What was attributed to Sayyidina ‘Ammar ibn Yasir
What is attributed to Sayyidina Salman
November 22, 2024What was Attributed to Sa’id ibn al Musayyab
November 22, 2024BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
What was attributed to Sayyidina ‘Ammar ibn Yasir
The Narration of Dala’il al Imamah
The author of Dala’il al Imamah said:
حدثني أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن أحمد الطبري القاضي قال أخبرنا القاضي أبو الحسين علي بن عمر بن الحسن بن علي بن مالك السياري قال أخبرنا محمد بن زكريا الغلابي قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن عمارة الكندي قال حدثني أبي عن جابر الجعفي عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي عن أبيه علي بن الحسين عليهم السلام عن محمد بن عمار بن ياسر قال سمعت أبي عمار بن ياسر يقول سمعت رسول الله يقول وحملت بمحسن فلما قبض رسول الله وجرى ما جرى في يوم دخول القوم عليها دارها وإخراج ابن عمها أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وما لحقها من الرجل أسقطت به ولدًا تمامًا وكان ذلك أصل مرضها ووفاتها صلوات الله عليها
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Ahmed al Tabari al Qadi, informed me saying — al Qadi Abu al Hussain ‘Ali ibn ‘Umar ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Malik al Sayyari informed us saying — Muhammad ibn Zakariyya al Ghulabi informed us saying — Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Umarah al Kindi informed us saying — my father told me— from Jabir al Ju’fi — from Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali — from his father ‘Ali ibn al Hussain — from Muhammad ibn ‘Ammar ibn Yasir who said I heard my father ‘Ammar ibn Yasir say: I heard the Messenger of Allah say…
Fatimah was pregnant with Muhsin. When the Messenger of Allah passed away—and what happened on the day the people entered her house and expelled her cousin, Amir al Mu’minin; she miscarried a full-term child, and this was the origin of her illness and death, peace be upon her.[1]
Study of the Isnad
The book Dala’il al Imamah is one of the major supports for the myth of the broken rib, containing several narrations on the issue. Some Imamiyyah scholars have judged some of these narrations as authentic, as will be discussed. Hence, a detailed study of this book is necessary.
1. Identifying Ibn Jarir al Tabari and the book Dala’il al Imamah attributed to him
It is well-known that the name Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari is shared between two individuals:
- Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari (310 AH): The eminent Sunni scholar known for his history Tarikh and exegesis Tafsir, who is well-known and whose work is not the subject of our discussion here. Hence, we have not encountered the book Dala’il al Imamah being attributed to him.
- Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari: The well-known Imamiyyah scholar. Sheikh al Tusi wrote in his biography:
محمد بن جرير بن رستم الطبري الكبير يكنى أبا جعفر دين فاضل وليس هو صاحب التاريخ فإنه عامي المذهب وله كتب جماعة منها كتاب المسترشد
Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari al Kabir, known as Abu Jafar, is a pious and virtuous man, but he is not the historian who follows the Sunni school. He has several books, including Kitab al Mustarshid.[2]
His Kitab al Mustarshid fi al Imamah is well-known and circulated.
However, some mistakenly thought there was a third Tabari, a figure who has been the subject of debate among Imamiyyah scholars and has led many into confusion and errors. The book from which we quoted the narration, Dala’il al Imamah, is attributed to this figure. This individual is referred to as Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari al Saghir. The first to claim the existence of this figure was Sheikh ‘Abdullah al Mamaqani (1351 AH), who estimated that he lived in the fifth century. This contradicted the view of previous Imamiyyah scholars who attributed the book Dala’il al Imamah to Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari al Kabir, the author of al Mustarshid, without addressing the existence of al Tabari al Saghir.
It appears that Ibn Shahrashub (588 AH), author of Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’, was the first to mistakenly attribute the book to Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari al Kabir.[3]
However, the researcher, al Tustari, believes that the first to attribute the book to al Tabari al Kabir was Sayed ‘Ali ibn Musa ibn Tawus (664 AH).[4] Al Tustari (1415 AH) detailed this theory, explaining that the confusion about the book and its author results from an error made by Ibn Tawus. Al Tustari briefly summarises this, stating:
أول من وهم في ما أعلم أن هذا الكتاب لمحمد بن جرير بن رستم علي بن طاووس فنقل في آخر نجومه معجزات عن المعصومين عليهم السلام ونقل عن هذا الكتاب معجزات من الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب عليهما السلام إلى المهدي عليه السلام إلا الباقر عليه السلام وفي كل من العشرة يقول يروى عن دلائل الإمامة للشيخ محمد بن رستم الطبري ووجه توهمه أنه رأى في بعض مواضع الكتاب في أول السند قال أبو جعفر محمد بن جرير الطبري وأولها في النسخة الموجودة في ذكر معجزات الحسن عليه السلام ثم بعده إلى خمسة عشر خبرًا قال أبو جعفرحدثنا فلان فظن أن المراد به مصنف الكتاب كما قد يعبر القدماء في تصانيفهم عن أنفسهم إلا أن ذلك أعم فكما يحتمل ذلك يحتمل أن يكون كما قد يقال قال فلان في كتابه نقلًا عن آخر فهو نظير قوله في الكتاب كثيرًا روى فلان مثلًا ممن تقدم عصره بكثير ولعل في ما لم يصل إلينا في أحوال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أو النبي قال في أول الكتاب قال محمد بن جرير الطبري في كتابه دلائل الأئمة بمعنى نقل صاحب الكتاب الموجود عنه فظنه ابن طاووس المصنف
The first one to be mistaken, as far as I know, that this book is by Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam is ‘Ali ibn Tawus. In the last sections of his book al Nujum, he narrated miracles attributed to the infallibles and narrated miracles from this book concerning al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to al Mahdi, except for al Baqir. In every ten narrations, he says, “It is narrated from Dala’il al Imamah by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Rustam al Tabari.” The reason for his mistake is that he saw in some parts of the book, at the beginning of the chain of narration, it states, “Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari said,” with the first instance appearing in the existing copy in the miracles of al Hassan. Then, after fifteen narrations, it states, “Abu Jafar said: So-and-so narrated to us…” So, he thought that the author of the book was meant, as early scholars often referred to themselves in their writings. However, this is a general statement, and while it could mean that, it could also mean—as it is often said—“the person is saying in his book” transmitting from another, it is like frequently saying in the book, “So-and-so narrated,” for example, from those who preceded his era by much. Similarly, in what has not reached us about the conditions of Amir al Mu’minin or the Prophet, he might say at the beginning of the book, “Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari said in his book Dala’il al Imamah,” meaning that the author of the existing book quoted from him, but Ibn Tawus thought it was the author.[5]
Al Tustari then adds the names of scholars who followed Ibn Tawus in this misunderstanding, saying:
وتبع ابن طاووس في الوهم من تأخر عنه كالمجلسي فينقل ما في هذا الواصل إلينا ناسبًا له إلى محمد بن جرير بن رستم الطبري في دلائله إلا أنه حيث رأى أن الشيخ والنجاشي لم يعدا لابن رستم غير المسترشد ولم يكن المسترشد وصل إليه قال في أول بحاره بعد أن ذكر أن مِن مداركه دلائل الطبري ذاك قال ويسمى بالمسترشد وتبعه السيد البحراني فقال أيضًا في مدينة معاجزه في ذكر مداركه وكتاب الإمامة لمحمد بن جرير بن رستم الطبري
Ibn Tawus was followed in this error by those who came after him, such as al Majlisi. He attributed what was transmitted to us to Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari in his Dala’il. However, it is clear that al Sheikh and al Najashi did not mention anything about Ibn Rustam other than al Mustarshid and al Mustarshid had not reached them. He said in the beginning of his book after mentioning some of the sources of Dala’il al Tabari: And it is known by the name al Mustarshid. Al Sayed al Bahrani also followed him and said in his Madinat Ma’ajizihi fi Dhikr Madarikihi, “and Kitab al Imamah is by Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari.”[6]
Among those who pointed out the error in attributing the book Dala’il al Imamah to Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Kabir is the scholar Agha Buzurg al Tahrani (1389 AH). He described al Tabari al Saghir by saying:
محمد بن جرير أبو جعفر الطبري المتأخر الصغير في مقابل الكبير الذي ترجم له النجاشي والصغير هذا هو صاحب كتاب الإمامة الذي أكثر النقل عنه السيد هاشم البحراني في مدينة المعاجزوذكر في أول مدينة المعجزات أن كتاب الإمامة لأبي جعفر محمد بن جرير بن رستم الطبري الآملي كثير العلم حسن الكلام وظاهره أنه اعتقد أن صاحب كتاب الإمامة الذي ينقل عنه هو بعينه ابن جرير الطبري الإمامي صاحب المسترشد الذي ترجم له النجاشي بهذا الاسم والنسب والوصف وبالجملة فصاحب الترجمة متأخر بكثير عن محمد بن جرير الكبير صاحب كتاب المسترشد
Muhammad bin Jarir, Abu Ja’far al Tabari, the latter, al Saghir as opposed to al Kabir one whom al Najashi wrote about. Al Tabari al Saghir is the author of Kitab al Imamah, which Sayed Hashim al Bahrani frequently referenced in Madinat al Ma’ajiz… He mentioned at the beginning of Madinat al Ma’ajiz that Kitab al Imamah is by Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir bin Rustam al Tabari al Amili, a man of great knowledge and eloquent speech, and it appears that he believed that the author of Kitab al Imamah he was quoting was indeed Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Imami the author of al Mustarshid, whom al Najashi wrote about with this name, lineage, and description. In short, the biography is much later than Muhammad bin Jarir al Kabir, the author of al Mustarshid.[7]
According to the previous statements by scholars and experts of books like al Tahrani and al Tustari, attributing the book Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir is undoubtedly and certainly incorrect, due to the difference in the generation of the teachers from whom the author of Dala’il al Imamah narrated, compared to the teachers of al Tabari al Kabir.
Al Khu’i agreed with al Tustari and al Tahrani regarding the invalidity of attributing Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir and differentiating between the al Kabir and al Saghir Tabaris. He stated:
إن محمد بن جرير الصغير هذا مغاير لمحمد بن جرير الكبير المتقدم جزما فإن ذاك الكبير روى كتابه الحسن بن حمزة الطبري الذي هو من مشايخ الصدوق والمتوفى سنة 358 وهذا الصغير معاصر للنجاشي والشيخ قدس سرهما فإنه روى في كتاب دلائل الإمامة وقال نقلت هذا الخبر من أصل بخط شيخنا أبي عبد الله الحسين بن عبيد الله الغضائري وفي كتابه قرائن كثيرة وروايات عن مشايخ النجاشي والشيخ ومن في طبقتهم ولقد استوفى الشيخ المتتبع الماهر الشيخ آقا بزرك الطهراني عافاه الله تعالى في كتابه الذريعة الجزء 8 ص 241 الكلام على ذلك فلا حاجة إلى التطويل في المقام هذا
Indeed, Muhammad ibn Jarir [al Saghir] is definitely different from Muhammad ibn Jarir [al Kabir]. The latter [al Kabir] had his book transmitted by Hassan ibn Hamzah al Tabari[8] (d. 358 AH), who was one of the teachers of al Saduq, whereas this [al Saghir] was contemporary to al Najashi and al Sheikh. He reported in Dala’il al Imamah saying, “I have narrated this report from the original manuscript in the handwriting of our teacher, Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn ‘Ubaidullah al Ghada’iri.” In his book, there are many indicators and reports from the teachers of al Najashi and al Sheikh and those of their level. The diligent scholar, Sheikh Aqa Buzurg al Tahrani, has thoroughly addressed this in his book al Dhakhirah, 8/241, so there is no need for further elaboration on this matter.[9]
Sayed Muhammad Sadiq Bahr al ‘Ulum agreed with the opinion of al Khu’i and those who preceded him among the scholars of investigation, distinguishing between the figure of al Kabir and al Saghir, and concluded that al Kabir precedes al Saghir by one or two generations, and that the al Tabari al Kabir, the Imami, was a contemporary of the Sunni Imam al Tabari, the author of al Tarikh and al Tafsir.[10]
Based on this, it is impossible to attribute the book Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir, the Imami, as indicated by the scholars of investigation from the leading scholars of the Imamiyyah, because the teachers of the author of al Dala’il belong to a later generation than the teachers of Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Kabir, the Imami.
An important question arises: Who is this al Tabari al Saghir who is claimed to be the author of the book Dala’il al Imamah? We say: After it has become clear that attributing the book Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir is impossible, as concluded by the leading scholars of investigation and expertise in the books and writings of the Imamiyyah, and that the error of Ibn Shahrashub and Ibn Tawus and those who followed them in attributing the book to al Tabari al Kabir is as clear as the sun at midday—which is the logical and inevitable conclusion that every fair researcher will reach—it must be said: The book Dala’il al Imamah is by an unknown author,[11] who was a contemporary of Sheikh al Tusi and al Najashi, or it is a fabricated book whose fabricator did not correctly identify the generations of the teachers.
The scholars of the Imamiyyah, from the time of Ibn Shahrashub through Ibn Tawus to al Majlisi, fell into a great misconception by attributing this unknown book to al Tabari al Kabir.
Even though the turn came to ‘Abdullah al Mamaqani, he claimed that he came up with a novel idea that had not been proposed before, after he became certain that it was impossible to attribute the book Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir. Instead of saying that the author of al Dala’il is an unknown person, we find him committing a grave mistake, saying after his statement:
فتحقق مما ذكرنا كله أن محمد بن جرير بن رستم الطبري من أصحابنا اثنان كبير وهو السابق وصغير
It becomes clear from all we mentioned that there are two of our scholars named Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari, the elder [al Kabir], who is the earlier one, and the younger [al Saghir].
Not only did al Mamaqani create a new character out of thin air, but he made matters worse by adding:
وكلاهما ثقتان عدلان مرضيان
Both of them are trustworthy, just, and reliable.
Here, we have the right to ask al Mamaqani: “How did you know, being a contemporary man, that the al Tabari al Saghir whom you claimed existed, concocting him from nothingness, and lived in the fifth century, was trustworthy, just, and reliable?” Then, al Mamaqani, boasting after giving this fictional character credibility, said:
فاغتنم ذلك فإنه من خواص كتابنا هذا لم أقف من تنبه له من أصحابنا في الكتب الرجالية والحمد لله سبحانه على نعمه التي لا تحصى
So, value this, for it is one of the peculiarities of our book. I have not found anyone among our scholars who paid attention to this in the books on biography. And all praise is1 due to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala for His innumerable blessings.[12]
We say: Al Mamaqani and those who followed him, such as al Tahrani and al Khu’i, who imagined the existence of the al Tabari al Saghir, do not possess a shred of evidence from the books of biography, history, or Islamic sciences to prove the existence of this character before what al Mamaqani claimed.
The greatest issue is that al Mamaqani, who invented this character and described him as trustworthy and just, acknowledges that the books of biography do not mention this person. He says:
وليس له ذكر في كلمات أصحابنا الرجاليين
He is not mentioned in the words of our biographers.[13]
Al Tahrani also explained the reason for the error in attributing the book Dala’il al Imamah to al Tabari al Kabir, the author of al Mustarshid:
ومنشأ توهم الاتحاد عدم وجود ترجمة لأبي جعفر محمد بن جرير المتأخر في أصولنا الرجالية
The source of the misunderstanding is the absence of a biography for Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir, the later, in our Rijal sources.[14]
Among those who refuted al Mamaqani’s invention of this imaginary character and denied his existence was Sheikh Musa al ‘Abbasi al Zanjani, who said:
وليعلم أن محمد بن جرير اثنان عند أرباب التراجم من العامة والخاصة وزاد عليهما بعض المتأخرين رجلًا آخر ونسب له كتاب الإمامة وقال إن الأخير من معاصري الشيخ ونظرائه
It should be known that there are two Muhammad ibn Jarirs according to the scholars of biography, both among the general and specific circles. Some later scholars[15] added a third person, attributing to him Kitab al Imamah and claimed he was a contemporary of Sheikh and his peers.
Then he said:
وأما الثالث فلا وجود له جزمًا
But as for the third, he definitely does not exist.[16]
Therefore, it can be said: From the time of Ibn Shahrashub and Ibn Tawus to al Majlisi, they believed that this book was attributed to Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Kabir, the author of al Mustarshid. When it came to al Mamaqani, he altered what was common among them and denied the attribution of this book to Ibn Jarir al Kabir due to the idtirab (confusion) in the generation of the teachers of this unknown author. To reconcile his view with those of the scholars who preceded him and the idtirab in the book’s chains of transmission, he said that al Tusi’s description of Ibn Jarir, the author of al Mustarshid as “al Kabir”:
أشار الشيخ في عبارة الفهرست المزبورة في ذاك تقييده بالكبير فإنه يهدينا إلى أن في علمائنا من هو مطابق اسمًا ووالدا وجدًا ووطنًا أصغر منه
The Sheikh referred in the mentioned phrase from al Fihrist by restricting it with “al Kabir”, guiding us to the fact that among our scholars, there is someone with the same name, father, grandfather, and homeland, but who is younger.[17]
Thus, al Mamaqani brought this person into existence from nothing, assuming that Sheikh al Tusi’s description of Ibn Jarir, the author of al Mustarshid, as “al Kabir” means that there is another al Tabari who shares his name, lineage, and homeland. He thus proposed an idea that no one before him had suggested; and this mistake then spread to those who came after him, who repeated what al Mamaqani had said without scrutiny and knowledge.
Muhammad al Tustari refuted al Mamaqani’s claim that al Tusi’s description of Ibn Jarir, the author of al Mustarshid, as “ al Kabir “ means there was another younger al Tabari, saying:
أما قول الفهرست في ذاك الكبير فمعناه الجليل لإخراج العامي لقوله بعد وليس هو صاحب التاريخ فإنه عامي
As for the statement in al Fihrist regarding “al Kabir,” its meaning is “the eminent one,” to exclude the common person (Sunni), as he said later, “and he is not the author of al Tarikh, for he is a commoner (Sunni).”[18]
And its meaning is that al Tusi intended to distinguish between al Tabari, the Sunni, and al Tabari, the Imami, whom he described as “al Kabir”. His intent was not to imply that there was a younger Imami al Tabari.
Based on the above, some later Imami scholars fell into two errors regarding this book:
Firstly, attributing the book to Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Kabir, which continued for several centuries.
Secondly, this is what al Mamaqani proposed by fabricating the character of al Tabari al Saghir, thereby perpetuating the original mistake. His error is worse than the original one, and unfortunately, this mistake has persisted to this day.
2. Analysis of Imami Scholars’ Opinions on Dala’il al Imamah
In the introduction of the first edition of Dala’il al Imamah published by al Matba’ah al Haydariyyah, it states:
وهذا الكتاب لم يزل مصدرًا من مصادر الشيعة في الإمامة والحديث تركن إليه وتعتمد عليه في أجيالها المتعاقبة منذ تأليفه إلى وقتنا الحاضر
This book has always been a source for the Shia in Imamah and Hadith, relied upon by successive generations since its authorship until the present day.[19]
This statement is an exaggeration, and as we have previously shown, the author of the book is unknown. We will further explain the opinions of Imami scholars regarding the book itself. It can be said that many contemporary scholars are in doubt and uncertainty due to the book’s strangeness and the obscurity of its author. Even al Tahrani mentioned that some scholars believe the book was fabricated in a later period. Although al Tahrani attempted to refute this opinion, he unfortunately did not mention the source of this important statement when he said:
وقد ظهر مما فصلناه بطلان ما زعمه بعض من أن دلائل الإمامة من موضوعات القرن السابع وإنما وضعه بعض الغلاة ونسبه إلى محمد بن جرير وأنه لقصوره في فن التاريخ والرجال رتب أسانيد روايات الكتاب بحيث يصير المؤلف محمد بن جرير في بعض الأسانيد من رجال القرن الخامس وفي بعضها من القرن الرابع وفي بعضها في القرن الثالث
And it has become clear from what we have detailed that the claim made by some, that Dala’il al Imamah is a fabrication from the seventh century, is false. It was created by some extremists who attributed it to Muhammad ibn Jarir. Due to his inadequacy in the fields of history and Rijal, he arranged the chains of narration in the book so that the author—Muhammad ibn Jarir—appears in some chains as a figure from the fifth century, in others from the fourth century, and in others from the third century.[20]
Considering the aforementioned confusion regarding the author and the inconsistencies in the book’s chains of transmission, the theory of the book being fabricated in the seventh century is plausible. Al Tustari described the flaws in this book:
وكيف كان فالكتاب مشتمل على الغث والسمين
Regardless of its nature, the book contains both valuable and flawed content.[21]
Sheikh Musa al ‘Abbasi al Zanjani said:
ولا يخفى أن الكتاب لبعض المتأخرين المعاصرين للشيخ جمع فيه بين ما يرويه عن مشايخه وبين ما رواه محمد بن جرير وجعلهما كتابًا واحدًا ولما ذكرنا دلائل كثيرة منها الاختلاف الفاحش في رتبة من سميناهم آنفًا بعضهم مع بعض ومنها عدم رواية أحد عن محمد بن جرير هذا والطلوع والغيبة كذلك في التاريخ من دلائل الكذب والعدم إلى غير ذلك فتدبر
It is evident that the book is by some later contemporaries of the Sheikh.[22] It combines what he narrates from his teachers with what Muhammad ibn Jarir narrated, merging them into a single volume. As we have noted, there are numerous indications of this, including the gross discrepancies in the rank of those we previously mentioned, the absence of any narration from Muhammad ibn Jarir, and the emergence and disappearance in the history are signs of falsehood and nonexistence.[23] Consider these factors carefully.[24]
And this is explicit from al Zanjani, affirming that it is fabricated and whose compiler is unknown.[25]
Sa’ib ‘Abdul Hamid stated:
وأكثر أخباره مما لا يعول عليه
Most of its narrations are unreliable.[26]
We conclude the discussion on the unknown author of Dala’il al Imamah with important remarks by Dr. Ni’mat Allah Safri Furushani in a lengthy article,[27] from which we take some excerpts to give the reader insight into this unknown book and the dangerous ideas it promotes. Dr. Ni’mat Allah indicated that Dala’il al Imamah might have been compiled from various sources, including the book of Ibn Abi al Thalj and the book of al Iskafi. He said:
ونظرًا لوقوع ابن أبي الثلج البغدادي (325 هـ) في إسناد تلك الروايات وبمقارنة هذا القسم من الكتاب بكتاب تاريخ الأئمة لابن أبي الثلج نستطيع الجزم بالاقتباس والنقل الكامل منه كما نلاحظ التشابه الكبير بينه وبين دلائل الإمامة وبين الأنوار لمحمد بن همام الإسكافي الذي يوجد بين أيدينا جزء منتخَب منه بعنوان منتخب الأنوار
Given the presence of Ibn Abi al Thalj al Baghdadi (d. 325 AH) in the chains of these narrations and comparing this section of the book with the book Tarikh al A’immah by Ibn Abi al Thalj, we can confidently say there was complete borrowing and copying from it. We also notice a great similarity between Dala’il al Imamah and al Anwar by Muhammad ibn Hammam al Iskafi, from which we have a selected part titled Muntakhab al Anwar.[28]
He added:
ومع ما خلصنا إليه في المرحلة المتقدمة من هذه المقالة حول مؤلف الكتاب وبأنه مجهول لدينا إلا أن الإمعان الدقيق في أسانيد روايات الكتاب تجعلنا نستبعد في الحد الأدنى كون الكتاب من تأليف الوضاعين وذلك لأن أسانيد بعض الروايات معروفة في جوامع الحديث الشيعي وضعف رجالها أمر غير خفي على أهل هذا الفن ولو كان المؤلف من الذين يضعون الحديث لالتجأ إلى أسانيد أكثر قبولًا في أوساط الحديث الشيعي
Despite our conclusion in the earlier part of this article that the author of the book is unknown to us, a thorough examination of the chains of narration in the book leads us to dismiss the idea that the book was authored by fabricators. This is because some of the chains of narration are well-known in Shia Hadith collections, and the weakness of their narrators is not hidden from experts in this field. If the author were among those who fabricate hadiths, he would have resorted to more acceptable chains of narration in Shia Hadith circles. [29]
Regarding the transmitters of the book’s chains of narration, it is stated:
وفي الجملة فإن رجال أسانيد كتاب غير معروفين في كتب الرجال وإما أنهم معروفون ولكن لم يكونوا من الثقات أي إنهم كانوا ضمن لائحة المهملين أو المجهولين وكلاهما من أقسام الضعيف
In general, the transmitters of the book’s chains are not known in books of Rijal; and if they are known, they are not among the trustworthy. In other words, they are either listed among the overlooked or the unknown, both of which fall under the category of weak transmitters.[30]
He argued that the inclusion of some trustworthy individuals in the chains of narration was intended for concealment and deception. He stated:
أما عن شأن وجود الشخصيات الموثَّقة في سلسلة إسناد الكتاب فإن الاحتمال القوي بالنظر إلى محتوى الرواية أنه قد تم وضع تلك الروايات ونسبت عمدًا إلى هؤلاء الأعلام للتغطية وإضفاء نوع من القدسية
As for the presence of authenticated figures in the chain of the book’s narrations, the strong likelihood, considering the content of the narration, is that these narrations were fabricated and deliberately attributed to these notable figures for the purpose of concealment and to confer a degree of sanctity.[31]
Dr. Ni’mat Allah then explained the reason for the presence of names of some Zaidi figures in the book’s chains of narration:
فإن احتمال وضعها وكذبها قويٌّ بل تم الالتجاء إلى وضع روايات ونسبت عمدًا وكذبًا إلى كبار المذهب الخصم رغبةً في التفوق وتسجيل الانتصار
The probability that they were fabricated and false is strong; in fact, there was a deliberate effort to fabricate narrations and attribute them falsely to prominent figures of the opposing sect, with the intent of achieving superiority and recording a victory.[32]
3. Examination of the Book’s Chain of Transmission
After clarifying the clear mistake made by Ibn Tawus in attributing the book Dala’il al Imamah to Ibn Jarir al Tabari al Kabir, the author of al Mustarshid, we have the right to ask, “Did Ibn Tawus have a chain of transmission for the book Dala’il al Imamah?”
We say: The invalidation of the book’s attribution to Ibn Jarir al Imami al Kabir implicitly negates Ibn Tawus’s chain of transmission for this book. Furthermore, Ibn Tawus did not mention his chain of transmission for this book at all. Al Tahrani said about the book:
وكان قد بقي في زوايا الخمول حتى وصلت نسخته التامة إلى السيد ابن طاوس في القرن السابع فعرف قدره واستخرج منه أنواع رواياته وأدرجها في تصانيفه ومن المؤسف أنه بعد عصر ابن طاوس ضاعت تلك النسخة التامة كما ضاعت عنا كثير من الكتب التي كانت مصادر لتأليفات ابن طاوس ولا طريق لنا إلى إثبات وجود تلك الكتب إلا من وجود مضامينها في تصانيف ابن طاوس خريت صناعة معرفة الكتب
It remained in obscurity until a complete copy reached al Sayed Ibn Tawus in the 7th century, who recognised its value, extracted various narrations from it, and included them in his compilations. Unfortunately, after the era of Ibn Tawus, that complete copy was lost, as were many of the books that served as sources for Ibn Tawus’s works. We have no means to confirm the existence of those books except through the presence of their content within the compilations of Ibn Tawus, a master in the art of book knowledge.[33]
This clearly indicates that the Imami scholars did not have any chain of transmission for this unknown book, which was, as al Tahrani described, in obscurity.
4. Study of the Isnad
The chain of this narration is not valid according to Imami principles. In fact, we are certain that it is a fabricated chain, as several individuals in the chain are not mentioned in the books of Rijal. Here is the clarification:
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Ahmed al Tabari: He is Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Ahmed ibn al ‘Adl al Muqri’ al Tabari[34]
- Al Mamaqani said in Tanqih al Maqal, “He is weak.”[35]
‘Ali ibn ‘Umar ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Malik al Sayyari
- Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “They did not mention him.”[36]
Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amarah al Kindi
- Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “They did not mention him.”[37]
Muhammad ibn ‘Amarah al Kindi (father of Jafar)
- Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “They did not mention him.”[38]
Muhammad ibn ‘Ammar ibn Yasir
- Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “They did not mention him.”[39]
Thus, the chain is filled with unknown narrators.
NEXT⇒ What was Attributed to Sa’id ibn al Musayyab
[1] Dala’il al Imamah, pg. 103-104.
[2] Al Tusi: Al Fihrist, pg. 239, 712.
[3] Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’, 3/236, Mu’assasat Al al Bayt li Ihya’ al Turath edition.
[4] It can be said that the first to mention the existence of the book was Ibn Shahrashub, and the first to transmit it was Sayed Ibn Tawus. Al Tahrani agreed with the opinion of Muhammad Taqi al Tustari, who said, “The first to transmit from this book was Sayed ‘Ali ibn Tawus who passed away in 664 AH. He referred to it in some of his books as Dala’il or Dala’il al A’immah or Dala’il al Imamah.” (Al Dhari’ah, 8/244.)
[5] Al Akhbar al Dakhilah, 1/61, latest edition.
[6] Al Akhbar al Dakhilah, 1/61, latest edition.
[7] Tabaqat A’lam al Shia, 2/153.
[8] As indicated by al Najashi in his biography, pg. 376, Number: 1024.
[9] Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, 16/159. The indication to al Tabari [al Kabir] and [al Saghir] between brackets is our addition to clarify the meaning and is not part of al Khu’i’s original text.
[10] In his research of the book Rijal al Sayed Bahr al ‘Ulum Al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, 4/121.
[11] This is why Muhammad Taqi al Tustari said about the author of Dala’il al Imamah, “Where is this author who was a contemporary of al Sheikh and al Najashi or inferior to them, as we have mentioned from his transmission from Khurt al Hussain al Ghada’iri from Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari, the author of al Mustarshid, who is transmitted from by al Hassan ibn Hamzah al Mar’ashi, who is one of the teachers of al Mufid, Ibn ‘Abdun, and al Hussain al Ghada’iri as they said? Because certainly the author of al Mustarshid is the teacher of the teacher of the teacher of al Sheikh and al Najashi, and this one is their contemporary or their junior as we have understood. Also, how could this be the author when it was transmitted from him via an intermediary? As mentioned on pg. 256, “Abu al Hussain Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa informed me that Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari informed.” And how can this one who is a contemporary of al Sheikh and al Najashi be the same Muhammad ibn Jarir who is a contemporary of al ‘Askari and transmitted from him? In the first hadith of al Mu’jizat of al ‘Askari, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari said, “‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad informed me: I saw al Hassan ibn ‘Ali al Sarraj talking to the wolf.” (Latest edition of al Akhbar al Dakhilah, al Dhari’ah, 1/60.)
[12] Tanqih al Maqal, 2/91. It is not true, as claimed by al Mamaqani, that he was the first to notice this issue. Aqa Buzurg al Tahrani mentioned that he had detected the multiplicity of individuals named Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari and informed al Mamaqani. He said, “When I noticed the multiplicity of individuals named Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al Tabari, I brought it to the attention of the esteemed al Mamaqani while he was working on printing his book Tanqih al Maqal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal.” He included it in this book (3/91) and added the claim that the author of al Dala’il had narrated from the author of al Mustarshid. This claim has been disproven by what we have mentioned in the text. I have elaborated on this discussion here to clarify that the introduction to the first edition of Dala’il al Imamah printed in Najaf was unsigned, as was the introduction to the first edition of al Mustarshid in Najaf with my name as a signatory. (Al Dhari’ah, 8/246.) Therefore, if this is correct, the origin of this article is from al Tahrani; al Mamaqani was mistaken in attributing this credit to himself.
[13] Tanqih al Maqal, 2/91.
[14] Al Dhari’ah, 8/246.
[15] The term “the later scholars” refers to al Mamaqani and his followers.
[16] Al Jami’ fi al Rijal, 9/140-141.
[17] Tanqih al Maqal, 2/91.
[18] Qamus al Rijal, 9/156.
[19] Introduction to Dala’il al Imamah printed by al Matba’ah al Haydariyyah.
[20] Al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia, 8/247.
[21] Al Akhbar al Dakhilah, 1/63.
[22] Refers to Sheikh al Tusi, who died in 460 AH.
[23] The meaning of the terms “emergence” and “disappearance” in the history is not clear to us.
[24] Al Jami’ fi al Rijal, 9/138, see also pg. 141.
[25] The statement of al Zanjani is explicit in two places that the book was written by some of the later scholars. Some might argue that al Zanjani contradicts himself: “Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari, Abu Jafar, the author of the book al Imamah according to some of the later scholars.” (Al Jami’ fi al Rijal, 9/138). This implies that al Zanjani confirms that the book is attributed to al Tabari al Saghir. We reply that al Zanjani’s statement is explicit in refuting this claim by indicating: “according to some of the later scholars.” In fact, al Zanjani himself denied the existence of al Tabari al Saghir and argued that the book was written by a contemporary of Sheikh al Tusi as we have mentioned.
[26] Mu’jam Mu’arrikhi al Shia, 2/137.
[27] Maqalat al Imamah fi Masadiriha al Ula Dirasah Naqdiyyah fi Dala’il al Imamah li al Tabari, pg. 283-298, authored by Dr. Ni’mat Allah Safri Furushani, a researcher specialising in history and biography, head of the History Department at al Mustafa International University in Iran, translated by Nazirah Ghallab, published in Nusus Mu’asirah, issue 20, year 5, 2010 CE/1431 AH.
[28] Maqalat al Imamah fi Masadiriha al Ula Dirasah Naqdiyyah fi Dala’il al Imamah li al Tabari, pg. 289, in Nusus Mu’asirah, issue 20, year 5, 2010 CE/1431 AH.
[29] Ibid., pg. 293.
[30] Ibid., pg. 295.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., pg. 297.
[33] Al Dhari’ah, 8/247.
[34] ‘Ali al Shahrudi in Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 1/116, said, “He is Ibrahim ibn Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmed al Tabari, Abu Ishaq al Qadi, from the teachers of al Tabari. He narrated from him in his book Dala’il al Imamah.” Bahr al ‘Ulum speculated that he might have shared this with Ibrahim ibn Mukhallad ibn Jafar, the teacher of al Najashi, as in Rijal Bahr al ‘Ulum, 2/75, but this is unlikely, as noted by Sheikh Ghulam Ridwan ‘Irfaniyyan in Shuyukh al Thiqat, pg. 37.
[35] Tanqih al Maqal, 1/5.
[36] Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 5/418.
[37] Ibid., 2/209.
[38] Ibid., 7/254.
[39] Ibid., 7/253.