Is There an Inconsistency in the Number of Shia Imams?

Refuting the Claim of “Inconsistency in the Number of Imams”

https://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/05/inconsistency-number-imams/

This anti-Shia article claims that Shia narrations have an “inconsistency” in the number of Imams because one version says “three named Muhammad and three named Ali,” another says “three named Muhammad and four named Ali,” and another says “two named Muhammad and four named Ali.” Then it asks whether this is alteration or incompetence. But this is a misleading argument from the start. The article itself admits that all these versions say Jaber counted twelve names; the difference is only in the sub-count of repeated names, not in the number of Imams.

The original point is:

فعددت اثني عشر

“I counted twelve.”

So where is the “inconsistency in the number of Imams”? There is none.

Every version still says twelve. The only difference is whether the sub-count is speaking about the Imams from the descendants of Bibi Fatima s.a, or all twelve awsiya including Imam Ali a.s, or the Qa’im being mentioned by title instead of by his personal name.

Al-Kafi’s wording is:

دخلت على فاطمة عليها السلام وبين يديها لوح فيه أسماء الأوصياء من ولدها، فعددت اثني عشر، آخرهم القائم عليه السلام، ثلاثة منهم محمد، وثلاثة منهم علي.

“I entered upon Fatima, and before her was a tablet containing the names of the successors from her descendants. I counted twelve; the last of them was al-Qa’im. Three of them were Muhammad and three of them were Ali.”

This wording is easy to understand.

If the phrase “from her descendants” is applied, then among Bibi Fatima s.a’s descendants there are three named Muhammad:

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Jawad a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi a.s

And three named Ali:

Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin a.s
Imam Ali al-Rida a.s
Imam Ali al-Hadi a.s

Imam Ali a.s is not from the descendants of Bibi Fatima s.a. He is her husband and the father of the Imams. So “three Ali” makes complete sense if the count is referring to the Imams from her descendants.

But if someone counts all twelve awsiya written on the tablet, then there are four named Ali:

Imam Ali b. Abi Talib a.s
Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin a.s
Imam Ali al-Rida a.s
Imam Ali al-Hadi a.s

So “three Muhammad and four Ali” is also correct when the whole list is being counted.

That is why other Shia sources narrate the wording as:

فعددت اثني عشر، آخرهم القائم، ثلاثة منهم محمد وأربعة منهم علي.

“I counted twelve; the last of them was al-Qa’im. Three of them were Muhammad and four of them were Ali.” Bihar al-Anwar quotes this wording and notes its sources from Kamal al-Din, Uyun Akhbar al-Rida, al-Khisal, and al-Ghaybah.

Al-Majlisi already noticed this issue and explained that the wording “three Ali” is likely a scribal/copyist error because al-Saduq in Ikmal al-Din, Uyun, al-Faqih, and Shaykh al-Tusi in al-Ghaybah narrated the same report through the same route with the wording “four of them are Ali.” His statement is:

فإن المسمى بعلي من الجميع أربعة، والظاهر أن التصحيف من النساخ، فإنه روى الصدوق في الإكمال والعيون والفقيه، والشيخ في الغيبة بهذا الإسناد عن جابر، وفيها جميعا وفي غيرها من الكتب: وأربعة منهم علي.

“Those named Ali from all of them are four, and the apparent matter is that the alteration came from copyists, for al-Saduq narrated it in Ikmal, Uyun and al-Faqih, and Shaykh al-Tusi in al-Ghaybah with this chain from Jaber, and in all of them and other books it says: four of them are Ali.”

So this is not some hidden problem. Shia scholars themselves discussed it. They did not hide it. They explained it.

Now what about the wording “two Muhammad and four Ali”?

Even that does not prove any change in the number of Imams. If the narration already says “the last of them is al-Qa’im,” then the final Imam is being mentioned by title, not by the personal name Muhammad. In that reading, the two named Muhammad before al-Qa’im are:

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Jawad a.s

And the four named Ali are:

Imam Ali a.s
Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin a.s
Imam Ali al-Rida a.s
Imam Ali al-Hadi a.s

Again, the number of Imams remains twelve.

The Arabic Shia response also points out an important textual issue: these variant wordings return to the same basic route, Abu al-Jarud from Imam al-Baqir a.s from Jaber b. Abdullah al-Ansari. So the issue is not three different doctrines. It is one narration with small wording variations in later transmission/copying. The same source says the variants correct each other when gathered together, and the reconstructed meaning is: “I counted twelve; the last of them is al-Qa’im; three of them are Muhammad and four of them are Ali.”

The anti-Shia article says: “اثنان, ثلاثة, أربعة do not look alike, so scribal error is not possible.”

This is a weak argument.

Scribal error does not only mean two words must look visually similar. Copyist error can happen through omission, harmonization, marginal notes entering the text, mixing two parallel wordings, or copying from memory. This happens in manuscripts all the time. Sunni hadith books also contain variant wordings, additions, omissions, and different number counts between routes. Nobody says Islam collapses because one version has a shorter or slightly different phrase.

Even more important: the anti-Shia article itself admits in the comments that “the other two will be discarded” and that the original source should be followed. So if the original source is followed, where is the doctrinal problem? It then shifts from “contradiction” to an accusation of “tampering,” but that is speculation, not proof.

The real issue is simple:

All versions say twelve.

None of them says eleven Imams.
None of them says thirteen Imams.
None of them changes the Shia doctrine.
None of them proves “inconsistency in the number of Imams.”

The difference is only in explaining how many of the twelve had the repeated names Muhammad and Ali.

If counting Fatima’s descendants: three Muhammad and three Ali.

If counting all twelve including Imam Ali a.s: three Muhammad and four Ali.

If al-Qa’im is mentioned separately by title: two Muhammad and four Ali can be understood as the two earlier Muhammads before the Qa’im.

So this article is not refuting Imamate. It is making a mountain out of a small textual variant.

Final reply:

The title “Inconsistency in Number of Imams” is misleading. The number is consistent in every version: twelve. The small variation is only in the sub-count of repeated names. Shia scholars already explained it: either the count is referring to Fatima’s descendants, or all twelve awsiya, or a copyist variation corrected by other sources.

The Prophet’s twelve are still twelve.

The Shia list is still clear:

Imam Ali a.s
Imam Hasan a.s
Imam Husayn a.s
Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Baqir a.s
Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq a.s
Imam Musa al-Kazim a.s
Imam Ali al-Rida a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Jawad a.s
Imam Ali al-Hadi a.s
Imam Hasan al-Askari a.s
Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi a.s

So no, this is not “alteration or incompetence.”

It is either a normal manuscript variation or a difference in what is being counted.

The real incompetence is calling a repeated-name sub-count an “inconsistency in the number of Imams” when every quoted version still says twelve.