali al Barqi is al Hassan ibn Khalid, the brother of Muhammad ibn Khalid, as mentioned in his biography. This Ahmed is the grandson of al Hassan, the uncle of Abu ‘Abdullah al Barqi. It is not far-fetched that what al Najashi mentioned is correct, since he did not know the narration of Ibn al Walid from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi. Rather, it is far-fetched in itself. Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah died before Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, who died around the year 280 AH as mentioned in his biography while Ibn al Walid died in 343 AH, so it is unlikely that Ibn al Walid narrated from him without an intermediary. This is supported by the fact that Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah has many narrations and he is one of the famous narrators as is Ibn al Walid. If Ibn al Walid had met Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah, his narrations from him would have become widespread and numerous, although we did not find a single narration from him. Rather, the narrations of Ibn al Walid from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi are through Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah as in al Saduq’s path to Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah himself.[4]
Then al Khu’i cited many examples of intermediaries between Ibn al Walid and Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi.
Sheikh Jawwad al Qayyumi al Khu’i agreed with this opinion because he cited it as evidence in his commentary on al Tusi’s al Fihrist.[5]
The investigator Muhammad Taqi al Tustari said:
طريق فهرست الشيخ الأوّل إليه ابن الوليد عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله البرقي الظاهر أنّ فيه سقطًا وأنّ الأصل ابن الوليد عن الصفّار عن أحمد
The first path of al Sheikh’s al Fihrist to it is Ibn al Walid from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi. It appears that there is an omission in it and that the original is Ibn al Walid on the authority of al Saffar from Ahmed.[6]
Third correction
After clarifying the error of those who determined the narrator as Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi and that the isnad according to this estimation is interrupted, we add, as a concession, the opinion of Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi who studied the case of Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi and comments on him. So, the result of al Bahbudi’s research was that he said:
الخطب في أخذه بالوجادة والإجازة من دون مَيْز بين صحيح النسخ ومدسوسها فبعدما نراه يروي ويحدث عن الغلاة والزنادقة جهارا من دون تحرُّج كيف نثق به فيما كان يروي عن الثقات الأثبات بأنه لم يأخذ كتبهم إلا بعد التحرز التام عن مكائد الغلاة وإني بعد ما تتبعت رواياته وجدته يروي عن النسخ المجعولة الموضوعة على الثقات الأثبات كثيرًا
The calamity is in taking it by al Wijadah[7] and al Ijazah[8] without distinguishing between authentic copies and those that are fabricated. After we see him narrating and reporting from extremists and heretics openly without hesitation, how can we trust him in what he narrated from trustworthy and reliable people, that he did not take their books except after being completely cautious about the plots of extremists? And after I examined his narrations, I found that he very often narrated from fabricated copies attributed to trustworthy and reliable people.[9]
We mentioned this for the sake of benefit and concession. Otherwise, the truth that has no doubt and is supported by evidence is that the narrator is Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi, not Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi.
Fourth correction
After what was previously stated about the indefiniteness of Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari, the indefiniteness of Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi, and the isnad with the change of the Imami scholars to Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi will be interrupted, it will become clear that Hashim al Hashimi’s statement is incorrect:
ورجال السند من أجلة ثقات أصحابنا إلا أن محمد بن هارون بن موسى التلعكبري لم يرد في حقه توثيق بالخصوص لأن البرقي مجهول كما بينا
And the men of the isnad are from the most trustworthy of our companions except that Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari was not documented in particular, because al Barqi is unknown as we have explained.
Then Hashim al Hashimi tried to document al Tal’akbari as one of al Najashi’s Sheikhs, then he concluded his speech by saying:
وبناء على ذلك فمن المحتمل أن يكون محمد بن هارون ثقة وفقا لرأي الخوئي أيضًا بتوثيق مشايخ النجاشي وإن لم يكن معتضدا بشواهد أخرى حيث إن النجاشي لم ينقل عنه إلا في مورد واحد من كتابه
Based on that, it is possible that Muhammad ibn Harun is trustworthy according to al Khu’i’s opinion also with the documentation of al Najashi’s Sheikhs, even if it is not supported by other evidence, since al Najashi only transmitted from him in one instance in his book.[10]
We say: As for Hashim al Hashimi’s statement, “And the men of the isnad are among the most trustworthy of our companions,” there is no doubt that it is incorrect, as there is no biography of Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi in the books of the Imamiyyah, let alone him being documented and among the most trustworthy of their companions, and al Hashimi himself confirmed the name Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi in the isnad of the narration.
As for his statement, “It is possible that Muhammad ibn Harun is trustworthy according to al Khu’i’s opinion also by documenting al Najashi’s Sheikhs,” the answer to it is: This possibility is unlikely. In fact, it contradicts al Khu’i’s opinion in not counting Muhammad ibn Harun al Tal’akbari among al Najashi’s Sheikhs at all, as the man is unknown according to al Khu’i’s principles, so al Khu’i’s rule in counting a man among al Najashi’s Sheikhs is dependent on al Najashi’s explicit statement of narration from his Sheikhs with the words he informed us or he told us. Even if al Hashimi believes that this is not a condition, then he should not say, “It is possible that Muhammad ibn Harun is trustworthy according to al Khu’i’s opinion also by documenting al Najashi’s Sheikhs,” because al Khu’i does not include him among al Najashi’s Sheikhs with certainty, as he counted them one by one according to his condition and brought them to 64 Sheikhs yet he did not mention Muhammad ibn Harun among them,[11] so Hashim al Hashimi’s documentation of this narrator based on the method of al Khu’i is incorrect. Even the rule of authenticating the Sheikhs of al Najashi that Hashim al Hashimi relied on is not accepted, because it is a weak Rijal’s rule that is not based on valid evidence, and it has been refuted by the great Imami Rijal’s investigators, including ‘Ali Akbar al Mazandarani, who says:
الحكم بوثاقة جميع مشايخ النجاشي مشكل لا دليل عليه
The ruling on the authenticity of all the Sheikhs of al Najashi is problematic and there is no evidence for it.[12]
And Muhammad Rida al Sistani who determines:
لا دليل على وثاقة جميع شيوخ النجاشي
There is no evidence for the authenticity of all the Sheikhs of al Najashi.[13]
We have previously falsified all the aspects that were used as evidence to authenticate Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari.
As for the text of the narration, we say: The narration does not indicate the rib-breaking, and the first person we came across who mentioned this narration is Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili who acknowledges that the narration does not state anything about this subject, saying:
هذه الرواية وإن لم تكن صريحة في تفاصيل ما جرى ولكنها أيضًا تعبر عن أنها عليها السلام شخصيا قد تعرضت لظلم فاحش
This narration, even if it is not explicit in the details of what happened, it also expresses that she radiya Llahu ‘anha personally was subject to gross injustice.[14]
Therefore, there is no reason to use it as evidence for the subject of the dispute.
Then the narration included matters closer to superstition, as the narration claims that Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Jawwad spoke these words when he was four years old and that Abu ‘Ali al Rida made these words evidence of his entitlement to the Imamah; this matter is not credible and these narrations came in the course of superstitious narrations that exaggerate about the Imams and attribute to them extraordinary events. I do not know how we can rely on such narrations to accuse the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam of grievous matters? And Allah is the source of help.
NEXT⇒ The position of the Sunni scholars on the rib-breaking myth
[1] Bihar al Anwar, 50/59.
[2] Mawsu’at Ahadith Ahlul Bayt, 8/517. In the footnote, he referred to the source, saying, “Dala’il al Imamah, 400, H 18.” He indicated in, 12/450, among the sources of the book that the copy of Dala’il al Imamah from which he quotes is the edition of the Department of Islamic Studies, Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, Qom 1413 AH. But he was not faithful in the transmission. Rather, he changed Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi who is the one confirmed in the edition of Mu’assasat al Ba’thah and made him Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi without any indication from him of this change.
[3] Al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 424, 425. ‘Abdul Zahra’ referred in the footnote to the source, saying, “Dala’il al Imamah, 212 (modern edition: 400), from him Bihar al Anwar, 50/58; Nawadir al Mu’jizat, pg. 183.” These references are strange as the two editions that ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi relied on for Dala’il al Imamah are the editions of Manshurat al Tab’ah al Haydariyyah in Najaf in 1949 CE, the edition of Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, and the edition of Nawadir al Mu’jizat, pg. 183, that was printed by the Imam al Mahdi School in Qom. All of these editions agreed that the name of the narrator is Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi, but ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi left all of that and changed the name to Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi, as appears in Bihar al Anwar.
[4] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 20/159.
[5] Al Tusi: al Fihrist, footnote, with the research of Jawwad al Qayyumi, pg. 255, in the biography of Nasr ibn Muzahim.
[6] Qamus al Rijal, 10/362.
[7] Al Wijadah refers to the transmission of a book without having heard it directly, nor receiving permission to transmit it from the author, nor was the book received from the author himself.
[8] Al Ijazah refers to formal authorisation to transmit a book or reports from an author.
[9] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 171.
[10] Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 34, footnote.
[11] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 2/167-175.
[12] Miqyas al Ruwat, pg. 158.
[13] Wasa’il al Anjab al Sana’iyyah, pg. 614.
[14] Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/70. This also appears in Hadithat al Dar, pg. 27, issued by al ‘Utbah al ‘Alawiyyah.