Part2: Analysis of Ziyarat Ashura

In the last blog we gave some introductory points about this Ziyarat and the research.

Let us now discuss the Sanad of this Ziyarat.

Ziyaarate Ashoorah has been attributed to Imam al-Baqir (as) through multiple chains – all of which are manifestly dhaeef (weak).

Among the scholars who have made mention of this Ziyaarah are Ibn Qawlawayh, Sheikh Toosi, as well as Kafa’mi, although the last scholar failed to provide a complete chain for it. But that is not a problem, because the first two scholars did provide a chain, so we can analyse it.

 

Ibn Qawlawayh narrated this Ziyaarah in his book Kaamilu Ziyaaraat (pg. 325, chapter 71, Hadith no. 556), and offered two chains for it:

First Sanad:

السند الأول : حكيم بن داود بن حكيم وغيره ، عن محمد بن موسى الهمداني ، عن محمد بن خالد الطيالسي ، عن سيف بن عميرة وصالح بن عقبة جميعاً ، عن علقمة بن محمد الحضرمي

 Second Sanad:

السند الثاني : ……… ومحمد بن إسماعيل ، عن صالح بن عقبة عن مالك الجهني عن أبي جعفر الباقر عليه السلام

 

Analysis of the first chain:

Hakeem bin Dawood bin Hakeem = Majhool as per the admission of Sheikh Habeebullah Kashaani (d. 1340 AH).

Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadani = A certified Ghaali Kazzab (liar) as per the testimony of the classical Qummi scholars of Hadith and Rijaal. Sheikh Mohammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Waleed, who was a great Muhaddith and teacher of Sheikh Sadooq, testified that Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadani used to fabricate Hadith, and was known for it.

As a result, Sheikh Sadooq also rejected his narrations. See for yourself:

قال الشيخ الصدوق : وأما خبر صلاة  يوم غدير خم والثواب المذكور فيه لمن صامه ، فإن شيخنا محمد بن الحسن – رضي الله عنه –  كان لا يصححه ويقول : إنه من طريق محمد بن موسى الهمداني ، وكان غير ثقة ( كذاباً خ ل ) وكل ما لم يصححه ذلك الشيخ –  قدس الله روحه   ولم يحكم بصحته من الأخبار فهو عندنا متروك غير صحيح

( من لا يحضره الفقيه ج 2 باب صوم التطوع وثوابه من الأيام ذيل حديث 241) 

“As for the narration about the Salaah recommended for the day of Ghadeer and reward mentioned for those who fast it, it should be known that our Shaykh, Muhammad bin al-Hasan (May Allah be Pleased with him) regarded it as weak and unreliable, and he used to say: this narration has been transmitted to us by Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadaani, and he was an unreliable narrator, (in fact he was a liar), and every narration that has been discredited by our Sheikh (i.e. Sheikh Mohammad bin al-Hasan), then it is not authentic in our sight and must be abandoned.”

Source: Sheikh Sadooq, Man Laa Yahdhuruhul Faqeeh, vol. 2, hadith no, 241.

 

In addition to being accused of Ghluww by the classical Qummi scholars of Hadith and Rijaal, as well as being labelled a Ghaali and Kazzaab by Sheikh Sadooq and his teacher, this narrator was also further discredited and exposed by Allama Ibn al-Ghadhaairi.

This narrator was also declared to be weak and unreliable by Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Ali bin al-Abbas bin Nooh al-Syraafi, Sheikh Ahmad bin Ali al-Najaashi, Sheikh Toosi (in his Fihrist), Ibn Dawood in his Rijaal (see pg 276), Allamah Hilli in his Khulaasah (see pg 401) where he recapitulates the testimonies of Sheikh Sadooq’s teacher and Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, Sheikh Hasan Saahibul Ma’aalim in “Al Tahreer al-Tawoosi” in the biography of Zayd al-Shahhaam, pp 223 and 444, al-Muhaqqiq Ahmad bin Mohammad al-Ardabeli in Majma al-Faaidah (vol. 10, pg 440), Mohammad bin Ali al-Ardabeli in Jaami al-Ruwaat (vol 2, pg 205), Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzwaari in “Zakheeratul Ibaad” (vol. 2, pg 205) as well as al-Muhaqqiq al-Khoonsaari in “Mashaariq al-Shumoos” (vol. 2, pg 451).

As for more contemporary scholars, Ayatullah Sayyid al-Hakeem declared this narrator to be dhaeef in his Mustamsak (vol.1, pg 427). Ayatullah al-Muhaqqiq al-Tustari also remarked in his “Qamoos” (see vol. 9, pg 612) that the unreliability of this narrator is a matter on which there is consensus.

As for Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui, he writes:

 ( الذي يظهر من مجموع الكلمات أن الأساس في تضعيف الرجل هو ابن الوليد وقد تبعه على ذلك الصدوق وابن نوح وغيرهما وهذا يكفي في الحكم بضعفه ) انظر معجم رجال الحديث ج 18 ص 298 في ترجمته .

“It appears from the sum total of these statements that the main basis for discrediting this narrator is the testimony of Ibn al-Waleed, and Sheikh Sadooq followed him and so did Ibn Nooj as well as others, and this is sufficient as evidence to discredit him and declare him unreliable.”

Source: Khui, Mu’jam Rijaal al-Hadeeth, vol. 18, pg 298

Given the fact that there is so much evidence against this narrator, there is really no need to assess the status of the remaining narrators, because the presence of this narrator alone in this chain is sufficient to render it unreliable, but just for the sake of further knowledge, there is no harm in briefly indicating the status of the remaining narrators:

 

Mohammad bin Khalid al-Tayaalisi = Majhool

Salih bin Uqbah = Ghaali and Kazzab (as per the testimony of Ibn al-Ghadhaairi) and Majhool as per the testimony of other scholars of Rijaal.

Alqamah bin Muhammad al-Hadhrami = Majhool

_______________________________________________________________

Analysis of the second chain:

The second chain also passes through the aforementioned Salih bin Uqbah.

Modern Qummi scholars have tried to rescue this narrator by giving him the benefit of the collective mass authentication of the narrators of Kaamil Ziyaaraat and Tafseerul Qummi, but we already know from Sayyid Khui’s withdrawal of his mass authentication of the narrators of Kaamil Ziyaaraat that such mass authentications are of no value.

Besides, even according to the modern Qummi Manhaj, it is not permissible to rescue Salih bin Uqbah using the mass authentication of the narrators of Kaamil Ziyaaraat or Tafseerul Qummi, because the condition that their own scholars have laid down for the validity of mass authentications is that they should not be contradicted by the Jarh (discrediting) of a Rijaalist, and in this case Salih bin Uqbah cannot be rescued because he has already been exposed and discredited by the explicit testimony of Allamah Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, who writes:

قال ابن الغضائري برقم 70 :  صالح بن عقبة بن قيس بن سمعان بن أبي ذبيحة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ، روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، غالٍ ، كذاب ، لا يلتفت إليه .

“Salih son of Uqbah son of Qays son of Sam’aan son of Abi Zubayha, the slave of Rasoolullah (SAWW). He used to narrate from Imam Sadiq (as), and was a Ghaali and a Kazzaab (Serial liar), and no attention should be paid to anything he narrates.”

Allamah Hilli further endorses and recapitulates this testimony in his Khulaasah (pg 130):

 

وقال العلامة في الخلاصة ص 230 رقم 4 صالح بن عقبة بن قيس بن سمعان بن أبي ذبيحة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام : كذاب ، غال ، لا يُلتفت إليه . 

“Salih son of Uqbah son of Qays son of Sam’aan son of Abi Zubayha, the slave of Rasoolullah (SAWW). He used to narrate from Imam Sadiq (as), and was a Ghaali and a Kazzaab (Serial liar), and no attention should be paid to anything he narrates.”

 

Ibn Dawood confirms that this narrator was a serial liar and that his narrations should not be relied upon since they are worthless:

وقال ابن داود في رجاله : ( ليس حديثه بشيء ، كذَّاب ، غالٍ كثير المناكير ) انظر رجال ابن داود القسم الثاني رقم 237 وفي فصل آخر : أنه ليس بشيء .

 

Even Ayatullah Sheikh Husayn al-Raadhi has expressed surprise in his book on Ziyaarate Ashoora on how some modern day Qummi scholars  have blatantly ignored the collective testimonies of Ibnul Ghadhaairi, Allamah Hilli, and Ibn Dawood, and authenticated this narrator on the basis of weak and nonsensical dhanni arguments.

 

Maalik bin A’yun al-Juhani = Majhool

Sheikh Toosi also provides some chains for this Ziyaarah in his Misbaah, but none of them is authentic since his chains are not free from the names of the discredited narrators mentioned above. In fact, Ayatullah Sheikh Husain al-Radhiy opines that Sheikh Toosi most probably copied his chains from Ibn Qawlawahy because there are very slight variations between his version of the chain and that of Ibn Qawlawayh. Given that we have already discredited the chains provided by Ibn Qawlawahy and exposed the Majaaheel, liars and Ghulaat in it, there is no need to repeat the same info again and again with Toosi’s chains, because they have the same discredited narrators in them.

 

In conclusion, we do not even have a single flawlessly Saheeh chain for Ziyaarate Ashoorah in our entire literature. Every chain given for it is dhaeef and had Ghaali liars in it, which lends credence to the idea that this entire Ziyaarah (or at least large chunks of it) is the product of the fabrication of the Ghulaat (extremist Shias) who used to make up stuff on their own and then falsely attribute it to the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt (as). These Ghulaat were cursed by the later Imams who not only warned us not to rely on their narrations, but urged us to reject anything that comes to us from them, and so if we still choose to rely on their narrations, and ignore the earnest appeals and grave warnings from our Imams not to trust their narrations, then we do so at our own peril.