2 Analysis of Baab Ardh al Amaal of Al Kafi, Are deeds presented to Prophet and Imams
(PDF files “Al Kaafi Series 1” can be downloaded from “PDF Download Files” Section)
Analysis of the Chains of Narrators
Note: Even if all the narrations of this chapter were “Sahih” and did not contradict the Quran, it would still not be enough to build Aqeeda on it, since Aqeeda can only be built upon clear verses of Quran or Mutawatir Narrations, and surely 6 Narrations are not even close to Mutawatir. But unfortunately, even these 6 Narrations are not “Sahih” and they explicitly contradict the Quran.
Analysis of Hadith 1:
As we have already mentioned, this hadith has neither been authenticated by Allama Majlisi in Mirat al Uqool nor by Ayatullah Bahboodi in Sahih al Kaafi, so we already have two grand scholars who have explicitly stated that this hadith is “Daeef” (weak), hence we cannot rely on it, especially in the matter of “Aqeeda” (Belief). There are two narrators in the chain of this narration who are very problematic.
1) Al Qasim ibn Muhammad (al Jawhari):
This narrator was “Waqifi (1)” and he is also “Majhool (2)”. Some later scholars of Rijal have used weak arguments to rescue (3) this narrator, but all of the 3 arguments given by them have been refuted by Ayatullah Khoei in Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith, Vol 15, Narrator# 9565.
Therefore, the presence of this narrator is a weakness in the chain of this narration.
- Waqifi: Al Waqifiyya was a sect that originated after the demise of Imam Musa al Kadhim (as) by some of his companions. They claimed that Imam al Kadhim (as) did not die, rather he is alive and has gone into occultation. They ate the wealth that they had been collecting from the believers in the name of the Imam (as) and refused to surrender even a penny to Imam al Ridha (as).
- Majhool: This is a term used for a category of narrators who are “unknown” or have not received explicit “Tawtheeq” (authentication) from the classical scholars of Rijal.
- There is a trend among the modern scholars of Rijal to try and rescue (somehow authenticate) narrators who have not been authenticated by classical scholars and even try to authenticate those narrators who have received condemnations from classical scholars of Rijal.
2) Ali bin Abi Hamza al Bataini:
Before giving explicit statements of Ulema of Rijal about this narrators, let us give two examples from Ayatullah’s Khoei’s books where he rejected narrations because of the presence of this narrator. Interestingly, even in these narrations, exactly like the narrations who authenticity we are discussing, it is “Abu Baseer” who narrates from “Ali bin Abi Hamza”.
In his Kitab al-Sawm, vol. 2, pp 193 – 194, after mentioning a narration Ayatullah Khoei says
فيه أولا إن رواية أبي بصير ضعيفة السند بالراوي عنه وهو قائده علي بن أبي حمزة البطائني فقد ضعفه الشيخ صريحا وأنه كذاب أكل من مال موسى عليه السلام الشئ الكثير، ووضع أحاديث في عدم موته عليه .السلام ليتمكن من التصرف في أمواله عليه السلام
As we can see, he discredited the aforementioned narration due to the presence of Ali bin Abi Hamza al Bataini, arguing that Sheikh Toosi had explicitly discredited him, and mentioned that he was a “Kazzaab” (liar) who ate and devoured a huge amount of the money of Imam Musa al Kadhim (as), and fabricated narrations to prove that he (i.e. the seventh Imam (as)) had not died, so that he could usurp the Maal, and so that he does not have to return it to its rightful owner.
In his Kitab al-Salat, Vol 6, pg 96, after mentioning a narration Ayatullah Kheoi says
.إلا أنه يتوجه على الاستدلال بها ضعف السند أولا بعلي، أبي حمزة الذي ضعفه الشيخ وغيره
As we can see, he rejects the narration because of the presence of Ali bin Abi Hamza in the chain, and he also mentions that Ali bin Abi Hamza has been declared “Daeef” (weak) by Sheikh (Toosi) and other scholars al well.
What Ulema of Rijal have said about Ali bin Abi Hamza al Bataini:
Al Najashi mentions:
“وهو أحد عمد الواقفة….”
(He was one of the pillars of the Waqifi sect)
Sheikh Toosi mentions:
“…علي بن أبي حمزة البطائني: واقفي المذهب”
(Ali bin Abi Hamza al Bataini: Waqifi (by) sect)
فروى الثقات ان أول من أظهر هذا الاعتقاد علي بن أبي حمزة البطائني، وزياد بن مروان القندي، وعثمان” عيسى بن”
(Reliable people have narrated that the first people to display this belief (Waqifi) were Ali bin Abi Hamza, Ziyad bin Marwan and Uthman bin Isa)
Ibn al Ghadairi mentions:
“علي بن أبي حمزة، لعنه الله أصل الوقف، وأشد الخلق عداوة للولي من بعد أبي إبراهيم عليهما السلام”
(Ali bin Abi Hamza, may the curse of Allah be on him, originator of Waqifi sect, he was the staunchest enemy of Imam Ridha (as))
Rijal al Kashi mentions:
“قال أبو الحسن موسى عليه السلام: يا علي أنت وأصحابك شبه الحمير”
(Imam Ridha (as) said: Oh Ali (al bataini), you and your companions are like donkeys)
Ayatullah Kheoi concludes about him:
ابن فضال من قوله إن علي بن أبي حمزة كذاب متهم، فلا يمكن الحكم بوثاقته، وبالنتيجة يعامل معه معاملة .الضعيف
Ibn Fadhal says that Ali ibn Abi Hamza is accused of being a “Kazzab” (liar), so it is not possible to authenticate him, therefore as a result he has to be treated as “Daeef” (weak).
Analysis of Hadith 2:
Firstly and most importantly, this hadith has been graded as “Daeef” (weak) by both Allama Majlisi (in Miraat al Uqool) and Ayatullah Bahboodi (in Sahih al Kaafi).
Other than the clear contradiction with Quran, which we will discuss later in this book, there is a problematic narrator in the chain of narrators of this narration.
And that is: يحيى الحلبي (Yahya al Halabi)
The problem is that there are two narrators with this name.
One is يحيى بن عمران بن علي بن أبي شعبة الحلبى (Yahya bin Imran bin ali bin Abi She’ba al Halabi), this narrator is reliable (as stated by Najashi and endorsed by Syed Khoei)
The other is يحيى بن محمد بن عليم الحلبي (Yahya bin Muhammad bin Aleem al Halabi), this narrator is “Daeef” (as stated by Ibn Ghadairi).
We do not know which one of the two “Yahya al Halabi” is present in the chain of narrators of this Hadith. From the “Daeef” grading of Allama Majlisi and Ayatullah Bahboodi, it seems that it is the second “Yahya al Halabi” who is “Daeef”.
Even if we are not sure which Halabi it is, yet this remains an issue of “Dhann” (speculation, guesswork…), therefore it is not possible to derive a belief from this narration, because “Aqeeda” (Belief) cannot be based on “Dhann” (for details refer to our “Ghuluw” document, ch: The criteria for acceptance of Proofs, or refer to the blog: https://shiareformist.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/proof-required-for-aqeeda-belief/).
Even if, for assumption sake, someone proves with 100% certainty that this narration is “Sahih” (authentic) (which is impossible), even then this would not qualify as proof enough to base our “Aqeeda”, since “Aqeeda” can only be based on a clear verse of Quran, or Mutawatir Narrations (A narration with many authentic chains of narrators).
Analysis of Hadith 3:
As we have already mentioned, Allama Majlisi has graded this hadith “Hasan Muwathaq” and Ayatullah Bahboodi has graded this “Daeef” (weak).
There are 3 questionable narrators in the chain of this hadith, and they are Uthamn bin Isa, Ibrahim bin Hashim and Sama’ah.
1) Uthman bin Isa:
There is a consensus among scholars that this person was a “Waqifi”. Najashi has mention in his book of Rijal, and this has been quoted by Syed Khoei in his Mu’ujam as well:
وكان شيخ الواقفة ووجهها، وأحد الوكلاء المستبدّين بمال موسى بن جعفر عليهالسلام
He was a leader of the “Waqifites”, and one of the deputies of Imam Kadhim (as) who unjustly took the wealth of Imam Kadhim (as).
Allama Mamaqani has narrated in his book of Rijal, Tanqih al Maqal:
ولما طالَب الإمامُ الرضا (ع) بعد وفاة أبيه الكاظم عُثْمَانَ بنَ عِيسَى أن يسلّمه ميراث أبيه الكاظم، كتب «عُثْمَانُ بنُ عِيسَى» إليه يقول: “إنَّ أَبَاكَ لَمْ يَمُتْ! [بل غاب] قَالَ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ الإمام الرضا: أَنَّ أَبِي قَدْ مَاتَ وقَدِ اقْتَسَمْنَا مِيرَاثَهُ وقَدْ صَحَّتِ الأَخْبَارُ بِمَوْتِهِ واحْتَجَّ عَلَيْهِ فِيهِ. قَالَ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ «عُثْمَانُ بنُ عِيسَى»: إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ أَبُوكَ مَاتَ فَلَيْسَ لَكَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ شَيْءٌ! وإِنْ كَانَ قَدْ مَاتَ عَلَى مَا تَحْكِي فَلَمْ يَأْمُرْنِي بِدَفْعِ شَيْءٍ إِلَيْكَ وقَدْ أَعْتَقْتُ الجَوَارِيَ
When Imam Ridha (as) demanded the wealth of his after the death of his father Imam Kadhim (as), Uthman bin Isa wrote to him saying “your father did not die”, so Imam Ridha (as) wrote to him “Surely my father has died and we have divided his inheritance, and the reports of his death are veracious” and he argued against him on it, so Uthman bin Isa wrote to him “If your father is not dead, then there is nothing for you in that (wealth), and if he is dead like you say, so he did not order me to pay anything to you and I have freed the slave girls (that he owned).
Uthman bin Isa has also been declared “Daeef” (weak, unreliable) by Allama Jazairi, Ibn Dawood, Muhaqqiq al Ardabili, Allama Fadhil Miqdad, Sahib al Madarik and Allama Hilli etc.
Here is a narration, narrated by Uthman bin Isa:
Imam al Sadiq (as) said: When Imam Ali (as) used to eat pomegranate, he would place a handkerchief under it, when asked about it, he said: In it is a seed from heaven. So it was said to him: Jews, Christians and others also eat that? So he said: If that is the case, Allah (swt) appoints an angel who snatches the heavenly seed from their pomegranate so that they don’t eat it. (Furu al Kaafi, Vol6)
How can we accept narrations of a person who narrated this kind of superstitious narrations?
2) Sama’a bin Mihran
Allama Hilli and Ibn Dawood have listed him in the category of narrators whose narrations cannot be accepted, whereas Najashi has called him reliable.
For such cases we have a rule, Shaheed al Thani has mentioned it in his Dirayat al Hadith:
“If there are both statements defaming a reported as well as attesting to his veracity, the defamatory statements are taken to be more correct, even though there may be many people attesting to his veracity. This is because the person commending him is doing so as a result of what he can see from his outward conduct, whereas the person defaming him is acting on the basis of information that would otherwise be concealed and unknown the others.” (Dirayat al Hadith)
Anyway, this was just to brief the readers about why the hadith could be weak, otherwise the admission of giant scholar like Bahboodi is enough evidence for us that this hadith is Daeef.
Analysis of Hadith 4:
We have already mentioned in the beginning that hadith 4, according to Allama Majlisi is “Majhool” (has unknown narrators), and according to Ayatullah Bahboodi is “Daeef” (weak) (probably due to the same reason).
There are two narrators in the chain of narrators of this narration who are “Majhool” (unknown). They are, Al Qasim bin Muhammad al Zayyat and Abdullah bin Abaan al zayyat.
Interestingly, Ayatullah Khoei, while discussing Abdullah bin Abaan al zayyat as used the same narration we are discussing, and he has declared the narration weak because of al Qasim bin Muhammad al zayyat, and then he declares Abdullah bin Aban al zayyat “Majhool” (weak).
Ref: Al-Khui, Mu’jam Rijaal al-Hadith, vol. 11, pg 81 (person # 6648).
وى محمد بن يعقوب، عن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن القاسم بن محمد الزيّات، عن عبداللّه بن أبان الزيّات : وكان مكيناً عند الرضا عليه السلام : قال: قلتللرضا عليه السلام: ادع اللّه لي ولاهل بيتى، فقال عليه السلام: أو لست أفعل؟واللّه إنّ أعمالكم لتعرض علؤيّ في كلّ يوم وليلة…، الحديث. الكافي: الجزء 1،كتاب الحجّة 4، باب عرض الاعمال على النبيّ والائمة عليهم السلام 29، الحديث 4.
ورواه الصفّار عن إبراهيم بن هاشم مثله. بصائر الدرجات: الجزء 9، باب عرضالاعمال على الائمة الاحياء، الحديث 2، إلاّ أنّ فيها بدل جملة (مكيناً عندالرضا): جملة (يكنّى عبدالرضا)! على نسخة ولا يخفى أنه غلط جزماً، لعدم تعارفمثل ذلك في تلك العصور وعدم كون عبدالرضا كنية.
وكيف كان، فالرواية ضعيفة بجهالة القاسم بن محمد الزيّات، ولا يمكن الاستدلالبها على حسن عبداللّه بن أبان فهو مجهول.
Analysis of Hadith 5:
We have already mentioned in the introduction that according to both, Allama Majlisi (in Miraat al Uqool) and Ayatullah Bahboodi (in Sahih al Kaafi), hadith 5 of this chapter is “Daeef” (weak).
There are 3 problematic narrators in the chain of this hadith. They are Ahmed ibn Mahran, Abu Abdillah al-Saamit and Yahya bin Musaavir.
1) Ahmed ibn Mahran:
Ayatullah Hashem Maroof al Hasni (ra) mentions in his book Dirasaat fi al Hadith wa al Muhadditheen (دراسات في الحديث و المحدثين )
احمد بن مهران: ضعفه ابن الغضايري والعلامة في الخلاصة ، ولم يشر احد من المؤلفين في الرجال إلى توثيقه
Ahmed bin Mahran: Declare “Daeef” (weak, unreliable) by Ibn Ghadairi and Allama Hilli in his Al Khulasa, and no one among the scholars of rijal has authenticated him.
Ayatullah Kheoi (ra) mentions in his Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith (معجم رجال الحديث )
.احمد بن مهران: روى عنه الكليني في كتاب الكافي، ضعيف. ذكره ابن الغضائري
Ahmed bin Mahran: Kulaini has narrated from him in Kitab al Kaafi, he (ahmed bin Mahran) is “Daeef”, Ibn Ghadairi has mentioned him (in the list of weak narrators).
2) Abu Abdillah al Samit: This narrator is “Majhool” (unknown), there is no authentication for him.
3) Yahya bin Musawir: This narrator is “Majhool” (unknown) since there is no clear authentication for him.
Analysis of Hadith 6:
We have already mentioned that according to Ayatullah Bahboodi, this hadith is “Daeef” (weak).