BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Ibn al Nadim says:
إن أول كتاب ظهر للشيعة كتاب سليم بن قيس الهلالي” رواه عن أبان بن أبي عياش لم يروه غيره
The first book of the Shia that became apparent was the book of Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali. He narrated it from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash, no other person narrated it.
We touched upon this book during our discussion on the tale of ‘fabrication’ according to the Shia. One of the latter day Shia personalities has the following admission to make:
بأن هذا الكتاب موضوع في آخر الدولة الأموية
This book was compiled towards the end of the Umayyad dynasty.
In other words, there is no truth to its attribution to Sulaim. We have already explained that this Sulaim is not mentioned anywhere in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, even though the Shia hold him in very high regard. Some believe that he did not exist. If he did exist, he would have been mentioned somewhere. Apparently, the largest compilation of theirs, in the early days, is that which was compiled by Abu Jafar al Qummi (Muhammad ibn Hassan ibn Farrukh al Saffar al Qummi, d. 290 A.H.). He named his compilation Basa’ir al Darajat fi ‘Ulum Al Muhammad wa ma Khassahum Allah bihi. This book was printed in the year 1285 A.H. Al Saffar was considered by Brokleman as the founder of Imami jurisprudence in the non-Arab countries.
Dr Muhammad al Baltaji is of the view that he was the first person who compiled the jurisprudence and narrations of the Imamiyyah Twelvers. However, the statement of Ibn al Nadim proves that he was not the first person to do so. Al Majlisi quoted most of this book in the different chapters of his encyclopaedia al Bihar. Nonetheless, this book is filled with extremism. In it, one will find criticism of the Qur’an, fanaticism regarding the Imams, and verdicts of kufr regarding the Sahabah; all of which confirm that majority of these narrations have been fabricated in the names of the Imams.
Al Kulayni (d. 328 or 329 A.H.) authored his book, al Kafi, in the beginning of the fourth century, after which many other books were authored.
The primary books, which are considered the sources of narrations by the Twelvers are eight in number. They are referred to as ‘al Jawami’ al Thamaniyah’. The Shia believe that these are the most important sources of the narrations of the Imams. Their contemporary scholar, Muhammad Salih al Ha’iri says:
وأما صحاح الإمامية فهي ثمانية، أربعة منها للمحمدين الثلاثة الأوائل، وثلاثة بعدها للمحمدين الثلاثة الأواخر، وثامنها لحسين – المعاصر – النوري
The authentic books of the Shia are eight. Four of them were compiled by the first three Muhammads, three of them were compiled by the last three Muhammads and the eighth one was compiled by Hussain al Nuri, a contemporary.
Their scholar, al Fayd al Kashani (d. 1091 A.H) says:
إن مدار الأحكام الشرعية اليوم على هذه الأصول الأربعة، وهي المشهود عليها بالصحة من مؤلفيها
Today, the laws of the Shari’ah are based on these four primary books. Their authenticity has been testified to by their authors.
Agha Buzurg al Tahrani, one of their contemporary Mujtahids says:
الكتب الأربعة والمجاميع الحديثية التي عليها استنباط الأحكام الشرعية حتى اليوم
The laws of Shari’ah are deduced from the four books and the hadith compilations, until today.
These are their four classical sources. Thereafter, Shia scholars of the eleventh century and those who followed wrote a number of books. Four of these books are accepted by the contemporary Shia and they have been named “the four compilations of the latter times”. They are:
There are many books of theirs, which they consider to be of the same level as the four books, as far as relying upon them and using them as proofs is concerned. This is stated by al Majlisi in the forward of his Bihar and al Hurr al ‘Amili in al Wasa’il. This can also be found in the forwards of those books. It seems as if the four books were only singled out on account of them being large collections, or as an attempt to imitate the Ahlus Sunnah.
The second possibility is strengthened by the fact that they have regarded al Wafi as a separate book among their eight fundamental books, whereas it is a mere compilation of all the narrations of the four initial books, i.e. al Kafi, al Tahdhib, al Istibsar and Man la Yahdurhu al Faqih. How can a book like this be considered a separate book, when it is a compilation of the other books? Similarly, they counted al Istibsar of al Tusi as a separate source, whereas it is nothing more than a summary of the Tahdhib al Ahkam of al Tusi, as stated by al Tusi in the forward of al Istibsar. This is also quite clear to the one who compares the two books. These acts clearly point towards the possibility that they were creating a name for their religion.
Added to that, the original version of Bihar al Anwar was divided by the author into twenty-five volumes. However, after seeing that the twenty-fifth volume became too large, he divided it into two, bringing the total number of volumes to twenty-six. However, the contemporary Shia have added on a few books which were not part of the authors book such as Jannat al Ma’wa of al Nuri al Tabarsi, Hidayat al Akhbar by al Mustarhami and a few more volumes containing permissions (to transmit knowledge or narrations), so that the total number of volumes could be one hundred and ten! It does not end there, the first volume is numbered ‘zero’. If this is not an attempt to show off their ‘heritage’ then what else can it be? In fact, they are obsessed with the idea of showing off the ‘accolades’ of their religion.
As for the subject-matters of these books; al Tahdhib, al Istibsar, Man la Yahdurhu al Faqih, Wasa’il al Shia and Mustadrak are all regarding Fiqh (jurisprudence). As for al Kafi, the first two volumes are regarding matters of belief, whilst the rest of the volumes are regarding Fiqh, thus they are referred to as Furu’ al Kafi. Many of their verdicts are very similar to those of the Ahlus Sunnah, which strengthens the view of those scholars who believe that they merely copied them from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah.
They also have a few of their own rulings, which are nothing less than bizarre, and a few more which are totally unimaginable. These deserve to be written in a separate book. Their scholar, al Murtada gathered a few of them in a book which he named al Intisar. Ibn ‘Aqil al Hanbali quoted some of these rulings, after which he expressed great surprise. Ibn al Jawzi recorded them in al Muntazam from that which was in the handwriting of Ibn ‘Aqil. He indicated towards this in al Mawdu’at saying:
ولقد وضعت الرافضة كتاباً في الفقه وسموه مذهب الإمامية، وذكروا فيه ما يخرق إجماع المسلمين بلا دليل أصلاً
The Rafidah have written a book on jurisprudence which they named Mazhab al Imamiyyah. In it, they have mentioned that which is against the consensus of all Muslims, without any proof.
As for the remainder of these compilations, viz. Usul al Kafi and Bihar al Anwar – they are concerning a few matters such as Tawhid, al ‘Adl (justice), Imamah and so on. Majority of these books are made up of their beliefs and views regarding Imamah, the Twelve Imams, the idea that they were divinely appointed, their qualities, their conditions, visiting their graves and their enemies, the foremost of them being the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. One will also notice that most matters revolve around Imamah and the Imams.
The one who reads these books will also notice the vast and apparent differences between the narrations which are taken from the Ahlus Sunnah, referred to as ‘hadith’ by them and the narrations of the Shia which they refer to as ‘riwayat’. If a hadith is reported in the hadith compilations of the Ahlus Sunnah, it will be attributed to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and it will really be his hadith. As for the books of the Shia, they narrate from any of the Twelve Imams and they believe, as stated previously – that there is no difference between the ‘statements’ of the Imams and the ahadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
The reader will also notice that very few of their narrations are attributed to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Most of the narrations of al Kafi are reported from Jafar al Sadiq, and a few of them are reported from his father, Muhammad al Baqir. An even lesser amount is recorded from Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those that go all the way up until Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are just an odd few. Another noteworthy fact is that the four latter compilations were compiled in the eleventh century and later. The last of them was compiled in the year 1320 A.H. by al Nuri al Tabarsi, a contemporary of Muhammad ‘Abduh. In it, he gathered twenty-three thousand narrations from the Imams, which were unknown prior to his compilation.
Thus, these narrations appeared hundreds of years after the Imams. If the Shia preserved those narrations by means of an isnad (i.e. passing it on generation after generation) and by narrating them, then how can an intelligent person rely upon a narration that was not written down for a period of eleven or thirteen centuries? If they were written and recorded in books, then how is it that these books were not discovered except in the later eras?
Why is it that these narrations were not recorded by their predecessors? Why are they not found in their books? Why did al Kulayni not record them, whereas he had access to the four deputies of the Mahdi (who named the book al Kafi, after commenting, “It is sufficient for our Shia”)? How did al Tusi not mention them in in his book Tahdhib al Ahkam, regarding which he stated that in it is all that which relates to Fiqh from the narrations of their scholars, books, and sources. He clearly stated that he did not leave out except a very small and insignificant amount. It seems as if these books were compiled recently, in the era of the Safawids, and then attributed to scholars of earlier eras.
Even their four primary and initial books were not free from alterations and additions. This can be understood from the fact that it is mentioned by Agha Buzurg al Tahrani in al Dhari’ah, Muhsin al ‘Amili in A’yan al Shia, and other contemporary Shia scholars that Tahdhib al Ahkam of al Tusi contains a total of 13950 ahadith, whereas al Tusi himself stated in his book ‘Idat al Usul that the narrations of al Tahdhib are more than five thousand, which means that, at most, they were slightly less than six thousand in number. Thus, there are strong indications that additions were made to the book along the course of the centuries, due to which the book is more than twice its original size!
You will also find that a difference of opinion exists among them as to whether al Rawdah (one of the books inside al Kafi – which contains a number of chapters) is from the original compilation of al Kulayni or it was added on later to his book al Kafi. This leaves us with the impression that it is a very normal phenomena for them to make changes and add on to books. Rather, the matter seems to be more dangerous than that. Their ‘reliable scholar’, Hussain ibn Haydar al Karki al ‘Amili (d. 1076 A.H.) says:
إن كتاب الكافي خمسون كتاباً بالأسانيد التي فيه لكل حديث متصل بالأئمة
Al Kafi is fifty books with the isnads of every narration which goes up to the Imams that are in it.
Al Tusi (d. 360 A.H.), on the other hand, says:
كتاب الكافي مشتمل على ثلاثين كتاباً، أخبرنا بجميع رواياته الشيخ..
Al Kafi is made up of thirty books. All its narrations were reported to us by al Sheikh.
Were twenty books added on to al Kafi between the fifth and eleventh century? Each book consists of many chapters, and each chapter consists of a number of narrations. Perhaps this is only natural, as the one who forges lies against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Sahabah, and the Ahlul Bayt will not hesitate to forge narrations against his so-called scholars. There is no shortage of proofs regarding this.
As for the texts which appear in these books, you will see clear and irreconcilable contradictions between them. Their scholar, Muhammad ibn Hassan al Tusi laments:
لما آلت إليه أحاديثهم من الاختلاف والتباين والمنافاة والتضاد حتى لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده، ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابلته ما ينافيه
… due to the end result of their narrations as far as differences, dissimilarities, contradictions, and opposition is concerned; to the extent that there will not be a narration, except that another narration will contradict it. There is no narration that is not opposed by another narration.
He goes on to say that these differences are more than the combined differences of all the other mazhabs. This is one of the greatest reasons on account of which their mazhab is criticised. Some of the Shia even abandon their religion, when they discover these contradictions. Al Tusi unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile these differences and explain them. Instead of solving the problem, he compounded it, as he simply commented on some of the contradictions that they were based on Taqiyyah. This, he stated without any proof, besides the fact that those narrations corresponded to the narrations or views of the Ahlus Sunnah.
The truth is that by doing do, he only broadened and solidified the gap between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia and he shut the doors of guidance upon his sect. His efforts were only related to the chapters of Fiqh. He did not attempt to reconcile the narrations of the other chapters. Our claim that his attempt was a failure is backed by the great amount of differences that are still found amongst the Shia. One of their scholars, al Fayd al Kashani (the author of al Wafi, one of the eight books) says regarding the differences of his sect:
تراهم يختلفون في المسألة الواحدة على عشرين قولاً أو ثلاثين قولاً أو أزيد؛ بل لو شئت أقول: لم تبق مسألة فرعية لم يختلفوا فيها أو في بعض متعلقاتها
You will see them having twenty, thirty, or more opinions. In fact, if I wish to, I can say, there is no single subsidiary matter regarding which they have not had a difference of opinion, at least regarding something related to it.
It should be noted that their differences are not differences based on understandings and interpretations. Rather, they are differences that are a direct result of contradictory narrations and texts. When this is the case (excessive contradictions between the texts), can there be any doubt that this is false religion and that the narrations are concoctions? Allah exposes the people of falsehood. He explains:
وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا
If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.
Some of their narrations blame these contradictions upon the excessive lies and fabrications that are attributed to the Imams. On one occasion, Fayd ibn Mukhtar complained to Abu ‘Abdullah regarding the numerous contradictions in their narrations (as reported in their narrations) saying:
ما هذا الاختلاف الذي بين شيعتكم.. إني لأجلس في حلقهم بالكوفة فأكاد أن أشك في اختلافهم في حديثهم.
What are these differences between your Shia? I sit in their gatherings in Kufah, and I begin to doubt due to their differences in the narrations.
Abu ‘Abdullah replied:
هو ما ذكرت يا فيض إن الناس أولعوا بالكذب علينا.. وإني أحدث أحدهم بالحديث فلا يخرج من عندي حتى يتأوله على غيره تأويله، وذلك أنهم لا يطلبون بحديثنا وبحبنا ما عند الله وإنما يطلبون الدنيا وكل يحب أن يدعى رأساً
It is as you mentioned o Fayd. People revel in attributing lies to us. I transmit a narration to one of them, but he does not leave my presence until he interprets it against its meaning. This is because they do not seek, by means of our narrations and loving us, that which is by Allah, they only seek the world, and each one of them wishes to call (himself) the leader.
The Imams have repeatedly complained of the lies that are attributed to them. Connivers, conspirators, and materialistic individuals thronged around them, especially Jafar al Sadiq. They would intercept the delegations that arrived from around the world to meet the Imams, and using the names of the Imams, they would devour their wealth. Thereafter, they would present to them fake certificates of their acceptance and they would narrate from the Imams that which was not said by them. If the Imams ever belied them, they brushed it off saying that they were practising Taqiyyah.
Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah – the judge (d. 177/8 A.H.), describes the people who would surround Jafar al Sadiq and attribute narrations to him, as stated in the books of the Shia. Hereunder is the narration:
قال أبو عمرو الكشي: قال يحيى بن عبد الحميد الحمّاني في كتابه المؤلف في إثبات إمامة أمير المؤمنين – رضي الله عنه -: قلت لشريك: إن أقواماً يزعمون أن جعفر بن محمد ضعيف الحديث، فقال : أخبرك القصة، كان جعفر بن محمد رجلاً صالحاً مسلماً ورعاً فاكتنفه قوم جهال يدخلون عليه ويخرجون من عنده ويقولون: حدثنا جعفر بن محمد، ويحدثون بأحاديث كلها منكرات كذب موضوعة على جعفر، ليستأكلوا الناس بذلك، ويأخذوا منهم الدراهم، كانوا يأتون من ذلك بكل منكر، فسمعت العوم بذلك فمنهم من هلك ومنهم من أنكر
I said to Sharik, “Some people are of the view that Jafar ibn Muhammad is a weak narrator.”
He responded, “I will tell you the story. Jafar ibn Muhammad was a pious and scrupulous Muslim. However a bunch of ignorant people thronged around him. They would enter and leave his presence and say, ‘Jafar ibn Muhammad narrated to us,’ and thereafter, they would narrate strange things which were pure lies and fabrications in the name of Jafar, so that they could gain some food and dirhams from the people. Their narrations would include all kinds of weird information. The public heard about this. Some of them were destroyed and some of them rejected it.”
It seems as if these objections were only raised by the former Shia. As for the latter day Shia – especially from the Safawid Dynasty onwards – they have accepted these fabrications in the name of Jafar as a portion of their fundamental beliefs, without any reservations. These narrations have such content that a person can easily point out that they are fabricated, as they contradict the basics and principles of Islam, that which is known by Tawatur, that which is unanimously upheld by all Muslims as well and they are totally illogical.
I have found in their narrations, the instruction to ignore this principle, i.e. questioning the narration due to its outrageous contents. Basa’ir al Darajat reports from Sufyan al Simt:
قلت لأبي عبد الله – عليه السلام -: جعلت فداك؛ إن رجلاً يأتينا من قبلكم يعرف بالكذب فيحدث بالحديث فنستبشعه، فقال أبو عبد الله – عليه السلام -: يقول لك: إني قلت لليل إنه نهار، وللنهار إنه ليل، قال: لا، قال: فإن قال لك هذا إني قلته فلا تكذب به فإنك إنما تكذبني
I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “May I be sacrificed for you, a man comes to us from you, who is known to be a liar, and narrates to us something that we find outrageous.”
Abu ‘Abdullah asked, “Does he tell you that I said regarding a night that it is a day or regarding a day that it is a night?”
I replied, “No.”
He said, “If he says this to you, then do not belie him, as you are only belying me.”
Another narration states:
إن حديثنا تشمئز منه القلوب فمن عرف فزيدوهم، ومن أنكر فذروهم
Our narrations cause the hearts to shudder. Thus, increase the one who understands and leave the one who rejects.
Their scholar, al Majlisi quotes 116 narrations of this meaning under the chapter, “Their narrations are extremely difficult, their speech could be interpreted in many ways, the virtue of pondering over their narrations radiya Llahu ‘anhum submitting to them and the prohibition of rejecting them.” When this is compared to the views and narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah, it becomes even clearer that these people are on the path of deviation. The Arabic idiom says, “Matters become clear by their opposites.”
Most of the time, they only question the text of a narration if it corresponds to the view of the Ahlus Sunnah, who they refer to as the common masses. In such cases, they reject the narrations, as guidance (according to their narrations) is in opposing the common masses. In this way, they deviate further away from the truth. It should also be noted, that by doing this, they are even opposing that which appears in their books and was said by some of their Imams, i.e. “Do not accept from us that which contradicts the Book of our Rabb.” However, their scholars have discarded this principle. Thus, that which the Imams stipulated as the yardstick of truth became a target of malicious attacks and many fairy tales.
As for the authenticity of these narrations and the narrations which make up their compilations, their isnads, the narrators who they have accepted as reliable narrators from their Imams, the classifications of narrations according to them and the reasons on the basis of which texts are questioned by them; these are all aspects that require an independent book. They are absolutely important, as they will go a long way in exposing the reality of these compilations to the unwary and simple-minded. By means of such a discussion, falsehood will be stripped of its veils and the crimes of the Saba’iyyah, who were behind the creation and development of this deviance, and thereafter attributed them to scholars of the Ahlul Bayt, will come to the fore. It is a multifaceted discussion which cannot be adequately discussed here. Nonetheless, we will indicate to a few aspects briefly.
Many of the leading scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have stated that no sect has lied as much as the Rafidah and they are most vehement in rejecting the truth. When Ibn al Mutahhar said, “They have their narrations which were reported by their reliable narrators,” Ibn Taymiyyah responded:
How did you people arrive at the conclusion that those who reported these narrations in the past were reliable narrators? You people have not met them and you do not have any knowledge regarding them, as you have no books in which their details are recorded, by means of which you could have differentiated between the reliable narrators and the others. You also do not have isnads by means of which you could have learnt who the narrators are.
Did the scholars of Islam know about these compilations? The reality is that the Muslim ummah had no famous compilations and sources of ahadith besides the sources of the Muslims, which were in the forms of Sihah (authentic compilations), Sunan (compiled on the format of Fiqhi chapters) and Masanid (compiled according to teachers or narrators). According to my research, the scholars of Islam, who dealt with the matter of the Rawafid, such as al Ash’ari, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Hazm did not mention any of these books. There is even no mention of their most incriminating book, Usul al Kafi, even though the author died in the year 329 A.H. Was this because these compilations were passed around between them in a secretive manner, or, did the scholars of Islam consider them too insignificant to pay attention to? A third possibility is that these books were all authored during the reign of the Safawid Dynasty and thereafter attributed to their former scholars.
Usul al Kafi contains a text which indicates that the books of narrations of the Shia were circulated amongst themselves in a secretive manner. This is why the isnads are not complete, as that was the demand of Taqiyyah (according to them). The exact text of al Kafi is:
إن مشايخنا رووا عن أبي جعفر وأبي عبد الله – عليهما السلام – وكانت التقية شديدة فكتموا كتبهم ولم ترو عنهم، فلما ماتوا صارت الكتب إلينا. (قال أحد أئمتهم): حدثوا بها فإنها حق
Our scholars have narrated from Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah. Taqiyyah was at a very high level, so they hid their books and they were not narrated from. When they passed away, their books came into our possession. (One of their Imams says) Narrate it, as it is the truth.
Other narrations state that these texts should be hidden and they should not be spread among those who do not deserve it. During the era of al Suyuti, one of the Rawafid began calling towards practising upon the Qur’an alone, and leaving out the Sunnah. In refutation of this call, al Suyuti wrote his book, al Ihtijaj bi al Sunnah. The question that this raises is, why did this Rafidi not call towards their compilations? These kind of acts lead us to think that they were hiding their books. Nonetheless, why were their books not as widespread and common as they have become in the recent years?
Perhaps the first time that one of their four fundamental books were pointed towards was when the book al Nawaqid fi al Radd ‘ala al Rawafid was written, in which it was stated that among the nonsensical ideas held by the Rawafid was that they rejected the authentic books of hadith which the entire ummah accepted. In contrast to that, they accept four such books in which many lies have been recorded alongside a few narrations and sayings of the Imams. The author of al Nawaqid (Makhdum al Shirazi) belonged to the tenth century. However, just that he mentioned these books does not necessarily mean that they were out in the public, as he lived amongst the Rafidah. Thus, he was forced to seek his knowledge from them. This is how he learnt of their matters which were hidden from others, as stated by him.
As for the authenticity of these books according to them, there are two views regarding this. One group believes that every narration in these books is authentic and every letter was said by the Imams. The other group that there are authentic as well as unauthentic narrations therein. Their scholar, al Mamaqani states:
إن كون مجموع ما بين دفتي كل واحد من الكتب الأربعة من حيث المجموع متواتراً مما لا يعتريه شك ولا شبهة، بل هي عند التأمل فوق حد التواتر، ولكن هل هي متواترة بالنسبة إلى خصوص كل حديث وبعبارة أخرى هل كل حديث وكلمة بجميع حركاتها وسكناتها الإعرابية والبنائية، وبهذا الترتيب للكلمات والحروف على القطع أم لا؟ فالمعروف بين أصحابنا المجتهدين الثاني كما هو قضية عدها أخبار آحاد، واعتبارهم صحة سندها أو ما يقوم مقام الصحة، وجل الإخبار على الأول كما يقتضيه قولهم بوجوب العمل بالعلم، وأنها قطعية الصدور
The fact that whatever is between the covers of the four books, when looking at them as a whole, is mutawatir, is something that cannot be doubted. In fact, after pondering over it, they are above the level of Tawatur. However, is each one of the narrations mutawatir? In other words, is each narration, alphabet and diacritic (whether due that being its original diacritic or the diacritic that is a result of something else) in the order that these words and alphabets are, are they definite or not? The popular view amongst our Mujtahid scholars is the second one, as they classify narrations as ahad and they pay attention to the authenticity of isnad or whatever is equivalent to that. Most of the Akhbaris, however, hold the second opinion, as is the demand of their view that it is incumbent to practise upon knowledge and that all of them were definitely stated by (the Imams).
The four fundamental books hold a greater status than the Qur’an in the sight of the Akhbaris. Thus, they accept the narrations therein in which the authority of the Qur’an is brought to question. They have made these books the basis of judging the Qur’an. This is open deviation and pure kufr. As for the Usulis, or the Mujtahids – as they call themselves – they believe that there are ahad narrations in these books, and they take a glance at the isnad when they wish to classify a narration. Jafar al Najafi – the leading scholar of the Imami Shia of his time, writes in his book Kashf al Ghita regarding the authors of the four books:
والمحمدون الثلاثة كيف يعول في تحصيل العلم عليهم، وبعضهم يكذب رواية بعض.. ورواياتهم بعضها يضاد بعضاً.. ثم إن كتبهم قد اشتملت على أخبار يقطع بكذبها كأخبار التجسيم والتشبيه وقدم العالم، وثبوت المكان، والزمان
How can one rely on the three Muhammads when seeking knowledge? They belie the narrations of one-another. Even their narrations contradict one-another. Added to that, their books contain such narrations which are definite fabrications, such as the ones relating to anthropomorphism, tashbih (likening Allah to His creation), the universe always being in existence and establishing (or confining Allah to a) time and place.
However, the authors of these four books have unequivocally stated in the introductions of their books that they have only quoted that which is authentic. Thus, the author of Kashf al Ghita explains:
فلابد من تخصيص ما ذكر في المقدمات أو تأويله على ضرب من المجازات أو الحمل على العدول عما فات، حيث ذكروا في تضاعيف كتبهم خلاف ما ذكروه في أوائلها
It is necessary specify that which was mentioned in the introductions or to interpret it to be a type of figurative speech or to believe that those which did not make the grade were ignored, as they quoted in their books that which contradicts their introductory statements.
Thereafter, another objection is dealt with, which is far more difficult to answer compared to the previous ones, i.e. since these books were compiled from sources which were presented to the Imams, why did they not object to the fabrications that were found in them? In fact, Usul al Kafi was written during al Ghaybah al Sughra, due to which it was possible for the Imam to comment on the narrations therein, especially since the book was reportedly presented to him upon which he said that it is sufficient for the Shia. As for the author of Man la Yahdurhu al Faqih, he saw more than twenty years of al Ghaybah al Sughra.
The author of Kashf al Ghita could find no answer to this besides Taqiyyah, an answer that is used by them when all else fails. He says:
وأنه لا يجب على الأئمة المبادرة إليهم بالإنكار ولا تمييز الخطأ من الصواب لمنع التقية المتفرعة على يوم السقيفة
It is not compulsory upon the Imams to hasten in reproaching them or to differentiate between the authentic and unauthentic, due to the prohibition of Taqiyyah which is based on the Day of Saqifah.
A person may ask: Since the Usulis have adopted the methodology of authentication on the basis of isnads, do the Shia not have any expertise on the science of narrators and al Jarh wa al Ta’dil? The answer to this question is that after reading through their books on the subject, it becomes clear that they did not have a single book regarding this, until the fourth century, in which al Kashshi penned down a very brief book on the subject, which was of very little benefit. To make matters worse, he quoted in them contradictory reports on jarh and ta’dil. Their available books on narrators are none the better. They only contain biographies of certain narrators, and there are many mistakes and ambiguities in the names of the narrators, their fathers, agnomens, and titles.
They had no books on the sciences and principles of hadith until Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 965 A.H.), who is referred to as al Shahid al Thani (the second martyr) appeared. This is a fact that is admitted in the books of the Shia. Their scholar, al Ha’iri says:
ومن المعلومات التي لا يشك فيها أحد أنه لم يصنف في دراية الحديث من علمائنا قبل الشهيد الثاني وإنما هو من علوم العامة
Among the well known facts which is not doubted by anyone is that nothing was written regarding the principles of hadith by our scholars before al Shahid al Thani. It is from the sciences of the masses (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah).
Another point that will be discussed later is that they had never classified narrations (as authentic and unauthentic) until the seventh century. The author of al Tuhfah was of the opinion that they were motivated to write these books due to the amount of contradictions and incongruities that they had seen in their narrations. They then took help, in forming these principles, from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah.
However, they also have some of their own principles which, as in all cases where they have chosen a view contrary to that of the Muslims, are misguidance through and through. One example of this is that they classify as reliable anyone who claims to have seen the awaited Mahdi in hiding, who did not ever exist. They use this as evidence to prove that the narrator was extremely reliable, whereas the companionship of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam does not add to a person’s credentials in any way. In other words, they use lies and misguidance to establish that which they consider true and they consider the proofs of integrity to be signs of lies. There can be no end to the amazement of the one who sees this kind of ridiculousness.
Further, they consider as reliable people like al Kulayni – who narrated the fairy tales of Tahrif and added volumes to his book, al Kafi, by means of them. This is why al Kashani (in his Tafsir, al Safi), al Nuri al Tabarsi (in Fasl al Khitab) and Mahmud al Najafi al Tahrani (in Qawami’ al Fudul) have stated that he was of the opinion that the Qur’an was adulterated. Abu Zahrah says, “This is from his beliefs. Thus he does not belong to (the religion of) those who face the Qiblah.”
Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli, despite the above mentioned fact regarding al Majlisi, states that he is among the most reliable and accurate hadith scholars. Reflect! They wholeheartedly accept the narrations of kuffar, but reject the narrations of Muslims. According to them, whoever does not belong to the Imamiyyah, his narrations can never be authentic – as will be discussed under the topic, ‘their definition of authentic’. The narrations of an Imami, even if he is disparaged by the Imam, are accepted. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli states:
الطعن في دين الرجل لا يوجب الطعن في حديثه
Disparagement of a man on the basis of religion does not discredit his narrations.
If these are some of their standards, what will the condition of their narrators be?
The authors of these books did not meet any of the Imams. Thus, their supposed narrations were reported to them by others. This raises a question; what was the condition of the men who transmitted these narrations (most of which are nothing but misguidance) to them from Jafar al Sadiq and others? Some of the greatest scholars of hadith of the Ahlus Sunnah have testified that the Rawafid are from the worst liars, as far as narrations are concerned. Consequently, they stayed away from them. However, these testimonies hold no weight in the eyes of the Shia. They do not accept the narrations of the masses, thus it is not surprising that the criticism offered by the Ahlus Sunnah means nothing to them.
The author of al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah researched the narrators of the four books using Shia sources. The same was done by al Sawaqi’ al Muhriqah. Al Alusi also presented a brief summary regarding them in Kashf Ghayahib al Jahalat. Another book on the topic, which was published recently, is Rijal al Shia. The author studied many of their narrators in the light of their books. Occasionally, he added the comments of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding them as well. These are efforts that deserve to be complimented.
These studies revealed that most of the narrators in their books are either kuffar who do not believe in Allah, the Prophets, resurrection or the Akhirah, people who were previously Christians and they make this known to everyone, along with adopting the dress of the Christians, who did not even claim to have spent time in the company of the Imams and people who were openly declared as liars by Jafar al Sadiq (as admitted in the books of the Shia) who said regarding them:
يروون عنا الأكاذيب ويفترون علينا أهل البيت
They narrate from us lies and they fabricate using our names, the Ahlul Bayt.
They have a range of different types of fabricators and misguided individuals in their books. The studies of the above mentioned authors have listed the names of the narrators who held heretical beliefs. One of the outstanding scholars of their sect (who authored two of their four foundational books and two or three of their reliable books on narrators), al Tusi, by the will of Allah, made an admission whilst he was compiling a summary on their narrators. He said:
إن كثيراً من مصنفي أصحابنا ينتحلون المذاهب الفاسدة –
Many of the authors from our scholars held deviant beliefs.
Despite this, he says:
: إن كتبهم معتمدة
Their books are reliable.
In essence, the only factor that holds weight is whether or not the person was a Shia. If he belonged to them, nothing else mattered. The only sect whose narrations are rejected is the Zaidiyyah, just as they rejected the narrations of Zaid ibn ‘Ali, a member of the Ahlul Bayt. Al Tusi rejected their narrations in al Istibsar, even though they are a sect of the Shia. This teaches us that what they actually look for in accepting a narrator is that he should be either an Imami Shia or an extremist.
Hence, the narrations of the Jarudiyyah, an extremist faction of the Zaidiyyah are accepted by them, since the Jarudiyyah declare majority of the companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam kafir and they reject most of their narrations. Thus, they uphold most of the views of the Imamiyyah. The rest of their beliefs, irrespective of the degree of deviation therein, are absolutely irrelevant. Some of their scholars, such as al Ghada’iri and Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli have clearly stated that if a narrator is criticised on the basis of his din, it will not affect the authenticity of his narrations.
There are some narrators who were classified as extremists by the scholars of the former times. Hence, their narrations were rejected. However, this criticism did not impress the latter day Shia, who presented a strange proof in favour of those narrators, i.e. the religion keeps undergoing modifications. Thus, the extremism that was disliked by the former scholars is now part of the fundamentals of the religion. This means that the standards by means of which they judge the beliefs of a narrator will keep changing as the religion progresses and changes. Al Mamaqani – the most senior scholar on the subject in this era – says:
إن القدماء – يعني من الشيعة – كانوا يعدون ما نعده اليوم من ضروريات مذهب الشيعة غلواً وارتفاعاً، وكانوا يرمون بذلك أوثق الرجال كما لا يخفى على من أحاط خبراً بكلماتهم
The former (Shia) would consider to be extremism that which we now consider as the fundamentals of the religion. On the basis of these, they would criticise the most reliable narrators. This is not hidden to the one who is well-versed with their speech.
There is yet another problem faced by the Shia as far as this matter is concerned. There are authentic and reliable narrations reported in their books, in which a great number of the liars and fabricators, upon whose narrations the Shia religion stands, have been singled out, criticised, and cursed. However, the scholars of the Shia did not accept any negativity regarding them. If they were to accept this criticism, they would have become part of the Ahlus Sunnah, and their deviant beliefs would have been abandoned. The excuse of Taqiyyah was once again the only answer they could offer to get away from this criticism. The reality is that by doing this, they are rejecting the statement of the Imam in a very subtle way and since the Shia believe that rejection of a statement of the Imam is kufr, they have left the religion completely.
Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar — a contemporary scholar — admits that most of their narrators have been disparaged by the Imams, and this has been narrated in the books of the Shia. He says, whilst commenting on the criticism that was narrated regarding Hisham ibn Salim al Jawaliqi:
وجاءت فيه مطاعن، كما جاءت في غيره من أجلة أنصار أهل البيت وأصحابهم الثقات والجواب عنها عامة مفهوم
Criticisms have been narrated regarding him, just as they were narrated regarding others, from the most illustrious helpers of the Ahlul Bayt. The answers to these are common and understood.
Thereafter, he says:
وكيف يصح في أمثال هؤلاء الأعاظم قدح؟ وهل قام دين الحق وظهر أمر أهل البيت إلا بصوارم حججهم
How can criticism of these great ones be authentic? Did the religion of truth and the matter of the Ahlul Bayt not gain strength and publicity purely in the basis of their cutting edge evidences?
Look at what fanaticism does to a person! They go to the extent of defending those who have been condemned by the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt, and they reject the narrations which are narrated from the scholars of the Ahlul Bayt in which these narrators are condemned and warned about, despite the fact that these narrations are recorded in their own books. By using Taqiyyah as an excuse, they are belying the Ahlul Bayt and believing these liars. They reject the statements of the Ahlul Bayt, which correspond to the views of the rest of the ummah, preferring the views of their enemies and their statements. Then, they simply hoodwink their public using the excuse of Taqiyyah.
There are a group of narrators in their books who stand out on account of the excessiveness of their narrations. They are highly praised by the Imams even though they have been cursed, declared kafir or liars by the tongues of the Imams, as admitted in the books of the Shia. I am of the opinion that gathering the criticisms regarding the narrators in the books of the Twelvers, from the books of the Shia, along with that which is found in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah will play a great role in exposing the lies that have been attributed to the Ahlul Bayt. Many of those impure narrations, which have taken the Shia far away from the Ahlus Sunnah will be flushed away by the result of this exercise.
The commoners and ignorant ones among the Shia (who know nothing about their religion besides the claim by means of which their scholars keep deceiving them, i.e. Shi’ism is from the teachings of the Ahlul Bayt) will be afforded the opportunity of seeing things the way they are. They have no clue that their narrations are taken from a bunch of liars from whom the Imams distanced themselves and belied. Most of the general public of the Shia have no idea of the details of their religion and in which direction they are being taken.
At the forefront of these narrators is Jabir al Ju’fi. Al Hurr al ‘Amili says:
روى سبعين ألف حديث عن الباقر – عليه السلام – وروى مائة وأربعين ألف حديث، والظاهر أنه ما روي بطريق المشافهة عن الأئمة عليهم السلام أكثر مما روى جابر
He narrated seventy thousand narrations from al Baqir, and he narrated one hundred and forty thousand narrations. Apparently, there are no narrations directly from the Imams more than his.
Thus, he takes first position as far as quantity is concerned. When we put into perspective the fact that the total number of narrations of these four books is less than 44244, we realise the true worth of his narrations. They make up most of the narrations in the books of the Shia. Hence, it can be said that they are from the fundamentals of the religion. However, Rijal al Kashshi — the first of the books of the Shia on the subject of narrators — reports from Zurarah ibn A’yan:
سألت أبا عبد الله – عليه السلام – عن أحاديث جابر؟ فقال ما رأيته عند أبي قط إلا مرة واحدة، وما دخل عليّ قط
I asked Abu ‘Abdullah regarding the narrations of Jabir. He replied, “I have never seen him by my father, except once and he did not ever come to me.”
Al Imam al Sadiq, here, belies the claims of Jabir of narrating from him and his father. Thus, how does he report so many narrations from a person who he did not meet or only met once, especially since he explicitly claims to have heard these narrations directly from them? Al Khu’i could find no escape route from this narration, hence he resorted to the usual:
لابد من حمله إلى نحو من التورية
It is necessary to interpret it to be a kind of dissimulation.
He considers al Ju’fi to be from the reliable narrators. He says:
الذي ينبغي أن يقال: إن الرجل لابد من عده من الثقات الأجلاء
It is appropriate to say, “The man was definitely from the great and reliable ones.”
To prove this, he quoted the statements of some of his scholars who considered him reliable, such as Ibn Qulawiyyah, ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim, and al Mufid. Thereafter, he says:
ويقول الصادق في صحيحة زياد إنه كان يصدق علينا
Al Sadiq says in the authentic (narration) of Ziyad, “He would report from us truthfully.”
Jami’ al Ruwat indicates that this narration, which al Khu’i classifies as authentic, was narrated through unknown people. I cannot understand why they chose to interpret the first narration and accept this one without any proof. Added to that, al Khu’i believes that al Mufid was among those who regarded him to be reliable. However, al Mufid composed many poems from which it can be understood that al Ju’fi was unreliable, as he would get confused. Al Najashi says regarding him:
وكان في نفسه مختلطا
He was confused.
Hashim Ma’roof says:
إن جابر الجعفي من المتهمين عند أكثر المؤلفين في الرجال
Jabir al Ju’fi was, according to most authors of the subject of narrators, among the accused.
He says on another occasion, whilst passing a judgement regarding one of their narrations:
في سند هذه الرواية صباح المزني، وجابر الجعفي وهما ضعيفان، وقد ورد في جابر قدح ومدح والأكثر على أنه كان مخلطا
The isnad of this narration contains Sabah al Muzani and Jabir al Ju’fi. Both of them are unreliable. Regarding Jabir, both criticism as well as commendation have been reported. However, most (scholars) are of the opinion that he was confused.
Al Najashi (d. 450 A.H.), who is one of their most well versed scholars on the subject of narrators, and the author of one of their four important books on the subject mentions:
قلّ ما يورد عنه شيء في الحلال والحرام
Very rarely is something narrated from him regarding halal and haram.
However, al Khu’i says:
فإن الروايات عنه في الكتب الأربعة كثيرة في الحلال والحرام
Many of the narrations from him in the four books are related to halal and haram.
This brings to our attention another fact, i.e. the man, who was a liar, also had many people lying about him. Al Najashi clearly states this in his book on narrators. He says:
روى عنه جماعة غمز فيهم وضعفوا منهم عمرو بن شمر، ومفضل بن صالح
A group have narrated from him, who have been criticised and considered unreliable. Among them is ‘Amr ibn Shimr and Mufaddal ibn Salih.
Hashim Ma’roof mentions under the biography of ‘Amr ibn Shimr:
ضعفه المؤلفون في الرجال ونسبوا إليه أنه دس أحاديث في كتب جابر الجعفي
The authors of books on narrators have considered him unreliable and they have accused him of adding narrations to the books of Jabir al Ju’fi.
أنه كان يضع الأحاديث في كتب جابر الجعفي وينسبها إليه
He would fabricate narrations in the books of Jabir al Ju’fi and thereafter he would attribute them to him.
This is another angle from which one can understand the extent to which lies are spread out in their books in the name of Jabir. Some of their narrations also have it that he was among the mentally challenged, but they claim that he adopted this kind behaviour in order to avoid being punished by the Khalifah. Other narrations portray him to be an expert magician, although they do not state this clearly.
His narrations contain most of the elements of kufr that is found in the Shia mazhab. He is the one from who it is reported in al Kafi that none gathered the Qur’an besides the Imams and so on. He was also the first to record ‘inner’ or ‘hidden’ interpretations of the Qur’an in a book. Some of their narrations state that it is compulsory to keep those interpretations away from others. He also had a share in the other matters by means of which Kufr and deviation were sealed into the Shia religion. There is no doubt that the greatest proof of him being a liar is his narrations. The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have testified that he was one of the greatest liars and forgers.
Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah said:
ما رأيت أحداً أكذب من جابر الجعفي
I have not seen a greater liar than Jabir al Ju’fi.
Ibn Hibban said:
كان سبئياً من أصحاب عبد الله ابن سبأ، وكان يقول: “إن علياً عليه السلام يرجع إلى الدنيا
He was a Saba’i, from the companions of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. He would say, “‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam will return to this world.”
Jarir ibn ‘Abd al Hamid said:
لا أستحل أن أحدث عن جابر الجعفي هو كذاب يؤمن بالرجعة
I consider it impermissible for me to narrate from Jabir al Ju’fi. He is a great liar, who believes in reincarnation.
رافضي يشتم أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
He was a Rafidi who would revile the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
One of the accomplices of Jabir was a narrator by the name of Zurarah ibn A’yan (d. 150 A.H). Their scholars, such as al Tusi, al Najashi, Ibn al Mutahhar and others have considered him reliable and among the six companions of Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah, whose speech the group has agreed to believe. Many of his narrations appear in the books of the Shia. There were many others who also joined these two forgers in their mission. Hence, al Tusi says;
ولهم روايات كثيرة وأصول وتصانيف
They have many narrations, principles, and books.
Al Khu’i mentioned the total amount of Zurarah’s narrations in the four books, saying:
وقع بعنوان زرارة في إسناد كثير من الروايات تبلغ ألفين وأربعة وتسعين مورداً، فقد روى عن أبي جعفر – عليه السلام -، ورواياته عنه تبلغ ألفاً ومائتين وستة وثلاثين مورداً، وروى عن أبي جعفر وأبي عبد الله – عليهما لسلام – ورواياته عنهما بهذا العنوان تبلغ اثنين وثمانين مورداً، وروى عن أبي عبد الله – عليه السلام – ورواياته عنه بهذا العنوان، وقد يعبر عنه بالصادق – عليه السلام – تبلغ أربعمائة وتسعة وأربعين مورداً، وروى عن أحدهما عليهما السلام ورواياته عنهما بهذا العنوان تبلغ ستة وخمسين موردا
The isnads of many narrations mention the name of Zurarah. The total amount of these narrations is 2490. He reported a total of 1236 narrations from Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam. He also reported “from Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah”. He reports 82 narrations from them in this manner. His narrations from Abu ‘Abdullah, who is also referred to as al Sadiq, reach a total of 449. He narrates from “one of them” a total of 56 narrations.
These are their claims. However Sufyan al Thawri says regarding Zurarah:
ما رأى أبا جعفر
He did not see Abu Jafar.
Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said, when he was told that Zurarah ibn A’yan narrates a book from Abu Jafar:
ما هو ما رأى أبا جعفر ولكنه كان يتتبع حديثه
What (book) is that? He did not see Abu Jafar. However, he would search for his narrations.
Mizan al I’tidal has it that Zurarah attributed to Abu Jafar the knowledge of the inhabitants of Jannat and Jahannam. He said to Ibn al Sammak, ‘When you meet him, ask him whether I am from the people of Jannat or Jahannam.’ When this reached Jafar, he said, “Inform him that he is from the people of hell, as whoever attributes the knowledge of this to me, will be from its dwellers.” However, one of their contemporary scholars says:
لم نجد أثراً مما نسبوه إلى كل من زرارة بن أعين، ومحمد بن مسلم، ومؤمن الطاق وأمثالهم، مع أنا قد استفرغنا الوسع والطاقة بالبحث عن ذلك وما هو إلا البغي والعدوان
We have not found any trace of that which they have attributed to Zurarah ibn A’yan, Muhammad ibn Muslim, Mu’min al Taq, and their likes, even though we exerted ourselves in trying to find something. It is nothing other than injustice and enmity.
He wishes to establish that there is no basis for the criticism that is reported regarding Zurarah, and it is based purely on the hatred of the opposition. He asserts that he searched for this in all of their sources and he went the extra mile in doing so, yet he found no trace of it. Can this be true? To answer this question, we will have to visit some of their most reliable sources on the subject of narrators. Thereafter, we will realise the truth or falsity of his statement. There is no other way out, as the belief of Taqiyyah upheld by the Shia simply does not allow one to believe anything that emanates from them.
The first source that deserves to be consulted regarding this matter is the reliable books of narrators of the Shia. Al Fahrist of al Tusi informs us that he belonged to a Christian family. His grand-father, Sansan was a monk in the Roman lands, and his father was a Roman slave of a man from the Banu Shibyan. It seems as if the effects of Zurarah on the Shia religion was greater than that of Ibn Saba. In fact, Abu ‘Abdullah said:
ما أحدث أحد في الإسلام ما أحدث زرارة من البدع عليه لعنة الله
None have introduced into Islam the innovations which Zurarah introduced. May the curse of Allah be upon him.
He also says:
زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى، ومن قال: إنّ مع الله ثالث ثلاثة
Zurarah is worse than the Jews, the Christians, and those who say that Allah is but one of a trinity.
Al Kashshi reports that Abu ‘Abdullah cursed him three times, and said:
إن الله نكس قلب زرارة
Undoubtedly, Allah turned around the heart of Zurarah.
He reported a few more narrations in which he was criticised. It is due to this, as stated by al Kashshi, that Zurarah would say:
وأما جعفر فإن في قلبي عليه لفتة
As for Jafar, I have some disinclination for him in my heart.
The one who narrates this from Zurarah explains:
لأن أبا عبد الله أخرج مخازيه
Since Abu ‘Abdullah revealed his faults.
The brazenness of Zurarah in respect of Abu ‘Abdullah reached the point, as stated in Rijal al Kashshi, where he would belie his statements and talk ill of him. He would fabricate statements and insist that they were the statements of Abu ‘Abdullah. Rijal al Kashshi states:
عن محمد بن أبي عمير، قال: دخلت على أبي عبد الله – عليه السلام – فقال: كيف تركت زرارة؟ قلت: تركته لا يصلى العصر حتى تغيب الشمس فقال: فأنت رسولي إليه فقل له: فليصل في مواقيت أصحابي فإني قد حرقت. قال: فأبلغته ذلك فقال (يعني زرارة): أنا والله أعلم أنك لم تكذب عليه، ولكن أمرني بشيء فأكره أن أدعه
Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair says, ‘I entered the presence of Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, who said, “How did you leave Zurarah?”
I replied, “I left him in the condition that he would not perform ‘Asr until the sun had set.”
Thereupon, he said, “You are my messenger to him. Tell him that he should perform it at the times of my companions, for I have been burnt.”
I conveyed this to him.
He responded, “By the oath of Allah, I know that you are not lying about him. However, he commended to me to do something, so I do not wish to leave it.”’
He claims that Jafar al Sadiq commanded him to perform ‘Asr only after the sun sets, whereas he was completely innocent of this. This is the description of Zurarah in the books of the Shia. Despite this, the senior scholar of the Shia in this era says that after exerting himself, he could find no criticism of Zurarah. Was this hidden from him or does Taqiyyah give him the license to say anything without being reproached?
How is it that the scholars of the Shia consider Zurarah to be reliable after all of this criticism, curses and the verdict of kufr that was passed regarding him by the one who they believe is infallible, especially since both, al Kashshi as well as Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi have reported it? The answer to this question is offered by al Hurr al ‘Amili. He says:
روي أحاديث في ذمه (أي زرارة) ينبغي حملها على التقية، بل يتعين، وكذا ما ورد في حق أمثاله من أجلاء الإمامية
Narrations have been reported in criticism of him. It is appropriate to take this to be Taqiyyah. Rather, it is the only answer. The same can be said about that which was reported regarding his likes from the luminaries of the Imamiyyah.
To prove this, they quote a narration of theirs from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zurarah and his two sons Hassan and Hussain, who narrate from ‘Abdullah ibn Zurarah:
قال لي أبو عبد الله (جعفر الصادق): “اقرأ على والدك السلام وقل له: إنما أعيبك دفاعاً مني عنك، فإن الناس والعدو يسارعون إلى كل من قربناه وحمدنا مكانه، لإدخال الأذى فيمن نحبه ونقربه، فيذمونه لمحبتنا له وقربه ودنوه منا، ويرون إدخال الأذى عليه وقتله
Abu ‘Abdullah (Jafar al Sadiq) said to me, “Covey greetings to your father and say to him, ‘I only criticise you to protect you. The people and the enemy hasten to harm all those who we draw close and praise and love. They criticise them due to our love for him and closeness to him. They wish to harm him and kill him.”’
They use this as proof, without paying any attention to the fact that the sons narration was criticised, as he was defending his father. Further, if this criticism really was done on the basis of Taqiyyah, why did they go to the extent of cursing them and calling them kuffar? Another fact to consider is that Jafar was quite honoured in his society, so how is it possible that his associates and those who he loved would be harmed? If Jafar really was protecting Zurarah, why did Zurarah falsely claim that Jafar commanded him to perform ‘Asr after sunset and why did he belie him and speak ill of him? Was this also Taqiyyah? One scholar of the Shia attempted to get away from these narrations, in which Zurarah is criticised, by taking half of them to be Taqiyyah and criticising the isnads of the rest.
After looking through his criticisms of some of the narrators, I have seen that they are not in conformity with that which appears in their books regarding narrators. As an example, he rejected one of the narrations in which Zurarah was criticised on the basis that Jibril ibn Ahmed, as he claimed, was unknown. The reality is that he is not unknown to the Shia. Al Ardabili says:
كان مقيماً بكش كثير الرواية عن العلماء بالعراق وقم وخراسان
He was resident of Kash. He narrated many narrations from the scholars of Iraq, Qum, and Khurasan.
Added to the above, he scrutinises the narrations in which Zurarah is criticised but overlooks those in which he is praised. This is open partiality. Their scholars apply this rule to all those who are criticised by their Imams and they accept their narrations. Other examples of these narrators are Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Marwazi, Ismail ibn Jabir al Ju’fi, Burayd ibn Muawiyah al ‘Ijli, Hariz ibn ‘Abdullah al Sijistani, etc.
There is no doubt that there can be absolutely no certainty of Taqiyyah in these conditions. At least, the Shia should have deliberated and kept silent regarding these narrators. The Shia do not accept the criticism of the Ahlus Sunnah, as they are regarded by them to be ‘the opposition’. However, here they are even rejecting that which is reported from their Imams, claiming that these were said to please the Ahlus Sunnah and keep their peace with them. Thus, the truth has been covered up and the Shia religion now stands upon the whims of their scholars and the lies of their narrators.
NEXT⇒ Types of Narrations – According to the Shia
 Al Fahrist pg. 219
 Al Fahrist pg. 219, Rawdat al Jannat 4/67, Rijal al Hilli pg. 83, Jami’ al Ruwat 1/374, al Barujardi: al Burhan pg. 104
 Refer to al Dhari’ah 3/124
 Tarikh al Adab al ‘Arabi 3/337
 Manahij al Tashri’ al Islami 1/201
 Miftah al Kutub al Arba’ah 1/5
 A’yan al Shia 1/288, Miftah al Kutub al Arba’ah 1/5
 Al Ha’iri: Minhaj ‘Amli li al Taqrib (An article that was published in the magazine, Risalat al Islam (in Cairo). It was also published with a few other selected articles in a magazine called al Wahdat al Islamiyyah pg. 233)
 For more details regarding al Kafi, refer to al Dhari’ah 17/145, al Nuri: Mustadrak al Wasa’il 3/432, Muqaddimat al Kafi, al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 20/71. These references point out that al Kafi is the most authentic of the four authentic books according to them, and it was compiled during al Ghaybah al Sughra, due to which all of the texts therein were verified. It is the only book, from their four authentic books, wherein the Book of Allah is criticised. The total number of narrations of al Kafi, as stated by al Amili is 16099. A’yan al Shia 1/280.
This book has been printed a few times, and a number of their scholars wrote commentaries on it. One of the commentaries which I have seen is Mir’at al ‘Uqul, by al Majlisi. He attempted to grade their narrations from the perspective of authenticity. Sadly, he authenticated such narrations which are, according to all Muslims, clear-cut kufr, such as the narrations regarding Tahrif in the Qur’an. I also saw the commentary of al Mazindarani titled Sharh Jami’ as well as al Shafi Sharh Usul al Kafi.
 For more details on this subject refer to al Khuwansari: Rawdat al Jannat 6/230-237, A’yan al Shia 1.280, Muqaddimat Man la Yahdurhu al Faqih. The book contains 176 chapters, the first one being the chapter of Taharah (purity) and the last one being al Nawadir (rare subjects). There is a total of 9044 narrations. In the introduction of his book, he mentions that he omitted the isnads so that the narrations do not become excessive, and he took his narrations from their famous books, thus it should be relied upon. He also mentions that he did not narrate except that which he considered authentic.
 Refer to al Nuri al Tabarsi: Mustadrak al Wasa’il 4/719, al Dhari’ah 4/504 and Muqaddimat Tahdhib al Ahkam. This book was authored to reconcile the contradictions and differences that are found in their narrations. It has a total of 393 chapters. The total number of narrations will be discussed later.
 This book is made up of three volumes. Two of them pertain to ‘Ibadat (worship) whilst the third volume covers the rest of the chapters of Fiqh. It also has 393 chapters, and the total number of narrations, according to the author, is 5511. He says, “I have restricted them so that additions and deletions may not take place.” In al Dhari’ah, it is stated that the total number of narrations of this book is 6531. However this contradicts the statement of the author.
Refer to al Dhari’ah 2/14, A’yan al Shia 1/280 and Hassan al Kharsans forward to al Istibsar.
 Al Wafi 1/11
 Al Dhari’ah 2/14
 This book is made up of three large volumes and it was printed in Iran. It has 273 chapters. Muhammad Bahr al ‘ulum, one of their contemporary scholars, says that it has five thousand narrations. Lu’lu’at al Bahrain, footnote on page 122. However, Muhsin al Amin states that the total number of narrations is 44244. A’yan al Shia 1/280
 They have stated that this is the most comprehensive book on narrations. The author gathered them from their reliable books. Refer to al Dhari’ah 3/27, A’yan al Shia 1/293
 This, according to them, is the most comprehensive book on the narrations pertaining to laws. The author gathered the narrations of their Imams from their four books, which have been their primary sources along the centuries. He also added on narrations, which he took from the reliable books (which in this case are 70) of their scholars, as stated by the author of al Dhari’ah. Al Shirazi, on the other hand, mentioned in the forward of al Wasa’il that they are more than 180 in number. The two numbers are nowhere close to one-another. Al Hurr al ‘Amili listed the books from which the author quoted. According to my count, they were 80 books. He then indicated that many other books were also referred to, but they were quoted from through the medium of other books.
It was printed in three volumes on a number of occasions, but the final print, which was printed with authentications and footnotes by a team of their scholars comprised of twenty volumes.
Al Shirazi: Muqaddimat al Wasa’il, A’yan al Shia 1/292-293, al Dhari’ah 4/352, 353, al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 1/4-8, 20/36-49
 Agha Buzurg al Tahrani says, “The book al Mustadrak is like any of the other compilations of narrations of the latter times, in the sense that it is necessary upon the well-versed mujtahids to refer to it when deducing laws. Most of our contemporary scholars have adhered to this.” Al Dhari’ah 2/110-111. Thereafter, he proved this, using some of the statements of the contemporary scholars in which they state that al Mustadrak is among their primary sources. Al Dhari’ah 2/110-111.
However, it seems as if all of their scholars do not agree with him. We find that the author of Ahsan al Wadi’ah criticises this book in the strongest of words. He says, ‘Books which are unreliable and unacceptable are quoted from… and books, the copies of which could not be established as authentic, as there were great differences between the different copies.” Thereafter, he says that its narrations are confined to that which is in al Bihar. “They have been spread out in the relevant chapters of al Wasa’il, as compared by me, word for word.” Muhammad Mahdi al Kazimi: Ahsan al Wadi’ah pg. 74
 Refer to vol. 1 pg. 26, al Majlisi says that the books of al Saduq, with the exception of five of them, are just as famous as the four books. (ibid). He says, “The book, Basa’ir al Darajat is from the reliable sources, from which al Kulayni and others have quoted. (vol.1 pg. 27)” He has similar comments regarding many of their books.
 Refer to Wasa’il al Shia vol. 20
 Al Istibsar 1/2-3
 Refer to al Dhari’ah 3/27
 This is why you will find that a large group from them will get together to write on any random subject, and the hawzahs (their study circles) will be dedicated to it. Thereafter, once the book is complete, it will be attributed to one of them or one of their scholars, as if he was the only one who carried out this task, which could not have been done except by a group of people. This can be realised from books such as Kitab al Ghadir. They are also infatuated with claiming to be the first to do everything. This is why you will always find them claiming to be the first people to discover and master Islamic sciences, even though the Rawafid are usually clueless until they learn from the Ahlus Sunnah. They have a few dictionaries, which expose their ignorance.
Al Hurr al ‘Amili, in his book A’yan al Shia, counts many of the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah among the Shia, simply because it had been mentioned in their biographies that they were inclined towards Shi’ism (which in these cases implied a stronger affinity with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Ahlul Bayt), despite the fact that this, in no way, entered them into the religion of the Rawafid. The reality is that true and genuine love for the Ahlul Bayt is found to a much greater extent among the Ahlus Sunnah as compared to the Rafidah.
 Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah 3/246
 I have seen the latest print, by Dar al Adwa of Beirut (1405). It was printed prior to that in al Jawami’ al Fiqhiyyah in Tehran in the year 1267 A.H, and separately in the year 1315 A.H. Another name of this book is Masa’il al Infiradat fi al Fiqh. Refer to Lu’lu’at al Bahrain pg. 320
 Al Muntazam 8/120
 Al Mawdu’at 1/338
 Al Dhari’ah 7/21
 Some of authors of these compilations have explicitly mentioned that they came across books that were not previously part of their authentic books. Al Majlisi says,
اجتمع عندنا بحمد الله سوى الكتب الأربعة نحو مائتي كتاب، ولقد جمعتها في بحار الأنوار
By the grace of Allah, besides the four books, we have in our possession approximately two hundred books. I have gathered them in Bihar al Anwar. (al I’tiqadat of al Majlisi pg. 24, Mustafa al Shibi: al Fikr al Shia pg. 61)
Al Hurr al ‘Amili mentioned that he had more than eighty books, besides the four fundamental books, and he gathered them in Wasa’il al Shia (Refer to the introduction of al Wasa’il and al Dhari’ah 4/352-353).
Al Nuri al Tabarsi, despite being a scholar of this era, also found a few books which were not found until now. Agha Buzurg al Tahrani says:
والدافع لتأليفه عثور المؤلف على بعض الكتب المهمة التي لم تسجل في جوامع الشيعة من قبل
The cause behind its compilation was that the author found some important books, which were not previously recorded in the compilations of the Shia. (al Dhari’ah 21/7)
The most amazing aspect to this is that they have considered these narrations, which have been recently discovered, as well as the narrations of Mustadrak al Wasa’il as indispensable. Their scholar, al Khurasani says, as quoted by the author of al Dhari’ah:
أن الحجة للمجتهد في عصرنا هذا لا تتم قبل الرجوع إلى المستدرك، والاطلاع على ما فيه ما الأحاديث
In this era of ours, the proofs of a Mujtahid cannot be complete without referring to al Mustadrak and knowing the narrations in it. Al Dhari’ah 2/111.
Does this mean that the views of the scholars who stated their views before al Mustadrak was compiled holds no weight according to them? Read on, and you will be amazed at how many books and narrations were discovered.
 Al Istibsar 1/2
 Al Dhari’ah 4/504
 A’yan al Shia 1/288
 Al Imam al Sadiq pg. 485
 Rawdat al Jannat 6/188-189
 Rawdat al Jannat 6/114
 Al Fahrist pg. 161
 Tahdhib al Ahkam 1/2-3
 Al Wafi pg. 9 of the forward
 Surah al Nisa: 82
 The references of this quotation passed. click here
 The books of the Shia report from Jafar al Sadiq that he said:
إن لكل رجل منا، رجل يكذب عليه، وقال: إن المغيرة بن سعيد دس في كتب أصحاب أبي أحاديث لم يحدث بها، فاتقوا الله ولا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا وسنة نبينا
For each one of us, there was a person who would attribute lies to him.
He also said:
Mughirah ibn Sa’id added into my father’s books that which he did not say. Therefore, fear Allah and do not accept from us anything that opposes the word of our Rabb and the Sunnah of our Nabi.
Mughirah admits his crime (as reported by the books of the Shia:
دسست في أخباركم أخباراً كثيرة تقرب من مائة ألف حديث
I have shoved (added) into your narrations many narrations. They are approximately one hundred thousand in number.
They report from al Sadiq:
إنا أهل بيت صادقون لا نخلو من كذاب يكذب علينا فيسقط صدقنا بكذبه
We are a truthful household. However, we are not free of liars who forge lies in our names, thus tarnishing our honesty due to his lies.
وافيت العراق فوجدت قطعة من أصحاب أبي جعفر وأبي عبد الله – عليهما السلام – متوافرين فسمعت منهم وأخذت كتبهم وعرضتها من بعد على أبي الحسن الرضا فأنكر منها أحاديث كثيرة.. وقال: إن أبا الخطاب كذب على أبي عبد الله، لعن الله أبا الخطاب، وكذلك أصحاب أبي الخطاب يسدون من هذه الأحاديث إلى يومنا هذا في كتب أصحاب أبي عبد الله – عليه السلام – فلا تقبلوا علينا خلاف القرآن
I arrived at Iraq. If found a few companions of Abu Jafar and Abu ‘Abdullah, who were surrounded by crowds. I listened to them and took their narrations. Thereafter, I presented them to Abu al Hassan al Rida. He rejected any of the narrations and then said, “Abu al Khattab attributed forgeries to Abu ‘Abdullah. May Allah curse Abu al Khattab. Similarly, the companions of Abu al Khattab have been adding these narrations, to this day, to the books of the companions of Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam. Therefore, do not accept anything from us that contradicts the Qur’an.”
Refer to these texts in Tanqih al Maqal 1/174-175. If we add to these texts the testimonies of the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah, that the Rawafid were great liars and fraudsters, it becomes abundantly clear that lies were common and widespread amongst them, further, when you learn of their ignorance regarding the sciences of isnad and al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (disparagement and commendation), you will realise the dangerous path treaded by these people, by relying on these compilations.
 Al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, page 92 of the manuscript.
 Refer to Mizan al I’tidal 2/69-70, the biography of Zurarah. Under the discussion regarding their narrators, you will see that the scholars of the Shia interpret disparagement of the narrators by the Imams and their rejection of narrations as Taqiyyah in most cases.
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 208-209, Bihar al Anwar 20/202-203
 Bihar al Anwar 2/211-212
 Bihar al Anwar 2/192
 Bihar al Anwar 2/182-212
 Look at a few examples of the views of the Ahlus Sunnah. Al Rabi’ ibn al Khathyam (d. 61/62 A.H.) – to whom Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “If Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saw you, he would have loved you.” Taqrib al Tahdhib 1/244. He said, “Some narrations are bright, like the brightness of the day, which can be sensed, and some have a darkness like the darkness of the night. We reject (those).” Reported by al Khatib al Baghdadi in al Kifayah pg. 605. Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn ‘Urwah (who authored al Kawakib al Darari in 120 volumes, refer to al Sakhawi: al Daw’ al Lami’ (d. 837 A.H.)) says, “If the heart is conscious (of Allah) and it is clean and pure, it is able to differentiate between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, and guidance and deviation, especially if is accompanied by light and understanding from the illumination of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When this is the case, hidden matters and distortions become clear to it. It is able to distinguish between the authentic and unauthentic. If a reliable or authentic isnad is painted onto a fabricated narration, or an authentic hadith is reported with a weak isnad, he will be able to discern all of this. The words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam do not remain unclear to the intelligent one who has understood them.” Al Qasimi quoted this from the manuscript of al Kawakib al Darari of Ibn ‘Urwah on page 165 of Qawa’id al Tahdith .
The scholars of hadith paid attention to the texts of ahadith just as they paid attention to the isnads. They have noted down signs by which a hadith could be considered fabricated without even looking at the isnad. Most of the books on the science of hadith have discussed this. Ibn Daqiq al ‘Id says, “The scholars of hadith often classify a hadith as fabricated on the basis of aspects that relate to the narration and the words of the hadith.” Al Iqtirah pg. 231. Ibn al Salah mentions that sometimes a hadith is recognised as a fabrication due to its text. Many times, lengthy ahadith are narrated – as explained by him – but the wordings and meaning thereof indicate that they are fabrications, as they are of a very poor standard. ‘Ulum al Hadith of Ibn al Salah pg. 89.
Ibn al Qayyim rahimahu Llah wrote a separate book on this topic, in reply to the following question which was posed to him, “Is it possible to recognise a fabrication by means of any principle, without looking at the isnad?” In response, he listed 44 principles, with 273 ahadith as examples, and he explained the reason behind each one of them being fabricated from the aspect of the isnad as well. The name of his book is al Manar al Munif.
 Refer to the discussion of Ijma’ in this book
 Refer to Usul al Kafi 1/69-71. There are many narrations of this meaning quoted there.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/51 (Mukhtasar Minhaj al Sunnah pg. 21-21), refer also to al Muntaqa. Mizan al I’tidal 1/27-28
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/110
 Usul al Kafi 1/53
 As stated in the narration which they refer to as the scroll of Fatimah, at the end of which the Imam says:
لو لم تسمع في دهرك إلا هذا الحديث لكفاك فَصُنْهُ إلا عن أهله
If you do not ever hear except this narration, it will be sufficient for you, so protect it, except from its people.
This text is narrated by Abu Basir from Jafar al Sadiq. Refer to Usul al Kafi 1/527-528, al Kashani: al Wafi vol. 2 pg. 72, al Tabarsi: al Ihtijaj 1/84-87, Ibn Babawayh: Ikmal al Din pg. 301-304, al Tabarsi (the author of Majma’ al Bayan): A’lam al Wara pg. 152, al Karajki: al Istibsar pg. 18.
 Al Nawaqid pg. 109, 110
 Tanqih al Maqal 1/183 (printed in 1349 A.H.)
 Al Shia fi al Mizan pg. 272 (in the footnotes)
 Kashf al Ghita pg. 40
 Al Sadr: al Shia pg. 125
 Kashf al Ghita pg. 40
 As examples, refer to the biographies of Zurarah ibn A’yun, Abu Basir, Jabir al Ju’fi etc.
 Al Shirazi: al Nawaqid pg. 113
 Al Mamaqani: Tanqih al Maqal 1/177
 Al Nawaqid pg. 111-112
 Al Qummi: al Kuna wa al Alqab 2/344
 Maqtabas al Athar 3/73. Al Hurr al ‘Amili writes whilst penning down the biography of this scholar:
وهو أول من صنف من الإمامية في دراية الحديث؛ لكنه نقل الاصطلاحات من كتب العامة، كما ذكره ولده وغيره
He was the first from the Imamiyyah to write on the principles of hadith. However, he copied the terminology thereof from the books of the masses, as mentioned by his son and others. Amal al Amal 1/86
 Al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah pg. 105 (of the manuscript)
 As stated by some sects of the Shia and proven by the reliable historians and genealogists, as will appear under the discussion of al Ghaybah.
 Tafsir al Safi 1/52, (of the Beirut al A’lami print) and pg. 14 (of the Tehrani, al Maktabah al Islamiyyah print).
 Fasl al Khitab pg. 30
 Qawami’ al Fudul pg. 298
 Al Imam al Sadiq pg. 440
 Rijal al Hilli pg. 137
 Rijal al Hilli pg. 137
 Refer to al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah pg. 97 and 107 and Mukhtasar al Tuhfah pg. 69
 Al Sawaqi’ al Muhriqah li Ikhwan al Shayateen wa al Zandaqah by Nasir al Din Muhammad, famously known as Khawajah Nasr Allah al Hindi al Makki. Al Sheikh Mahmud al Alusi summarised the book and named his summary Mukhtasar al Sawaqi’. Refer to Mukhtasar al Sawaqi’ pg. 112.
 Kashf Ghayahib al Jahalat pg. 10
 By ‘Abd al Rahman al Zar’i, published by Dar al Arqam in Kuwait in the year 1403 A.H.
 Refer to al Tuhafah pg. 97
 Maybe one of the faculties of Sunnah in the Islamic universities should do a thorough and comprehensive study of all the narrators of the Twelvers so that the exact reality may be known.
 Al Tahdhib and al Istibsar
 Al Fahrist, Rijal al Tusi and Rijal al Kashshi (which was systemised by al Tusi). The actual book, Rijal al Kashshi cannot be traced by the Shia. Thus they only use al Tusi’s version along with Kitab al Rijal by al Najashi.
 Al Fahrist pg. 24-25
 Al Fahrist pg. 24-25
 As stated by their scholar, al Mufid in Awa’il al Maqalat. His speech was quoted on page 41.
 Rijal al Hilli pg. 137
 Tanqih al Maqal 3/23. Refer to Muhibb al Din Khatibs comments regarding this in the footnotes of al Muntaqa pg. 193.
 Muhammad Hussain al Muzaffar: al Imam al Sadiq pg. 178
 Muhammad Hussain al Muzaffar: al Imam al Sadiq pg. 178
 Wasa’il al Shia 20/151
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 191
 Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 5/25
 Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 4/25
 Al Ardabili: Jami’ al Ruwat 1/144
 Al Najashi: al Rijal pg. 100
 Al Najashi: al Rijal pg. 100
 Al Maudu’at fi al Athar wa al Akhbar pg. 334
 Al Mawdu’at fi al Athar wa al Akhbar pg. 184
 Al Najashi: al Rijal pg. 100
 Al Khu’i: Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 4/26
 Al Najashi: al Rijal pg. 100
 Dirasat fi al Hadith pg. 195
 Hashim Ma’roof: al Mawdu’at wa al Athar pg. 234
 Refer to Rijal al Kashshi pg. 194-195
 Refer to the extra-ordinary feats that are reported by them regarding him in Rijal al Kashshi pg. 197
 Refer to al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa al Kabir 1/196, Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin 1/208, Mizan al I’tidal 1/379
 Al Fahrist pg. 104, Rijal al Tusi pg. 201 and 350
 Rijal al Najashi pg. 132 and 133
 Rijal al Hilli pg. 76
 Al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 20/196, al Ardabili: Jami’ al Ruwat 1/324
 Here they are using ijma as a proof, whereas their belief is that it cannot be a proof.
 Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 7/219
 Al Fahrist pg. 104
 Al Fahrist pg. 104
 Al Khu’i: Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith.
 Refer to Lisan al Mizan 2/474
 Lisan al Mizan 2/474
 Mizan al I’tidal 2/69-770
 Al Musawi: al Muraja’at pg. 313
 Al Tusi: al Fahrist pg. 220, ibn al Nadim: al Fahrist pg. 220. However, al Fahrist of Ibn al Nadim states that his grandfather’s name was Sanbas.
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 149
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 160
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 149
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 160
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 144-145
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 157
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 143, al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 3/113, al Kho’i: Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 7/222
 This is so because Rijal al Kashshi was authored by al Kashshi and it was systemized by al Tusi. The copy which is common is the edition of al Tusi, as the original book is lost.
 Wasa’il al Shia 20/196
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 138, Wasa’il al Shia 20/196, Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 7/145
 Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 7/245
 Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith 7/241
 Jami’ al Ruwat 1/146
 Al Hurr al ‘Amili says, al Kashshi and others have narrated criticism as well as commendation regarding him. The basis of the criticism is perhaps that which will appear under the discussion of Zurarah (i.e. Taqiyyah). Wasa’il al Shia 20/127, Rijal al Kashshi pg. 559-562, Jami’ al Ruwat 1/48-49.
 Al Hurr al ‘Amili says, “There is some criticism regarding him which has a weak isnad and it is not very clear. The interpretation of it will appear under Zurarah.” Wasa’il al Shia 20/139, Rijal al Kashshi pg. 199
 Al Hurr al ‘Amili said, “A luminary from the luminaries of our scholars. He was reliable and he was a jurist. Al Kashshi counted him among the people of ijma’ (i.e. those whose narrations the Shia have all agreed to accept)’. There is some criticism regarding him, the explanation of which will appear under Zurarah. Wasa’il al Shia 20/145-146, Rijal al Najashi pg. 87, Rijal al Hilli pg. 26-27, Jami’ al Ruwat 1/117-119, Rijal al Kashshi pg. 148 (which quotes Abu ‘Abdullah to have said, “May Allah curse Burayd.”)
 Al ‘Amili says, “He is a reliable Kufi. There is praise regarding him. There is also criticism, which is interpreted to be Taqiyyah for the same reason that appears under Zurarah.” Wasa’il al Shia 20/162, Rijal al Najashi pg. 111, Rijal al Tusi pg. 181, Rijal al Hilli pg. 63, Jami’ al Ruwat 1/182-187