Did Shias Invent the Twelve Imams After the Occultation?

Did Shias Fabricate the Names of the Twelve Imams After the Occultation?

Refuting this article:

https://www.twelvershia.net/2017/10/08/narrations-names-twelve-imams/

This anti-Shia article claims that the names of the Twelve Imams were unknown to early Shias, that the list was invented after the occultation, and that there are “no authentic narrations” naming the Twelve Imams. The article says early Shias kept splitting because they had no idea who the next Imam was, and it concludes that narrations naming the Twelve Imams are a later fabrication.

But this argument is not balanced research. It is selective polemics.

First, let us be honest: Shia scholars do not need to prove that every single lay Shia knew every Imam’s name publicly from day one. That is not the real claim. The real claim is that the doctrine of Twelve Imams was preserved in early Shia transmission, through reliable companions, with reports about the number, the sequence, the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt, the nine from Husayn, the Qa’im, and specific nass from Imam to Imam.

If some people became confused after an Imam’s death, that does not prove no texts existed. It only proves that not every person had access to every text, especially under Umayyad and Abbasid pressure, imprisonment, taqiyyah, and surveillance.

Even Sayyid al-Khoei explained that reports of twelve Imams by number were transmitted through Sunni and Shia paths, but the names were not necessarily public to every companion in a way that would remove all later doubt; the wisdom of that time could require concealment “even from their companions except the people of their secret.” This directly answers the “Shias split, therefore there were no texts” argument.

Now let us come to the actual evidence.

The strongest early Shia proof is Hadith al-Khidr in al-Kafi.

Al-Kulayni narrates in Kitab al-Hujjah, “Bab ma ja’a fi al-ithnay ‘ashar wa al-nass ‘alayhim”:

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد البرقي، عن أبي هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري، عن أبي جعفر الثاني عليه السلام...

Then al-Khidr testifies to the succession of the Imams:

وأشهد أنك وصي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله والقائم بحجته ـ وأشار إلى أمير المؤمنين ـ

وأشهد أنك وصيه والقائم بحجته ـ وأشار إلى الحسن عليه السلام ـ

وأشهد أن الحسين بن علي وصي أخيه والقائم بحجته بعده

وأشهد على علي بن الحسين أنه القائم بأمر الحسين بعده

وأشهد على محمد بن علي أنه القائم بأمر علي بن الحسين

وأشهد على جعفر بن محمد بأنه القائم بأمر محمد

وأشهد على موسى أنه القائم بأمر جعفر بن محمد

وأشهد على علي بن موسى أنه القائم بأمر موسى بن جعفر

وأشهد على محمد بن علي أنه القائم بأمر علي بن موسى

وأشهد على علي بن محمد بأنه القائم بأمر محمد بن علي

وأشهد على الحسن بن علي بأنه القائم بأمر علي بن محمد

وأشهد على رجل من ولد الحسن لا يكنى ولا يسمى حتى يظهر أمره فيملأها عدلا كما ملئت جورا

English:

“I testify that you are the successor of the Messenger of Allah and the one who upholds His proof — pointing to Amir al-Mu’minin. And I testify that you are his successor and the one who upholds His proof — pointing to al-Hasan. And I testify that al-Husayn b. Ali is the successor of his brother and the one who upholds His proof after him. And I testify that Ali b. al-Husayn will uphold the affair after al-Husayn; Muhammad b. Ali after Ali b. al-Husayn; Ja‘far b. Muhammad after Muhammad; Musa after Ja‘far b. Muhammad; Ali b. Musa after Musa b. Ja‘far; Muhammad b. Ali after Ali b. Musa; Ali b. Muhammad after Muhammad b. Ali; al-Hasan b. Ali after Ali b. Muhammad; and I testify to a man from the descendants of al-Hasan who will not be named or given his kunyah until his matter appears, and he will fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice.”

This narration gives the entire sequence from Imam Ali to Imam Hasan al-Askari, then points to the hidden Imam from the descendants of Hasan al-Askari. The fact that the twelfth is not publicly named in the wording is not a weakness; it actually matches the Shia doctrine of concealment around Imam al-Mahdi.

Now the chain.

Al-Majlisi says in Mir’at al-‘Uqul:

الحديث الأول: صحيح

“The first hadith: sahih.”

The anti-Shia article tries to attack Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi and says another version in al-Mahasin is shorter, so later narrators must have added the names.

This is weak logic.

A shorter version of a narration does not prove the longer version is fabricated. Hadith books often quote the same incident in short form in one chapter and longer form in another chapter. Sunni books do this all the time. Nobody says every longer version in Bukhari or Muslim is “foul play” just because another version is shorter.

More importantly, al-Kafi itself preserves a powerful historical note. Al-Kulayni gives another route:

وحدثني محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله، عن أبي هاشم مثله سواء

Then Muhammad b. Yahya said to al-Saffar that he wished this report had come from someone other than Ahmad b. Abi Abdillah al-Barqi. Al-Saffar replied:

لقد حدثني قبل الحيرة بعشر سنين

“He narrated it to me ten years before the hayrah/confusion.”

This is devastating against the claim of post-occultation fabrication.

Why?

Because the report was already transmitted before the crisis of confusion. It was not invented after the occultation to fix the problem. It existed before the hayrah by ten years.

The Arabic Shia research at Basa’ir explains this point clearly: Muhammad b. Yahya wanted the report to come from someone whose transmission would prove prediction before the event. Al-Saffar answered that al-Barqi had narrated it before the hayrah by ten years, meaning the report predates the confusion and cannot be dismissed as a later invention.

The same Arabic study says:

أما من جهة السند فإنه صحيح بالاتفاق

“As for the chain, it is authentic by agreement.”

It also says al-Barqi did not take this from some forged unknown written copy. Rather, other early routes explicitly say:

حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، قال: حدثنا أبو هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري

“Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid narrated to us; he said: Abu Hashim Dawud b. al-Qasim al-Ja‘fari narrated to us.”

So the narration is direct hearing from Abu Hashim al-Ja‘fari, not a mysterious late insertion.

Now compare this to the article’s claim.

The article says these narrations were only documented after the time of the Imams and then insinuates fabrication. But al-Saduq himself says the Imams had informed the Shia of the occultation and that this was preserved in written books before the occultation by two hundred years, less or more:

إن الأئمة عليهم السلام قد أخبروا بغيبته ووصفوا كونها لشيعتهم فيما نقل عنهم واستحفظ في الصحف ودون في الكتب المؤلفة من قبل أن تقع الغيبة بمئتي سنة أو أقل أو أكثر

“The Imams had informed of his occultation and described it to their Shia in what was transmitted from them, preserved in writings, and recorded in books authored before the occultation occurred by two hundred years, less or more.”

So the Shia claim is not “we invented names after occultation.” The Shia claim is that the texts existed in earlier usul and reports, even if their later surviving compilations reached us through al-Kafi, al-Saduq, al-Tusi, and others.

Now let us address the article’s other trick.

It attacks Hadith al-Lawh through Bakr b. Salih and then acts as if the whole Shia doctrine depends only on that one chain.

This is false.

Hadith al-Lawh is one evidence, not the only evidence. Even if someone weakens one route, the doctrine is established through multiple layers:

Reports that the Imams are twelve.
Reports that they are from Ahl al-Bayt.
Reports that nine are from the descendants of Imam Husayn.
Reports naming or sequencing them.
Specific nass from each Imam upon the next Imam.
The sahih al-Kafi Hadith al-Khidr with pre-hayrah transmission.

Al-Kafi also has reports about the number and identity framework.

For example, it narrates from Imam al-Baqir:

الاثنا عشر إماماً من آل محمد عليهم السلام كلهم محدث

“The Twelve Imams are from the family of Muhammad; all of them are divinely inspired.”

Another report says:

يكون تسعة أئمة بعد الحسين بن علي تاسعهم قائمهم

“There will be nine Imams after al-Husayn b. Ali; the ninth of them is their Qa’im.”

These reports show the structure clearly: twelve from Ahl al-Bayt, and nine after Imam Husayn, ending with the Qa’im.

So even before arguing over every single naming report, the map is already clear:

Ali
Hasan
Husayn
Nine from Husayn
The ninth from Husayn is the Qa’im

That is not Yazid, not Marwan, not Abdul Malik, not Walid, not Umayyad kings.

Now about al-Fadl b. Shadhan.

The anti-Shia article tries to dismiss the book Ithbat al-Raj‘ah attributed to al-Fadl b. Shadhan as if it appeared out of nowhere in the 11th century and should be ignored.

But this is exaggerated.

Al-Fadl b. Shadhan died in 260 AH, the very year of the beginning of the minor occultation. Shia rijal sources describe him as a major companion, jurist, theologian, and trustworthy figure. Al-Najashi said he was “ثقة” and one of the great jurists and theologians of the Shia, and al-Tusi called him a great jurist-theologian.

The book Ithbat al-Raj‘ah is not a random modern invention either. Research on the book notes that early bibliographers such as al-Tusi and al-Najashi mentioned works of al-Fadl on raj‘ah, al-Qa’im, occultation and Imamah.

Yes, there are manuscript-history discussions around the surviving copy. A fair Shia should not make this the only foundation of the doctrine. But the anti-Shia article’s attempt to erase it completely is also not fair. It is supporting early evidence, while the foundation remains stronger reports such as Hadith al-Khidr in al-Kafi.

The article also says: “If the names were known, why did some companions ask who the next Imam was?”

Answer: because not every report was public to every person.

Even in Sunni Islam, if some Muslims misunderstood succession, qadar, attributes, fiqh, or theology, does that prove there were no Qur’an and hadith texts? No. Confusion among people proves human limitation, not absence of divine evidence.

By the article’s logic, Sunni Islam would collapse too, because Sunnis themselves split into Ash‘ari, Maturidi, Athari, Salafi, Sufi, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali and many political groups. Does that prove the Prophet left no guidance? Of course not.

So why apply this weak logic only against Shias?

The real double standard is here:

Sunni books have the hadith of twelve caliphs in Bukhari and Muslim:

يكون اثنا عشر أميراً... كلهم من قريش

“There will be twelve leaders... all of them from Quraysh.”

But Sunni scholars could not agree who the twelve are. Some include Yazid ibn Muawiyah. Some include Umayyad kings. Some include Umar b. Abdul Aziz. Some include al-Mahdi. Some say they do not know the exact meaning. There is no sahih Sunni hadith where the Prophet names Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan, Muawiyah, Yazid, Abdul Malik, Walid, Sulayman and Umar b. Abdul Aziz as the Twelve.

But when Shia sources preserve the sequence of the Twelve from Ahl al-Bayt, suddenly anti-Shia polemicists demand impossible standards and dismiss everything as fabrication.

Final conclusion:

The article’s claim is false.

It is not true that the Shia list of Twelve Imams was simply invented after the occultation.

The al-Kafi Hadith al-Khidr gives the sequence of the Imams and is graded sahih by al-Majlisi. It also has the crucial statement that al-Barqi narrated it before the hayrah by ten years. Arabic Shia research argues the chain is connected through trustworthy narrators and that the report was transmitted before the occultation crisis, not fabricated after it.

The Shia evidence does not rest on one weak report. It is cumulative: twelve Imams, from Ahl al-Bayt, nine from Husayn, ending with the Qa’im, plus explicit sequence reports and nass from Imam to Imam.

So the real question is simple:

Who fits the Prophet’s Twelve better?

The purified Ahl al-Bayt:

Ali b. Abi Talib
Hasan b. Ali
Husayn b. Ali
Ali Zayn al-Abidin
Muhammad al-Baqir
Ja‘far al-Sadiq
Musa al-Kazim
Ali al-Rida
Muhammad al-Jawad
Ali al-Hadi
Hasan al-Askari
Muhammad al-Mahdi

Or lists that are forced to include Yazid, Marwan, Abdul Malik and Umayyad kings?

This article does not refute the Shia doctrine.

It exposes the weakness of anti-Shia polemics: attack some weak routes, ignore the strong ones, confuse secrecy with absence, confuse shorter versions with fabrication, and then pretend the entire doctrine collapsed.