What was Attributed to Sa’id ibn al Musayyab

What was attributed to Sayyidina ‘Ammar ibn Yasir
November 22, 2024
What is Attributed to Sayyidina Jafar al Sadiq
November 25, 2024
Show all
Table of Contents
  1. Narration of al Majlisi from the book Dala’il al Imamah
    1. Study of the Isnad
      1. Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari
      2. Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Malik al Fazari al Kufi
      3. ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Sinan al Sayrafi
      4. Jafar ibn ‘Ali al Hawar
      5. Al Hassan ibn Muskan
      6. Al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
      7. Sa’id ibn al Musayyab
    2. The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad
    3. Discussion on the Narration’s Text
▲

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

What was Attributed to Sa’id ibn al Musayyab

 

Narration of al Majlisi from the book Dala’il al Imamah

 

Al Majlisi said:

 

أجاز لي بعض الأفاضل في مكة زاد الله شرفها رواية هذا الخبر وأخبرني أنه أخرجه من الجزء الثاني من كتاب دلائل الإمامة وهذه صورته حدثنا أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون بن موسى التلعكبري قال حدثنا أبي رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا أبو علي محمد بن همام قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن مالك الفزاري الكوفي قال حدثني عبد الرحمن بن سنان الصيرفي عن جعفر بن علي الحوار عن الحسن بن مسكان عن المفضل بن عمر الجعفي عن جابر الجعفي عن سعيد بن المسيب

Some virtuous individuals in Makkah—may Allah increase its nobility—permitted me to narrate this report. He told me that he extracted it from the second part of the book Dala’il al Imamah.[1] Here is its text: Abu al Hussain Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari narrated to us, saying — my father—may Allah be pleased with him—narrated to us, saying — Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Hammam narrated to us, saying — Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Malik al Fazari al Kufi narrated to us, saying — ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Sinan al Sayrafi narrated to us — from Jafar ibn ‘Ali al Hiwar — from al Hassan ibn Muskan — from al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al Ju’fi — from Jabir al Ju’fi — from Sa’id ibn al Musayyab.

 

He mentioned a lengthy story about a dispute between Yazid ibn Muawiyah and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar after the killing of al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The fabricator of the story claimed that Yazid took out a sealed box containing a document written by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which stated:

 

فلما فشت بيعته علمنا أن عليًا يحمل فاطمة والحسن والحسين إلى دور المهاجرين والأنصار يذكّرهم بيعته علينا في أربعة مواطن ويستنفرهم فيعدونه النصرة ليلًا ويقعدون عنه نهارًا فأتيت داره مستشيرًا لإخراجه منها فقالت الأمة فضة وقد قلت لها قولي لعلي يخرج إلى بيعة أبي بكر فقد اجتمع عليه المسلمون  فقالت إن أمير المؤمنين (ع) مشغول فقلت خلي عنك هذا وقولي له يخرج وإلا دخلنا عليه وأخرجناه كرهًا فخرجت فاطمة فوقفت من وراء الباب فقالت أيها الضالون المكذبون ماذا تقولون وأي شيء تريدون فقلت يا فاطمة فقالت فاطمة ما تشاء يا عمر فقلت ما بال ابن عمك قد أوردك للجواب وجلس من وراء الحجاب فقالت لي طغيانك يا شقي أخرجني وألزمك الحجة وكل ضال غوي فقلت دعي عنك الأباطيل وأساطير النساء وقولي لعلي يخرج فقالت لا حب ولا كرامة أبحزب الشيطان تخوفني يا عمر وكان حزب الشيطان ضعيفًا فقلت إن لم يخرج جئت بالحطب الجزل وأضرمتها نارًا على أهل هذا البيت وأحرِق من فيه أو يقاد علي إلى البيعة وأخذت سوط قنفذ فضربت وقلت لخالد بن الوليد أنت ورجالنا هلموا في جمع الحطب فقلت إني مضرمها فقالت يا عدو الله وعدو رسوله وعدو أمير المؤمنين فضربت فاطمة يديها من الباب تمنعني من فتحه فرمته فتصعب علي فضربت كفيها بالسوط فألمها فسمعت لها زفيرًا وبكاء فكدت أن ألين وأنقلب عن الباب فذكرت أحقاد علي وولوغه في دماء صناديد العرب وكيد محمد وسحره فركلت الباب وقد ألصقت أحشاءها بالباب تترسه وسمعتها وقد صرخت صرخة حسبتها قد جعلت أعلى المدينة أسفلها وقالت يا أبتاه يا رسول الله هكذا كان يفعل بحبيبتك وابنتك آه يا فضة إليك فخذيني فقد والله قتل ما في أحشائي من حمل وسمعتها تمخض وهي مستندة إلى الجدار فدفعت الباب ودخلت فأقبلت إلي بوجه أغشى بصري فصفقت صفقة على خديها من ظاهر الخمار فانقطع قرطها وتناثرت إلى الأرض وخرج عليٌّ فلما أحسست به أسرعت إلى خارج الدار وقلت لخالد وقنفذ ومن معهما نجوت من أمر عظيم

When his allegiance spread,[2] we knew that ‘Ali was taking Fatimah, al Hassan, and al Hussain to the houses of the Muhajirin and Ansar, reminding them of his allegiance to us on four occasions and seeking their support, which they promised by night and neglected by day. So, I went to his house to consult on expelling him from it. The servant Fiddah told me after I said to her, “Tell ‘Ali to come out for the allegiance of Abu Bakr as the Muslims have gathered upon it,” that the Amir al Mu’minin is busy. I said, “Leave this and tell him to come out, or we will enter and bring him out by force.”

Fatimah then came out and stood behind the door, saying, “O misguided and lying people! What do you say? What do you want?”

I said, “O Fatimah!”

She replied, “What do you want, O ‘Umar?”

I said, “What is wrong with your cousin that he has sent you to answer while he sits behind the veil?”

She said, “Your arrogance, O wretched one, has brought me out and imposed the argument on you and every misguided one.”

I said, “Leave off the nonsense and tales of women and tell ‘Ali to come out.”

She said, “No love and no dignity. Are you threatening me with the party of Shaitan, O ‘Umar? Indeed, the party of Shaitan is weak.”

I said, “If he does not come out, I will bring wood and set fire to this house and burn those in it or drag ‘Ali to the allegiance.”

I took the whip of Qunfudh and struck her and I said to Khalid ibn al Walid, “You and our men, come and gather the wood.” I said, “I am setting it on fire.”

She said, “O enemy of Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Amir al Mu’minin.” I struck her hands to prevent her from opening the door, which hurt her. I heard her moaning and crying. I almost relented and turned back from the door, but then I remembered the grudges of ‘Ali and his shedding of the blood of the Arab chiefs and the plots of Muhammad and his sorcery, so I kicked the door, which was pushed by her belly, and I heard her cry out as if the city was turned upside down.

She said, “O father! O Messenger of Allah! This is how they treat your beloved and daughter. O, Fiddah! Take me, for what is in my womb has been killed.” I heard her labour pains as she leaned against the wall. I pushed the door and entered. She turned to me with a face that blinded my vision. I slapped her cheek through her veil, causing her earring to fall to the ground. ‘Ali then came out and when I sensed him, I quickly exited the house and said to Khalid, Qunfudh, and those with them, “I have escaped from a great matter.”[3]

 

Study of the Isnad

We have previously discussed the reality of the book Dala’il al Imamah and its unknown author, so there is no need to repeat it. Nevertheless, this narration is not found in the copies of Dala’il al Imamah, and it is certain that this narration was inserted and fabricated shortly before al Majlisi’s time. The fabricator attributed it to the book Dala’il al Imamah.

Al Majlisi did not mention who granted him permission for this report, which he claimed was taken from the book Dala’il al Imamah. He also did not mention the chain of transmission from this person to the book Dala’il al Imamah. Between him and the supposed author of Dala’il al Imamah are several centuries. This alone is sufficient to reject this fabricated narration. Additionally, its chain of transmission is invalid due to several reasons:

 

Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari

  • Unknown according to al Khu’i’s biographical principles.[4]

There are two objections to his unknown status:

 

Objection 1: If someone were to say: We found that al Khu’i says in his Mu’jam fi al Kuna:

 

أبو جعفر بن هارون قال الشيخ الحر في تذكرة المتبحرين 1087 أبو جعفر بن هارون بن موسى التلعكبري فاضل يروي عن أبيه وكان يحضره النجاشي كما تقدم

Abu Jafar ibn Harun: Sheikh al Hurr said in Tadhkirat al Mutabahhirin (1087): Abu Jafar ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari: An excellent person. He narrates from his father. Al Najashi used to attend his gatherings as mentioned earlier.

 

The point here is that al Khu’i quoted al Hurr al ‘Amili’s description of Muhammad ibn Harun as “excellent” without objecting to his statement. This implies an acknowledgment from al Khu’i that Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa is a virtuous person, which can be considered a commendation or, at the very least, a praise.

We say: This is a grave error and indicates a misunderstanding of al Khu’i’s methodology in evaluating narrators. Our response is twofold:

  1. Al Khu’i does not give weight to the statements of later scholars, defined as those who came after Sheikh al Tusi, such as scholars of the seventh and eighth centuries like al Hilli, Ibn Dawood, and Ibn Tawus. So, how would he consider the opinion of al Hurr al ‘Amili, who belongs to the twelfth century?

Al Khu’i reveals his view on the later scholar’s authentication:

 

وإن كنا لا نعتمد على توثيقات المتأخرين إلا أن جماعة يعتمدون عليها فلا مناص من التعرض لها

Even though we do not rely on the later scholar’s authentication, some do, so it is necessary to address them.[5]

Therefore, if al Khu’i cites a later scholar’s statement, it is only for the purpose of information and not an endorsement or reliance on it.

  1. The term “fadil” (excellent) according to al Khu’i does not indicate praise, let alone authentication, even if it came from early scholars. Hence, al Khu’i would not accept it if it were from later scholars.[6]

Al Khu’i says:

إن الفضل لا يعد مدحًا في الراوي بما هو راو وإنما هو مدح للرجل في نفسه باعتبار اتصافه بالكمالات والعلوم

Virtue is not considered praise for the narrator as a narrator, but rather it is praise for the man himself, considering his possession of virtues and knowledge.[7]

 

Objection 2: If someone were to say: “Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa is one of al Najashi’s teachers, and al Khu’i and others have authenticated all his teachers, so he must be trustworthy based on this principle.”

We respond in two ways:

  1. The idea of authenticating al Najashi’s teachers is a recent invention, seemingly first proposed by Sayed Bahr al ‘Ulum. Muhammad Hassan al Rabbani said:

 

إن الذي قام بتوضيحها والتمهيد لها هو العلامة السيد مهدي بحر العلوم في كتابه الفوائد الرجالية وتبعه على ذلك آية الله الخوئي وتبعه غيره فهذه القاعدة ظهرت في القرن الثالث عشر

The one who clarified and prepared it was ‘Allamah Sayed Mahdi Bahr al ‘Ulum in his book al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, and he was followed by Ayat Allah al Khu’i and others. This principle appeared in the thirteenth century.[8]

 

This is a principle innovated by later scholars and is not universally accepted among many Imami researchers due to the weakness of its evidence. Muhammad Rida al Sistani said:

 

لا دليل على وثاقة جميع شيوخ النجاشي

 There is no evidence for the trustworthiness of all al Najashi’s teachers.[9]

 

‘Ali Akbar al Mazandarani said:

 

فتحصل أن الحكم بوثاقة جميع مشايخ النجاشي مشكل لا دليل عليه

Thus, the ruling of the trustworthiness of all al Najashi’s teachers is problematic and lacks evidence.[10]

 

  1. Assuming the principle of authenticating al Najashi’s teachers is correct—which it is not—we say: Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari is not considered one of al Najashi’s teachers. Not everyone al Najashi narrates from is his teacher. Al Khu’i, who advocates for the authentication of al Najashi’s teachers, set an important condition for distinguishing al Najashi’s teachers from others. Al Khu’i stated that those al Najashi narrates from using terms like “haddathana” (narrated to us) or “akhbarana” (informed us) or any wording indicating direct transmission are considered his teachers in narration, not those he mentions with phrases like “so-and-so said.” Al Khu’i said:

 

يريد النجاشي بما ذكره من توقفه عن الرواية عنه إلا بواسطة بينه وبينه أنه لا يروي عنه طريقه إلى كتاب بمثل حدثني أو أخبرني وأما النقل عنه بمثل قال فقد وقع منه ومما يؤكد ما ذكرناه تفكيك النجاشي بالتعبير

Al Najashi means by his reluctance to narrate from him except with an intermediary is that he does not narrate his path to a book by saying ‘narrated to me’ or ‘informed me.’ However, narrating from him using phrases like ‘said’ has happened. What confirms our statement is al Najashi’s differentiation in expression.[11]

 

Mahmud Dariyab said:

 

إن غاية ما يستفاد من هذه الأدلة توثيق مشايخه رحمه الله من الذين روى عنهم بقوله أخبرنا أو حدثنا لا غيرهم لأن الحد الوسط في هذه الأدلة التي ذكرت هو الرواية والطريق وهو القدر المتيقن في شمولها وما سواه مشكوك فيه إذن دعوى توثيق مطلق مشايخه حتى أولئك الذين تعلم عليهم الفقه أو الأنساب مثلًا أو الذين لم يصرح في النقل عنهم بقوله أخبرنا أو حدثنا دعوى أعم من هذه الأدلة فلا يثبت توثيقهم بها

The most that can be inferred from these evidences is the authentication of his teachers whom he narrates from with phrases like ‘informed us’ or ‘narrated to us,’ not others. This is the certain extent to which these evidences apply, and anything beyond this is doubtful. Thus, the claim of authenticating all his teachers, including those he learned jurisprudence or genealogy from or those he did not explicitly narrate from with phrases like ‘informed us’ or ‘narrated to us’, is a claim broader than what these evidences establish and does not prove their trustworthiness.[12]

 

He further stated that Muhammad ibn Harun is not considered one of al Najashi’s teachers in narration.[13] He also noted that he did not find Muhammad ibn Harun al Tal’akbari in al Najashi’s transmission chains to the sources and books.[14]

Therefore, based on al Khu’i’s methodology, Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari is not one of al Najashi’s teachers because al Najashi did not narrate from him using the phrase ‘narrated to us’ or ‘informed us’. Hence, Muhammad ibn Harun is considered unknown according to al Khu’i’s principles.

 

Objection 3: One might argue that Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari is authenticated by the fact that al Najashi invoked mercy upon him in the biography of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn al Rabi’. Al Najashi said:

 

قال أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون بن موسى رحمه الله

Abu al Hussain Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa, may Allah have mercy on him.[15]

 

Invoking mercy is often seen as an indication of trustworthiness or, at the very least, of goodness.

Response: Al Najashi himself does not consider invoking mercy to be an evidence of trustworthiness. He invoked mercy upon one of his teachers and, at the same time, reported that scholars had weakened him! Al Najashi, in the biography of Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Jawhari, said:

 

رأيت هذا الشيخ وكان صديقًا لي ولوالدي وسمعت منه شيئًا كثيرًا ورأيت شيوخنا يضعفونه فلم أرو عنه شيئًا وتجنبته وكان من أهل العلم والأدب القوي وطيب الشعر وحسن الخط رحمه الله وسامحه

I saw this sheikh; he was a friend of mine and my father, and I heard a lot from him. I saw that our scholars weakened him, so I refrained from narrating anything from him and avoided him. He was a man of knowledge, strong literature, good poetry, and excellent handwriting. May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him.[16]

 

Al Muhaqqiq al Tustari, in his response to al Mamaqani, said:

 

كثيرًا ما يستند المصنف في الحسن إلى ترضي الرجال والترحم مع أنه أيضًا أعم فقد يترحم الإنسان على من كان له معه خلة وصداقة أو كان عليه حق وشفقة أو كان ذا كمال ومعرفة وإن لم يكن ثقة في الديانة

The author frequently relies on the invocation of approval or mercy by the biographer as a sign of goodness, although it is broader than that. A person might invoke mercy on someone with whom they have a special relationship or friendship, or on someone to whom they owe a debt of gratitude, or who possesses qualities of perfection and knowledge, even if they are not trustworthy in religion.[17]

 

Even al Khu’i explicitly stated several times the error in the theory of deriving authentication or goodness from the invocation of mercy by a scholar. Al Khu’i said:

 

الترحم لا يدل على المدح فضلًا عن الوثاقة

 Invoking mercy does not indicate praise, let alone trustworthiness.[18]

 

Conclusion: Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari is unknown, and any claim of his authentication is of no consequence.

 

Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Malik al Fazari al Kufi

  • Ibn al Ghada’iri said about him, “He is a liar, abandoned in hadith altogether. Moreover, in his creed, there is a tendency to extremism. He narrates from the weak and the unknown, and all the flaws of the weak are gathered in him.”[19]
  • Al Najashi said, “Ahmed ibn al Hussain said[20]: “He used to fabricate hadith and narrate from the unknown. I heard someone say: He was also corrupt in creed and narration. I do not know how our noble, trustworthy sheikh Abu ‘Ali ibn Hammam and our great, trustworthy sheikh Abu Ghalib al Zurari, may Allah have mercy on them both, narrated from him.”[21]
  • Hussain al Sa’idi summarised the views of the Imami scholars regarding him, “He is weak in hadith. He would fabricate hadith, corrupt in creed, weakened by Ibn al Walid, Ibn Nuh, al Saduq, Ibn al Ghada’iri, and al Najashi. Al Tusi in his Rijal reported his weakness. Abu Ghalib authenticated him, as did apparently al Sheikh al Tusi, and he was praised by al Khusaybi and Abu al Qasim al Kufi. However, the weakening is preferred because it comes from the major sheikhs and experts, and due to the principle of preferring weakening over authentication when they conflict, along with the presence of corroborative evidence. His narrations show fabrication, concoction, exaggeration, and extreme beliefs.”[22]

 

‘Abdul Rahman ibn Sinan al Sayrafi

  • He is unknown; there is no biography of him in the books of the Imami scholars. Therefore, al Shahrudi said about him,“They did not mention him.”[23]

And despite the man being unknown and not mentioned in the books of Rijal, al Shahrudi tried to improve his status based on his narration of this weak report, which is unusual.

 

Jafar ibn ‘Ali al Hawar

He is unknown and has no biography in the books of the Imami scholars. Al Shahrudi indicated that, “They did not mention him.”[24]

 

Al Hassan ibn Muskan

  • He is unknown and has no biography in the books of the Imami scholars, and it is possible that “al Hassan” is a transcription error, and the correct name might be “al Hussain.” Al Shahid al Thani, in his commentary on one of the narrations, said, “Regarding the narrators, Hussain ibn Muskan is mentioned, so it is possible that ‘Hassan’ is an error, and Hussain ibn Muskan is not considered reliable among the narrators.”[25]
  • Ibn al Ghada’iri said, “I do not know him, except that Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Malik narrated corrupt hadith from him, and our scholars have no knowledge of this him.”[26]
  • Al Khu’i said, “As for al Hassan or al Hussain ibn Muskan, he is definitely unknown… In any case, it is enough to prove the lack of authenticity of al Hussain ibn Muskan that he is an unknown man, not recognised by our scholars.”[27]

 

Al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar

  • He is one of the heads of the extremists. Abu al ‘Abbas al Najashi said about him, “He is corrupt in creed, inconsistent in narration, and not reliable. It is said that he was a Khattabi. He is attributed with books that are not relied upon.”[28] The words of al Najashi are preferred by most of the scholars of Rijal.
  • Sheikh Hussain al Sa’idi, after a detailed study of the status of al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, said, “There are many narrations praising him, most of which are weak, and even if they explicitly praise him, they are insufficient in their implications and contradicted by several authentic narrations condemning him and describing him as an extremist. He was weakened by al Najashi, Ibn al Ghada’iri, and his weakening is preferred by al ‘Allamah al Hilli, Ibn Dawood al Hilli, al Jaza’iri, Muhammad Taha Najaf, and al Bahbudi. His narrations show confusion, extremism, elevation, fabrication, and concoction.”[29]

 

Sa’id ibn al Musayyab

  • He is one of the well-known trustworthy scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah, but he was not explicitly authenticated by the early Imami scholars of Rijal. Neither al Najashi nor al Tusi mentioned him in their indexes. He was only mentioned by al Barqi in his Rijal and by al Tusi in his Rijal among the companions of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain.[30] Al Kashshi mentioned various narrations in his biography, some praising and some criticising him.[31] Al Khu’i examined these narrations and clarified that they do not prove his authenticity or his weakness, either due to the weakness of their chains or because they do not indicate authenticity or weakness, concluding with suspending the matter with regards to his status.[32]
  • The later scholars of Rijal have disagreed about his status. Some, like al Hilli[33], Ibn Dawood,[34] and others[35] considered him trustworthy, while others, like al Shahid al Thani in his commentary on Khulasat al Aqwal,[36] accused him of enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt. He was followed by ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri, who placed Sa’id ibn al Musayyab among the weak narrators.[37]
  • Abu al Qasim al Naraqi said, “The truth is that he was a Sunni with a corrupt creed. It is even said that he was a Nasibi. Therefore, his narrations should not be accepted.”[38]
  • The investigation reveals that he is considered majhul (unknown) by them, as al Khu’i has established the incompleteness of the chain in commendation and disparagement.[39]

 

Thus, Bassam Murtada summarised al Khu’i’s ruling as being undecided on this matter.[40] Meanwhile, al Jawahiri summarised al Khu’i’s ruling on Sa’id by stating that he is, “Unknown.”[41]

In any case, Sa’id ibn al Musayyab is exonerated from narrating this report, as it has been established that this narration does not exist at all in the manuscripts of Dala’il al Imamah, let alone that the previous narrators in the isnad are among the weak, unknown, and extremist narrators.

 

The Opinion of Imamiyyah Scholars on the Isnad

Asif Muhsini ruled that the narration is unreliable in Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar.[42]

 

Discussion on the Narration’s Text

This narration itself bears witness to its fabrication and falsehood, to the extent that even al Majlisi, known for his leniency, stated after mentioning this narration:

 

لم أجد الرواية بغير هذا السند وفيها غرائب

I did not find this narration with any other isnad, and it contains strange elements.[43]

 

The essence of this lengthy report includes that after the killing of al Hussain ibn ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al Khattab protested his killing to Yazid ibn Muawiyah, who then produced a letter from a chest written by his father, ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, in which he admits that he only believed in the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam out of hypocrisy and fear of the sword, that he continued to worship idols and swear by them, that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was a sorcerer, that he defamed the Ka’bah, and other flimsy lies that indicate the corrupt mind of the fabricator of the story and his blatant and obvious lying that only fools would believe.

Sheikh al Imami Jafar al Shakhuri criticised this narration for containing a strange statement attributed to ‘Umar, where he allegedly said, “When I heard its (Hellfire’s) loud roaring, I almost relented and turned back, if not for remembering Muhammad’s deceit and ‘Ali’s bloodshed of the Arab chiefs.” Is it conceivable that he would openly declare his explicit disbelief before the Muslims and expose himself so publicly?

 

NEXT⇒

[1]  The researcher of Dala’il al Imamah by Mu’assasat al Bi’thah has included this narrative in the appendix of the introduction, pg. 62, as it is not present in the manuscripts he relied upon.

[2]  He intended allegiance to Abu Bakr al Siddiq.

[3]  Bihar al Anwar, 30/286-294.

[4]  As mentioned in al Jawahiri: al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 586, and Bassam Murtada: Zubdat al Maqal min Mu’jam al Rijal, 2/409.

[5]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 1/14.

[6]  Al Khu’i on the statement of ‘Ali ibn Ahmed al ‘Aqiqi (who lived in the third century) about Khaytham ibn ‘Abdul Rahman being virtuous: “it does not indicate the specific conditions.” (Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 8/86.)

[7]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 13/172.

[8]  Manahij al Fuqaha’ fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, 1/25.

[9]  Qabasat min ‘Ilm al Rijal, 2/91.

[10]  Miqyas al Ruwat, pg. 159.

[11]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 17/260-261.

[12]  Mashikhat al Najashi Tawthiquhum wa Turuquhum ila al Usul wa al Kutub, pg. 95.

[13]  Mashikhat al Najashi, pg. 201-202.

[14]  Mashikhat al Najashi, pg. 202.

[15]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 79, no. 189.

[16]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 85-86.

[17]  Qamus al Rijal, 1/71.

[18]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 10/215, no. 6102.

[19]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 48.

[20]  He is Ibn al Ghada’iri.

[21]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 122.

[22] Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, 1/363.

[23]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 4/400.

[24]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 2/173.

[25]  Istiqsa’ al I’tibar fi Sharh al Istibsar, 2/27.

[26]  Rijal Ibn al Ghada’iri, pg. 53, no. 37.

[27]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 7/98.

[28]  Rijal al Najashi, pg. 416, no. 1112.

[29]  Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, 3. p. 350.

[30]  Rijal al Barqi, pg. 16; Rijal al Tusi, pg. 114.

[31]  Rijal al Kashshi, 2/332-335.

[32]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/145.

[33]  Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 156.

[34]  Rijal Ibn Dawood, pg. 103.

[35]  Iklil al Manhaj, pg. 278, Muntaha al Maqal, 3/344, Tanqih al Maqal, 1/64, Qamus al Rijal, 5/130, Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 4/81.

[36]  Hashiyat al Shahid al Thani ‘ala Khulasat al Aqwal, pg. 138.

[37]  Hawi al Aqwal, 3/493.

[38]  Shu’bat al Maqal, pg. 186.

[39]  Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 9/145.

[40]  Zubdat al Maqal min Mu’jam al Rijal, 1/492.

[41] Al Mufid min Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 253.

[42]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/37.

[43]  Bihar al Anwar, 30/300.