VII Analysis of Existing
Interpretations and Narratives
A. Analysis of the Matn
As far as the existing
interpretations are concerned, some narratives
cited earlier do suggest that the contents of the Qur’ān collected by ‘Alī (rta)
were over and above the one found today with the ummah, as is the opinion
of al-Kulaynī and Shaykh Mufīd.
As far as the narratives themselves
are concerned, there are some questions which arise on them.
Firstly, the second narrative,
which records events that ensued in the time of ‘Umar (rta) and ‘Uthmān (rta),
clearly says that the Qur’ān which the Muslim community had was incomplete:
Talhah (rta) in his conversation with ‘Alī (rta) while referring to this
incompleteness has quoted some examples and ‘Alī (rta) tacitly acknowledged all
of them. They are:
i. ‘Umar (rta) had remarked that
with the death of some people in the battle of Yamāmah, parts of the Qur’ān had
been lost because none other knew the parts they had memorized.
ii. A goat had eaten a sheet on
which parts of the Qur’ān were written.
iii. ‘Umar (rta) remarked that some
of the collected sūrahs were not of the same length they originally were.
iv. ‘Uthmān (rta) had destroyed the
codices of Ubayy (rta) and Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta).
Some other examples of this
incompleteness can be seen in other narratives as well.
A narrative (quoted at no. iii)
shows that the Qur’ān compiled by ‘Alī (rta) mentioned the misdeeds and
condemnation of the Muhājirūn and the Ansār.
A narrative (quoted at no. iv) says
that while a large part of the Qur’ān compiled by ‘Umar (rta) had been lost, the
Qur’ān which was found with “its worthy recipients” was complete and secure from
Another narrative (quoted at no.
xii) shows that seventy names of the Quraysh and their fore-fathers had been
deleted from the Qur’ān found with the Muhājirūn and the Ansār.
It is hard to believe that a
Companion of the stature of ‘Alī (rta) would withhold the complete Qur’ān from
the ummah, and not warn the Muslim community that they had an incomplete
version of the Qur’ān. The significance the Book has for the Muslim community
and the responsibility the Companions (rta) had in disseminating it entail that
he should have warned them again and again of its incompleteness. Instead his
opinion which is expressed in the narrative is that since whatever remains of
the Qur’ān still contains his rights and is enough to grant salvation, hence
there is no need for him to bring forth the complete Qur’ān which is in his
Here one can argue that as some
narratives depict ‘Alī (rta) had gone over to the leaders of the Muslim
community and presented his Qur’ān to them which they subsequently rejected. The
question arises that the importance of the matter demanded that he should have
shown persistence in this matter instead of getting angry. Moreover, if the
leaders had rejected his Qur’ān, he could have called upon the common Muslims
and informed them of the truth. Why should he have deprived them of the complete
Qur’ān if their leaders had rejected it. Furthermore, why did ‘Alī (rta) not
implement the complete Qur’ān he had when he himself became the caliph. If
someone answers all these objections by saying that ‘Alī (rta) adopted this
attitude in order to save the whole ummah from turmoil and chaos, the
counter-question which arises is that was not the status of the Book of God such
that it be presented disregarding any such fear. Also, if the al-qā’im would ultimately implement the Qur’ān of ‘Alī (rta), would not the ummah
be faced with turmoil and chaos at that time?
Secondly, the second and fourth
narratives clearly say that every verse of the Qur’ān and its interpretation
were already written by ‘Alī (rta) through dictation by the Prophet (sws). The
question arises that if ‘Alī (rta) already had the Qur’ān written with him in
the lifetime of the Prophet (sws), what was the urgency and need of writing it
out again? Also why did the Prophet (sws) express his apprehension about the
Qur’ān getting lost and what was the need for handing over to ‘Alī (rta) verses
of the Qur’ān written on various fragments.
Thirdly, the first narrative speaks
of the insincerity and treachery of the Companions which ‘Alī (rta) observed;
similarly, the third narrative says that the Companions had altered the Qur’ān
in the version collected by them by deleting the misdeeds of the Muhājirūn and
the Ansār which were written in the Qur’ān collected by ‘Alī (rta). Moreover, they are
called Hypocrites and alleged to have plotted to kill ‘Alī (rta) so that the
Qur’ān he had could be destroyed. In the thirteenth narrative, ‘Alī is reported
to have said that the Companions (rta) had forsaken and disregarded the Book of
God. These aspects of the narratives clearly show malicious intent towards the
Companions (rta) which is typical of some Shiite works and renders them as
Fourthly, as is the case with most
Shiite works, some of these narratives speak of superiority of ‘Alī (rta) over
other Companions (rta). For example, the second and fourth narratives say that
‘Alī (rta) had every verse and its interpretation as well as knowledge needed by
the ummah till the Day of Judgement written with him through dictation by
the Prophet (sws) himself. Similarly, the fifth narrative says that the Prophet
(sws) handed over the Qur’ān written on various fragments to ‘Alī (rta) so that
he could collect and compile it. None of the other Companions (rta) was involved
in this task.
Fifthly, if all the narratives are
analyzed regarding the chronological nature of the collection, we cannot escape
noting the following:
First, nothing is attributed to
‘Alī (rta) himself regarding the chronological nature of his collection. It is
only the comments of certain people about the nature of this collection which
have been reported.
Second, it is generally narratives
which report words such as kamā anazalahullāh from which a chronological
arrangement is construed. Thus for example, a narrative reads:
في أخبار أبي رافع أن النبي قال في مرضه الذي توفي فيه لعلي يا علي هذا كتاب الله
خذه إليك فجمعه علي في ثوب فمضى إلى منزله فلما قبض النبي ع جلس علي فألفه كما
أنزله الله و كان به عالما
In the reports of Abū Rāfi‘, it is
found that the Prophet in his last illness told ‘Alī: “O ‘Alī! This is the book
of God. Get hold of it.” So ‘Alī collected it in a cloth and went to his house.
When the Prophet died, ‘Alī sat down to arrange it in the sequence it was
revealed and he was aware of this sequence.
It may, however, be noted that the
words of the narrative fa allafahū kamā anzalahū Allāh can also be translated as:
“He compiled the Qur’ān in the way it was revealed,” (instead of: “he compiled
the Qur’ān in the sequence it was revealed and he was aware of this sequence,”)
signifying he did not make any additions or deletions and wrote it out exactly
as it was revealed by the Almighty. In fact, some of the other narratives stress
this very fact. Thus, it is recorded:
هَذَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ كَمَا أَنْزَلَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى
مُحَمَّدٍ ص وَ قَدْ جَمَعْتُهُ مِنَ اللَّوْحَيْنِ
“This is the Book of God the way
God revealed it to Muhammad and I have collected it between two tablets.”
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ
عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي الْمِقْدَامِ عَنْ جَابِرٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع
يَقُولُ مَا ادَّعَى أَحَدٌ مِنَ النَّاسِ أَنَّهُ جَمَعَ الْقُرْآنَ كُلَّهُ كَمَا
أُنْزِلَ إِلَّا كَذَّابٌ وَ مَا جَمَعَهُ وَ حَفِظَهُ كَمَا نَزَّلَهُ اللَّهُ
تَعَالَى إِلَّا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ع وَ الْأَئِمَّةُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ ع
said that he heard Abū Ja‘far say: “Only a liar can say that he has collected
the whole of the Qur’ān in the way it was revealed. No one collected or
memorized it in the way it was revealed except ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib and the
imāms after him.”
The following narrative is even
more explicit. It says that the current Qur’ān in the hands of the ummah
is not kamā unzila
(in the way it was revealed). Some deletions have been made from it: it does not
contain seventy names of the Quraysh and their forefathers:
حدثنا أبو سليمان أحمد بن هوذة قال حدثنا إبراهيم بن إسحاق النهاوندي قال حدثنا عبد
الله بن حماد الأنصاري عن صباح المزني عن الحارث بن حصيرة عن الأصبغ بن نباتة قال
سمعت عليا ع يقول كأني بالعجم فساطيطهم في مسجد الكوفة يعلمون الناس القرآن كما
أنزل قلت يا أمير المؤمنين أ و ليس هو كما أنزل فقال لا محي منه سبعون من قريش
بأسمائهم و أسماء آبائهم و ما ترك أبو لهب إلا إزراء على رسول الله ص لأنه عمه
Asbagh ibn Nubātah said: ‘I heard
‘Alī say: “I envision the ‘Ajam with their tents in the mosque of Kūfah teaching
people the Qur’ān in the order it was revealed.” I asked him: “O Commander of
the faithful! Is it not in the form it was revealed.” He replied: “No. The names
of seventy people of the Quryash and their forefathers have been deleted from
it. Only the name of Abū Lahab remains in order to hurt the Prophet because he
was his uncle.”’
This fact is also corroborated by
Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq’s words recorded by al-Majlisī in his Mir’āt al-‘uqūl
and referred to earlier: Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn al-Sādiq has said: “By God! If
the Qur’ān was read in the way it was revealed, you would have found our names
written in it the way the names of those prior to us are written in it.” The
sixth narrative above which is attributed to Imām Ja‘far al-Sādiq further
corroborates this view.
Thus, if the given narrative is
interpreted in the light of these narratives, it would mean that there was no
issue of any chronological sequence of the Qur’ān collected by ‘Alī (rta); it
was more of ‘Alī (rta) compiling the total corpus of the Qur’ān in the exact way
it was revealed having no deletions or spurious material.
Sixthly, the narratives contain the
a. According to the first
narrative, when ‘Alī (rta) came up with his Qur’ān right after the death of the
Prophet (sws), ‘Umar (rta) replied that the Muhājirūn already had the Qur’ān
with them and that they did not need the Qur’ān collected by him. In this
regard, the sixth narrative says that a section of the Muhājirūn had remarked
that the Qur’ān was with them in the form of a mushaf. However, the
second and fourth narratives say that it was only in the caliphate of ‘Umar (rta)
after ‘Alī (rta) had refused to hand over his Qur’ān to ‘Umar (rta) that the
latter had embarked upon collecting the Qur’ān with the help of two witnesses.
Besides this mutual contradiction, these narratives also contradict narratives
found in Sunnī sources as per which the Qur’ān was compiled in the form of a
book by Abū Bakr (rta).
b. In the second narrative, ‘Alī (rta)
says that no one will be able to see his collected Qur’ān until the last of his
descendants meets the Prophet (sws) on the Day of Judgement at the fountain of
Kawthar. The third, sixth and twelfth narratives however say that the Qur’ān
collected by ‘Alī (rta) would be revealed by the al-Qā’im when he comes to this
c. The ninth narrative says that it
took ‘Alī (rta) six months to compile the Qur’ān while the narrative recorded by
says that this was done in three days. The sixteenth narrative says that it took
him seven days.
B. Analysis of the
i. The first and second narratives are from Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays.
find the following information about this book in the Shiite sources:
(d. before 450 AH) writes:
الكتاب موضوع لا مرية فيه و على ذلك علامات فيه تدل على ما ذكرناه، منها ما ذكر أن
محمد بن أبي بكر وعظ أباه عند الموت و منها أن الأئمة ثلاثة عشر و غير ذلك و أسانيد
هذا الكتاب تختلف تارة برواية عمر بن أذينة عن إبراهيم عمر الصنعائي عن أبان بن أبي
عياش عن سليم و تارة يروي عن عمر عن أبان بلا واسطة.
And the book is a fabrication;
there is no doubt about it and there are clues which testify to this. Among them
is that Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr counselled his father at his death and that the
imāms are thirteen etc. The chains of this book are different: sometimes
‘Umar ibn Udhaynah reports from Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Umar al-San‘ānī who reports from
Abān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh who reports from Sulaym and sometimes it is narrated by
‘Umar ibn Udhaynah who directly narrates from Abān.
Ibn Dā’ūd (d. 8th
century AH), while writing about Sulaym ibn Qays (d. 76 AH), says:
ينسب إليه الكتاب المشهور و هو موضوع بدليل أنه قال إن محمد بن أبي بكر وعظ أباه
عند موته. و قال فيه أن الأئمة ثلاثة عشر مع زيد. و أسانيده مختلفة [غض] لم يرو عنه
إلا أبان بن أبي عياش و في الكتاب مناكير مشتهرة، و ما أظنه إلا موضوعا
him is attributed a famous book. This book is a fabrication because in it is
said Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr counselled his father at his death and that the
imāms are thirteen together with Zayd and the book has different chains of
narration. The only person to have narrated it from Sulyam is Abān ibn Abī
‘Ayyāsh and in the book are found strange things which have become famous and
[thus] I regard it to be a fabrication.
Shaykh al-Mufīd writes:
هذا الكتاب غير موثوق به و لا يجوز العمل على أكثره و قد حصل فيه تخليط و تدليس
فينبغي للمتدين أن يجتنب العمل بكل ما فيه و لا يعول على جملته و التقليد لرواته و
ليفزع إلى العلماء فيما تضمنه من الأحاديث ليوقفوه على الصحيح منها و الفاسد
book is not reliable and it is not permissible to act on what most of it says.
There are many discrepancies and falsehoods in it. A religious person should
refrain from acting on everything it says and he should not depend on its
content and not blindly follow its narrators. He should seek refuge with the
scholars regarding the narratives it contains so that they can inform him about
the right among them from the wrong.
al-Dīn al-Mūsawī, while writing the preface to Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays published from Tehran in 1407 AH, has tried to respond to these criticisms.
first summarizes these criticisms:
The counsel of Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr (d. 38 AH) to his father at his death even
though he was about a little over two years of age at that time.
The imāms are thirteen.
The book has different chains of narrations.
answers the first criticism by saying that in the version of the book which
Istarābādī refers to in his book on rijāl, it is mentioned that it was
‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar (rta) who counselled his father at his father’s death and it
is known that ‘Abdullāh (rta) was a grown up man at that time. Another answer he
gives while summarizing the response of I‘jāz Husayn al-Kantūrī from his
Kashf al-hujub is that if the report is believed that Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr
was actually four years at the time of his father’s death, then such a counsel
cannot be far-fetched as at even at this tender age, sometimes such an incident
answers the second criticism by again quoting Istarābādī who has said that in
the version of Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays which has reached him, it is written
that the imāms were thirteen and this included the Prophet (sws). A
similar answer is given by al-Fādil Tafrīshī.
answers the third criticism by saying that if a book has different chains of
narration in the manner referred to by Ibn Ghazā’irī,
then this is no defect at all because it was a general practice of previous
scholars to report books from different chains. Examples of such books are
al-Kāfī and al-Khisāl.
answering these three criticisms, al-Mūsawī says that there are some other
criticisms also on the Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays which have come to his
notice. He refers to al-Bahbūdī’s Ma‘rifah al-hadīth and then summarizes
opinion, if these criticism are analyzed, then perhaps the most weighty of these
is the one which hinges on the personality of Abān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh (62-138 AH).
According to al-Bahbūdī, all the chains of narration of the book end on Abān ibn
Abī ‘Ayyāsh. Only Abān reports it from Sulaym; only ‘Umar ibn Udhaynah reports
it from Abān and Abān has been classified as matrūk.
is what Shiite works say about him:
ضعيف، قيل إنه وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس
ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh is da‘īf. It is said that he fabricated the book of
Sulaym ibn Qays.
ضعيف لا يلتفت إليه، و ينسب أصحابنا وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس إليه
He is da‘īf and should not be paid attention to and our scholars have
attributed to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym ibn Qays.
authorities also regard him to be very weak: Imām Ahmad and Ibn Hajar say that
Abān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh is matrūk.
Al-Nasā’ī regards him to be matrūk al-hadīth.
responding to this criticism, al-Mūsawī says that the book has also been
reported from another chain of narration, as mentioned by al-Najāshī (d.
له، كتاب يكنى أبا صادق أخبرني علي بن أحمد القمي قال حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن
الوليد قال حدثنا محمد بن أبي القاسم ماجيلويه، عن محمد بن علي الصيرفي، عن حماد بن
عيسى و عثمان بن عيسى، قال حماد بن عيسى و حدثنا إبراهيم بن عمر اليماني عن سليم بن
In other words, since this book is
reported through Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Umar al-Yamānī also, al-Mūsawī dismisses this
It is submitted that Muhammad Baqir
al-Ansārī in his preface
to Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays has enumerated the twenty chains from which this
book has been narrated from Sulaym as recorded by various authorities. In all
except one of these chains, Abān reports from Sulaym. The exception is the chain
quoted above by al-Najāshī. It is obvious that Abān is not present in this
chain. However, as pointed out by al-Khū’ī,
what makes this chain un-reliable is the presence of Abū Sumaynah Muhammad ibn
‘Alī al-Sayrafī. He says that he is da‘īfun kadhdhāb.
It may further be noted that al-Najāshī’s
about him is: da‘īfun jiddan, has heretical beliefs (fāsid al-i‘tiqād)
and cannot be trusted in any matter (lā yu‘tamadu fī shay’). Al-Hillī (d.
726 AH) also expresses a similar opinion.
(d. 340 AH) records that al-Fadl ibn Shādhān (d. 260 AH) has mentioned famous
liars in some of his books. The most famous among them are Abū al-Khattāb, Yūnus
ibn Zabyān, Yazīd al-Sā’igh, Muhammad ibn Sinān and Abū Sumaynah.
In other words, none of the chains
through which this book is transmitted is reliable.
ii. Narratives three and four do
not have any chain of narration. It needs to be noted that according to al-Majlisī
most narratives in al-Ihtijāj are mursal.
iii. Narrative five is sound as per
Shiite authorities because it is reported through a sound chain of narration
which ends on one of their imāms: Ja‘far Sādiq; however according to
principles of historical criticism, it is weak because Imām Ja‘far Sādiq (80 –
never met ‘Alī (d. 40 AH).
iv. According to al-Majlisī,
narrative six is da‘īf.
v. Narratives seven, eight and nine
do not have any chain of narration.
vi. Narrative ten has Jābir ibn
Yazīd al-Ju‘fī in it. According to al-Najāshī he is mukhtalit.
narrative is reported through a chain of narration that ends on one of their
imāms Bāqir: however according to principles of historical criticism, it is
weak because Imām Bāqir (57 – 117 AH)
never met ‘Alī (d. 40 AH).
It may also
be noted that while some authorities in Sunnī rijāl books regard him to
be reliable, others have done jarh on him. Here is some of the jarh
recorded about him by al-Mizzī:
In the opinion of Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn, as reported by ‘Abbās al-Dūrī, Jābir is a
great liar (kadhdhāb). Imām Abū Hanīfah says that he has not met anyone
who is a bigger liar than Jābir. Abū Hātim reports from Ahmad ibn Hanbal that
Yahyā and ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Mahdī had abandoned him (tarakahu). According
to al-Nasā’ī, he is matrūk al-hadīth; at another place, he says that he
is laysa bi thiqah wa lā yuktabu hadīthuhū. Al-Hakim calls him dhāhib
al-hadīth. According to Ibn Hajar,
he is da‘īf and rāfidī.
The chain also contains ‘Amr ibn
Abī al-Miqdām (who is actually ‘Amr ibn Thābit ibn Hurmuz). Although Shiite
rijāl authorities regard him to be reliable, here is what some of the
Sunnī rijāl authorities say about him, as recorded by al-Mizzī:
Al-Hasan ibn ‘Īsā reports that Ibn Mubārak had abandoned his narratives.
Muhammad ibn al-Muthannā says that he never heard ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Mahdī
narrate from him. In the opinion of Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn, as reported by ‘Abbās al-Dūrī,
he is laysa bi thiqah wa lā ma’mūn wa lā yuktabu hadīthuhū. Abū Zur‘ah
al-Rāzī says that he is da‘īf al-hadīth. Abū Hātim says that he is
da‘īf al-hadīth yuktabu hadīthuhū, kana radī al-rā’y shadīd al-tashayyu‘.
According to al-Bukhārī he is laysa bi al-qawī ‘indahum. According to al-Nasā’ī,
he is laysa bi thiqah wa lā ma’mūn. Ibn Hibbān says that he narrates
fabricated narratives from reliable narrators.
vii. Narrative eleven is suspect
because al-Munakhkhal and Muhammad ibn Sinān are weak.
About al-Munakhkhal, authorities
كان كوفيا ضعيفا و في مذهبه غلو و ارتفاع قال محمد بن مسعود سألت علي بن الحسن عن
المنخل بن جميل فقال هو لا شيء متهم
ibn Jamīl belongs to Kūfah and is da‘īf. We find extremism and exaltation
of personalities in his beliefs. Muhammad ibn Mas‘ūd asked about him from ‘Alī
ibn al-Hasan, he replied: “He is lā shay’ muttahamun.”
ضعيف، فاسد الرواية
is] da‘īf and fāsid al-riwāyah.
said that from Jābir ibn Yazīd al-Ju‘fī a group of people would narrate whom
authorities condemn and regard as weak. Al-Munakhkal is included in this group.
Muhammad ibn Sinān, authorities record:
ضعيف غال يضع لا يلتفت إليه
is] da‘īf, an extremist, fabricates narratives and should not be paid
the opinion of Abū al-‘Abbās al-‘Uqdah, he is da‘īfun jiddan, cannot be
relied upon and should not be trusted in what is narrated only by him. Al-Fadl
ibn Shādhān forbids people to narrate from him.
و قد اختلف علماؤنا في شأنه فالشيخ المفيد ره قال إنه ثقة و أما الشيخ الطوسي رحمه
الله فإنه ضعفه و كذا قال النجاشي و ابن الغضائري قال إنه ضعيف غال لا يلتفت إليه و
روى الكشي فيه قدحا عظيما و أثنى عليه أيضا و الوجه عندي التوقف فيما يرويه
is a difference of opinion about him amongst our scholars; Whilst Shaykh al-Mufīd
regards him to be trustworthy, Shaykh al-Tūsī [d. 460 AH] and al-Najāshī regard
him to be da‘īf. Ibn al-Ghadā’irī says that he is da‘īf, an
extremist and should not be paid attention to. Al-Kashshī has narrated great
blemishes in him and has also praised him. As far as I am concerned, I would not
reject what he narrates but abstain from drawing any conlcusion from them.
The opinion of al-Fadl ibn Shādhān
about Muhammad ibn Sinān that he is a notorious liar has already been referred
viii. Narrative twelve is suspect
because of Ibrāhīm ibn Ishāq al-Nahāwandī.
The thirteenth and fourteenth narratives are from al-Tabrasī’s al-Ihtijāj
and have incomplete chains of narration.
The fifteenth narrative does not have a chain of narration.
xi. The sixteenth narrative has
Jābir ibn Yazīd al-Ju‘fī. The jarh on him has been cited earlier. It also
has ‘Amr ibn Shamr. He is regarded as da‘īfun jiddān by al-Najāshī and
al-Hillī, while Ibn al-Ghadā’īrī says that he is da‘īf.
Majlisī, Bihār al-anwār, vol. 89, 89.
Shaykh al-Mufīd, Tashīh al-i‘tiqād (Qum: Qangarah Shaykh Mufīd, 1413 AH), 149-150.
(Najaf: Intisharāt-i haydariyyah, 1381 AH), 126.
-Ardabīlī, Jāmi‘ al-ruwāt, vol. 1, 9.
Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qāyamaz ibn ‘Abdullāh
Al-Kāshif fī ma‘rifah man
lahū riwāyah fī al-kutub al-sittah,
1st ed., vol 1 (Jeddah:
Dār al-qiblah al-thaqāfah al-islāmiyyah, 1992), 207.
Al-Najāshī, Rijāl, 8.
fī ma‘rifah al-a’immah, vol. 2 (Tabrez: Maktabah Banī Hāshimī, 1381 AH), 161.
See also: Al-Kashshī, Rijāl, 1348 AH), 368.
kāna da‘īfun fī hadīthihī muttahamun fī dīnihī.
See: Al-Tusī, Al-Fihrist, 7; Al-Najāshī says: kāna da‘īfun fī
See: Al-Najāshī, Rijāl, 19; Ibn al-Ghadā’irī
says: fī hadīthihī du‘f … wa amruhu mukhtalit. See: Ibn al-Ghadā’irī,
Rijāl, vol. 1, 37.