BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Second Two

Non-Musnad Narrations

 

In their approach to supporting the legend of the broken rib, proponents have adopted a methodology based on gathering every possible text to substantiate this narrative, regardless of the value of the sources. Consequently, we find that they rely on numerous narrations in which the issue of the broken rib is mentioned. However, these narrations do not meet even the minimum criteria for reliability, particularly the condition of an isnad muttasil (connected chain of transmission).

The objective behind amassing these narrations is to increase the list of references, thereby turning the issue of the broken rib into one of the widely known and widespread matters. In fact, some have gone so far as to elevate it to the level of mutawatir (widely transmitted) reports. Due to this, we decided to clarify the status of these narrations by studying them, demonstrating their weaknesses, and their unsuitability for use as proof. We will also highlight the defects and problems in their texts, which necessitate their rejection and prevent any reliance on them. We have followed the same methodology in studying these narrations as we did when examining the authenticated ones. We organised the narrations chronologically according to their sources and attempted to trace each narration from Imami sources. The total number of narrations concerning the broken rib is nine, most of which are drawn from books authored after the sixth century.

Moreover, not only have we pointed out that these narrations lack a connected chain of transmission, but we have also studied the conditions of the narrators to whom these narrations are attributed, especially when these narrators are among the weak or accused. This adds further weakness to these narrations and shows that those relying on such reports to prove such a serious issue are not adhering to a sound scholarly method.

 

What is attributed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

 

1. The Narration of al Turaf of Ibn Tawus

‘Ali ibn Musa ibn Tawus transmits in his book al Turaf min al Anba’ wa al Manaqib, sourced from Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad al Darir^[1], that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

يا علي ويل لمن ظلمها وويل لمن ابتزها حقها وويل لمن انتهك حرمتها وويل لمن أحرق بابها وويل لمن آذى جنينها وشج جنبها وويل لمن شارقها وبارزها

O ‘Ali, woe to those who wrong her, woe to those who usurp her right, woe to those who violate her sanctity, woe to those who burn her door, woe to those who harm her foetus and fracture her side, and woe to those who oppose and challenge her.^[2]

 

Everything Ibn Tawus transmitted from Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad shares the same chain.

 

Study of the Isnad

The discussion about the chain of narration for this report falls into several issues:

 

A. The discussion on the chain of ‘Ali ibn Tawus to Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad al Darir

Ibn Tawus did not mention his chain of narration to Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad, and therefore, ‘Ali al Ishtiharidi weakened the narration reported by Ibn Tawus from Kitab al Wasiyyah for several reasons, including:

 

عدم ذكر ابن طاووس سنده إلى عيسى بن المستفاد فالخبر مقطوع الأول

The lack of mention by Ibn Tawus of his chain to ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad; thus, the report is maqtu’ al awwal (cut off at the beginning).^[3]

 

Scholars of Rijal in the Imami school have ruled on the weakness of Ibn Tawus’s chain to Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad.

Muhammad al Mu’min al Qummi stated:

 

إن سند ابن طاووس إلى عيسى بن المستفاد مجهول

The chain of Ibn Tawus to ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad is unknown.^[4]

 

Moreover, ‘Ali Kashif al Ghita’ weakened a narration transmitted from al Turaf by Ibn Tawus about ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad due to it being weak from al irsal (disconnected narration).^[5]

Al Khu’i criticised the book of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad and Ibn Tawus’s route to it while discussing one of the narrations, saying:

 

بمجهولية طريق ابن طاووس إليه لأن بينهما وسائط

The route of Ibn Tawus to it is unknown because there are intermediaries between them.^[6]

 

Asif Muhsini stated:

 

نسخة كتابه لم تصل بسند معتبر إلى ابن طاووس

The copy of his book has not reached Ibn Tawus with a credible chain.^[7]

 

B. The discussion on the remaining chains to Kitab al Wasiyyah

Perhaps someone might say: The absence of a chain for Ibn Tawus to the book does not necessitate the weakness of the chains of transmission for al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad. Both al Sheikh al Najashi and al Sheikh al Tusi mentioned a chain for Kitab al Wasiyyah, and based on this, the narration can be authenticated by relying on the existence of a chain for al Najashi and al Tusi to the book.

In response, we will clarify the status of the chains of al Najashi and al Tusi to Kitab al Wasiyyah, thus closing the door to objections.

We say: Al Najashi mentioned in the biography of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad his route to him, as was his habit in mentioning his chains to those he biographed. He then ruled on the chain as being mudtarib (disordered), saying:

 

له كتاب الوصية رواه شيوخنا عن أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد قال حدثنا أبو عيسى عبيد الله بن الفضل بن هلال بن الفضل بن محمد بن أحمد بن سليمان الصابوني قال حدثنا أبو جعفر محمد بن إسماعيل بن أحمد بن إسماعيل بن محمد قال حدثنا أبو يوسف الوحاظي والأزهر بن بسطام بن رستم والحسن بن يعقوب قالوا حدثنا عيسى بن المستفاد وهذا الطريق طريق مصري فيه اضطراب

He has Kitab al Wasiyyah, narrated by our scholars from Abu al Qasim Jafar ibn Muhammad, who said: Abu ‘Isa ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Fadl ibn Hilal ibn al Fadl ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Sulaiman al Sabuni said: Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ahmed ibn Ismail ibn Muhammad said: Abu Yusuf al Wuhazi, al Azhar ibn Bustam ibn Rustam, and al Hassan ibn Yaqub, said: ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad narrated to us. This route is Egyptian and has disorder.^[8]

 

Al Najashi criticised this chain for being disordered. Furthermore, the chain is not authentic:

 

Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ismail

• Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ahmed ibn Ismail ibn Muhammad is unknown.^[9] Al Shahrudi stated about him, “They did not mention him.”^[10]

 

The three scholars from whom he transmits Kitab al Wasiyyah are all unknown:

 

Abu Yusuf al Wuhazi

• Unknown; no biography has been found for him despite extensive efforts.

 

Al Azhar ibn Bustam ibn Rustam

• Al Shahrudi mentioned, “Azhar bin Nizam: They did not mention him, and it is more likely that he is Azhar ibn Bustam ibn Rustam, who, along with Abu Yusuf and al Hassan bin Yaqub, is part of al Najashi’s chain of transmission to Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa bin al Mustafad.”^[11]

 

Al Hassan ibn Yaqub

• Al Shahrudi stated, “They did not mention him.”^[12]

 

This chain is therefore a series of unknowns.

Al Najashi then referred to another chain for the book that also ends with ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Fadl, saying:

 

وقد أخبرنا أبو الحسن أحمد بن محمد بن عمران قال حدثنا يحيى بن محمد القصباني عن عبيد الله بن الفضل

And Abu al Hassan Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Imran informed us, saying: Yahya ibn Muhammad al Qasbani narrated from ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Fadl.

 

This chain is also not authentic because one of its narrators, Yahya ibn Muhammad al Qasbani, or al Ghasbani is also unknown.

 

Yahya ibn Muhammad al Qasbani

• Al Shahrudi stated, “They did not mention him.”^[13]

He is thus unknown and has no credibility in the books of Rijal.

 

‘Ubaidullah ibn al Fadl

• ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Fadl, who is the key to the chain of narration of al Najashi, is also unknown.^[14]

Thus, the chains of al Najashi for the book of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad are characterised by disorder and the unknown status of the narrators.

As for al Tusi, he did not mention any connected chain to the book at all; he simply stated:

 

له كتاب رواه عبيد الله بن عبد الله الدهقان عنه

He has a book^[15] narrated by ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abdullah al Dahqan.^[16]

 

Therefore, Ibrahim al Shabbut remarked:

 

إن الشيخ الطوسي في الفهرست لم يذكر طريقًا إليه

In al Fihrist, al Sheikh al Tusi did not mention a chain to it.^[17]

 

The narrator of the book from ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad is ‘Ubaidullah ibn al Dahqan, who is also weak.

 

‘Ubaidullah ibn al Dahqan

• Al Najashi said, “Weak.”^[18]

Abu al Qasim al Khu’i commented on this route, saying:

 

وطريق الشيخ إليه ضعيف

And the route of the sheikh to it is weak.^[19]

 

Jawwad al Qayyumi al Asfahani^[20] and al Sheikh ‘Abbas al Dashti^[21] have criticised al Tusi’s chain to the book as weak. And thus, Ibn al Ghada’iri weakened the chain of transmission for Kitab al Wasiyyah, saying:

 

كتاب الوصية لا يثبت سنده

The chain of transmission of Kitab al Wasiyyah is not established.^[22]

 

This was agreed upon by Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli,^[23] al Ardabili al Gharawi,^[24] and Muhammad al Mazandarani.^[25] Consequently, it becomes clear that all the chains of transmission of Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa bin al Mustafad al Darir are entirely unreliable.

 

C. The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad

 

‘Isa ibn al Mustafad

• The majority of scholars of Rijal from the Imami school have considered ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad to be weak. The earliest among them was al Najashi, who said about him, “He was not that significant.”^[26]
• Ibn al Ghada’iri also stated, “He is weak in himself.”^[27] This opinion was supported by al Hilli,^[28] al Ardabili,^[29] and al Mazandarani.^[30]
• Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi (the father) held that he is unknown.^[31]
• The weakness was also judged by al Mamaqani,^[32] al Muhaqqiq al Damad,^[33] Ibrahim al Dunbuli,^[34] and ‘Ali al Burujirdi.^[35]
• Kashif al Ghita’ stated, “‘Isa ibn al Mustafad has been weakened by ‘Allamah.”^[36]
• Al Khu’i also deemed his narration weak, saying, “It is weak in chain due to ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad.”^[37]
• Al Jawahiri summarized Al Khu’i’s opinion about him, saying: “Unknown.”^[38]
• Al Ishtiharidi stated about him, “He is weak according to what the scholars of Rijal mentioned.”^[39]
• Muhammad al Mu’min al Qummi said, “‘Isa himself is weak.”^[40]
• Hussain al Sa’idi mentioned in his book al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith a group of major scholars of Rijal among the Imamiyyah who judged his weakness, saying, “In summary, he is weak. Ibn al Ghada’iri and al Najashi both weakened him. ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi counted him among the weak. It is evident from his narrations that they contain confusion and a narrative style.”^[41]
• Al Sa’idi observed beautifully, “It is evident from his narrations that they contain confusion and a narrative style.”

 

Whoever reflects on the narrations transmitted by this man will conclude that al Sa’idi’s statement is correct, for the majority of the reports of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad resemble the styles of storytellers and fabricators of legends.

Thus, it becomes clear that the majority of scholars of Rijal in the Imami school have ruled on the weakness of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad. Therefore, the endorsement of al Nuri al Tabarsi^[42] and others who are lenient towards him is a rare opinion that contradicts the views of the overwhelming majority of scholars of Rijal. Furthermore, the reasons they relied upon in attempting to validate him do not return to any substantive foundation.

 

D. The opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad transmitted from the Book of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad

Al Muhaqqiq Asif Muhsini ruled in Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar that this narration is not credible, stating:

 

جملة من روايات الباب منقولة من كتاب الوصية لعيسى بن المستفاد الضرير نقلها عن موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام لكن عيسى إما غير قابل للاعتماد كما يستفاد من كلام النجاشي أو هو مجهول على أن نسخة كتابه لم تصل بسند معتبر إلى ابن طاووس كما أشرنا إلى أصل هذا الكلام في أول هذه التعليقة فلا اعتماد على هذه الروايات وما قيل في اعتبارها ص 495 ضعيف موهون

A number of narrations in this chapter are transmitted from Kitab al Wasiyyah by ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad al Darir narrated from Musa ibn Jafar, but ‘Isa is either not reliable, as inferred from al Najashi’s words, or he is unknown. Moreover, his copy of the book did not reach through a credible chain to Ibn Tawus as we have pointed out in the beginning of this commentary. Therefore, these narrations cannot be relied upon, and what was said about their credibility pg. 495^[43] is weak and fragile.^[44]

 

Moreover, many scholars of Rijal from the Imami school have judged the chain of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad to be weak and have weakened Ibn Tawus’s route to him.

Some, however, have disagreed, chief among them Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, who stated:

 

عيسى وكتابه مذكوران في كتب الرجال ولي إليه أسانيد جمة وبعد اعتبار الكليني رحمه الله الكتاب واعتماد السيدين عليه لا عبرة بتضعيف بعضهم مع أن ألفاظ الروايات ومضامينها شاهدة على صحتها

‘Isa and his book are mentioned in the books of Rijal, and I have numerous chains leading to him. Furthermore, after al Kulayni endorsed the book and the two Sayeds relied on it, the weakening by some is not to be heeded, especially since the words and contents of the narrations testify to their authenticity.^[45]

 

Al Majlisi’s assertion that Kitab al Wasiyyah is credible is not accepted, for it has already been established that the route of Ibn Tawus to Kitab al Wasiyyah is weak, as are the routes of al Najashi and al Sheikh al Tusi. Thus, it becomes clear that al Majlisi’s claim that al Kulayni judged Kitab al Wasiyyah as credible should also be disregarded. He adopted a methodology for validating Kitab al Wasiyyah similar to that of the Akhbaris who validate most books and narrations. Therefore, al Majlisi’s ruling and that of his followers, such as al Nuri, regarding the book’s credibility should not be considered.

It is strange that al Majlisi himself weakened ‘Isa in his book al Wajizah,^[46] yet he contradicts himself here by ruling the book to be credible!

 

2. The Narration of Minhaj al Salah

Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli said:

 

زار النبي يومًا فاطمة عليها السلام فقامت عليها السلام فهيأت له طعامًا من تمر وقرص وسمن جاري عادتها معه واجتمعوا على الأكل هو وعلي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين عليهم السلام فلما أكلوا سجد رسول الله وأطال سجوده ثم بكى ثم ضحك ثم جلس وكان أجرأهم في الخطاب علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام فقال يا رسول الله رأينا منك اليوم ما لم نره قبل ذلك قال وما هو قال سجدت وبكيت وضحكت فما سبب ذلك فقال إني لما أكلت معكم فرحت وسررت بسلامتكم واجتماعكم فسجدت لله تعالى شكرًا فهبط جبرئيل عليه السلام يقول سجدت شكرًا لفرحك بأهلك فقلت نعم فقال ألا أخبرك بما يجري عليهم بعدك فقلت بلى يا أخي يا جبرئيل فقال أما ابنتك فهي أول أهلك لحاقًا بك بعد أن تظلم ويؤخذ حقها وتمنع إرثها ويظلم بعلها ويكسر ضلعها

One day, the Prophet visited Fatimah. She prepared food for him made of dates, bread, and butter, as was her custom with him. They—he, ‘Ali, Fatimah, al Hassan, and al Hussain—gathered to eat. After they ate, the Messenger of Allah prostrated, prolonging his prostration, then cried, then laughed, and then sat down.

The most daring among them in speech was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, who said, “O Messenger of Allah, today we saw something from you that we have not seen before.”

He said, “And what is that?”

He replied, “You prostrated, cried, and laughed; what is the reason for that?”

He said, “When I ate with you, I was pleased and delighted by your safety and your gathering, so I prostrated to Allah Almighty in gratitude. Then Jibril descended and said, ‘Did you prostrate in gratitude for your joy with your family?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Shall I not inform you of what will happen to them after you?’ I said, ‘Yes, my brother, Jibril.’ He said, ‘As for your daughter, she will be the first of your family to join you after being wronged, having her right taken, being denied her inheritance, her husband being wronged, and her rib being broken…’”^[47]

 

The earliest to mention this narration with this wording was Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli in his book Minhaj al Salah, and it was transmitted from him by al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar. Al Hilli mentioned this narration with similar wording but without the phrase “and her rib will be broken” in his book Nahj al Haqq wa Kashf al Sidq.^[48] Ibn Abi Jumhur al Ahsa’i also transmitted this narration in his book ‘Awali al La’ali. Thus, it becomes evident that the source of this narration is only one, which is Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli. Therefore, do not be deceived by the statement of ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi:

 

وقريب منها ما رواه ابن أبي جمهور الأحسائي مختصرًا

And a version close to it was narrated by Ibn Abi Jumhur al Ahsa’i in a summarised form.^[49]

 

Ibn Abi Jumhur merely transmitted the same narration that al Hilli mentioned in Nahj al Haqq, which is devoid of any reference to the breaking of the rib. Therefore, ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi described it as a summarised narration. It becomes evident that ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi deliberately misled the reader regarding the multiplicity of sources of the narration by attributing it to more than one source, although it refers back to a single source.

 

Study of the Isnad

This narration does not have a chain of narration. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, who narrated this account, did not specify its source nor mention a chain for the narration. There are more than seven centuries between him and this alleged incident; how can a researcher be assured of the accuracy of this story’s transmission? Undoubtedly, anyone seeking the truth should not rely on such narrations that lack a chain of narration or reliable verification; this is the least that can be said about such narrations.

 

The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad

Hashim al Hashimi judged this narration as weak and disconnected.^[50] The researcher Asif Muhsini ruled that the narration is not credible.^[51]

 

NEXT⇒ What is Attributed to Sayyidina ‘Ali

---

^[1]  Sheikh Bahjat al ‘Attar compiled the narrations attributed to ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad al Darir and published them under the title Kitab al Wasiyyah, which was published by the library specialising in Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali in Mashhad in the year 1429 AH, the eighth narration, pg. 75.

^[2]  Al Turaf min al Anba’ wa-al Manaqib, the nineteenth anecdote, pg. 169. Al Majlisi cited it with slight variations in wording from the book of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad, as mentioned in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 22 pg. 485, no. 31, “O ‘Ali, woe to those who wrong her, woe to those who deprive her of her right…”

^[3]  Madarik al ‘Urwah, vol. 23 pg. 450.

^[4]  Al Wilayah al Ilahiyyah al Islamiyyah (Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah), vol. 2 pg. 206.

^[5]  Al Nur al Sati’ fi al Fiqh al Nafi’, vol. 1 pg. 431.

^[6]  Mawsu’at al Imam al Khu’i Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, vol. 9 pg. 227.

^[7]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 1 pg. 402.

^[8]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 297.

^[9]  Similar to Muhammad al Jawahiri: al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 501.

^[10]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 6 pg. 458.

^[11]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 1 pg. 536.

^[12]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3 pg. 71.

^[13]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8 pg. 231.

^[14]  Similar to Muhammad al Jawahiri: al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 365.

^[15]  Al Tusi did not explicitly mention the name of the book, but we speculate that the intended book is Kitab al Wasiyyah, as it is the only book mentioned by al Najashi and those who came after him.

^[16]  Al Fihrist, pg. 188.

^[17]  Du’afa’ al Ruwat, pg. 378.

^[18]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 231, no. 614.

^[19]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 14, pg. 224.

^[20]  Al Tusi: Al Fihrist, pg. 321; A Study on the Methods of Sheikh in al Fihrist,” published by Mu’assasat Nashr al Faqahah.

^[21]  Nukhbat al Maqal fi Tamyiz al Isnad wa al Rijal, pg. 230.

^[22]  Ibn al Ghada’iri: Al Du’afa’, pg. 81.

^[23]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 387.

^[24]  Jami’ al Ruwat, vol. 1, pg. 654.

^[25]  Muntaha al Maqal, vol. 5, pg. 170.

^[26]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 297 – 298. The only exception was al Wahid al Bahbahani in his commentary on the methodology of the treatise al Muqaddamah, vol. 1, pg. 134. He was followed by al Nuri al Tabarsi, vol. 8, pg. 285 – 286 and others, who argued that the phrase “not that much” does not indicate weakness, but rather implies praise. This view is rejected, as the correct interpretation is that this phrase is among the terms used for discrediting. This was stated by Zayn al Din al ‘Amili, famously known among the Imami scholars as al Shahid al Thani, in his work al Bidayah fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, pg. 46, as well as in the commentary on al Bidayah, pg. 83. Al Shahid al Thani is the first to have authored a work in the field of ‘Ilm al Dirayah among the Imamiyyah, and this has been supported by a number of scholars in the fields of Rijal and transmission, such as al A’raji in ‘Uddat al Rijal, vol. 1, pg. 246, al Mirdamad in al Rawashih al Samawiyyah, pg. 103, Rafi’ ibn ‘Ali al Rashti in his treatise on ‘Ilm al Dirayah published in the book Rasa’il fi ‘Ilm al Dirayah, vol. 2, pg. 314, Ibrahim al Shabbut in Du’afa’ al Ruwat, pg. 17, ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli in Usul al Hadith, pg. 123, and Hussain al Sa’idi in al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 1, pg. 111.

^[27]  Ibn al Ghada’iri: Al Du’afa’, pg. 81.

^[28]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 387.

^[29]  Jami’ al Ruwat, vol. 1, pg. 654.

^[30]  Muntaha al Maqal, vol. 5, pg. 170.

^[31]  Rawdat al Muttaqin, vol. 10, pg. 279.

^[32]  Tanqih al Maqal, vol. 1, pg. 120.

^[33]  Kitab al Khums: Transcription of al Damad’s lesson by his student ‘Abdullah al Jawadi al ‘Amili, pg. 214.

^[34]  Mulakhkhas al Maqal fi Tahqiq Ahwal al Rijal, vol. 3, pg. 258.

^[35]  Tara’if al Maqal, vol. 1, pg. 338, no. 2498.

^[36]  Sheikh ‘Ali Kashif al Ghita’: Al Nur al Sati’ fi al Fiqh al Nafi’, vol. 1, pg. 431.

^[37]  Mawsu’at al Imam al Khu’i, Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, vol. 9, pg. 227.

^[38]  Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 449.

^[39]  Madarik al ‘Urwah, vol. 23, pg. 450.

^[40]  Al Wilayah al Ilahiyyah al Islamiyyah (Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah), vol. 2, pg. 206.

^[41]  Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 2, pg. 502.

^[42]  Khatimat Mustadrak al Wasa’il, vol. 8, pg. 285 – 286.

^[43]  Referring to what al Majlisi mentioned in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 22, pg. 495, that the book of ‘Isa ibn al Mustafad is reliable.

^[44]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 1, pg. 402.

^[45]  Bihar al Anwar, vol. 22, pg. 495.

^[46]  Al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg. 276.

^[47]  Minhaj al Salah fi Ikhtisar al Misbah, pg. 445. It was transmitted by al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 98, pg. 44, and mentioned by Ibn Abi Jumhur al Ahsa’i in ‘Awali al La’ali al ‘Aziziyyah fi al Ahadith al Diniyyah, vol. 1, pg. 199, in an abridged form.

^[48]  Nahj al Haqq wa Kashf al Sidq, pg. 432.

^[49]  Al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 40.

^[50]  Kitab Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 285. Hashim al Hashimi mentioned four narrations, this narration being the fourth one, and he said, “The last three narrations have weak chains of transmission, as is clear, since all of them are transmitted without a chain.”

^[51]  Asif Muhsini said in Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 2, pg. 479: “Chapter 5: That visiting him is equivalent to Hajj and ‘Umrah, vol. 98, pg. 28. The reliable narrations mentioned are those numbered 1, 8, 9—especially regarding Ibn al Jahm—and 16 and 55.” While the narration numbered 84 in the chapter is considered unreliable according to his view.