What is Attributed to Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq
What was Attributed to Sa’id ibn al Musayyab
November 22, 20242. Narration from Kamil al Ziyarat
November 25, 2024BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
What is Attributed to Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq
1. The Narration of al Khusaybi (d. 358 AH)
In the book al Hidayah al Kubra, al Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi narrates:
حدثني محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي بن عبد الله الحسنيان عن أبي شعيب محمد بن نصير عن ابن الفرات عن محمد بن المفضل قال سألت سيدي أبا عبد الله الصادق
Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani related to me — from Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nusayr — from Ibn al Furat — from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal who said: I asked my master, Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq …
In this extensive narration, the legend of the broken rib is repeatedly mentioned from al Sadiq in various sections.
Al Sadiq is reported to have said:
وإشعال النار على باب أمير المؤمنين وسم الحسن وضرب الصديقة فاطمة بسوط قنفذ ورفسه في بطنها وإسقاطها محسنًا
The kindling of fire at the door of Amir al Mu’minin, the poisoning of al Hassan, the beating of the Truthful Fatimah with the whip of Qunfudh, his kicking her in the abdomen, and her subsequent miscarriage of Muhsin.[1]
He also narrates:
وتقص عليه قصة أبي بكر وإنفاذ خالد بن الوليد وقنفذ وعمر جميعًا لإخراج أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام من بيته إلى البيعة في سقيفة بني ساعدة واشتغال أمير المؤمنين وضم أزواج رسول الله وتعزيتهن وجمع القرآن وتأليفه وإنجاز عداته وهي ثمانون ألف درهم باع فيها تالده وطارفه وقضاها عنه وقول عمر له اخرج يا علي إلى ما أجمع عليه المسلمون من البيعة لأمر أبي بكر فما لك أن تخرج عما اجتمعنا عليه فإن لم تفعل قتلناك وقول فضة جارية فاطمة عليها السلام إن أمير المؤمنين عنكم مشغول والحق له لو أنصفتموه واتقيتم الله ورسوله وسب عمر لها وجمع الحطب الجزل على النار لإحراق أمير المؤمنين وفاطمة والحسن والحسين وزينب ورقية وأم كلثوم وفضة وإضرامهم النار على الباب وخروج فاطمة عليها السلام وخطابها لهم من وراء الباب وقولها ويحك يا عمر ما هذه الجرأة على الله ورسوله تريد أن تقطع نسله من الدنيا وتفنيه وتطفئ نور الله والله متم نوره وانتهاره لها وقوله كفي يا فاطمة فلو أن محمدًا حاضر والملائكة تأتيه بالأمر والنهي والوحي من الله وما علي إلا كأحد المسلمين فاختاري إن شئت خروجه إلى بيعة أبي بكر وإلا أحرقكم بالنار جميعًا وقولها له يا شقي عدي هذا رسول الله لم يبل له جبين في قبره ولا مسَّ الثرى أكفانه ثم قالت وهي باكية اللهم إليك نشكو فقد نبيك ورسولك وصفيك وارتداد أمته ومنعهم إيانا حقنا الذي جعلته لنا في كتابك المنزل على نبيك بلسانه وانتهار عمر لها وخالد بن الوليد وقولهم دعي عنك يا فاطمة حماقة النساء فكم يجمع الله لكم النبوة والرسالة وأخذ النار في خشب الباب وأدخل قنفذ لعنه الله يده يروم فتح الباب وضرب عمر لها بسوط أبي بكر على عضدها حتى صار كالدملج الأسود المحترق وأنينها من ذلك وبكاها وركل عمر الباب برجله حتى أصاب بطنها وهي حاملة بمحسن لستة اشهر وإسقاطها وصرختها عند رجوع الباب وهجوم عمر وقنفذ وخالد وصفقة عمر على خدها حتى أبرى قرطها تحت خمارها فانتثر وهي تجهر بالبكاء تقول يا أبتاه يا رسول الله ابنتك فاطمة تضرب ويقتل جنين في بطنها وتصفق يا أبتاه ويسقف خد لها كنت تصونه من ضيم الهوان يصل إليه من فوق الخمار وضربها بيدها على الخمار لتكشفه ورفعها ناصيتها إلى السماء تدعو إلى الله وخروج أمير المؤمنين من داخل البيت محمر العينين داير الحدقتين حاسرا حتى ألقى ملاءته عليها وضمها لصدره وقال يا ابنة رسول الله قد علمتي أن الله بعث أباك رحمة للعالمين فالله الله أن تكشفي أو ترفعي ناصيتك فوالله يا فاطمة لئن فعلتي ذلك لا يبقي الله على الأرض من يشهد أن محمدًا رسول الله ولا موسى ولا عيسى ولا إبراهيم ولا نوح ولا آدم ولا دابة تمشي على وجه الأرض ولا طائر يطير في السماء إلا هلك ثم قال يا ابن الخطاب لك الويل كل الويل بالكيل من يومك هذا وما بعده وما يليه اخرج قبل أن أ خرج سيفي ذا الفقار فأفني غابر الأمة فخرج عمر وخالد بن الوليد وقنفذ وعبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر وصاروا من خارج الدار فصاح أمير المؤمنين بفضة إليكي مولاتك فاقبلي منها ما يقبل النساء وقد جاءها المخاض من الرفسة وردة الباب فسقطت محسنًا عليه قتيلًا وعرفت أمير المؤمنين إليه التسليم فقال لها يا فضة لقد عرفه رسول الله وعرفني وعرف فاطمة وعرف الحسن وعرف الحسين اليوم بهذا الفعل ونحن في نور الأظلة أنوار عن يمين العرش فواريه بقعر البيت فإنه لاحق بجده رسول الله
Al Sadiq recounts the story of Abu Bakr and the dispatch of Khalid ibn al Walid, Qunfudh, and ‘Umar together to force Amir al Mu’minin out of his house to pledge allegiance at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, while Amir al Mu’minin was preoccupied with consoling the wives of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, compiling the Qur’an, and fulfilling his obligations—eighty thousand dirhams, which he had sold his properties to fulfil.
Then ‘Umar said to him, “Come out, O ‘Ali, to what the Muslims have agreed upon regarding the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. What prevents you from adhering to what we have agreed upon? If you do not, we will kill you.”
Then Fiddah, the servant of Fatimah, said, “Amir al Mu’minin is preoccupied from you, and the right belongs to him if you were just and feared Allah and His Messenger.”
‘Umar insulted her, gathered a great amount of firewood to burn down the house containing Amir al Mu’minin, Fatimah, al Hassan, al Hussain, Zainab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthum, and Fiddah. They set fire to the door, and Fatimah came out, addressing them from behind the door, “Woe unto you, O ‘Umar! How dare you defy Allah and His Messenger? Do you intend to cut off his progeny from this world, to annihilate it, and to extinguish the light of Allah? But Allah will complete His light!”
Then ‘Umar rebuked her, saying, “Cease, O Fatimah! If Muhammad were present and the angels were to bring him orders and prohibitions and revelations from Allah, what would concern me is what concerns the rest of the Muslims. Choose, then, whether ‘Ali should come out to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, or I shall burn all of you with fire.”
She responded, “O wretched one! The Messenger of Allah’s forehead has not yet decayed in his grave, nor have his shrouds touched the earth.” She then wept, exclaiming, “O Allah, to You we complain about the loss of Your Prophet and Messenger, Your chosen one, the apostasy of his nation, and their denial of the right You assigned to us in Your Book, revealed to Your Prophet by his tongue.”
‘Umar and Khalid ibn al Walid rebuked her further saying, “Stop this foolishness of women, O Fatimah! How could Allah gather both prophethood and messengership for you?”
As the fire spread to the wood of the door, Qunfudh, may Allah curse him, reached out his hand to try to open it, and ‘Umar struck her with Abu Bakr’s whip on her upper arm until it became like a blackened bracelet. She groaned from the pain, weeping, and ‘Umar kicked the door with his foot, striking her stomach, causing her to miscarry Muhsin at six months. She screamed as the door swung back, and ‘Umar, Qunfudh, and Khalid stormed in. ‘Umar slapped her cheek, dislodging her earring and displacing her headcover, and she cried out loudly, “O my father, O Messenger of Allah! Your daughter Fatimah is being struck, her unborn child is being killed, and she is being slapped! O my father, my cheek, which you used to protect from humiliation, is now being struck through the headcover!”
She raised her hand to her headcover to uncover it, lifting her forelock to the sky, invoking Allah. Amir al Mu’minin emerged from inside the house, his eyes red and his pupils dilated, bareheaded. He threw his cloak over her and embraced her, saying, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, you know that Allah sent your father as a mercy to the worlds. For the sake of Allah, do not uncover yourself or raise your forelock. By Allah, O Fatimah, if you do so, Allah will not leave a single being on this earth to bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, nor Musa, nor ‘Isa, nor Ibrahim, nor Nuh, nor Adam. No creature walking on the earth or bird flying in the sky will survive.” Then he said, “O son of al Khattab, woe unto you, woe unto you from this day and all the days that follow! Leave before I draw my sword, Dhu al Fiqar, and annihilate the remnants of this nation. ‘Umar, Khalid ibn al Walid, Qunfudh, and ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr then left the house.”
Amir al Mu’minin then called out to Fiddah, “Attend to your mistress and care for her as women care for one another, for labour pains have overtaken her due to the kick and the impact of the door.” Fatimah then miscarried Muhsin, lifeless, and Amir al Mu’minin recognised the child, accepting the decree of Allah. He said to her, “O Fiddah, the Messenger of Allah knew him, I knew him, Fatimah knew him, al Hassan knew him, and al Hussain knew him today because of this act. We were in the light of the shadows, lights to the right of the Throne. Bury him in the depths of the house, for he will soon join his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah.”[2]
He also said:
ولا كيوم محنتنا بكربلاء وإن كان كيوم السقيفة وإحراق الباب على أمير المؤمنين وفاطمة والحسن والحسين وزينب وأم كلثوم وفضة وقتل محسن بالرفسة لأعظم وأمر لأنه أصل يوم الفراش قال المفضل يا مولاي أسأل قال اسأل قال يا مولاي وَإِذَا الْمَوْءُودَةُ سُئِلَتْ بِأَيِّ ذَنبٍ قُتِلَتْ قال يا مفضل تقول العامة إنها في كل جنين من أولاد الناس يقتل مظلومًا قال المفضل نعم يا مولاي هكذا يوم أكثره مقال ويلهم من أين لهم هذه الآية هي لنا خالصة في الكتاب وهي محسن عليه السلام لأنه منا
There is no day like the day of our ordeal in Karbala’, although the day of Saqifah and the burning of the door against Amir al Mu’minin, Fatimah, al Hassan, al Hussain, Zainab, Umm Kulthum, and Fiddah, and the killing of Muhsin by miscarriage is greater and more severe because it is the true Day of Firash.[3]
Al Mufaddal asked, “O my master, may I ask?”
He replied, “Ask.”
Al Mufaddal enquired, “And when baby girls, buried alive, are asked for what crime they were put to death.[4] O my master, the commonalty [Ahlus Sunnah]say that this verse refers to female infanticide.”
He replied, “Woe unto them! How did they come to that conclusion? This verse is specifically for us in the Book, and it refers to Muhsin, for he is one of us.”[5]
Study of the Isnad
The mention of the incident of breaking the rib of Fatimah and the miscarriage of Muhsin is repeatedly found in the book of al Khusaybi, making it one of the most important sources that Imami scholars rely on today to prove the incident of breaking the rib of Fatimah.[6]
Therefore, it is necessary to study the status of al Khusaybi and the reality of his book.
1. Investigating the Status of Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi (d. 358 AH)
Most Imami Rijal scholars have criticised Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi, and here are their statements:
Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi
- Al Najashi said, “He was of a corrupt doctrine.”[7]
- Ibn al Ghada’iri stated, “A liar with a corrupt doctrine, the proponent of a cursed doctrine that should be ignored.”[8]
- Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli agreed with what was said.[9]
- Al Mamaqani said, “Weak.”[10]
- Al Jawahiri in al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, summarising al Khu’i’s judgement, saying, “Unknown with a corrupt doctrine.”[11]
- Al Majlisi weakened him.[12]
- Ibrahim ibn Hussain al Dunbuli al Najafi weakened him in his book Mulakhkhas al Maqal fi Tahqiq Ahwal al Rijal in the section on the weak.[13]
- Ibrahim al Shubbut included him among the weak.[14]
- Hussain al Sa’idi said, “Weak, a liar, head of the Nusayri sect after al Namiri. His narrations contain distortions, exaggerations, and lies. He was weakened by al Najashi, Ibn al Ghada’iri, and was listed among the weak by al ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, and Muhammad Taha Najaf.”[15]
You will be surprised to see Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, who used al Khusaybi’s al Hidayah in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’ to prove the story of the broken rib, admitting in his other works[16] that al Khusaybi was among the extremists. He even explicitly states that al Khusaybi was a leader of the extremists… He describes him in harsh terms,[17] criticising him in a third place saying:
الحسين بن حمدان ضعيف جدًا فاسد المذهب صاحب مقالة ملعونة لا يلتفت إليه كما يقولون في كتب الرجال
Hussain ibn Hamdan is very weak, corrupt in his doctrine, a proponent of a cursed doctrine, and should be ignored, as the Rijal books state.[18]
- The Nusayris consider him one of their great scholars. Therefore, some contemporary scholars have criticised him. Sa’ib ‘Abdul Hamid said about Hussain ibn Hamdan, “The Sheikh of the Nusayri extremists in his time, corrupt in his doctrine.”[19]
- Muhammad Rida al Jalali said, “One of the prominent figures of the Nusayri sect. It appears from the book al Hidayah that he was extreme in this doctrine.”[20]
- Amir Muhanna and ‘Ali Khurays said, when discussing the Nusayris, “Among their callers was Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi.”[21]
2. The Correctness of Attributing the Book al Hidayah al Kubra to al Khusaybi (d. 358 AH)
There is no doubt that al Khusaybi authored a book on the history of the Imams, as al Najashi mentioned that al Khusaybi had a book titled Tarikh al A’immah.[22] Al Tusi, however, referred to the book under the title Asma’ al Nabi wa-al A’immah ‘Alayhim al Salam.[23] However, the issue lies in the authenticity of attributing the currently available version of the book al Hidayah al Kubra to al Khusaybi. This attribution lacks solid evidence and the available evidence actually suggests that the printed version today is falsely attributed to al Khusaybi for several reasons:
- This book was not referenced by early scholars such as Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, al Mufid, al Murtada, or al Tusi. The earliest known reference to this book appears to be from al Hassan ibn Sulaiman al Hilli[24] in the ninth century. By examining references to al Hidayah in the works of Imami scholars, it becomes apparent that the book was secretly circulated among the Nusayris. It was not until the tenth century that leading Akhbari scholars from the Imami school, such as Hashim al Bahrani, al Majlisi, and al Hurr al ‘Amili, became acquainted with it. Since that time, Imami scholars have started to refer to its narrations and rely on it. Given this context, it is not appropriate to rely on a book that was primarily circulated among the extremists and did not gain prominence until the later centuries.
- There are significant differences between the copies of the book in terms of additions and omissions. After a quick study of the copies we have reviewed of this book, it became clear that there are three distinct versions of the book:
The Abridged Version: This version, named Siyar al A’immah ‘Alayhim al Salam by the scribe, begins with a chain of transmission that ends with al Hussain ibn Hamdan ibn al Khusaybi.[25] This version matches the initial chain of some reports in the circulated version but lacks many of the narrations and reports found in the popular version. It includes reports about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Twelve Imams in the order of their deaths and ends with miscellaneous reports about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This version also contains reports about the Babs of the Imams,[26] and many of its reports are transmitted with chains of narration. It consists of only 62 pages and is considered one of the oldest versions of the book, with a transcription date of 963 AH.[27] This version has not been printed and was not used in the printed editions.
The Popular Version: This is the version most people rely on when writing about the incident of Fatimah’s rib. This version was printed by Mu’assasat al Balagh and is twice as long as the abridged version. Most of its reports lack chains of transmission, and it is divided into fourteen chapters, covering reports about the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, and the remaining Twelve Imams in the order of their deaths. It does not include the fifteenth chapter, which contains reports about the Babs of the Imams. This version also includes a lengthy narration by al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, which discusses the events of al Raj’ah (the Return). This is the version most often cited by those who refer to the narration about Fatimah’s rib.[28]
The Extended Complete Version: This version includes the popular version and adds the fifteenth chapter, dedicated to the Babs of the Twelve Imams. This chapter was absent in some manuscript versions but included in others. This version was seemingly neglected, as Imami scholars who referenced al Hidayah did not quote from it. Some Imami scholars even believed that the fifteenth chapter was not originally part of al Hidayah and considered it a separate book.[29] This complete version was recently printed,[30] but there is a significant issue with this edition: the editor did not compare the complete manuscript with the printed version but relied on the previous edition and added the omitted chapters.[31]
Given these findings, it becomes clear that there are substantial discrepancies among the versions of the book attributed to al Khusaybi. The differences are not minor; each version could be considered a distinct book. Furthermore, a quick comparison between the manuscript and printed versions revealed that the printed version contains additions not found in the manuscripts. For example, the printed version starts with an introduction spanning four pages[32], which has no trace in the manuscripts.[33] This indicates that the printed version cannot be trusted. How can one rely on a book whose versions exhibit such significant contradictions, inconsistencies, and additions?
For this reason, some contemporary Nusayri scholars have judged the book al Hidayah to be a fabrication. Hashim ‘Uthman states:
كتاب الهداية الكبرى من صِنعة ووَضْع وهو مروي على لسان الخصيبي الله وحده يعلم مدى صحته
The book al Hidayah al Kubra is fabricated and falsely attributed to al Khusaybi; only Allah knows how authentic it is.[34]
Sheikh al Imami Hussain al Khushn adds:
الكتاب لم تصلنا منه نسخة عبر طرق الإجازة المعروفة ولا هو من المشهورات التي تستغني عن الأسانيد وعليه فما الذي يضمن صحة النسخة التي وصلت إلى المتأخرين لذا لا يسعنا الوثوق بالكتاب بصرف النظر عن ضعف أسانيده
The book did not reach us through known chains of transmission, nor is it one of the well-known works that do not require chains. Therefore, what guarantees the authenticity of the version that reached the later generations? Hence, we cannot trust the book, regardless of the weakness of its chains of transmission.[35]
3. Study of the Isnad
Despite the previous discussions, the chains mentioned in this book have no significant value. However, we will still analyse them to provide a comprehensive response concerning the chains of the narration. We identify several flaws in this Isnad:
Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani
Al Khusaybi did not provide his full lineage. Some later Imami scholars attempted to identify him due to the lack of biographical information in the books of Rijal. However, they made errors due to their lack of attention to the generational levels of the narrators.
Shahrudi made a significant error when he thought that Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani was Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn al Hassan ibn Zaid ibn al Hassan al Mujtaba. He cited his lineage and then stated:
روى الحسين بن أحمد الخصيبي عنه وعلي بن عبد الله الحسنيين
Al Hussain ibn Ahmed al Khusaybi al Hassani narrated from him and from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani.[36]
He said about him:
لم يذكروه
They did not mention him.[37]
But his mistake is clear. Al Hussain ibn Hamdan al Khusaybi, who died in 358 AH,[38] could not have narrated from Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn al Hassan ibn Zaid ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali because the latest possible date for the death of Muhammad ibn Ismail would be in the early third century. Al Tabari, who died in 310 AH, stated that his grandson al Hassan ibn Zaid[39] died in 270 AH.[40] So, if the grandson of Muhammad ibn Ismail died in 270 AH, how could it be imagined that he lived long enough for al Khusaybi, who died in 358 AH, to narrate from him!
Moreover, the Muhammad ibn Ismail mentioned in this chain is a student of Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri, who died around 270 AH.[41] Therefore, he belongs to a much later generation than Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn al Hassan ibn
Zaid, whom Shahrudi mistakenly thought was meant by “Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani.”
Musa al Zanjani had a conflicting view from Shahrudi, suggesting that Muhammad ibn Ismail refers to Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Jafar, based on the assumption that his lineage returns to al Hussain ibn ‘Ali. He said:
وروى الشيخ في الغيبة بسنده عن الحسين بن أحمد الخصيبي عن محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي بن عبد الله الحسينان (الحسنيان) قالا دخلنا على أبي محمد عليه السلام الخبر والظاهر أنه هذا أيضًا
Sheikh narrated in al Ghaybah through his chain from al Hussain ibn Ahmed al Khusaybi — from Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani, stating, “We entered upon Abu Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam … ” It appears that this is the same person.[42]
He then commented:
أعتبره في الحسن كالصحيح
I consider him in reliability like the authentic.[43]
But what al Zanjani suggested is far-fetched. He did not provide definitive evidence to support the claim that the two men are the same, especially when considering the lineage of Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani. Al Khusaybi narrated several narrations from him in his book al Hidayah under the name Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani.[44] As for Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Jafar, he is Hussaini, not Hassani.
Even if we accept that Muhammad ibn Ismail is Hussaini and not Hassani based on the possibility of a transcription error in his lineage—though this is highly unlikely due to the repeated verification of his lineage as Hassani in many places in al Hidayah—proving that he is the same person as Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Jafar is also improbable. This Muhammad, al Kulayni narrates from him, who died in 329 AH, through his teacher ‘Ali ibn Muhammad,[45] indicating that he belongs to a higher generation than the teacher of al Khusaybi. It is unlikely that al Khusaybi, who died thirty years after al Kulayni, would narrate from the teacher of al Kulayni’s teacher, who is Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim. Therefore, this assumption is also invalid. On the assumption that al Zanjani’s opinion is correct and that he is Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Ibrahim, he is also unknown because none of the early Rijal scholars documented him. Hence, al Jawahiri summarised al Khu’i’s judgement about him, saying, “Majhul (unknown).”[46]
The correct view is that Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani is unknown; we have not found any biographical information about him.
‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani
The second narrator in this chain from the author of al Hidayah is also like the first. We have not found any biographical information about him in the books of Rijal, so he is also unknown.
Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri
Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nusayr, he is al Bakri al Namiri.[47] Abu ‘Amr al Kashshi said:
كان محمد بن نصير النميري يدعي أنه رسول نبي وأن علي بن محمد العسكري عليه السلام أرسله وكان يقول بالتناسخ والغلو في أبي الحسن عليه السلام ويقول فيه بالربوبية ويقول بإباحة المحارم ويحلل نكاح الرجال بعضهم بعضًا في أدبارهم ويقول إنه من الفاعل والمفعول به أحد الشهوات والطيبات وأن الله لم يحرم شيئا من ذلك
Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri claimed to be a messenger and prophet and that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al ‘Askari sent him. He believed in metempsychosis and exaggerated in his beliefs about Abu al Hassan, considering him divine. He permitted the practice of homosexuality and considered it one of the desires and pleasures. He claimed that Allah did not prohibit anything from that.[48]
Similar statements were made by Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah al Qummi.[49]
Al Khu’i mentioned in his al Mu’jam that:
وقال ابن شهرآشوب بعد ما ذكر عبد الله بن سبأ ثم أحيا ذلك رجل اسمه محمد بن نصير النميري البصري زعم أن الله تعالى لم يظهره إلا في هذا العصر وأنه على وحده فالشرذمة النصيرية ينتمون إليه وهم قوم إباحية تركوا العبادات والشرعيات واستحلوا المنهيات والمحرمات ومن مقالهم أن اليهود على الحق ولسنا منهم وأن النصارى على الحق ولسنا منهم المناقب الجزء 1 في الرد على الغلاة
Ibn Shahrashub, after mentioning ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, said, “Then a man named Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri al Basri revived these beliefs, claiming that Allah did not manifest Himself until this era and that it was ‘Ali alone. The sect of the Nusayris is affiliated with him. They are a libertine group who abandoned worship and religious obligations, indulged in forbidden acts, and hold that Jews are correct, but they do not identify with them, and that Christians are correct, but they do not identify with them.” (Al Manaqib, vol. 1, refutation of the extremists.)[50]
Hussain al Sa’idi compiled the statements of Imami scholars who criticised him, concluding:
غال ملعون ادعى البابية تنسب إليه الفرقة النصيرية ضعفه الكشي وابن الغضائري والطوسي والطبرسي وعده من الضعفاء العلامة الحلي وابن داود والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف
He was an accursed extremist who claimed to be a Bab. The Nusayri sect is attributed to him. Al Kashshi, Ibn al Ghada’iri, al Tusi, and al Tabarsi all declared him weak, and al ‘Allamah al Hilli, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, and Muhammad Taha Najaf included him among the weak narrators.[51]
‘Umar ibn al Furat
Hussain al Sa’idi said:
غال عدته النصيرية من أبواب الإمام الرضا عليه السلام وروى له الخصيبي عدة روايات كلها تخليط وعده من الضعفاء العلامة وابن داود والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف
He was an extremist. The Nusayris considered him one of the Babs to Imam al Rida. Al Khusaybi narrated several confused narrations from him. Al ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, and Muhammad Taha Najaf included him among the weak narrators.[52]
Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal
It may be thought that this is the same Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal about whom al Najashi said:
محمد بن مفضل بن إبراهيم بن قيس بن رمانة الأشعري عربي يكنى أبا جعفر ثقة من أصحابنا الكوفيين
Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn Ibrahim ibn Qais ibn Rummanah al Ash’ari, an Arab, nicknamed Abu Jafar, trustworthy, one of our Kufi companions.[53]
However, the correct view is that the Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal mentioned by al Khusaybi, who narrates from Imam al Sadiq, is different from the one documented by al Najashi. This is evident because the Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal whom al Najashi considered trustworthy is narrated from by Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id ibn ‘Uqdah, as al Najashi mentioned earlier, and Ibn ‘Uqdah died in 333 AH.[54] Al Najashi also recorded in his book that Ibn ‘Uqdah heard from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn Ibrahim in the year 265 AH:
أخبرناه إجازة محمد بن جعفر عن أحمد بن محمد قال حدثنا محمد بن مفضل بن إبراهيم سنة خمس وستين ومائتين قال حدثنا محمد بن أبي عمير عن الحسين بن عثمان
Muhammad ibn Jafar narrated to us with permission — from Ahmed ibn Muhammad who said — Muhammad ibn Mufaddal ibn Ibrahim narrated to us in 265 AH, saying: Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair narrated from al Hussain ibn ‘Uthman.[55]
The question here is: How can it be said that the Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal, from whom Ibn ‘Uqdah heard in 265 AH, narrates directly from Imam al Sadiq, who died in 148 AH?
Al Khu’i hinted at the possibility of these being two different individuals or a transcription error in Ibn ‘Uqdah’s[56] text. Muhammad Taqi al Tustari also suggested that these are two different individuals, as mentioned in Qamus al Rijal.[57] Therefore, it can be said that “Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal” is a transcription error, and the correct name is “Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar,” as al Burujirdi mentioned in Jami’ Ahadith al Shia:
الحسين بن همدان الحضيني في كتابه عن محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي بن عبد الله الحسينان عن أبي شعيب محمد بن نصير عن عمر بن فرات عن محمد بن المفضل بن عمر عن الصادق عليه السلام
Al Hussain ibn Hamdan[58] al Hadini in his book narrated from Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani, from Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nasir, from ‘Umar ibn al Furat, from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, from Imam al Sadiq.[59]
Al Bahbudi said:
محمد بن المفضل بن عمر مهمل أو مجهول
Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar: neglected or unknown.[60]
He believes that the correct name is Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar.
It is known that this Muhammad is the son of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, one of the well-known extremists whose weakness was established. Muhsin al Amin said:
والمفضل بن عمر الجعفي من أصحاب الصادق ع وولده محمد بن المفضل بن عمر من أصحاب الكاظم
Al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al Ju’fi was among the companions of al Sadiq, and his son Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar was among the companions of Imam al Kazim.[61]
This indicates that there is a significant and likely flaw in the chain. It could be argued that this Muhammad narrated from his father, al Mufaddal, who was among the companions of al Sadiq. However, the transmission formula between Muhammad, the son, and his father, al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, may have been omitted, resulting in the chain becoming “Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal or “Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, from al Sadiq directly, which is impossible because Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar is counted among the companions of Imam al Kazim[62] and did not meet Imam al Sadiq.
What strengthens this possibility is that al Hussain ibn Sulaiman al Hilli narrated the chain in Mukhtasar Basa’ir al Darajat in this form:
الحسين بن حمدان عن محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي بن عبد الله الحسنيين عن أبي شعيب محمد بن نصير عن عمر بن الفرات عن محمد بن المفضل عن المفضل بن عمر قال سألت سيدي الصادق
Al Hussain ibn Hamdan — from Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani — from Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nasir — from ‘Umar ibn al Furat — from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal — from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, who said, “I asked my master al Sadiq.”[63]
Based on this, even if it is said that the correct name is “Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar,” he is still considered unknown according to al Khu’i’s principles, as explicitly stated by Muhammad al Jawahiri.[64] The books of Imami Rijal are devoid of any information about his status, praise, or even a brief mention, let alone authentication.
Al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
His name appears to have been omitted from the printed edition of al Hidayah al Kubra, as it seems. His biography has already been discussed earlier.
The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad
Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi, after exonerating al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar and others from inventing this fabricated narration, claimed that it was inserted into al Mufaddal’s works. He said:
غير أنه قد كذب عليهم وزيد في رواياتهم واختلق عليهم وإنما أتوا من قبل الغلاة وأشباههم ممن أرادوا أن يهدموا أساس المذهب فكذبوا وزادوا واختلقوا أحاديث ونسبوه إلى أصحاب الأئمة الصادقين نصرة لمذهبهم وترويجا لمرامهم الفاسد كما فعلت المرجئة والقدرية فوضعوا أحاديث ونسبوه إلى المعروفين من أصحاب رسول الله فإذًا لابد وأن نحقق عن حال من أسند عنه فنرى في الحديث محمد بن نصير وهو النميري الكذاب الغال الخبيث المدعي للنيابة على ما في غيبة الشيخ ص 250 وقد مر في ج 51 ص 367 و 368 شطر من ترجمته يروي عن عمر بن الفرات الكاتب البغدادي الغالي ذو المناكير عن محمد بن المفضل بن عمر مهمل أو مجهول ولكن الظاهر أن الكذب إنما جاء من قبل البغدادي الكاتب ذي المناكير وهو الذي كتب وصنف هذا الحديث وسردها بطوله أو الجاعل هو نفس النميري ولذلك ترى أنه يعرف في طيه محمد بن نصير النميري بعنوان نيابة الإمام عليه السلام وأنه يقعد بصابر وهو اسم سكة في مرو مع ما مر في ج 51 ص 368 عن غيبة الشيخ أنه كان يدعي أنه رسول نبي ويقول بالتناسخ ويقول في أبي الحسن الهادي بالربوبية ويقول بالإجابة للمحارم وتليل نكاح الرجال وأنه من التواضع فاعتمد الكاتب إلى أحاديث صحيحة أو حسنة وأخرى ضعيفة أو مجعولة فزاد عليها من مخائله وجمع بين مضامينها ولعب فيها كالقصاصين الدجالين فراجع ج 52 باب 23 و 24 ترى مضامين هذا الحديث منبثة فيها بين صحيح وسقيم
Indeed, they were slandered and their narrations were altered, added to, and fabricated by the ghulat (extremists) and others who wanted to undermine the foundation of the school of thought. They fabricated and added narrations, attributing[65] them to the trustworthy companions of the Imams to support their corrupt objectives, just as the Murji’ah and Qadariyyah did. They created and attributed[66] narrations to the well-known companions of the Prophet. Therefore, we must investigate the condition of those to whom the narration is attributed.
In the narration, we find Muhammad ibn Nusayr, who is the lying, deceitful extremist, falsely claiming to be a representative, as mentioned in al Ghaybah by Sheikh on page 250; part of biography passed in vol. 51 pg. 367, 368. He narrated from ‘Umar ibn al Furat, the Baghdadi extremist writer of manakir[67](strange and rejected narrations), who narrated from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, who is either unknown or neglected. However, it appears that the fabrication came from al Baghdadi, the writer of manakir, who composed[68] and wrote this long narration, or it could be from the fabricator himself, Muhammad ibn Nusayr.
Therefore, you see that within this narration, Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri is identified as a representative of the Imam, who resides in Sabir, the name of a place in Merv, with what was mentioned in al Ghaybah, vol. 51 pg. 368, by Sheikh, that he claimed to be a prophet and believed in metempsychosis, claimed divinity for Abu al Hassan al Hadi, permitted incestuous relations, and allowed men to marry each other as an act of humility. The writer relied on authentic or good narrations and others that were weak or fabricated. He added from his imagination, combined the contents, and manipulated them like deceitful storytellers. Refer to volume 52, chapters 23 and 24, where you will find the content of this narration scattered between the authentic and the weak.[69]
Al Bahbudi also commented on the narrators of this narration:
وإسناد الحديث أيضًا مشتمل على المجهول والغالي وهو الحسين بن حمدان أي الحضيني الفاسد المذهب عن محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي ابن عبد الله الحسنيين عن أبي شعيب محمد بن نصر عن عمر بن الفرات عن محمد بن المفضل عن المفضل بن عمر
The chain of the narration also includes the unknown and the extremist, such as al Hussain ibn Hamdan i.e. al Hadini, the heretic, narrating from Muhammad ibn Ismail al Hassani and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hassani, from Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nasr, from ‘Umar ibn al Furat, from Muhammad ibn al Mufaddal, from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar.[70]
Muhammad Asif Muhsini criticised al Majlisi for including this narration in Bihar al Anwar, saying:
في متنه بعض القرائن على الوضع فلم يصح ذكره في الكتاب لكنهم المحدثين في الغالب الأغلب جمع الروايات من غير التفات إلى ضعف السند وضعف المتن وإيجابهم قبول كل ما ينقل بالعربية مسندًا إلى النبي أو الإمام عليه السلام فطوبى للوضاعين والكذابين وويل للثقافة الدينية وعوام الناس
The text contains some indications of fabrication, so it was not correct to mention it in the book. However, the general practice of the Muhaddithin is to collect narrations without paying attention to the weakness of the chain or the text. Their obligation to accept anything narrated in Arabic with a chain linked to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or the Imam ‘alayh al Salam. Glad tidings to the fabricators and liars and woe to religious culture and the masses.[71]
Mustafa al Khumayni commented:
ما رواه الحلبي في البحار عن بعض مؤلفات أصحابنا عن الحسين بن حمران عن محمد بن إسماعيل وعلي بن عبد الله الحسين عن أبي شعيب محمد بن نصر عن عمر بن الفرات عن محمد بن الفضل عن مفضل بن عمر قال قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام يا مفضل كل بيعة قبل ظهور القائم فبيعة كفر ونفاق وخديعة لعن الله المبايع لها والمبايع
That which al Halabi narrated in Bihar al Anwar, which was reported from some works of our companions, through al Hussain ibn Humran,[72] from Muhammad ibn Ismail and ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah al Hussain, from Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Nasr, from ‘Umar ibn al Furat, from Muhammad ibn al Fadl, from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, who said, “Abu ‘Abdullah said: ‘O Mufaddal, every pledge of allegiance before the appearance of the Qa’im is a pledge of disbelief, hypocrisy, and deceit. May Allah curse the one who pledges and the one who accepts the pledge.’”
Mustafa al Khumayni, commenting on this chain, stated:
ولا أظن رواية في رواياتنا أضعف سندًا منها فراجع آحادها
I do not think there is a weaker chain in our narrations. Review its components.[73]
NEXT⇒ 2. Narration from Kamil al Ziyarat
[1] Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 402.
[2] Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 406-408.
[3] Day of Firash: The day when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu slept in the bed of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam during the hijrah.
[4] Surah al Takwir: 8-9.
[5] Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 418.
[6] Among those who frequently quoted from al Khusaybi are: Sayed Hashim al Hashimi in his discussion with Fadl Allah about al Zahra’ as mentioned on pg. 258-278, 314, 319, 353, 379, and ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi in his book al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 261-264, 452, 491, and Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili who made al Khusaybi’s book one of his sources regarding the incident of the broken rib as in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 2 pg. 59 and 64.
[7] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 67, Number: 159.
[8] Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 54, Number: 40.
[9] Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 339.
[10] Tanqih al Maqal, vol. 1 pg. 40.
[11] Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 167.
[12] Al Wajizah fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg. 194, Number: 548.
[13] Mulakhkhas al Maqal fi Tahqiq Ahwal al Rijal, vol. 3 pg. 162, Number: 2113, titled al Hussain ibn Hamdan al Junbulani.
[14] Du’afa’ al Ruwat, pg. 142.
[15] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 1 pg. 460.
[16] Mukhtasar Mufid, vol. 6 pg. 78 and vol. 18 pg. 242.
[17] Mizan al Haqq, vol. 2 pg. 13-14.
[18] Hadith al Ifk, pg. 267-268; al Sahih min Sirat al Nabi al A’zam, vol. 13 pg. 303.
[19] Majallat Turathuna, issue 56. pg. 230, and similar is mentioned in his book Mu’jam Mu’arrikhi al Shia, vol. 1 pg. 41.
[20] Introduction to the book Tarikh Ahlul Bayt ‘Alayhim al Salam, pg. 57.
[21] Jami’ al Firaq wa al Mazahib al Islamiyyah, pg. 205.
[22] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 67.
[23] Fihrist al Tusi, pg. 110.
[24] Mukhtasar Basa’ir al Darajat, pg. 179.
[25] There is a strange dispute in determining the name of al Khusaybi, with many opinions, including al Hadini and al Khusaybi, but the common name today is al Khusaybi. (Al Khusaybi Hayatuhu wa Atharuhu, pg. 27.)
[26] The concept of Bab al Imam is from the beliefs of the extremist Nusayri sect, who believe that each Imam designates a specific man to be entrusted with his exclusive knowledge and reports, making him the sole source of reference for those who want to know the Imam’s sayings. This man is called Bab al Imam. For example, they claim Salman al Farisi was the Bab (door) of ‘Ali, Safinah was the Bab of al Hassan, Rashid al Hijri was the Bab of al Hussain, Abu Khalid al Kabuli was the Bab of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, continuing until the Twelfth Imam. See Tarikh Ahlul Bayt, pg. 147-151.
[27] It is preserved in the Turkish Nur Uthmaniyyah Library, under no. 3057.
[28] We do not know the manuscript copies relied upon for this edition, as the edition of Mu’assasat al Balagh, which is the well-known one, did not specify the manuscripts used.
[29] As appears in the work of al Nuri al Tabarsi in his book Nafas al Rahman fi Fada’il Salman, pg. 561-566, where he criticised the narrations of the fifteenth chapter and described them as strange and unfamiliar. However, he later stated on pg. 566, “Indeed, the book al Hidayah attributed to him is of utmost strength and precision; we found nothing in it that contradicts the school of thought!” This indicates that al Nuri believed that the narrations of the fifteenth chapter of al Hidayah were part of an independent book.
[30] The book was printed under the title Tarikh al Nabi wa-al A’immah wa-Mu’jizatihim, also known as al Hidayah al Kubra, edited by Mustafa al Himsi, at Mu’assasat al A’lami for Publications. Mustafa al Himsi also published the fifteenth chapter separately under the title Abwab al A’immah al Ma’sumin, published by Dar al Qari’ in Lebanon, in 1432 AH).
[31] Tarikh al Nabi wa-al A’immah wa-Mu’jizatihim, also known as al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 46.
[32] Al Hidayah al Kubra, Mu’assasat al Balagh edition, pg. 29-33.
[33] See manuscript of Majlis al Shura, Manuscript: 7053, folio 1/b; manuscript of al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah, Manuscript: 33038, folio 1/b; manuscript of the Sheikhiyyah of Kirman, Iran, p. 1. We are certain that a full comparison between the printed editions and the manuscripts will reveal many differences, and this issue deserves a separate study.
[34] Al Khusaybi Hayatuhu wa Atharuhu, pg. 203.
[35] Al Shia wa-al Ghulu, pg. 177.
[36] Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 6 pg. 461.
[37] Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, vol. 6 pg. 460.
[38] Ibn Dawood mentioned this in his Rijal, pg. 240.
[39] Al Tabari mentioned his complete lineage: Al Hassan ibn Zaid ibn Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn al Hassan ibn Zaid ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He also narrated the story of his rebellion in Tabaristan in the year 250 AH. See Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 9 pg. 271. This al Hassan ibn Zaid is the one famously known as al Da’i al Kabir.
[40] Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 9 pg. 666; Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa-al Nihayah, vol. 14 pg. 593.
[41] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3 pg. 278.
[42] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3 pg. 278.
[43] Al Jami’ fi al Rijal, vol. 9 pg. 88.
[44] Al Hidayah, pg. 37, 38, 304, 316, 357, 367.
[45] Al Kafi, vol. 1 pg. 330, 346, 512.
[46] Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 501.
[47] As explicitly mentioned in al Hidayah al Kubra by al Khusaybi, pg. 323, the narration indicated that he was the gatekeeper of Imam al ‘Askari.
[48] Rijal al Kashshi, vol. 2 pg. 805.
[49] Sa’d al Qummi: Kitab al Firaq wa-al Maqalat, pg. 100; al Tusi: al Ghaybah, pg. 398, Narration: 370; Bihar al Anwar, vol. 51 pg. 368.
[50] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 18 pg. 318.
[51] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 3 pg. 284.
[52] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, vol. 2 pg. 465.
[53] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 340, Number: 911.
[54] Sheikh al Tusi compiled his biography and mentioned his death in al Fihrist, pg. 37-74, Number: 86.
[55] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 53.
[56] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, vol. 18 pg. 283.
[57] Al Tustari stated in his response to al Mamaqani, who thought the correct number was two, “I say, rather it is contrary to the truth. And how are these two among the companions of al Sadiq, and the other is later. Ibn ‘Uqdah narrated from him in the year 265; perhaps he remained after that date, and this is narrated from him by Aban as in his sermon after his conversion. Perhaps he is his uncle or father’s uncle. (Qamus al Rijal, vol. 9 pg. 593.)
[58] This is the confirmed name in two editions of the book Jami’ Ahadith al Shia, but the correct name is Hamdan.
[59] Jami’ Ahadith al Shia, vol. 7 pg. 423, Mahr-Istawar edition; and vol. 8. pg. 382, Intisharat Wasif Lahiji edition.
[60] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 53 pg. 1, footnote.
[61] A’yan al Shia, vol. 2 pg. 515.
[62] Rijal al Tusi, pg. 344, Number: 5131.
[63] Mukhtasar Basa’ir al Darajat, pg. 179; Bihar al Anwar, vol. 1 pg. 53; Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili: Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 2 pg. 59.
[64] Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 580.
[65] Thus, the correct phrase is: “and they attributed it.”
[66] It was previously mentioned that the correct phrase is: “and they attributed it.”
[67] As such, but the correct is: Dhi al Manakir.
[68] As such, but the correct is: wa saradahu.
[69] Al Bahbudi in his commentary on Bihar al Anwar, vol. 53 pg. 2-3, footnote.
[70] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 60 pg. 67, footnote; several linguistic errors appeared in this passage, which we left as they were.
[71] Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, vol. 2 pg. 235; al Majlisi included the narration in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 1 pg. 53.
[72] The correct is al Hussain ibn Hamdan, who is al Khusaybi.
[73] Thalath Rasa’il, Wilayat al Faqih, pg. 60.