BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

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

 

1. The narration from Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais

A long narration is reported in Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais^[1] that Sulaim said to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas with Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al Ansari beside him:

 

شهدت النبي عند موته قال نعم لما ثقل رسول الله جمع كل محتلم من بني عبد المطلب وامرأة وصبي قد عقل فجمعهم جميعًا فلم يدخل معهم غيرهم

“Did you witness the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at his death?”

He said, “Yes. When the Messenger of Allah became gravely ill, he gathered every mature male from the sons of ‘Abdul Muttalib as well as every woman and understanding child. He gathered them all; no one else entered with them.”

 

The narration further claims that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam imparted several advices to the Ahlul Bayt, then to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He then spoke to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, telling her:

 

إنك أول من يلحقني من أهل بيتي وأنت سيدة نساء أهل الجنة وسترين بعدي ظلمًا وغيظا حتى تضربي ويكسر ضلع من أضلاعك لعن الله قاتلك ولعن الآمر والراضي والمعين والمظاهر عليك وظالم بعلك وابنيك

You are the first to join me from my household and you are the Queen of the women of Paradise. After me, you will see oppression and rage until you are beaten and a rib from your ribs is broken. May Allah curse your killer and may He curse the one who orders, consents, assists, and supports against you as well as the one who oppresses your husband and your sons.^[2]

 

Study of the Isnad (Chain of Transmission)

The narrations in Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais are one of the main and important sources relied upon by the supporters of the myth of the broken rib, if not its primary source, according to what Sheikh al Imami Hisham al Hashimi said.^[3] This book contains five narrations about this issue, attributed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Salman, and Sulaim ibn Qais.

This narration is fabricated and has no basis, because Sulaim ibn Qais is the name of a man who had no existence in reality. As for the book attributed to him, it is fabricated and has been subjected to tampering and forgery. The text of the narration itself bears witness to its fabrication. This will become clear through discussing Sulaim ibn Qais and his book. We will study the state of Sulaim and his book in several issues:

 

Verifying the state of Sulaim ibn Qais

When studying the opinions of Imami scholars about Sulaim ibn Qais, we found that they differed about him in three views:

 

i. Sulaim ibn Qais is a fictional and fabricated character

This view seems to have existed since the fifth century. Ibn al Ghada’iri (who lived in the fifth century) attributed this view to a group of their scholars, saying in the biography of Sulaim:

 

وكان أصحابنا يقولون إن سليمًا لا يعرف ولا ذ كر في خبر

Our scholars used to say: Sulaim is unknown and is not mentioned in any report.^[4]

 

This view was adopted by ‘Abdul Mahdi al Jalali (from the Imamiyyah) who wrote a detailed article entitled Sulaim ibn Qais Haqiqah Waqi’ah am Shakhsiyyah Mustana’ah.^[5]

 

ii. Sulaim ibn Qais is weak

A group of scholars of hadith listed Sulaim ibn Qais among the weak narrators, such as Zayn al Din al ‘Amili^[6] and ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri^[7], while others judged him as unknown, like Muhammad Salih al Mazandarani^[8]. Some even considered him a liar and suspicious, like Hashim Ma’ruf al Hassani.^[9]

 

iii. Sulaim ibn Qais is trustworthy

The first to state this was al Barqi^[10] and it is the view of several scholars of Rijal^[11] and most of the Akhbaris^[12].^[13] Therefore, Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi (known as the first Majlisi) claimed consensus on the acceptance of Kitab Sulaim.^[14] It is not surprising that he made this claim, as he was one of the leading Akhbaris who believed in the authenticity of all hadith books. He was followed by a group of contemporary Akhbaris^[15], especially the new Akhbaris.^[16]

The first view, which asserts that Sulaim ibn Qais is a fabricated name with no reality, is the most correct view supported by evidence.^[17] The summary^[18] of these reasons includes the fact that everything said about Sulaim ibn Qais is based on the book attributed to him^[19], and all the chains of Kitab Sulaim rely on a single person, Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash.^[20] Moreover, everything narrated about Sulaim in the Imami hadith books is through Aban.^[21] The beginning of the Kitab Sulaim contains a story that clearly appears fabricated, summarising that Sulaim did not narrate his book to anyone except Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash and advised him not to narrate it until after his death.^[22] Aban then narrated this book only to ‘Umar ibn Udhaynah, and this implies that the chain of narration of Kitab Sulaim relies solely on ‘Umar ibn Udhaynah’s narration from Aban. This invalidates all other chains that suggest the narration of someone other than Aban from Sulaim. It will become clear that all the chains of Kitab Sulaim are weak and contain narrators accused of lying and fabrication. Therefore, the investigation shows that Sulaim is a non-existent character.

 

Verification of the book attributed to Sulaim ibn Qais

The opinions of Imami scholars about the state of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais differ into three views:

 

i. Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is not authentic

A group of Imami scholars believe that Kitab Sulaim is fabricated and made up. The first among them is Ibn al Ghada’iri, who says:

 

الكتاب موضوع لا مرية فيه

The book is fabricated, without a doubt.^[23]

 

He accused Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash of fabricating it, saying:

 

وينسب أصحابنا وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس إليه

Our companions attribute the fabrication of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais to him.^[24]

 

This was followed by Ibn Dawood al Hilli^[25] and Abu al Hassan al Sha’rani^[26], who described the book as:

 

كتاب مجعول موضوع نسب وضعه إلى أبان بن أبي عياش وهو ضعيف جدًا

A fabricated and made-up book attributed to Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash, who is very weak.^[27]

 

He also said:

 

ولذلك ترى روايات كتاب سليم بن قيس منقولة في الكتب الأربعة مع أن الكتاب ضعيف مكذوب

Thus, you see the narrations of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais quoted in the four books despite the book being weak and fabricated.^[28]

 

In another place, he said:

 

والراجح أن هذا الكتاب موضوع وينسب إلى أبان بن أبي عياش والظاهر أنه وضعه لغرض صحيح على لسان سليم بن قيس لتعليم الحجة

The preferred view is that this book is fabricated and attributed to Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash.^[29] It appears that it was fabricated for a legitimate purpose, purportedly in the name of Sulaim ibn Qais, to teach about the evidence.^[30]

 

The claim of the fabrication of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais has been attributed to most of the scholars, who said:

 

وقد حكم جل محققي الطائفة بكونه مجعولا

Most of the scholars of the sect have ruled that it is fabricated.^[31]

 

This is what was supported by Hassan Zadah al ‘Amili^[32] and Murtada al Ha’iri:

 

أبان بن أبي عياش مرمي بالضعف وبجعل كتاب سليم والله العالم

Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash is considered weak and accused of fabricating Kitab Sulaim, and Allah knows.^[33]

 

Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi ruled that the book was fabricated by extremists, saying:

 

الذي أعتقده بعد سبر الكتاب صدرًا وذيلًا ونقده كلمة كلمة أن الكتاب موضوع وضعه أحد الغلاة على لسان سليم بن قيس

What I believe after thoroughly examining the book from beginning to end and critically analysing every word, is that the book is fabricated by one of the extremists using the name of Sulaim ibn Qais.^[34]

 

Hussain al Radi included Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais among the fabricated books.^[35]

Some Imami scholars also believe that Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is not authentic due to its weak chain of transmission. The first we found to judge the chain of Kitab Sulaim as weak is Ahmed ibn Musa ibn Tawus al Hilli, who said:

 

الطريق غير معتبر فيه إبراهيم بن عمر الصنعاني وأبان بن أبي عياش طعن فيهما ابن الغضائري

The chain is unreliable; it includes Ibrahim ibn ‘Umar al San’ani and Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash, both whom Ibn al Ghada’iri criticised.^[36]

 

The most famous contemporary scholar holding this view is Abu al Qasim al Khu’i, who said about one of the chains of the Kitab Sulaim:

 

الصحيح أنه لا طريق لنا إلى كتاب سليم بن قيس المروي بطريق حماد بن عيسى عن إبراهيم بن عمر عنه وذلك فإن في الطريق محمد بن علي الصيرفي أبا سمينة وهو ضعيف كذاب

The correct view is that we have no reliable way to Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais narrated through the chain of Hammad ibn ‘Isa, from Ibrahim ibn ‘Umar, from him. This is because the chain includes Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Sayrafi Abu Saminah, who is weak and a liar.^[37]

 

He also said about al Tusi’s chain to the book:

 

وكيفما كان فطريق الشيخ إلى كتاب سليم بن قيس بكلا سنديه ضعيف

In any case, both of al Tusi’s chains to Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais are weak.^[38]

 

This view is shared by the scholar ‘Ali al Sistani, who responded to a question about the authenticity of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais by saying:

 

في سنده إشكال

There is a problem in its chain.^[39]

 

The scholar Muhammad Asif Muhsini said:

 

كتاب سليم لم يصل بسند معتبر ولا أن نسخته وصلت بسند معتبر نعم لبعض ما حكي عنه سند معتبر في مصادر أخرى

Kitab Sulaim has not reached us through a reliable chain nor has its copy reached us through a reliable chain. However, some of what is attributed to it has a reliable chain in other sources.^[40]

 

Haydar Hubb Allah, a professor in the Qom seminary, said:

 

كتاب سليم بن قيس لا قيمة تاريخية له

Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais has no historical value.^[41]

 

The Imami scholar Hussain al Mustafa devoted an extensive and detailed study to Kitab Sulaim in his book al Ta’sis fi Nisbat Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais (Foundations in Attributing Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais). He traced the various chains of the book and their weaknesses and concluded that Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is not authentic.^[42]

 

ii. The original Kitab Sulaim is authentic, but it has been tampered with and falsified

The first to propose this view was al Mufid, who commented on Ibn Babawayh al Qummi’s reliance on a narration from Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, saying:

 

هذا الكتاب غير موثوق به وقد حصل فيه تخليط وتدليس فينبغي للمتدين أن يجتنب العمل بكل ما فيه ولا يعول على جملته والتقليد لروايته وليفزع إلى العلماء فيما تضمَّنه من الأحاديث لِيوقفوه على الصحيح منها والفاسد

This book is not trusted; it has errors and tadlis (omitting sheikhs) in it. Therefore, a religious person should avoid acting on anything in it and should not rely on it as a whole. They should refer to scholars to distinguish the authentic from the false in its content.^[43]

 

Interestingly, this view did not gain much popularity^[44], even though its proponent is one of the greatest Imami scholars. We found that a few Imami scholars supported al Mufid in this view. The most famous contemporary scholar who adopted this view is Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, who said:

 

كتاب سليم بن قيس الذي هو العمدة في الموضوع ليس بمعتمد في صيغته بشهادة الشيخ المفيد وغيره مع أن فيه خلطًا لا يخفى على أحد

Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais which is the valuable source on this subject, is not reliable in its form according to the testimony of Sheikh al Mufid and others and it contains clear tampering.^[45]

 

A group of contemporary Imami scholars have adopted al Mufid’s view. Among them is the scholar, Muhammad Taqi al Tustari, who said:

 

الحق في كتابه أن أصله كان صحيحًا قد نقل عنه الأجلة المشايخ الثلاثة والنعماني والصفار وغيرهم إلا أنه حدث فيه تخليط وتدليس من المعاندين فالعدو لا يألو خبالا كما عرفت من المفيد

It appears that the original book was authentic, as it was narrated by the illustrious sheikhs such as the three major ones, al No’mani, al Saffar, and others, but it has undergone tampering and falsification by opponents. Thus, the adulterer does not leave any good as you understood from al Mufid.^[46]

 

He also said:

 

الأصح ما قال المفيد من وقوع التخليط فيه فلا يعول على جملته فما قامت القرائن من أخباره على صحتها يعمل بها وما قامت على عدمها يجتنب العمل بها وما خلت عنها يتوقف فيها

The correct opinion is what al Mufid said about the occurrence of tampering in it, so one should not rely on it as a whole. Where the indications of its narrations point to its authenticity, it should be acted upon, and where they indicate otherwise, it should be avoided, and where there are no indications, one should remain cautious.^[47]

 

Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah also relied on al Mufid’s words, saying about Kitab Sulaim:

 

هل النسخة الدارجة هي النسخة الأصل لقد تشكك فيها جل أهل التحقيق قال الشيخ المفيد هذا الكتاب غير موثوق به ولا يجوز العمل على أكثره وقد حصل فيه تخليط وتدليس

Is the current version the original one? Most researchers doubt it. Sheikh al Mufid said, “This book is not trusted and it is not permissible to act on most of it. It has undergone tampering and falsification.”^[48]

 

He then listed the evidence for this through the differences in the book’s versions and the criticisms directed at its contents, concluding:

 

قد صح ما قاله قدوة أهل التحقيق الشيخ المفيد قدس سره بشأن الكتاب

This is clearly stated by the leading investigator, Sheikh al Mufid, regarding the book.^[49]

 

Similarly, Murtada al ‘Askari, in several places, refuted the narrations of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais based on al Mufid’s words. He said:

 

كان سليم من أصحاب أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام غير أن النسخة المنسوبة إليه انتشرت بعد وفاته

Sulaim was one of the companions of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, but the version attributed to him spread after his death.^[50]

 

He then quoted the aforementioned words of al Mufid.

Contemporary scholar Kamal al Haydari also adopted this view, combining it with the weakening of the book’s chain of transmission. He said about Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais:

 

كان متروك العمل به…لما ورد فيه من طعن كبير

It was abandoned in terms of acting upon it… due to the severe criticism it has received.^[51]

 

He also said:

 

من نقاط الضعف الأخرى في الكتاب أن راويه الوحيد أو الأبرز هو أبان بن أبي عياش الذي عبروا عنه بأنه ضعيف الرواية جدًا حتى نسب الكثير من أعلامنا هذا الكتاب له

Another point of weakness in the book is that its sole or main narrator is Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash, who is described as very weak in narration, and many of our prominent figures attributed this book to him.^[52]

 

He summarised his opinion on the book, saying:

 

خلاصة القول في كتاب سليم بن قيس الهلالي هو أن الهلالي نفسه ثقة عظيم الشأن إلا أن الكتاب المنسوب له غير موثوق به

In summary, Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali is that al Hilali himself is a trusted, highly regarded figure, but the book attributed to him is not trusted.^[53]

 

He then quoted the aforementioned words of al Mufid.

Al Mufid’s view is also what Muhammad Rida al Sistani chose in his judgement on Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, stating his position:

 

لعل القول الوسط فيه هو ما ذكره الشيخ المفيد

Perhaps the moderate opinion about it is what Sheikh al Mufid mentioned.

 

He then quoted al Mufid’s words, saying:

 

يظهر أن الكتاب ليس موضوعًا وإن ادعاه البعض ولكن ليس كل ما فيه صحيحًا يمكن التعويل عليه بل لا بد من تمييز الصحيح منه عن الفاسد بالأساليب العلمية المتبعة في أمثاله

It appears that the book is not fabricated, as some claim, but not everything in it is correct and reliable. It is necessary to distinguish the correct from the false using the established academic methods.^[54]

 

Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli also seems to incline towards this view, summarising his opinion on the book by saying:

 

والوجه عندي الحكم بتعديل المشار إليه والتوقف في الفاسد من كتابه

In my opinion, the best approach is to deem the mentioned person (Sulaim) as just, and to remain cautious about the falsehoods in his book.^[55]

 

His words mean that the book contains both good and bad content.

Al Damad followed this, saying about Sulaim:

 

ينسب إليه هذا الكتاب المشهور المشتمل على مناكير فاسدة…والحق عندي فيه وفاقًا للعلامة وغيره من وجوه الأصحاب تعديله واستفساد الفاسد من الكتاب المنسوب إليه

This well-known book attributed to him contains corrupt, strange things… and the truth, in my opinion, agreeing with the likes of al ‘Allamah and other prominent scholars, is to deem him (Sulaim) as just and to reject the corrupt content in the book attributed to him.^[56]

 

iii. Kitab Sulaim is reliable and authentic

The first to clearly state this among Imami scholars was Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al No’mani (who lived in the fourth century), who said:

 

ليس بين جميع الشيعة ممن حمل العلم ورواه عن الأئمة عليهم السلام خلاف في أن كتاب سليم بن قيس الهلالي أصل من أكبر كتب الأصول التي رواها أهل العلم ومن حملة حديث أهل البيت عليهم السلام وأقدمها …وهو من الأصول التي ترجع الشيعة إليها ويعول عليها

There is no disagreement among all the Shia, those who carried knowledge and narrated it from the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam, that Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali is one of the major foundational books that the people of knowledge have narrated and one of the earliest… and it is one of the foundational sources that the Shia refer to and rely upon.^[57]

 

This is also the view of the majority of Akhbaris^[58], and a group of contemporary scholars^[59], especially the new Akhbaris.^[60]

This view does not hold up to academic scrutiny. All the arguments used by its proponents to validate Aban’s reliability are not worthy. None of the early scholars of Rijal validated Aban. On the contrary, the early scholars of Rijal unanimously agreed on his weakness. Ibn al Ghada’iri and al Tusi considered him weak, as did a group of later scholars. Therefore, Hussain al Sa’idi listed him among the weak narrators in his book on weak narrators, saying:

 

ضعيف تابعي روايته في مدرسة الخلفاء مشهورة نسب إليه وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس ضعفه ابن الغضائري والطوسي وعده من الضعفاء العلامة الحلي وابن داوود والجزائري ومحمد طه نجف والبهبودي

Weak, a Tabi’i. His narration is famous in the school of the khalifas. The fabrication of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is attributed to him. He was deemed weak by Ibn al Ghada’iri and al Tusi and considered weak by ‘Allamah al Hilli, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi.^[61]

 

The most reliable of these opinions is the first one, which concludes that Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is fabricated, given that Sulaim ibn Qais is a fabricated character. All the chains of transmission of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais revolve around one person, Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. The chains of Kitab Sulaim can be divided into three categories based on their sources:

• The chains found in the Imami narrative sources that quoted some narrations from Sulaim ibn Qais.
• The chains found in books of Rijal, indexes, and authorisations.
• The chains found in some manuscript copies of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais.

Muhammad Baqir al Zanjani al Ansari listed 21 chains^[62], all ending with Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash. Imami scholar, Hussain al Mustafa, conducted a study on all the chains of the book, concluding that they are all weak:

 

لا نجد في طرق كتاب سليم بن قيس طريقًا واحدًا يسلم مما يبطله أو يجعله في موضع الضعف الشديد الذي لا يصح معه الاحتجاج ولا الاستدلال على ثبوت الكتاب به

We do not find a single chain for Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais that is free from invalidation or that places it in a state of severe weakness that does not allow for its use as evidence or proof of the book’s authenticity.^[63]

 

Some have tried to claim that the origin of the weakening of Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash comes from Sunni scholars^[64], but this is mere speculation. Al Tusi and Ibn al Ghada’iri did not report the weakening of Aban from any Sunni scholars. This method of justifying some weak narrators is based on a faulty premise, namely that the weakening of Aban, agreed upon by Sunni scholars and classical Imamiyyah, is not reliable because it originates from Sunni scholars, which is a false claim.

Even if we hypothetically accept this claim and disregard the weakening of Aban, the result would be that he is unknown, as no classical scholar validated him. Unless they argue that the absence of criticism implies reliability, which is an absurd notion.

Some have also tried to validate Aban based on what is mentioned in Kitab Sulaim, that Sulaim trusted him and informed him about the book. This is strange, as it is a method that relies on the self-validation of narrators. Al Khu’i rejected this method in the introduction to his Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, saying:

 

ربما يستدل بعضهم على وثاقة الرجل أو حسنه برواية ضعيفة أو برواية نفس الرجل وهذا من الغرائب فإن الرواية الضعيفة غير قابلة للاعتماد عليها كما أن في إثبات وثاقة الرجل وحسنه بقول نفسه دورًا ظاهرًا

Some might argue for the reliability or soundness of a person based on a weak narration or the person’s own statement, which is strange! A weak narration is unreliable, and using a person’s own statement to prove his reliability or soundness is clearly circular.^[65]

 

Al Khu’i even considered this method laughable, saying:

 

الاستدلال على وثاقة شخص وعظم رتبته بقول نفسه من الغرائب بل من المضحكات

Arguing for the reliability of a person or his high status using his own words is strange, even laughable.^[66]

 

In conclusion, even if we overlook all the other defects in the chains of Kitab Sulaim and ignore the fact that it is a fabricated book, the result is that the chain of the book does not hold up according to Imami principles, thereby invalidating the book as a source of evidence.^[67]

 

A significant issue arises concerning the narrations of the rib-breaking incident in Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais

We have observed, during our study of the rib-breaking narrations attributed to Sulaim ibn Qais in his book, that the early scholars who transmitted numerous narrations from Sulaim, such as al Kulayni, al No’mani, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, al Mufid, al Sharif al Murtada, al Tusi, and their peers among the early scholars and others, did not transmit any narration of the rib-breaking incidents from Sulaim. The earliest person we found to transmit this from Kitab Sulaim was Abu Mansur al Tabarsi (who lived in the 6th century) in al Ihtijaj. These narrations appeared in later copies of Kitab Sulaim, which Imam Ahmed al Katib, the Imami researcher, noticed. He said:

 

لقد انتبهت وأنا أكتب هذه السطور الى عدم ذكر الكليني 329 في الكافي لرواية سليم، ولأية رواية أخرى حول الهجوم على بيت الزهراء وكذلك للتفاصيل الأخرى التي ستشيع من بعده في القرن الرابع الهجري رغم أن الكافي يعتبر من أول وأصح الكتب عند الإمامية ولكنه مع ذلك لم يذكر شيئًا عن حكاية التهديد بالإحراق أو الإحراق الفعلي بالنار أو ضرب الزهراء أو إسقاط جنينها وما إلى ذلك من الروايات المختلقة التي رويت على لسان سليم بن قيس الهلالي في كتابه المزعوم رغم أن الكليني كما يبدو كان يعرف كتاب سليم ونقل عنه بعض الأحاديث

As I write these lines, I noticed the absence of al Kulayni (d. 329 AH) in al Kafi regarding any narration from Sulaim or any other narration concerning the attack on the house of Fatimah al Zahra’, as well as other details that spread after him in the 4th century AH, although al Kafi is considered one of the earliest and most reliable books among the Imamiyyah. Nevertheless, it does not mention anything about the story of the threat of burning, actual burning with fire, striking Fatimah, causing her miscarriage, and other fabricated narrations attributed to Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali in his alleged book, despite al Kulayni seemingly knowing Kitab Sulaim and transmitting some of its traditions.^[68]

 

Here rises an important question: What confirms that the rib-breaking narrations in Kitab Sulaim are not fabricated narrations in the book, especially since Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais has been subjected to distortion and manipulation, as stated by al Mufid and other Imami scholars?

 

NEXT⇒ 2. The Narration of al Amali

---

^[1]  We have used the phrase Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais in the research because it is the widely-known term academically. However, what we will prove in this study upholds that there is no authentic origin for this book, as the character of Sulaim is fabricated and the book is also fabricated and has no basis, as we will explain in detail.

^[2]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 424-427.

^[3]  Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah hawla al Zahra’, pg. 420.

^[4]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 63.

^[5]  The original article is in Persian and was translated by Nazirah Ghallab and published in issue 26 of the journal: Contemporary Texts.

^[6]  In his footnotes on al Khulasah of al Hilli, pg. 144. Also printed within the book: Rasa’il al Shahid al Thani, 2/993.

^[7]  He mentioned Sulaim ibn Qais in the section of the weak in his book Hawi al Aqwal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, 3/512.

^[8]  Sharh Usul al Kafi, 2/163.

^[9]  Al Mawdu’at fi al Athar wa-al Akhbar, pg. 184.

^[10]  Rijal al Barqi, pg. 4.

^[11]  Al Hilli: Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 163; Rijal Ibn Dawood, pg. 106; Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul Rida al Basri: Fa’iq al Maqal, pg. 166; al Khawaju’i: al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, pg. 323; al Kazimi: Takmilat al Rijal, 1/573; al Mamaqani: Tanqih al Maqal, 1/68; and others.

^[12]  The Akhbaris are Twelver Shia who reject the use of reasoning to derive verdicts and believe in the authenticity of all hadith books.

^[13]  Al Majlisi, the father: Rawdat al Muttaqin, 14/372; al Majlisi, the son: Bihar al Anwar, 1/32; al Majlisi, the son: Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 3/291; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia, 20/36, 42; Hashim al Bahrani: Ghayat al Maram, pg. 546; Yusuf al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nazirah, 25/372-373; al Nuri: Khatimat Mustadrak al Wasa’il, 6/158 and others.

^[14]  Rawdat al Muttaqin fi Sharh Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih, 2/92.

^[15]  Muhammad Baqir al Ansari has gathered the views of a group of them in the introduction to the research on Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 1/111-114.

^[16]  These are not Akhbaris in the well-known sense of the academic term, but they practically follow the path of Akhbaris in authenticating narrations. At the forefront of these is the authority Muhammad al Sanad in his book Islam Ma’iyyat al Thaqalayn, pg. 61-64, and the authority Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani in his book al Sayyidah al Zahra’ bayn al Fada’il wa-al Zalamat, pg. 75-77.

^[17]  One of the first to point this out and discuss it in detail was Dr. Nasir al Qifari in his book Usul Mazhab al Shia, 1/221-225, and 1/386.

^[18]  ‘Abdul Mahdi al Jalali detailed the discussion about these evidences in his article about Sulaim ibn Qais published in the journal Nusus Mu’asirah, issue 26 pg. 226-257. What we mentioned is a summary of the most important evidence he relied on.

^[19]  Majallat Nusus Mu’asirah, issue 26, pg. 256.

^[20]  Ibn al Nadim said, “Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali was narrated by Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash and no one else narrated it.” This was confirmed by Muhammad Baqir al Zanjani in the introduction to his verification of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 1/230, and Muhammad Rida al Sistani in Qabasat min ‘Ilm al Rijal, 2/199.

^[21]  Ahmed al ‘Uqayqi said, “No one narrated from Sulaim ibn Qais except Aban,” (Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 83.) and Ibn Dawood said, “No one narrated from him except Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash.” (Rijal Ibn Dawood, pg. 249.) Ibn al Ghada’iri disagreed, stating that he found references to Sulaim apart from his book and not narrated by Aban. (Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 63-64.) Al Khu’i also noted in Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/235, that there are narrations from Sulaim not through Aban in al Kafi and others, but the correct view is otherwise, that the other narrations thought to be from Sulaim not through Aban are due to a drop in the chain, and Muhammad Baqir al Zanjani examined all narrations from Sulaim and concluded that Aban is the only narrator from Sulaim. He followed up on all places where it was thought that someone other than Aban narrated from Sulaim and answered them by noting the drop or distortion in the chain. He said in the introduction to his verification of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 1/295, “By considering the section of the extraction of narrations at the end of the book and a precise comparison between the chains in its various narrations, as well as considering the chains of his book, it is known that the very few narrations attributed to Sulaim without Aban as an intermediary—no more than five—are either due to a drop in their chains, distortions, or a rearrangement by copyists due to confusion during listening, reading, or writing.” Likewise, Muhammad Rida al Sistani stated that the only narrator of Kitab Sulaim is Aban, saying, “He is the sole narrator of this book,” and he said, “In the existing copy of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, it is stated that Sulaim did not hand over his book to anyone except Aban at the time of his death.”

In summary, the sources agree that Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayyash is the only narrator of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais. Muhammad Rida al Sistani quoted al Khu’i’s statement claiming another narrator from Sulaim and followed it by saying, “But it is strongly suspected that there is a drop in the mentioned chain in the two books, as Sulaim ibn Qais is from the second generation, and Ibrahim ibn ‘Umar is from the later fourth generation, and it appears that he did not meet him.” See: Qabasat min ‘Ilm al Rijal, 2/199-200.

^[22]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 2/558-559.

^[23]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 36.

^[24]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 36.

^[25]  Rijal Ibn Dawood, pg. 249. Muhammad Rida al Jalali, in his verification of Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 118, attributed this statement to Ibn al Ghada’iri, mentioning it in his addenda to the text, but since the famous copy of Ibn al Ghada’iri is devoid of this text, it was attributed to Ibn Dawood.

^[26]  Al Mazandarani: Sharh Usul al Kafi with the annotation of al Sha’rani, 2/307, footnotes; al Fayd al Kashani: Al Wafi with the annotation of al Sha’rani, 22/635 and 26/58; Pajhohish-hai Qur’ani ‘Allamah Sha’rani Dar Tafasir Majma’ al Bayan Ruh al Jinan wa Manhaj al Sadiqin, 3/144. The book is in Persian and contains Arabic texts and its title is translated as: Qur’anic Researches by ‘Allamah Sha’rani. It should be noted that although ‘Allamah Sha’rani ruled that Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais is fabricated, he finds no harm in relying on the book if it is supported by a rational or transmitted evidence. (Al Mazandarani: Sharh Usul al Kafi with the annotation of al Sha’rani 2/308 footnotes 1, and 2/139 footnote 1.)

^[27]  Al Fayd al Kashani: Al Wafi with the annotation of al Sha’rani, 22/635, footnotes.

^[28]  Pajhohish-hai Qur’ani ‘Allamah Sha’rani Dar Tafasir Majma’ al Bayan Ruh al Jinan wa Manhaj al Sadiqin, 3/144. The book is in Persian and contains Arabic texts and its title is translated as: Qur’anic Researches by ‘Allamah Sha’rani.

^[29]  It appears as “Ibn Abi ‘Abbas” in the printed copy, and this is a clear typo.

^[30]  Al Fayd al Kashani: Al Wafi with the annotation of al Sha’rani, 26/58, footnotes.

^[31]  Al Mazandarani: Sharh Usul al Kafi with the footnotes of al Sha’rani 11/87, footnotes, and 10/132, footnotes.

^[32]  Thaman Rasa’il ‘Arabiyyah, pg. 287.

^[33]  Kitab al Khums, pg. 646.

^[34]  Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 363, 359 and 346.

^[35]  Al Mu’amarat al Kubra ‘ala Madrasat Ahlul Bayt, pg. 314.

^[36]  Al Tahrir al Tawusi, pg. 253.

^[37]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/235.

^[38]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/237.

^[39]  This was quoted by Hussain al Mustafa in al Ta’sis fi Nisbat Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 63.

^[40]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/23.

^[41]  Ida’at fi al Fikr wa-al Din wa-al Ijtima’, 2/536.

^[42]  Al Ta’sis fi Nisbat Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 65-87.

^[43]  Tashih I’tiqadat al Imamiyyah, pg. 149-150.

^[44]  Indeed, the jurist Muhammad Sanad took a different approach, attributing to al Mufid the opposite of his statement, where he says in his book Islam Ma’iyyat al Thaqalayn la Islam al Mushaf Munsalikhan ‘an al Hadith, pg. 61, “Sheikh al Mufid in Tashih I’tiqadat insists on relying on Kitab Sulaim and considers it one of the sources. However, there is a word in the copies of the book that has been misrepresented and cannot be corrected except through the expertise of scholars.” Muhammad Sanad’s claim is flawed because al Mufid considers the book unreliable and subjected to alterations, while Muhammad Sanad attributes to him an insistence on relying on the book! Moreover, there is a word that has been misrepresented, but al Mufid actually stated that the book was subjected to confusion and tampering. How different is this from what al Mufid said.

^[45]  Jafar Murtada quoted this statement from Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/141.

^[46]  Qamus al Rijal, 5/239.

^[47]  Al Akhbar al Dakhilah, 1/234.

^[48]  Siyanat al Qur’an min al Tahrif, pg. 226.

^[49]  Siyanat al Qur’an min al Tahrif, pg. 227.

^[50]  Al Qur’an al Karim wa-Riwayat al Madrasatayn, 3/66. He quoted the words of al Mufid at another place, 3/170, and refuted the narration of Sulaim ibn Qais in a third place based on what al Mufid mentioned, 3/180.

^[51]  Al Mawruth al Rawa’i bayna al Nash’ah wa-al Ta’thir, from the research of al Marja’ al Dini Kamal al Haydari by the pen of his student, Talal al Hassan, pg. 277.

^[52]  Al Mawruth al Rawa’i bayna al Nash’ah wa-al Ta’thir, pg. 277.

^[53]  Al Mawruth al Rawa’i bayna al Nash’ah wa-al Ta’thir, pg. 281. As for his reference to applying the basic principles to the narrations of Kitab Sulaim, this does not negate the claim of the book’s weakness, because all the principles he mentioned for correction are external evidence. Furthermore, Kamal al Haydari has clearly stated in another book that his method with weak narrations is that if they conform to the Qur’an, he considers their content valid without definitively attributing them to the infallible. See his words in his book Islam al Qur’an wa Islam al Hadith, pg. 94 and Kitabat Mizan Tashih al Mawruth al Rawa’i, pg. 268, by the pen of Talal al Hassan.

^[54]  Qabasat min ‘Ilm al Rijal, 2/201.

^[55]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 163. And for benefit, Zayn al Din al ‘Amili in his marginal notes on al Khulasah commented on the words of al ‘Allamah saying, “There is no reason to hesitate on the invalid. But in the book, due to the weakness of its chain of transmission as I have seen, and if descending, it should be said: rejection of the invalid part and tawaqquf on the rest.” (Rasa’il al Shahid al Thani, 2/993.)

^[56]  Al Ta’liqah ‘ala Kitab al Kafi, pg. 145.

^[57]  Al Ghaybah, pg. 103.

^[58]  Al Majlisi, the father: Rawdat al Muttaqin, 14/372; al Majlisi, the son: Bihar al Anwar, 1/32; al Majlisi, the son: Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 3/291; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia, 20/36, 42; Hashim al Bahrani: Ghayat al Maram, pg. 546; Yusuf al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nazirah, 25/372-373; al Nuri: Khatimat Mustadrak al Wasa’il, 6/158 and others.

^[59]  Muhammad Baqir al Ansari compiled in the introduction of his verification of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais the statements of a group of them, 1/111-114.

^[60]  These are not Akhbaris in the well-known sense of the academic term, but they practically follow the path of Akhbaris in authenticating narrations. At the forefront of these is the authority Muhammad al Sanad in his book Islam Ma’iyyat al Thaqalayn, pg. 61-64, and the authority Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani in his book al Sayyidah al Zahra’ bayn al Fada’il wa-al Zalamat, pg. 75-77.

^[61]  Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, 1/139.

^[62]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 1/207.

^[63]  Al Ta’sis fi Nisbat Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 87.

^[64]  See the introduction to Tahqiq Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, 1/222-223.

^[65]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 1/39.

^[66]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 1/280.

^[67]  Hussain al Mustafa traced all the chains of transmission of Kitab Sulaim in his book al Ta’sis fi Nisbat Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 65–88. He demonstrated their weakness and refuted many of the arguments of the opponents for their authentication. For this reason, we refrained from extensive critique of the book’s chains of transmission and sufficed with clarifying the status of Aban since the chains of the book revolve around him.

^[68]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah Wahdat al Din Khilaf al Siyasah wa-al Tarikh, pg. 129.