What is Attributed to Jafar al Sadiq
What is attributed to Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir
November 26, 2024What is Attributed to al Hassan al ‘Askari
November 26, 2024BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
What is Attributed to Jafar al Sadiq
The narration of Kitab al Ikhtisas attributed to al Mufid
The author of Kitab al Ikhtisas said:
أبو محمد عن عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال لما قبض رسول الله وجلس أبو بكر مجلسه بعث إلى وكيل فاطمة صلوات الله عليها فأخرجه من فدك فأتته فاطمة عليها السلام فقالت يا أبا بكر ادعيت أنك خليفة أبي وجلست مجلسه وأنك بعثت إلى وكيلي فأخرجته من فدك وقد تعلم أن رسول الله صدق بها عليَّ وأن لي بذلك شهوداً
Abu Muhammad — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said, “When the Messenger of Allah passed away and Abu Bakr took his place, he sent for the agent of Fatimah and expelled him from Fadak. Fatimah came to him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr, you claim to be the successor of my father and have taken his seat. You sent for my agent and expelled him from Fadak, while you know that the Messenger of Allah had given it to me and I have witnesses for that.’”
The narrator continues:
فدعت بكتاب فكتبه لها برد فدك فقال فخرجت والكتاب معها فلقيها عمر فقال يا بنت محمد ما هذا الكتاب الذي معك فقالت كتاب كتب لي أبو بكر برد فدك فقال هلمّه إليّ فأبت أن تدفعه إليه فرفسها برجله وكانت حاملة بابن اسمه المحسن فأسقطت المحسن من بطنها ثم لطمها فكأني أنظر إلى قرط في أذنها حين نقفت ثم أخذ الكتاب فخرقه فمضت ومكثت خمسة وسبعين يوما مريضة مما ضربها عمر ثم قبضت
She asked for a letter. He wrote it for her with the deed of Fadak. So, she left with the letter in hand. On her way, she encountered ‘Umar, who said, ‘O daughter of Muhammad, what is this letter you are carrying?’
She replied, ‘It is a letter written for me by Abu Bakr, granting me Fadak.’
He asked, ‘Will you give it to me?’
She refused to hand it over to him. He then kicked her with his foot while she was pregnant with a son named al Muhsin. As a result, she miscarried al Muhsin. Then he slapped her, and I swear, I can still see the earring in her ear when it was torn off. He took the letter and tore it apart. She left and remained ill for seventy-five days due to the beating she had received from Umar, before she passed away.”[1]
Study of the Isnad
This report was mentioned in Kitab al Ikhtisas, which is attributed to al Mufid with an incomplete chain of narration. However, the attribution of Kitab al Ikhtisas to al Mufid is not valid; rather, the book belongs to an unknown author. The book is not reliable, as has been clarified by scholars of the Imamiyyah who investigated this issue. The Marja’ Abu al Qasim al Khu’i said:
لم يثبت أن كتاب الاختصاص للشيخ المفيد
It has not been proven that Kitab al Ikhtisas belongs to Sheikh al Mufid.[2]
He confirmed this in multiple places.[3] He also said:
كتاب الاختصاص لم يثبت اعتباره في نفسه
Kitab al Ikhtisas is not proven to be reliable in itself.[4]
He added:
الرواية ضعيفة لعدم ثبوت إسناد كتاب الاختصاص إلى الشيخ المفيد
The report is weak due to the lack of an established chain of narration of Kitab al Ikhtisas to Sheikh al Mufid.[5]
Additionally, the contemporary Marja’ ‘Ali al Sistani said:
كتاب الاختصاص لم تثبت نسبته إلى المفيد
Kitab al Ikhtisas has not been proven to be attributed to al Mufid.[6]
Hussain Ma’tuq commented on Kitab al Ikhtisas, saying:
هذا الكتاب لم يذكره أحد من المتقدمين ممن ترجم الشيخ المفيد ولكن في نسخة منه تاريخ كتابتها سنة 1055 ه ذكر كاتبها أنه من مصنفات الشيخ المفيد قدس سره وأنه استخرجه من كتاب الاختصاص للشيخ أبي علي أحمد بن الحسين بن أحمد بن عمران المعاصر للشيخ الصدوق ولا علم لنا بحال هذا الكاتب فضلًا عن الفاصل الزمني بينه وبين الشيخ المفيد وعدم وجود إسناد متصل إليه ولذا حكم غير واحد من المحققين منهم السيد المحقق الخوئي قدس سره إلى عدم ثبوت نسبة الكتاب إليه
None of the early scholars who wrote biographies of Sheikh al Mufid mentioned this book (may Allah sanctify his soul). However, a manuscript dated 1055 AH mentions that the writer attributed the book to Sheikh al Mufid (may Allah sanctify his soul), stating that he extracted it from Kitab al Ikhtisas by Sheikh Abu ‘Ali Ahmed ibn al Hussain ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Imran, a contemporary of Sheikh al Saduq. We have no knowledge of the status of this scribe, nor of the temporal gap between him and Sheikh al Mufid; and there is no connected chain of transmission to him. Therefore, multiple scholars, including the esteemed investigator al Khu’i (may Allah sanctify his soul), ruled that the attribution of the book to him is not established.[7]
Ma’tuq mentioned a group of scholars who denied the attribution of the book to al Mufid, among them: the scholar Muhammad Asif Muhsini, Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi, the scholar Kamal al Haydari, Muhammad Rida al Sistani, Ayatollah al Saghani, Sheikh al Zanjani, and Sheikh Muhammad al Amini.
‘Adnan ‘Abbas al Battat said:
إن الأدلة على نسبة الكتاب إلى الشيخ المفيد يمكن المناقشة فيها، ثم إن أقدم نسخة مخطوطة موجودة من كتاب الاختصاص وهي التي تعود إلى تاريخ ه لا يوجد فيها علامة تدل على أن الكتاب للشيخ المفيد وما استند عليه البعض من أن الروايات التي في أول الكتاب تعود إلى الشيخ المفيد نراها ظهرت في النسخ المتأخرة عنها كما في النسخة المؤرخة بتاريخ 1085 ه أي بعد ثلاثين عامًا من اكتشاف الكتاب في نسخة تمل اسم العيون والمحاسن على أول النسخة وبعد ثلاث وستون سنة من اكتشاف الكتاب أي بتاريخ 1118 ه كتب على ظهر الصفحة الأولى من النسخة التي عليها تملك البحراني مختصر كتاب الاختصاص ومن هنا نستطيع القول إن العنوان يمكن أن يكون قد أضيف فيما بعد إلى الكتاب كما أضيفت الروايات التي يرجع سندها إلى الشيخ المفيد ثم إن الكتاب عبارة عن دفتر جمعت فيه مجموعة من الروايات والمسائل من كتب متعددة منها ما هو مأخوذ من كتاب الاختصاص تصنيف أبوعلي أحمد بن الحسين ويبقى الجامع لهذا المصنف مجهول
The evidence for the attribution of the book to Sheikh al Mufid can be disputed. The earliest manuscript of Kitab al Ikhtisas, dating back to 1055 AH, does not contain any indication that it belongs to Sheikh al Mufid. What some have relied upon to assert that the initial reports in the book belong to Sheikh al Mufid appears to have been added in later copies, such as the manuscript dated 1085 AH, which is thirty years after the book was discovered in a manuscript bearing the title al ‘Uyun wa al Mahasin at the beginning. After sixty[8] three years, another manuscript dated 1118 AH bears the ownership mark of al Bahrani, which states, “An abridgment of Kitab al Ikhtisas surfaced.” From this, we can deduce that the title might have been added later, as were the reports attributed to Sheikh al Mufid. Furthermore, the book appears to be a collection of various reports and issues from multiple sources, some of which are taken from Kitab al Ikhtisas authored by Abu[9] ‘Ali Ahmed ibn al Hussain. Thus, the compiler of this work remains unknown[10].[11]
Haydar Hubb Allah discussed Kitab al Ikhtisas in detail and examined all the arguments used to prove its attribution to al Mufid. He concluded:
وبهذا يظهر أنه لا يوجد دليل مقنع يثبت انتساب هذا الكتاب للشيخ المفيد ولا لشيخ آخر ثابت الوثاقة والعلم بل لو ثبت أنه للمفيد فإحراز صحَّة النسخة بعد ما قلناه ليس بالأمر السهل أيضاً ومن ثم فلا يمكن الاستناد لمرويات هذا الكتاب
There is no convincing evidence to prove the attribution of this book to Sheikh al Mufid or any other reliable scholar. Even if it were proven that it belongs to al Mufid, determining the accuracy of the manuscript is not easy; and therefore the reports in this book cannot be relied upon.[12]
Even if we hypothetically accept the attribution of the book to al Mufid, it will not prove the authenticity of this particular report. The chain of narration provided by the author, from Abu Muhammad to ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, is unknown. This is why Hadi al Najafi said about the chain of narration:
المفيد رفعه عن أبي محمد عن عبد الله بن سنان
Al Mufid transmitted it from Abu Muhammad — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan…[13]
and what al Najafi meant by “transmitted” (rafa’ahu) is that the report lacks a complete chain of narration, as the term “rafa’a” is used for reports with a missing chain.[14] It is known that al Mufid, who passed away in 413 AH, could not possibly have narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, who was a companion of Jafar al Sadiq (who died in 148 AH), with only one intermediary. In any case, this report is not credible due to the unknown chain of transmission.
NEXT⇒ What is Attributed to al Hassan al ‘Askari
[1] Al Ikhtisas, pg. 183.
[2] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 307.
[3] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 130, vol. 8, pg. 197, 345, vol. 11, pg. 362, 377, and other places.
[4] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 355.
[5] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 9, pg. 101, and see vol, 11 pg. 107.
[6] Ta’arud al Adillah wa Ikhtilaf al Hadith Taqriran li-Abhath ‘Ali al Sistani, pg. 259.
[7] Al Insaf fi Masaʾil al Khilaf, vol. 1, pg. 139.
[8] The correct term is: wa sittin.
[9] The correct term is: Abi ‘Ali.
[10] The correct term is: majhulan.
[11] Published in the Misan Research Journal, vol. 13, article “Kitab al Ikhtisas wa Sheikh al Mufid bayna al Nafi wa al Ithbat,” issue 25, year 2017, pg. 265.
[12] Mantiq al Naqd al Sanadi, vol. 2, pg. 192.
[13] Mawsu’at Ahadith Ahlul Bayt, vol. 8, pg. 422.
[14] It was mentioned in the book Mu’jam Mustalahat al Dirayah, pg. 155, that several definitions of marfu’ are provided, among them: what is missing one or more from the middle or end of its chain of narration, which applies to this report.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
What is Attributed to Jafar al Sadiq
The narration of Kitab al Ikhtisas attributed to al Mufid
The author of Kitab al Ikhtisas said:
أبو محمد عن عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال لما قبض رسول الله وجلس أبو بكر مجلسه بعث إلى وكيل فاطمة صلوات الله عليها فأخرجه من فدك فأتته فاطمة عليها السلام فقالت يا أبا بكر ادعيت أنك خليفة أبي وجلست مجلسه وأنك بعثت إلى وكيلي فأخرجته من فدك وقد تعلم أن رسول الله صدق بها عليَّ وأن لي بذلك شهوداً
Abu Muhammad — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan — from Abu ‘Abdullah who said, “When the Messenger of Allah passed away and Abu Bakr took his place, he sent for the agent of Fatimah and expelled him from Fadak. Fatimah came to him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr, you claim to be the successor of my father and have taken his seat. You sent for my agent and expelled him from Fadak, while you know that the Messenger of Allah had given it to me and I have witnesses for that.’”
The narrator continues:
فدعت بكتاب فكتبه لها برد فدك فقال فخرجت والكتاب معها فلقيها عمر فقال يا بنت محمد ما هذا الكتاب الذي معك فقالت كتاب كتب لي أبو بكر برد فدك فقال هلمّه إليّ فأبت أن تدفعه إليه فرفسها برجله وكانت حاملة بابن اسمه المحسن فأسقطت المحسن من بطنها ثم لطمها فكأني أنظر إلى قرط في أذنها حين نقفت ثم أخذ الكتاب فخرقه فمضت ومكثت خمسة وسبعين يوما مريضة مما ضربها عمر ثم قبضت
She asked for a letter. He wrote it for her with the deed of Fadak. So, she left with the letter in hand. On her way, she encountered ‘Umar, who said, ‘O daughter of Muhammad, what is this letter you are carrying?’
She replied, ‘It is a letter written for me by Abu Bakr, granting me Fadak.’
He asked, ‘Will you give it to me?’
She refused to hand it over to him. He then kicked her with his foot while she was pregnant with a son named al Muhsin. As a result, she miscarried al Muhsin. Then he slapped her, and I swear, I can still see the earring in her ear when it was torn off. He took the letter and tore it apart. She left and remained ill for seventy-five days due to the beating she had received from Umar, before she passed away.”[1]
Study of the Isnad
This report was mentioned in Kitab al Ikhtisas, which is attributed to al Mufid with an incomplete chain of narration. However, the attribution of Kitab al Ikhtisas to al Mufid is not valid; rather, the book belongs to an unknown author. The book is not reliable, as has been clarified by scholars of the Imamiyyah who investigated this issue. The Marja’ Abu al Qasim al Khu’i said:
لم يثبت أن كتاب الاختصاص للشيخ المفيد
It has not been proven that Kitab al Ikhtisas belongs to Sheikh al Mufid.[2]
He confirmed this in multiple places.[3] He also said:
كتاب الاختصاص لم يثبت اعتباره في نفسه
Kitab al Ikhtisas is not proven to be reliable in itself.[4]
He added:
الرواية ضعيفة لعدم ثبوت إسناد كتاب الاختصاص إلى الشيخ المفيد
The report is weak due to the lack of an established chain of narration of Kitab al Ikhtisas to Sheikh al Mufid.[5]
Additionally, the contemporary Marja’ ‘Ali al Sistani said:
كتاب الاختصاص لم تثبت نسبته إلى المفيد
Kitab al Ikhtisas has not been proven to be attributed to al Mufid.[6]
Hussain Ma’tuq commented on Kitab al Ikhtisas, saying:
هذا الكتاب لم يذكره أحد من المتقدمين ممن ترجم الشيخ المفيد ولكن في نسخة منه تاريخ كتابتها سنة 1055 ه ذكر كاتبها أنه من مصنفات الشيخ المفيد قدس سره وأنه استخرجه من كتاب الاختصاص للشيخ أبي علي أحمد بن الحسين بن أحمد بن عمران المعاصر للشيخ الصدوق ولا علم لنا بحال هذا الكاتب فضلًا عن الفاصل الزمني بينه وبين الشيخ المفيد وعدم وجود إسناد متصل إليه ولذا حكم غير واحد من المحققين منهم السيد المحقق الخوئي قدس سره إلى عدم ثبوت نسبة الكتاب إليه
None of the early scholars who wrote biographies of Sheikh al Mufid mentioned this book (may Allah sanctify his soul). However, a manuscript dated 1055 AH mentions that the writer attributed the book to Sheikh al Mufid (may Allah sanctify his soul), stating that he extracted it from Kitab al Ikhtisas by Sheikh Abu ‘Ali Ahmed ibn al Hussain ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Imran, a contemporary of Sheikh al Saduq. We have no knowledge of the status of this scribe, nor of the temporal gap between him and Sheikh al Mufid; and there is no connected chain of transmission to him. Therefore, multiple scholars, including the esteemed investigator al Khu’i (may Allah sanctify his soul), ruled that the attribution of the book to him is not established.[7]
Ma’tuq mentioned a group of scholars who denied the attribution of the book to al Mufid, among them: the scholar Muhammad Asif Muhsini, Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi, the scholar Kamal al Haydari, Muhammad Rida al Sistani, Ayatollah al Saghani, Sheikh al Zanjani, and Sheikh Muhammad al Amini.
‘Adnan ‘Abbas al Battat said:
إن الأدلة على نسبة الكتاب إلى الشيخ المفيد يمكن المناقشة فيها، ثم إن أقدم نسخة مخطوطة موجودة من كتاب الاختصاص وهي التي تعود إلى تاريخ ه لا يوجد فيها علامة تدل على أن الكتاب للشيخ المفيد وما استند عليه البعض من أن الروايات التي في أول الكتاب تعود إلى الشيخ المفيد نراها ظهرت في النسخ المتأخرة عنها كما في النسخة المؤرخة بتاريخ 1085 ه أي بعد ثلاثين عامًا من اكتشاف الكتاب في نسخة تمل اسم العيون والمحاسن على أول النسخة وبعد ثلاث وستون سنة من اكتشاف الكتاب أي بتاريخ 1118 ه كتب على ظهر الصفحة الأولى من النسخة التي عليها تملك البحراني مختصر كتاب الاختصاص ومن هنا نستطيع القول إن العنوان يمكن أن يكون قد أضيف فيما بعد إلى الكتاب كما أضيفت الروايات التي يرجع سندها إلى الشيخ المفيد ثم إن الكتاب عبارة عن دفتر جمعت فيه مجموعة من الروايات والمسائل من كتب متعددة منها ما هو مأخوذ من كتاب الاختصاص تصنيف أبوعلي أحمد بن الحسين ويبقى الجامع لهذا المصنف مجهول
The evidence for the attribution of the book to Sheikh al Mufid can be disputed. The earliest manuscript of Kitab al Ikhtisas, dating back to 1055 AH, does not contain any indication that it belongs to Sheikh al Mufid. What some have relied upon to assert that the initial reports in the book belong to Sheikh al Mufid appears to have been added in later copies, such as the manuscript dated 1085 AH, which is thirty years after the book was discovered in a manuscript bearing the title al ‘Uyun wa al Mahasin at the beginning. After sixty[8] three years, another manuscript dated 1118 AH bears the ownership mark of al Bahrani, which states, “An abridgment of Kitab al Ikhtisas surfaced.” From this, we can deduce that the title might have been added later, as were the reports attributed to Sheikh al Mufid. Furthermore, the book appears to be a collection of various reports and issues from multiple sources, some of which are taken from Kitab al Ikhtisas authored by Abu[9] ‘Ali Ahmed ibn al Hussain. Thus, the compiler of this work remains unknown[10].[11]
Haydar Hubb Allah discussed Kitab al Ikhtisas in detail and examined all the arguments used to prove its attribution to al Mufid. He concluded:
وبهذا يظهر أنه لا يوجد دليل مقنع يثبت انتساب هذا الكتاب للشيخ المفيد ولا لشيخ آخر ثابت الوثاقة والعلم بل لو ثبت أنه للمفيد فإحراز صحَّة النسخة بعد ما قلناه ليس بالأمر السهل أيضاً ومن ثم فلا يمكن الاستناد لمرويات هذا الكتاب
There is no convincing evidence to prove the attribution of this book to Sheikh al Mufid or any other reliable scholar. Even if it were proven that it belongs to al Mufid, determining the accuracy of the manuscript is not easy; and therefore the reports in this book cannot be relied upon.[12]
Even if we hypothetically accept the attribution of the book to al Mufid, it will not prove the authenticity of this particular report. The chain of narration provided by the author, from Abu Muhammad to ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, is unknown. This is why Hadi al Najafi said about the chain of narration:
المفيد رفعه عن أبي محمد عن عبد الله بن سنان
Al Mufid transmitted it from Abu Muhammad — from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan…[13]
and what al Najafi meant by “transmitted” (rafa’ahu) is that the report lacks a complete chain of narration, as the term “rafa’a” is used for reports with a missing chain.[14] It is known that al Mufid, who passed away in 413 AH, could not possibly have narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Sinan, who was a companion of Jafar al Sadiq (who died in 148 AH), with only one intermediary. In any case, this report is not credible due to the unknown chain of transmission.
NEXT⇒ What is Attributed to al Hassan al ‘Askari
[1] Al Ikhtisas, pg. 183.
[2] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 307.
[3] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 130, vol. 8, pg. 197, 345, vol. 11, pg. 362, 377, and other places.
[4] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 8, pg. 355.
[5] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 9, pg. 101, and see vol, 11 pg. 107.
[6] Ta’arud al Adillah wa Ikhtilaf al Hadith Taqriran li-Abhath ‘Ali al Sistani, pg. 259.
[7] Al Insaf fi Masaʾil al Khilaf, vol. 1, pg. 139.
[8] The correct term is: wa sittin.
[9] The correct term is: Abi ‘Ali.
[10] The correct term is: majhulan.
[11] Published in the Misan Research Journal, vol. 13, article “Kitab al Ikhtisas wa Sheikh al Mufid bayna al Nafi wa al Ithbat,” issue 25, year 2017, pg. 265.
[12] Mantiq al Naqd al Sanadi, vol. 2, pg. 192.
[13] Mawsu’at Ahadith Ahlul Bayt, vol. 8, pg. 422.
[14] It was mentioned in the book Mu’jam Mustalahat al Dirayah, pg. 155, that several definitions of marfu’ are provided, among them: what is missing one or more from the middle or end of its chain of narration, which applies to this report.