TWELVERSHIA.NET FALSELY DECLARES AN ACCEPTED SHIA HADITH “UNRELIABLE”
Response to:
“Response to: Did the Sheikhayn Repent Before they Died?”
TwelverShia.net, April 23, 2013
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/04/23/response-to-did-the-sheikhayn-repent-before-they-died/
TwelverShia.net attempts to dismiss the following narration of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir عليه السلام:
حَنَّانٌ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ لَهُ: مَا كَانَ وَلَدُ يَعْقُوبَ أَنْبِيَاءَ؟ قَالَ: لَا، وَلَكِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا أَسْبَاطَ أَوْلَادِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ، وَلَمْ يَكُونُوا يُفَارِقُونَ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا سُعَدَاءَ، تَابُوا وَتَذَكَّرُوا مَا صَنَعُوا، وَإِنَّ الشَّيْخَيْنِ فَارَقَا الدُّنْيَا وَلَمْ يَتُوبَا، وَلَمْ يَتَذَكَّرَا مَا صَنَعَا بِأَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، فَعَلَيْهِمَا لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ.
“Hannan narrated from his father, from Imam Abu Ja‘far al-Baqir عليه السلام. Hannan said: I asked him, ‘Were the sons of Jacob prophets?’
He replied: ‘No. Rather, they were the tribes descended from prophets. They did not depart this world except in a state of happiness: they repented and remembered what they had done. But the two Shaykhs departed this world without repenting and without remembering what they had done to the Commander of the Faithful عليه السلام. Therefore, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all people.’”
Reference: Al-Kulayni, Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 246, hadith 343.
TwelverShia.net claims that this report is unauthentic because:
1. Sudayr, Hannan’s father, was supposedly anonymous and unreliable.
2. Ibrahim ibn Hashim was supposedly anonymous and considered trustworthy only because of Tafsir al-Qummi.
Both claims collapse under the Shia rijal sources themselves.
1. TWELVERSHIA.NET MISREPORTS AL-MAJLISI’S GRADING
The article says al-Majlisi graded the narration “Muwaththaq.”
But al-Majlisi’s exact words are:
الْحَدِيثُ الثَّالِثُ وَالْأَرْبَعُونَ وَالثَّلَاثُمِائَةِ: حَسَنٌ أَوْ مُوَثَّقٌ
“Hadith 343: Hasan or Muwaththaq.”
Reference: Al-Majlisi, Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 26, p. 215.
This is not a weak grading.
It is not “majhul.”
It is not “unreliable.”
Al-Majlisi placed the report within one of two accepted hadith categories:
Hasan: a report whose transmitters are praised and acceptable.
Muwaththaq: a report whose transmitters are considered reliable, even if one transmitter did not adhere to the Imami creed.
TwelverShia.net simply ignores the actual specialist grading and substitutes its own declaration that the report is unreliable.
2. THE COMPLETE CHAIN IS ESTABLISHED
The abbreviated printed text reads:
حَنَّانٌ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ
“Hannan, from his father, from Abu Ja‘far.”
But the modern critical edition of al-Kafi explains that this sanad and the following reports are suspended upon the preceding full chain:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ حَنَّانِ بْنِ سَدِيرٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ
Ali ibn Ibrahim
from his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim
from Hannan ibn Sudayr
from his father Sudayr al-Sayrafi
from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir عليه السلام.
The critical editor explicitly states:
السَّنَدُ وَالْأَسَانِيدُ الثَّلَاثَةُ الْآتِيَةُ مُعَلَّقَةٌ عَلَى السَّنَدِ السَّابِقِ، فَعَلَيْهِ رِوَايَةُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ حَنَّانٍ ثَابِتَةٌ
“This sanad and the following three sanads are suspended upon the preceding sanad. Accordingly, the transmission of Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Hannan is established.”
Reference: Al-Kafi, Dar al-Hadith critical edition, hadiths 15155–15159.
Therefore, the report is not an unexplained transmission directly from al-Kulayni to Hannan. Its chain passes through al-Kulayni’s famous teacher Ali ibn Ibrahim and his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim.
3. ALI IBN IBRAHIM IS EXPLICITLY TRUSTWORTHY
The first transmitter is Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi.
Al-Najashi described him:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ هَاشِمٍ أَبُو الْحَسَنِ الْقُمِّيُّ، ثِقَةٌ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ثَبْتٌ، مُعْتَمَدٌ، صَحِيحُ الْمَذْهَبِ، سَمِعَ فَأَكْثَرَ، وَصَنَّفَ كُتُبًا
“Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim, Abu al-Hasan al-Qummi: trustworthy in hadith, firm, relied upon, correct in doctrine. He heard extensively and authored books.”
Reference: Al-Najashi, Rijal al-Najashi, biography of Ali ibn Ibrahim.
There is no dispute concerning his reliability.
He is:
ثِقَةٌ فِي الْحَدِيثِ
“Trustworthy in hadith.”
ثَبْتٌ
“Firm and accurate.”
مُعْتَمَدٌ
“Relied upon.”
4. IBRAHIM IBN HASHIM WAS NOT DECLARED RELIABLE ONLY THROUGH TAFSIR AL-QUMMI
TwelverShia.net claims:
“Ibrahim ibn Hashim has also only been considered trustworthy for the same reason as Sudayr, which is his inclusion in Tafsir al-Qummi. So he too is anonymous and unreliable.”
This claim is plainly false.
Al-Sayyid Ibn Tawus examined a chain containing Ibrahim ibn Hashim and declared:
وَرُوَاةُ الْحَدِيثِ ثِقَاتٌ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ
“The transmitters of this hadith are trustworthy by agreement.”
Reference: Ibn Tawus, Falah al-Sa’il, p. 158.
Al-Khoei cites this as an independent proof for Ibrahim’s reliability:
أَنَّ السَّيِّدَ ابْنَ طَاوُوسَ ادَّعَى الِاتِّفَاقَ عَلَى وَثَاقَتِهِ
“Al-Sayyid Ibn Tawus claimed agreement concerning his reliability.”
This argument has nothing to do with whether the existing compilation of Tafsir al-Qummi is entirely attributable to Ali ibn Ibrahim.
5. AL-‘ALLAMAH AL-HILLI ACCEPTED IBRAHIM’S NARRATIONS
Al-‘Allamah al-Hilli wrote:
لَمْ أَقِفْ لِأَحَدٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَلَى قَوْلٍ فِي الْقَدْحِ فِيهِ، وَلَا عَلَى تَعْدِيلِهِ بِالتَّنْصِيصِ، وَالرِّوَايَاتُ عَنْهُ كَثِيرَةٌ، وَالْأَرْجَحُ قَبُولُ قَوْلِهِ
“I have not found any statement from our scholars criticising him, nor an explicit statement of accreditation. Narrations from him are numerous, and the stronger position is to accept his report.”
Reference: Al-‘Allamah al-Hilli, Khulasat al-Aqwal.
This directly contradicts TwelverShia.net’s assertion that Ibrahim was simply “anonymous and unreliable.”
Al-Hilli did not reject his reports.
He said:
وَالْأَرْجَحُ قَبُولُ قَوْلِهِ
“The stronger position is to accept his report.”
6. AL-KHOEI SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IBRAHIM’S RELIABILITY
Al-Khoei wrote:
لَا يَنْبَغِي الشَّكُّ فِي وَثَاقَةِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ هَاشِمٍ
“There should be no doubt concerning the reliability of Ibrahim ibn Hashim.”
He then supplied multiple arguments—not only Tafsir al-Qummi:
First, Ibn Tawus claimed agreement that the narrators of a chain containing Ibrahim were trustworthy.
Second, Ibrahim was the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qum.
Third, the strict hadith scholars of Qum accepted and extensively transmitted his narrations. Had there been any recognised defect in him, they would not have agreed to receive and transmit his reports.
Fourth, Ibrahim appears in approximately 6,414 chains, an extraordinary level of transmission and scholarly dependence.
Al-Khoei states:
وَالْقُمِّيُّونَ قَدِ اعْتَمَدُوا عَلَى رِوَايَاتِهِ، وَفِيهِمْ مَنْ هُوَ مُسْتَصْعَبٌ فِي أَمْرِ الْحَدِيثِ، فَلَوْ كَانَ فِيهِ شَائِبَةُ الْغَمْزِ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيَتَسَالَمَ عَلَى أَخْذِ الرِّوَايَةِ عَنْهُ وَقَبُولِ قَوْلِهِ
“The scholars of Qum relied upon his narrations, and among them were those who were extremely strict regarding hadith. Had there been any trace of criticism concerning him, they would not have agreed upon accepting narration from him and receiving his reports.”
Reference: Al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 1, p. 291.
TwelverShia.net reduces all of this to:
“He appears in Tafsir al-Qummi, therefore he is anonymous.”
That is not rijal criticism.
It is suppression of the evidence.
7. HANNAN IBN SUDAYR HAS AN EXPLICIT EARLY DECLARATION OF RELIABILITY
Al-Shaykh al-Tusi wrote in al-Fihrist:
حَنَّانُ بْنُ سَدِيرٍ، لَهُ كِتَابٌ، وَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ
“Hannan ibn Sudayr: he has a book, and he is trustworthy—may Allah have mercy upon him.”
Reference: Al-Tusi, al-Fihrist, biography no. 244.
This is an explicit early tawthiq:
وَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ
“He is trustworthy.”
Hannan was associated with the Waqifi position. That does not make him unknown or dishonest. It means that, under later Imami terminology, an otherwise trustworthy non-Imami transmitter may cause the report to be classified as Muwaththaq rather than Sahih.
This explains al-Majlisi’s grading:
حَسَنٌ أَوْ مُوَثَّقٌ
“Hasan or Muwaththaq.”
TwelverShia.net cannot convert an explicitly trustworthy transmitter into an anonymous one simply because his doctrinal affiliation affects the technical label of the report.
8. SUDAYR WAS NOT “ANONYMOUS”
TwelverShia.net calls Sudayr anonymous.
But Sudayr ibn Hakim al-Sayrafi is identified in the early biographical works as:
A companion of Imam Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Sajjad عليه السلام.
A companion and narrator from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir عليه السلام.
A companion and narrator from Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq عليه السلام.
The early rijal catalogues identify him by name, lineage, kunyah, location and teachers:
سُدَيْرُ بْنُ حَكِيمِ بْنِ صُهَيْبٍ الصَّيْرَفِيُّ، يُكَنَّى أَبَا الْفَضْلِ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ
“Sudayr ibn Hakim ibn Suhayb al-Sayrafi, known as Abu al-Fadl, from Kufa.”
A known and repeatedly documented transmitter may be disputed in reliability, but he is not “anonymous.”
TwelverShia.net confuses two entirely different terms:
Majhul: an unidentified or insufficiently known person.
Disputed: a known person regarding whom scholars differ.
Sudayr was known. His status was discussed extensively. Calling him anonymous is technically false.
9. AL-‘ALLAMAH AL-HILLI ACCEPTED A REPORT PRAISING SUDAYR
Rijal al-Kashshi transmits that Imam al-Sadiq عليه السلام was seen weeping and praying concerning Sudayr and ‘Abd al-Salam, who had been imprisoned.
The Imam said:
يَا شَحَّامُ، إِنِّي طَلَبْتُ إِلَى إِلَهِي فِي سُدَيْرٍ وَعَبْدِ السَّلَامِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، وَكَانَا فِي السِّجْنِ، فَوَهَبَهُمَا لِي وَخَلَّى سَبِيلَهُمَا
“O Shahham, I petitioned my God concerning Sudayr and ‘Abd al-Salam ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman, who were in prison. He granted them to me and released them.”
Al-‘Allamah al-Hilli judged:
وَهَذَا سَنَدٌ مُعْتَبَرٌ، وَالْحَدِيثُ يَدُلُّ عَلَى شَرَفِهِمَا
“This is a reliable chain, and the hadith indicates their honour.”
Another wording states:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُعْتَبَرٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى عُلُوِّ رُتْبَتِهِمَا
“This is a reliable hadith indicating their high rank.”
Reference: Al-‘Allamah al-Hilli, Khulasat al-Aqwal, biography of Sudayr.
Therefore, TwelverShia.net’s claim that Sudayr “received no praise from any early scholar” is false.
Al-Hilli explicitly accepted a report indicating his honour and high standing.
10. AL-MAJLISI THE FIRST CALLED SUDAYR’S PRAISE REPORT “HASAN LIKE SAHIH”
Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi wrote:
رَوَى الْكَشِّيُّ فِي الْحَسَنِ كَالصَّحِيحِ أَنَّ الصَّادِقَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ بَكَى وَدَعَا، ثُمَّ قَالَ: يَا شَحَّامُ إِنِّي طَلَبْتُ إِلَى إِلَهِي فِي سُدَيْرٍ وَعَبْدِ السَّلَامِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ...
“Al-Kashshi narrated through a chain that is Hasan like Sahih that Imam al-Sadiq wept and prayed, then said: ‘O Shahham, I petitioned my God concerning Sudayr and ‘Abd al-Salam ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman…’”
Reference: Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi, Rawdat al-Muttaqin, vol. 14, p. 134.
Thus another major Shia hadith scholar explicitly treated the evidence praising Sudayr as:
فِي الْحَسَنِ كَالصَّحِيحِ
“Hasan like Sahih.”
TwelverShia.net follows one later criticism of the praise chain while hiding the contrary rijal assessments of al-Hilli and al-Majlisi.
11. EVEN SUNNI RIJAL SOURCES DID NOT REGARD SUDAYR AS ANONYMOUS
Al-Dhahabi records concerning Sudayr:
صَالِحُ الْحَدِيثِ
“Acceptable in hadith.”
He also records that Yahya ibn Ma‘in said:
ثِقَةٌ
“Trustworthy.”
Other Sunni critics weakened Sudayr largely while mentioning his strong Shi‘i affiliation. But this internal disagreement proves the important point:
Sudayr was not anonymous.
He was a known transmitter whose reliability was evaluated by both Shia and Sunni hadith critics.
Even Yahya ibn Ma‘in—one of the foremost Sunni rijal authorities—declared him trustworthy.
12. SUDAYR’S MEETING WITH IMAM AL-BAQIR IS ESTABLISHED
The report runs:
Sudayr → Imam Abu Ja‘far al-Baqir عليه السلام.
The early biographical catalogues count Sudayr among Imam al-Baqir’s companions.
Even al-Bukhari’s biographical notice, as quoted by al-Dhahabi, states:
سَمِعَ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ
“He heard Abu Ja‘far.”
Therefore, there is no disconnection between Sudayr and Imam Muhammad al-Baqir عليه السلام.
13. AL-KHOEI’S CONCLUSION CANNOT BE REVERSED
It is true that al-Khoei critically examined the individual praise reports concerning Sudayr and did not consider all of them sufficient on their own.
But al-Khoei’s final conclusion was still that Sudayr was trustworthy.
TwelverShia.net quotes al-Khoei’s criticism of some proofs, rejects his final ruling and then concludes:
“Therefore, we can be sure that Sudayr is unreliable.”
That conclusion does not follow.
Even if one disputes the general authentication of Tafsir al-Qummi’s narrators, the result would be:
The universal Tafsir al-Qummi argument is disputed.
It would not prove:
Sudayr was a liar.
Sudayr was unknown.
Sudayr was unreliable.
A disputed proof of reliability is not positive proof of unreliability.
The article commits a basic rijal fallacy:
“Not proven trustworthy by the particular method I accept” does not equal “proven unreliable.”
14. THE ARTICLE’S CLAIM ABOUT IBRAHIM IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE
The most obvious factual error in the entire article is:
“Ibrahim ibn Hashim has only been considered trustworthy because of Tafsir al-Qummi.”
The record shows otherwise:
Ibn Tawus claimed agreement on the trustworthiness of a chain containing him.
Al-‘Allamah al-Hilli preferred acceptance of his narrations.
Al-Khoei said there should be no doubt regarding his reliability.
The strict Qummi hadith school accepted his enormous body of transmission.
He appears in more than six thousand chains.
No recognised early criticism was recorded against him.
Therefore, the objection to the present compilation of Tafsir al-Qummi does not make Ibrahim anonymous or unreliable.
TwelverShia.net’s second objection collapses completely.
15. FINAL SANAD ASSESSMENT
The established chain is:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ
عَنْ أَبِيهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ هَاشِمٍ
عَنْ حَنَّانِ بْنِ سَدِيرٍ
عَنْ أَبِيهِ سُدَيْرٍ الصَّيْرَفِيِّ
عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ الْبَاقِرِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ
Ali ibn Ibrahim:
Explicitly trustworthy, firm and relied upon.
Ibrahim ibn Hashim:
Accepted by al-Hilli; declared trustworthy by agreement in Ibn Tawus’s assessment; considered unquestionably reliable by al-Khoei.
Hannan ibn Sudayr:
Explicitly declared trustworthy by al-Tusi. His Waqifi affiliation explains the possibility of the technical label “Muwaththaq.”
Sudayr al-Sayrafi:
A known companion of al-Sajjad, al-Baqir and al-Sadiq; praised through a report judged reliable by al-Hilli and Hasan like Sahih by Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi; ultimately declared trustworthy by al-Khoei; also declared trustworthy by the Sunni critic Yahya ibn Ma‘in.
Imam al-Majlisi’s final grading of the exact narration is therefore fully understandable:
حَسَنٌ أَوْ مُوَثَّقٌ
“Hasan or Muwaththaq.”
The academically careful conclusion is not that every scholar must call the chain “Sahih” in the strict terminological sense.
The accurate conclusion is:
The report has been explicitly graded Hasan or Muwaththaq by al-Majlisi.
Its principal transmitters possess direct or strong cumulative accreditation.
Ibrahim ibn Hashim’s reliability does not depend solely upon Tafsir al-Qummi.
Sudayr was neither anonymous nor proven unreliable.
Hannan ibn Sudayr was explicitly trustworthy.
The connection to Imam al-Baqir is established.
Therefore, TwelverShia.net has not demonstrated that the report is weak.
It has merely selected disputed objections, concealed the contrary rijal evidence and falsely converted “disputed by one methodology” into “anonymous and unreliable.”
FINAL VERDICT
TwelverShia.net’s refutation fails on every essential point.
It misstates al-Majlisi’s exact grading.
It falsely calls Sudayr anonymous.
It ignores al-Hilli’s acceptance of the evidence praising Sudayr.
It ignores Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi’s “Hasan like Sahih” assessment.
It falsely claims Ibrahim ibn Hashim’s reliability rests only upon Tafsir al-Qummi.
It ignores Ibn Tawus’s claim of agreement.
It ignores al-Hilli’s acceptance of Ibrahim’s reports.
It ignores al-Khoei’s declaration that Ibrahim’s reliability should not be doubted.
It ignores al-Tusi’s explicit authentication of Hannan.
It confuses Hannan’s Waqifi affiliation with unreliability.
And it converts disagreement over one method of authentication into a categorical declaration that the entire report is false.
The exact hadith remains:
حَسَنٌ أَوْ مُوَثَّقٌ
“Hasan or Muwaththaq,”
according to al-Majlisi’s specialist grading.
Therefore, the narration cannot honestly be dismissed as an anonymous, unreliable or worthless report.
The article did not disprove the hadith.
It concealed the evidence that authenticates it.
An Accepted Shia Hadith Under Attack
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...