According to Sunni Rijal Itself, “The City of Knowledge” Is Not a Fabrication
A critical refutation of TwelverShia.net
https://www.twelvershia.net/2014/02/14/response-to-the-door-to-the-city-of-knowledge/
The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said:
أَنَا مَدِينَةُ الْعِلْمِ وَعَلِيٌّ بَابُهَا، فَمَنْ أَرَادَ الْمَدِينَةَ فَلْيَأْتِ الْبَابَ
“I am the City of Knowledge, and Ali is its gate. Whoever desires the city should approach it through its gate.”
Another version states:
أَنَا دَارُ الْحِكْمَةِ وَعَلِيٌّ بَابُهَا
“I am the House of Wisdom, and Ali is its gate.”
TwelverShia.net claims that Sunni rijal leaves “no choice” except to declare this narration fabricated.
That conclusion is incorrect even according to the principles and narrator evaluations established by Sunni hadith scholars themselves.
The intellectually honest position is not that every individual route is Sahih. Some routes contain genuine weaknesses. The Jabir route is unusable, Abu al-Salt is disputed, al-A‘mash’s ‘an‘anah creates a possible tadlis issue, and the Sharik route is individually weak.
But a weak chain is not the same as a fabricated hadith.
More importantly, the hadith was not transmitted through only one alleged liar. It has different route-families, its central narrators were not unanimously accused of lying, and major Sunni hadith authorities concluded that its combined routes raise it to Hasan or at least establish that it has a genuine basis.
Therefore, “fabricated with no basis” is not the verdict required by Sunni rijal. It is merely the harshest opinion within a genuine Sunni scholarly dispute.
1. Sunni hadith terminology does not allow “weak” and “fabricated” to be treated as synonyms
A weak hadith may contain:
A narrator with imperfect memory.
A narrator whose reliability is disputed.
A possible interruption in the chain.
Tadlis.
Variation in the sanad.
A narrator who is acceptable in himself but makes mistakes.
A fabricated report, however, means that the statement was invented and falsely attributed to the Prophet ﷺ.
To call a hadith fabricated, it is not enough to identify ordinary weakness. One must establish that its routes ultimately depend upon a liar, an inventor, an impossible transmission, or some other decisive evidence of fabrication.
That has not been established here.
Sunni scholars themselves reached several different conclusions:
Some called it fabricated.
Some called it very weak.
Some called it weak but possessing a basis.
Some called it Hasan through its combined routes.
Some authenticated particular routes.
Once recognised Sunni hadith authorities classify it as Hasan, the claim that Sunni rijal itself requires a fabrication verdict becomes impossible.
2. The principal Ibn Abbas route
The main route from Ibn Abbas is:
أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسِ
Abu Mu‘awiyah, from al-A‘mash, from Mujahid, from Ibn Abbas.
The lower narrators are not unknown people:
Abu Mu‘awiyah Muhammad ibn Khazim was a recognised Sunni hafiz and a major transmitter from al-A‘mash.
Al-A‘mash, Sulayman ibn Mihran, was a recognised thiqah and hafiz.
Mujahid ibn Jabr was a leading scholar of tafsir and a recognised thiqah.
Ibn Abbas was a Companion.
The main dispute concerns:
Who transmitted the report from Abu Mu‘awiyah?
Did al-A‘mash directly hear this particular report from Mujahid?
Can other routes support this one?
These are real technical questions. They do not establish fabrication by themselves.
3. Abu al-Salt was disputed, but Sunni rijal does not establish that he was a liar
The most famous transmitter of the Ibn Abbas route from Abu Mu‘awiyah was:
عَبْدُ السَّلَامِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ أَبُو الصَّلْتِ الْهَرَوِيُّ
Abd al-Salam ibn Salih, Abu al-Salt al-Harawi.
Some Sunni critics weakened him, especially concerning reports about the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt.
But the final summary of Ibn Hajar is extremely important:
صَدُوقٌ لَهُ مَنَاكِيرُ، وَكَانَ يَتَشَيَّعُ، وَأَفْرَطَ الْعُقَيْلِيُّ فَقَالَ: كَذَّابٌ
“He was truthful, had some objectionable reports, and inclined toward Shiism. Al-‘Uqayli went to excess by calling him a liar.”
Reference: Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, biography of Abd al-Salam ibn Salih.
Ibn Hajar did not say:
“He was a proven liar.”
He said:
صَدُوقٌ
“Truthful.”
He also explicitly described al-‘Uqayli’s accusation of lying as:
أَفْرَطَ
“Excessive.”
Therefore, according to Ibn Hajar’s own Sunni rijal judgement, using al-‘Uqayli’s “liar” accusation as an uncontested fact is incorrect.
A truthful narrator who has some objectionable reports may cause a particular chain to be weak. His presence does not automatically make every report he narrates fabricated.
4. Yahya ibn Ma‘in also described Abu al-Salt as trustworthy or truthful
Al-Hakim records that Yahya ibn Ma‘in was asked about Abu al-Salt and replied:
ثِقَةٌ
“He is trustworthy.”
Another report records Yahya saying:
هُوَ صَدُوقٌ
“He is truthful.”
When the questioner raised the City of Knowledge narration as an objection, Yahya did not reply that Abu al-Salt had forged it.
Instead, he explained that Muhammad ibn Ja‘far al-Faydi also transmitted the report from Abu Mu‘awiyah.
Therefore, even if one does not accept Yahya’s statements as a final authentication of the complete Prophetic report, they establish two important facts:
Abu al-Salt was not unanimously regarded as a liar.
The narration was not known only through Abu al-Salt.
TwelverShia.net presents the accusation of fabrication as though Sunni rijal unanimously convicted Abu al-Salt of inventing this hadith. That is contradicted by the evaluations of Yahya ibn Ma‘in and Ibn Hajar.
5. Sunni rijal does not reject a truthful narrator merely because he was Shia
Abu al-Salt’s tashayyu‘ is repeatedly mentioned in the criticism directed at him.
But the Sunni science of rijal itself does not teach that every truthful Shia narrator must be rejected.
Al-Dhahabi wrote concerning Aban ibn Taghlib:
شِيعِيٌّ جَلْدٌ، لَكِنَّهُ صَدُوقٌ، فَلَنَا صِدْقُهُ وَعَلَيْهِ بِدْعَتُهُ
“He was a firm Shia, but truthful. We accept his truthfulness, while his innovation is against him.”
Al-Dhahabi then explained that if the reports of truthful early Shia narrators were rejected, a large portion of the Prophetic traditions would disappear.
Reference: al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I‘tidal, biography of Aban ibn Taghlib.
Therefore, Abu al-Salt’s Shia inclination cannot by itself prove that his narration is fabricated.
His accuracy must be studied independently.
The correct Sunni rijal question is:
“Was he truthful, and can this particular report be supported?”
It is not:
“Did he love Ahl al-Bayt or incline toward Shiism?”
6. Criticism because a narrator transmits Ahl al-Bayt’s virtues requires special caution
Some Sunni rijal statements explicitly accused Abu al-Salt concerning narrations about the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt.
This does not automatically mean that every critic acted dishonestly. Some may genuinely have regarded those reports as objectionable because they conflicted with what they believed to be established transmission.
But there is an obvious circular danger:
The narrator is weakened because he reports unusual virtues of Ahl al-Bayt.
Then those virtues are rejected because they were reported by a narrator weakened for transmitting them.
Sunni rijal itself requires that the narrator’s honesty and precision be established through independent evidence, not merely through dislike of a report’s theological implications.
That is why Ibn Hajar’s balanced verdict matters:
Abu al-Salt was truthful but had objectionable reports; calling him a liar was excessive.
This permits caution concerning his individual narrations. It does not permit confidently accusing him of fabrication.
7. Abu al-Salt was not the sole transmitter from Abu Mu‘awiyah
The theory adopted by Ibn Hibban and repeated by TwelverShia.net is that Abu al-Salt fabricated the report and that later narrators stole it from him.
But al-Hakim records Yahya ibn Ma‘in saying:
قَدْ حَدَّثَ بِهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الْفَيْدِيُّ، وَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ مَأْمُونٌ
“Muhammad ibn Ja‘far al-Faydi also narrated it, and he is trustworthy and reliable.”
Al-Hakim then records the route:
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الْفَيْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسِ
“Muhammad ibn Ja‘far al-Faydi narrated from Abu Mu‘awiyah, from al-A‘mash, from Mujahid, from Ibn Abbas.”
Reference: al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, hadith “I am the City of Knowledge.”
Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi consequently explained the positive statement attributed to Yahya ibn Ma‘in:
أَرَادَ أَنَّهُ صَحِيحٌ مِنْ حَدِيثِ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ وَلَيْسَ بِبَاطِلٍ، إِذْ قَدْ رَوَاهُ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ عَنْهُ
“He meant that it was correctly transmitted from Abu Mu‘awiyah and was not false, because more than one person narrated it from him.”
Reference: al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad.
This does not prove that the entire Prophetic narration is Sahih.
It does refute the categorical assertion that Abu al-Salt alone invented the report and falsely attached it to Abu Mu‘awiyah.
8. TwelverShia.net’s claim that al-Faydi was anonymous is false
The article says that Muhammad ibn Ja‘far al-Faydi was unknown and that no scholar declared him reliable.
But Yahya ibn Ma‘in is explicitly quoted saying:
وَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ مَأْمُونٌ
“He is trustworthy and reliable.”
Therefore:
“No scholar declared al-Faydi reliable”
is factually incorrect.
TwelverShia.net may still question other narrators in al-Faydi’s route.
It may argue that al-Faydi and Abu al-Salt converge upon the same lower chain.
It may discuss al-A‘mash’s tadlis.
Those are legitimate discussions.
Calling al-Faydi anonymous after Yahya ibn Ma‘in explicitly called him trustworthy and reliable is not legitimate rijal analysis. It is the omission of contrary evidence.
9. The al-Faydi route does not automatically produce Sahih li-dhatihi
Correcting TwelverShia.net does not require exaggerating in the opposite direction.
Both Abu al-Salt and al-Faydi ultimately narrate:
Abu Mu‘awiyah → al-A‘mash → Mujahid → Ibn Abbas.
They are therefore multiple transmitters from Abu Mu‘awiyah, but not two entirely separate Companion-level chains.
The route also contains:
الْأَعْمَشُ عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ
“Al-A‘mash from Mujahid.”
Al-A‘mash was a mudallis, and this particular chain does not use an explicit expression such as:
سَمِعْتُ مُجَاهِدًا
“I heard Mujahid.”
Therefore a strict critic may treat the possibility of tadlis as a weakness.
But this is an argument for caution or weakness—not fabrication.
A possible missing intermediary does not prove that the words were invented.
10. The claim that al-A‘mash barely heard anything from Mujahid is itself disputed
Some critics said that al-A‘mash directly heard only a few narrations from Mujahid.
But al-Bukhari reportedly rejected the restrictive claim and stated that he had counted approximately thirty narrations in which al-A‘mash explicitly said that Mujahid narrated to him.
This does not prove direct hearing in the City of Knowledge chain, because its wording remains ‘an‘anah.
It does prove that the general statement:
“Al-A‘mash did not hear from Mujahid except four narrations”
was itself disputed by al-Bukhari.
The fair conclusion is:
Direct hearing in this particular report is not explicitly established.
But the meeting and direct transmission relationship between al-A‘mash and Mujahid cannot simply be denied.
Again, the defect may justify weakening the individual route. It does not justify declaring the entire hadith fabricated.
11. There is a genuinely different route through Imam Ali a.s
Another version states:
أَنَا دَارُ الْحِكْمَةِ وَعَلِيٌّ بَابُهَا
“I am the House of Wisdom, and Ali is its gate.”
The route runs through:
Sharik ibn Abdullah
from Salamah ibn Kuhayl
from Suwayd ibn Ghafalah
from al-Sunabihi
from Imam Ali a.s.
Some versions omit al-Sunabihi and transmit it directly from Suwayd from Imam Ali.
Al-Tirmidhi called the particular route before him strange and objectionable.
Therefore this individual chain should not be called indisputably Sahih.
But it is still important because it is a separate route-family:
The Ibn Abbas route goes through Abu Mu‘awiyah and al-A‘mash.
The Imam Ali route goes through Sharik and Salamah ibn Kuhayl.
If Abu al-Salt had invented the Ibn Abbas report, that alone would not explain a separate, closely related report transmitted through a different Companion and different narrators.
This independent family is precisely why several Sunni scholars considered cumulative strengthening possible.
12. Sharik was not a liar or fabricator
Sharik ibn Abdullah was a recognised Sunni narrator and judge.
The criticism against him concerned:
Memory.
Mistakes.
Changes after assuming judicial office.
Inconsistency in some transmissions.
These are defects of precision, not proof of dishonesty.
A report transmitted by Sharik may remain weak individually, particularly when transmitted through another disputed narrator.
But a weak-memory narrator can provide supporting evidence when the text is also transmitted through an independent route.
That is a basic reason why al-‘Ala’i combined the Sharik route with the Abu Mu‘awiyah route.
13. Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Rumi was disputed, not a proven liar
One form of the Sharik route is transmitted through Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Rumi.
Sunni rijal assessments include:
Abu Dawud weakened him.
Abu Zur‘ah regarded him as having some softness.
Ibn Hajar described him as lenient in hadith.
Ibn Hibban included him among reliable narrators.
Al-Bukhari transmitted from him outside Sahih al-Bukhari.
This makes al-Rumi disputed and individually weak.
It does not make him a proven fabricator.
The correct Sunni rijal verdict is that his report needs support.
That is very different from declaring the entire hadith mawdu‘.
14. TwelverShia.net misquotes the statement about al-Rumi
The article claims that al-Zarkashi said al-Bukhari used al-Rumi “in his Sahih.” It then searches Sahih al-Bukhari, fails to find him, and declares the argument false.
But the actual Arabic statement says:
وَمُحَمَّدٌ هَذَا رَوَى عَنْهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي غَيْرِ الصَّحِيحِ
“Al-Bukhari narrated from this Muhammad outside the Sahih.”
It explicitly says:
فِي غَيْرِ الصَّحِيحِ
“Outside the Sahih.”
The same discussion openly acknowledges:
وَوَثَّقَهُ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ وَضَعَّفَهُ أَبُو دَاوُدَ
“Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy, while Abu Dawud weakened him.”
Therefore the original scholarly discussion never concealed al-Rumi’s disputed status.
TwelverShia.net inserted the words “in his Sahih” and then refuted a claim that was never made.
15. Variation concerning al-Sunabihi does not prove fabrication
Some versions state:
Suwayd ibn Ghafalah → al-Sunabihi → Imam Ali.
Other versions state:
Suwayd ibn Ghafalah → Imam Ali.
This sanad variation is a real weakness requiring examination.
But Suwayd ibn Ghafalah met and narrated from Imam Ali. Therefore the direct route is historically possible.
Some hadith scholars treated the additional al-Sunabihi as:
الْمَزِيدُ فِي مُتَّصِلِ الْأَسَانِيدِ
“An additional narrator inserted into an already connected chain.”
A strict critic may still regard the variation as weakening the route.
But variation between a possible direct chain and a possible mediated chain does not prove that the matn was fabricated.
16. The Jabir route is unusable—and should be discarded
Al-Hakim also transmitted the hadith through Jabir ibn Abdullah.
That route contains Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Harrani, whom critics severely condemned.
This chain is not acceptable evidence.
There is no need to defend every route merely because the report praises Imam Ali a.s.
But rejecting one corrupted route does not automatically invalidate the different Ibn Abbas and Imam Ali route-families.
A hadith judgement must examine every route, not take the worst chain and treat it as though it were the only chain.
17. Al-‘Ala’i applied Sunni hadith principles and concluded that the hadith is Hasan
After examining the Abu Mu‘awiyah and Sharik route-families, al-Hafiz al-‘Ala’i concluded:
بِمَجْمُوعِ طَرِيقَيْ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ وَشَرِيكٍ إِلَى دَرَجَةِ الْحَسَنِ الْمُحْتَجِّ بِهِ
“Through the combined routes of Abu Mu‘awiyah and Sharik, it reaches the degree of Hasan that may be used as evidence.”
He further rejected the conclusion that it was fabricated.
Reference: al-‘Ala’i, al-Naqd al-Sahih; quoted in later Sunni hadith commentaries.
Al-‘Ala’i did not claim:
Every chain is Sahih.
Abu al-Salt is beyond criticism.
Sharik never made mistakes.
Al-Rumi is an undisputed thiqah.
His conclusion was based on the Sunni principle of corroboration:
Different routes containing non-fatal weaknesses may support one another when they do not all depend upon the same proven liar.
One may disagree with his application of the principle.
One cannot claim that a Hasan verdict violates Sunni hadith methodology when a recognised Sunni hafiz reached that verdict through Sunni methodology.
18. Al-Zarkashi also rejected the fabrication verdict
Al-Zarkashi similarly concluded that the report reaches the degree of Hasan through its combined evidence and stated that it should not be classified as fabricated.
The importance of this position is not that al-Zarkashi must automatically be correct.
The importance is that:
“Hasan through combined routes”
is a recognised Sunni scholarly verdict.
Therefore the statement:
“Sunni rijal leaves no choice except fabrication”
is demonstrably false.
19. Ibn Hajar placed the hadith between Sahih and fabricated
Ibn Hajar did not simply follow al-Hakim’s unconditional authentication.
Nor did he accept Ibn al-Jawzi’s classification of fabrication.
He adopted the middle conclusion that the report does not rise to unquestioned Sahih but also does not descend to falsehood.
He is quoted as saying that the numerous routes establish, at minimum, that the hadith has an origin and that it should not be categorically labelled fabricated.
This is exactly what a balanced Sunni rijal analysis should produce:
Some routes are weak.
Some narrators are disputed.
No single route is universally Sahih.
But the combined material prevents an absolute fabrication verdict.
20. Al-Sakhawi explicitly called the Ibn Abbas report Hasan
Al-Sakhawi discussed the different versions, rejected many of the poor expanded wordings, and then said concerning the original Ibn Abbas report:
وَأَحْسَنُهَا حَدِيثُ ابْنِ عَبَّاسِ، بَلْ هُوَ حَسَنٌ
“The best of them is the narration of Ibn Abbas; rather, it is Hasan.”
Reference: al-Sakhawi, al-Maqasid al-Hasanah.
Al-Sakhawi was a leading Sunni hadith scholar and a student of Ibn Hajar.
His judgement may be disputed, but it cannot be treated as though it did not exist.
When a major Sunni hafiz explicitly calls the narration Hasan, a polemical website cannot honestly claim that Sunni hadith criticism makes fabrication compulsory.
21. Even Sunni fatwa sources acknowledge the recognised Hasan verdict
Islamweb presents the criticism of al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi and others.
But it also records that al-‘Ala’i and Ibn Hajar considered the report Hasan through its routes, and it reproduces al-Sakhawi’s conclusion that the Ibn Abbas narration is Hasan.
Therefore, even a modern Sunni source that does not adopt the Shia interpretation acknowledges the existence of the Sunni Hasan position.
The proper academic conclusion is:
“Sunni hadith scholars disputed it.”
Not:
“Only Shias accept it, and Sunni rijal proves it fabricated.”
22. Al-Hakim declared the Ibn Abbas route Sahih
Al-Hakim transmitted the narration and said:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ
“This hadith has an authentic chain.”
He defended Abu al-Salt and presented the corroborating transmission through al-Faydi.
Al-Dhahabi strongly disagreed with al-Hakim.
Therefore al-Hakim’s tasheeh is not an uncontested final verdict.
But it remains the judgement of a major Sunni hadith scholar, supported by an actual discussion of Abu al-Salt, al-Faydi and Yahya ibn Ma‘in.
The article may reject al-Hakim’s conclusion.
It cannot claim there is no Sunni basis for authenticating or strengthening the report.
23. Early criticism does not erase later examination of additional evidence
The article lists the negative verdicts of Ahmad, al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi and others.
Those verdicts are important and must be respected.
But hadith judgement is based on the total routes known to the critic.
Later scholars examined:
Multiple transmitters from Abu Mu‘awiyah.
The separate Imam Ali–Sharik route.
Different upper transmissions.
The conflicting evaluations of Abu al-Salt.
The tawthiq of al-Faydi.
The possibility of corroboration.
They consequently reached a different cumulative judgement.
Quoting an earlier negative judgement does not automatically refute every later scholar who obtained or considered additional supporting material.
The actual question is whether the later scholars applied the rules of corroboration correctly.
Al-‘Ala’i, al-Zarkashi, Ibn Hajar and al-Sakhawi concluded that they did.
24. The original narration must be distinguished from later balancing additions
Later expanded reports circulated saying:
أَنَا مَدِينَةُ الْعِلْمِ، وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ أَسَاسُهَا، وَعُمَرُ حِيطَانُهَا، وَعُثْمَانُ سَقْفُهَا، وَعَلِيٌّ بَابُهَا
“I am the City of Knowledge; Abu Bakr is its foundation, Umar its walls, Uthman its roof, and Ali its gate.”
Another version adds:
وَمُعَاوِيَةُ حَلْقَتُهَا
“And Muawiyah is its ring.”
Al-Sakhawi considered these expanded versions weak and described much of their wording as poor, while identifying the original Ibn Abbas wording concerning Imam Ali as Hasan.
This does not independently prove the original narration.
But it reveals an important historical pattern:
The simple virtue specifically naming Imam Ali circulated first as a recognised report.
Later balancing versions inserted Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Muawiyah into the same metaphor.
The original cannot fairly be rejected merely because later fabricated or weak expansions appeared around it.
25. The text itself is not irrational
TwelverShia.net asks:
“Was the Messenger of Allah not sent to all mankind? Why must people seek knowledge from his cousin?”
This is not a sanad argument.
It reduces Imam Ali a.s to a biological cousin while ignoring the claim being made about his knowledge and Prophetic training.
A universal Messenger may appoint:
A judge.
A teacher.
A representative.
A scribe.
A commander.
An authoritative interpreter.
A conveyor of his message.
The universality of the Prophet’s mission does not mean that every Muslim must receive every teaching directly from the Prophet’s physical person.
The entire hadith tradition, Sunni and Shia, reaches later Muslims through selected transmitters.
Therefore there is nothing irrational about the Prophet ﷺ identifying Imam Ali a.s as a principal gate to his knowledge.
26. Sahih al-Bukhari confirms Imam Ali’s exceptional judicial knowledge
Umar ibn Khattab said:
أَقْرَؤُنَا أُبَيٌّ، وَأَقْضَانَا عَلِيٌّ
“Ubayy is the best reciter among us, and Ali is the best judge among us.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 4481.
This does not independently authenticate the exact City of Knowledge wording.
It proves that presenting Imam Ali a.s as exceptionally authoritative in knowledge and judgement is entirely consistent with Sahih Sunni evidence.
The text is not inherently absurd or contrary to established history.
27. Al-Tirmidhi authenticates Imam Ali’s unique authority to convey for the Prophet
The Prophet ﷺ said:
عَلِيٌّ مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، وَلَا يُؤَدِّي عَنِّي إِلَّا أَنَا أَوْ عَلِيٌّ
“Ali is from me and I am from Ali, and no one conveys on my behalf except me or Ali.”
Reference: Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, hadith 3719.
Al-Tirmidhi said:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ
“This is a Hasan, Sahih, Gharib hadith.”
The commentaries explain that in the Arab custom of announcing or cancelling covenants, such a declaration was delivered by the leader himself or a person of exceptionally close representative status.
Therefore authentic Sunni evidence already depicts Imam Ali as a uniquely authorised representative who could convey on the Prophet’s behalf.
The metaphor of a gate to Prophetic knowledge is not alien to the Sunni record.
28. Hadith al-Manzilah provides further authentic context
The Prophet ﷺ said to Imam Ali:
أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى، إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي
“You are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me.”
Reference: Sahih Muslim, hadith 2404; also Sahih al-Bukhari through other routes.
Again, this does not independently prove the exact City of Knowledge chain.
It proves that exceptional proximity, representation and inherited religious authority for Imam Ali a.s are firmly established in authentic Sunni narrations.
Consequently, the claim that the City of Knowledge wording is fabricated because its meaning is inherently impossible has no force.
29. “The gate” does not mean no other Companion possessed knowledge
The metaphor does not explicitly say:
No other Companion knew anything.
No other Companion transmitted hadith.
Every Muslim had to meet Imam Ali physically.
Every chain in every hadith book must explicitly include Imam Ali.
A city may contain many inhabitants, roads and scholars while possessing a principal or authorised gate.
The narration establishes Imam Ali’s special centrality in relation to Prophetic knowledge.
It does not logically require total ignorance among every other Companion.
TwelverShia.net creates an extreme interpretation that the hadith itself does not state and then attacks that interpretation.
30. The RTS statement about “almost all Shia hadith” was badly worded
RevisitingTheSalaf reportedly claimed that almost every Shia hadith visibly passes through Imam Ali a.s to the Prophet ﷺ.
If this means that almost every written sanad in al-Kafi explicitly includes:
Imam Ali → Messenger of Allah,
then that wording is inaccurate.
Many al-Kafi chains visibly terminate at:
Imam al-Baqir a.s.
Imam al-Sadiq a.s.
Imam al-Kazim a.s.
Imam al-Rida a.s.
TwelverShia.net may fairly criticise this literal wording.
But the mistake of one website does not prove the City of Knowledge hadith fabricated.
Nor does it refute the actual Shia doctrine concerning the inherited source of the Imams’ knowledge.
31. TwelverShia.net confuses a book’s external chain with the source of Imamic knowledge
There are two separate chains:
First, al-Kulayni’s external sanad:
Al-Kulayni → his teachers → transmitters → Imam al-Sadiq.
Second, according to Shia doctrine, the inherited source of Imam al-Sadiq’s teachings:
Imam al-Sadiq → Imam al-Baqir → the preceding Imams → Imam Ali → the Prophet ﷺ.
A hadith book normally provides its chain to the Imam who made the statement.
It does not need to repeat every generation of inherited Imamic teaching every time the Imam answers a question.
Counting how many visible chains contain Imam Ali’s name therefore tests the external literary format of al-Kafi.
It does not test the Shia claim that the Imams inherited Prophetic knowledge through Imam Ali a.s.
32. The famous al-Kafi transmission statement must be used honestly
Al-Kafi reports Imam al-Sadiq a.s saying:
حَدِيثِي حَدِيثُ أَبِي، وَحَدِيثُ أَبِي حَدِيثُ جَدِّي... وَحَدِيثُ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَدِيثُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ
“My hadith is my father’s hadith, my father’s hadith is my grandfather’s hadith… and the hadith of Amir al-Mu’minin is the hadith of the Messenger of Allah.”
Reference: al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 53, hadith 14.
Allamah al-Majlisi graded this particular chain:
ضَعِيفٌ عَلَى الْمَشْهُورِ
“Weak according to the well-known opinion.”
It should therefore not be falsely presented as an independently Sahih chain.
But it clearly explains the Shia transmission model that TwelverShia.net’s numerical experiment misunderstands.
Moreover, this doctrine is not dependent upon this one chain.
33. Shia sources document written Prophetic knowledge inherited through Imam Ali
Al-Kafi and other early Shia books describe al-Jami‘ah as a written record:
إِمْلَاءُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَخَطُّ عَلِيٍّ بِيَدِهِ
“Dictated by the Messenger of Allah and written by Ali with his own hand.”
Shia reports describe it as containing legal rulings and religious knowledge inherited by the later Imams.
Al-Kafi also records a report in which Imam al-Baqir shows Muhammad ibn Muslim a document of inheritance rulings described as the dictation of the Prophet ﷺ and the handwriting of Imam Ali a.s.
Whether a Sunni accepts this Shia historical claim is a separate issue.
The point is that the Shia model is coherent:
The compiler’s visible chain reaches the later Imam.
The Imam’s inherited legal source returns through Imam Ali to the Prophet ﷺ.
Counting only how often Imam Ali’s name appears visibly in al-Kulayni’s sanad does not refute that doctrine.
34. The “427 reports” calculation is not a reproducible hadith study
TwelverShia.net claims that it examined 427 reports and found fewer than one percent authentically reaching Imam Ali.
But it does not publish:
The complete list of 427 reports.
The precise edition used.
Its grading authority.
Its treatment of Hasan and muwaththaq reports.
Its treatment of disputed narrators.
Its definition of “attributed to Ali.”
The two narrations it accepted.
Whether sayings of an Imam were required to be explicit Prophetic quotations.
Without this information, the percentage cannot be independently reproduced.
More importantly, the calculation asks the wrong question.
The first chapters of al-Kafi contain reports concerning:
Reason.
Knowledge.
Scholars.
Theology.
Statements of the Imams.
Methods of transmitting hadith.
Not every report claims to be a direct Prophetic quotation with a visibly repeated ancestral sanad.
Therefore the calculation disproves only RTS’s careless wording about visible chains.
It does not disprove either the City of Knowledge narration or the Shia doctrine of inherited Imamic knowledge.
35. The final verdict according to Sunni rijal
The strongest honest verdict is not:
“Every chain is Sahih.”
That cannot be sustained.
The Jabir route is unusable.
The Ibn Abbas route contains a possible tadlis issue.
Abu al-Salt is disputed.
The Sharik route is weak individually.
Al-Rumi is disputed.
But Sunni rijal also establishes:
Abu al-Salt was described as truthful by Ibn Hajar.
Ibn Hajar considered calling him a liar excessive.
Yahya ibn Ma‘in reportedly declared him trustworthy or truthful.
Al-Faydi also transmitted the hadith from Abu Mu‘awiyah.
Yahya ibn Ma‘in called al-Faydi trustworthy and reliable.
The Imam Ali–Sharik route is genuinely different from the Ibn Abbas route.
Sharik and al-Rumi were not proven fabricators.
Major Sunni huffaz concluded that the independent routes strengthen one another.
Al-‘Ala’i graded it Hasan and usable as evidence.
Al-Zarkashi rejected its classification as fabricated.
Ibn Hajar concluded that it has a basis and should not be called fabricated.
Al-Sakhawi explicitly called the Ibn Abbas narration Hasan.
Al-Hakim authenticated the Ibn Abbas chain.
Therefore the most defensible judgement is:
حَسَنٌ لِغَيْرِهِ بِمَجْمُوعِ طُرُقِهِ، أَوْ عَلَى الْأَقَلِّ لَهُ أَصْلٌ وَلَيْسَ بِمَوْضُوعٍ
“It is Hasan through the combined effect of its routes—or, at the very least, it has a genuine basis and is not fabricated.”
Final conclusion
TwelverShia.net is correct that the narration is not unanimously Sahih.
It is correct that several individual chains contain weakness.
It is correct to reject the Jabir chain.
It is entitled to disagree with al-Hakim’s authentication.
But it is not correct to claim that Sunni rijal leaves “no choice” except fabrication.
That statement contradicts Sunni rijal itself.
A truthful narrator is not automatically a liar because he was Shia.
A narrator with some objectionable reports does not make every report fabricated.
A possible tadlis defect produces weakness, not automatic invention.
A weak-memory narrator may provide corroboration.
Different route-families may collectively raise a report to Hasan.
A hadith explicitly graded Hasan by al-‘Ala’i, al-Sakhawi and other Sunni scholars cannot honestly be presented as a proven Shia fabrication accepted by nobody outside Shiism.
The actual scholarly verdict is disputed.
The harsh fabrication judgement exists.
But the Hasan judgement also exists—and it was reached through the very Sunni principles of rijal and corroboration that TwelverShia.net claims to defend.
The article therefore does not refute the hadith.
It selects the harshest opinions, conceals or minimises contrary Sunni tawthiq, falsely calls al-Faydi anonymous, misquotes the statement about al-Rumi, treats weak as synonymous with fabricated, and applies an irrelevant numerical test to al-Kafi.
Imam Ali a.s’s special relationship to Prophetic knowledge is not merely a Shia invention.
It is supported in the authentic Sunni record by:
أَقْضَانَا عَلِيٌّ
“Ali is the best judge among us.”
وَلَا يُؤَدِّي عَنِّي إِلَّا أَنَا أَوْ عَلِيٌّ
“No one conveys on my behalf except me or Ali.”
أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى
“You are to me as Aaron was to Moses.”
Thus the intellectually fair conclusion is neither:
“Every route is unquestionably Sahih,”
nor:
“This is an obvious fabricated Shia tale.”
The evidence-based conclusion is:
Its individual routes contain weaknesses, but the cumulative Hasan judgement is firmly rooted in Sunni hadith scholarship, and declaring it fabricated is neither unanimous nor required by Sunni rijal.
Is the City of Knowledge Hadith Fabricated?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...