Introduction I recently read a book by some eminent scholars, may God protect him, in which he cast doubt on the evidence of the well-known visit to Ashura and asserted that the paragraph at the end of the visit regarding the cursing of five people—four of whom are not mentioned in the text of the visit, and the fifth is stated to be Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, may God curse him—had been added to the text narrated by Sheikh Tusi in Al-Misbah and was not in the original copy.

​

Note that this paragraph did not appear in the text narrated by Ibn Qulwayh, may God have mercy on him, in Kamil al-Ziyarat, but rather appeared in the printed copies of Misbah al-Mutahajjud only.

​

The author, may God protect him, investigated this claim extensively by tracing the manuscript copies of the two Misbahs—Al-Misbah Al-Kabir and Al-Misbah Al-Saghir, which Sheikh Abu Jaafar, may God have mercy on him, abbreviated from Al-Misbah—and concluded that they were among the additions made to Al-Misbah and Sheikh Al-Tusi did not mention them in the original copy.

​

When I read part of the aforementioned book, I wondered: Why does the verified author, may God protect him, seek to cast doubt on the evidence for this visit?

​

There is nothing in this visit of jurisprudence; let us look for the argument in the jurisprudential issue.

​

There is nothing in this visit that contradicts our established beliefs, or contradicts the Book and what is proven from the Sunnah. Let us investigate the evidence and argument.

 

As for the issue of singling out the five for cursing, and what it leads to inciting discord among Muslims, the author denied it by tracing manuscript copies of Al-Misbah over the centuries. This issue, which the author denied, does not require denying the visit directly.

People have become accustomed to this honorable visit, and have passed it down from generation to generation. The author did not deny the visitation and did not claim that it was fabricated, but only questioned the chain of transmission. However, the general public, who are not specialists, understand from this investigation that the visitation is fabricated, which is definitely what the author does not want. There is a difference between the weakness of the chain of transmission and the failure to reach the narration through a reliable route, and between the narration being fabricated and fabricated, as is well known to specialists.

​

So why does the author seek to create this confusion over an honorable, blessed, and well-known text that is passed down by believers from generation to generation?! They found that the major scholars were keen to read it, recommend it, and venerate it. It—in its generality and detail—is consistent with our beliefs that we inherited from the People of the House, peace be upon them, including disavowal of the enemies of the family of Muhammad, peace be upon them, and cursing the killers of Hussein, peace be upon them. The Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, declared them clearly in more than one place, and there is no way for anyone to do so. To discuss the validity of this curse and this acquittal, certainly, and most Muslims share both with us.

​

Research Methods for Visiting Ashura

In what follows from this article, we will first try, God willing, to take a look at the chain of transmission for this visit to prove that this visit is considered in terms of the chain of transmission. Secondly, we try to prove the authenticity of this visit with the evidence found in its five chains of transmission from Sheikhs Ibn Qulwayh and Abu Jaafar al-Tusi, even assuming that the support for this visit is not considered.

Thus, we will discuss the study of this visit, God willing, in this article within two approaches:

​

The First Approach: Proving the Credibility of the Narrators of the Visit

The first approach involves correcting the chains of transmission of Ashura.

​

The First Approach: Correcting the Chains of Transmission of Ashura

The visit to Ashura was narrated in several different narrations, chains of narrations, and methods, up to five ways, on the authority of Abu Jaafar al-Baqir and Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, peace be upon them, including:

​

The First Narration: The Sheikh’s narration on the authority of Muhammad bin Khalid Al-Tayalisi

The Sheikh narrated in Al-Misbah, on the authority of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi, on the authority of Saif bin Amira, who said: “I went out with Safwan bin Mahran Al-Jamal—and we have a group of our companions—to Al-Ghari after Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, left. We walked from Al-Hira to Medina, and when we finished the visit: Safwan turned his face to the side of Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein, peace be upon him, and said to us: You are visiting Al-Hussein, peace be upon him, from this place, at the head of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him. From here, Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, motioned to him, and I was with him. He said: So he called Safwan for the visit that Alqamah bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami narrated on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura. Then he prayed two rak’ahs at the head of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, and said goodbye at her backside. Commander of the Faithful, and he nodded to Hussein in greeting, turning his face towards him and bid farewell. And while he prayed in her back, he said: O God, oh God, oh God, O responder to the prayers of those in need...” [1].

​

Support for the Narration:

The discussion of the chain of transmission for this narration falls first on the path of the Sheikh to Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi, and then in al-Tayalisi and those who narrated from them.

​

Sheikh's Road to Muhammad bin Khalid Al-Tayalisi

On the path of Sheikh Abu Jaafar al-Tusi to Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi, Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya is located.

 

Documentation of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya

The Sheikh says in Al-Fihrist in the translation of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi: “He has a book that we narrated on the authority of Al-Hussein bin Ubaidullah, on the authority of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ali bin Mahboob, on his authority” [2].

​

Professor Al-Sayyid Al-Khoei, may his secret be sanctified, concluded in his great book, Al-Mu’jam, the man’s ignorance. Because it is not documented [3].

​

But the famous thing, as stated by the professor, may God have mercy on him, is to rely on it [4].

​

The scholar, may God have mercy on him, documented it in the eighth benefit of the conclusion of the conclusion, and the second martyr in Al-Dariyah documented it, as well as Al-Samahiji, and Sheikh Al-Baha’i [5].

​

Abu Al-Abbas Al-Sirafi wrote to Al-Najashi in defining his paths to the books of Al-Hussein bin Saeed Al-Ahwazi, and he said: As for what our companions are upon, and what is relied upon is what was narrated by them: Al-Hussein and Al-Hasan, the sons of Saeed Al-Ahwazi [6], he mentioned two paths, and in the second path lies Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Attar.

​

This is an apparent statement in the man’s authentication, even if our master, the professor, may God have mercy on him, doubted his evidence for the authentication by saying, “This would only be possible if the path were limited to the narration of Ahmad ibn Yahya, but it is not so. Rather, the books relied upon have been authenticated by another, authentic path... and perhaps mentioning the other path is only for the sake of support” [7].

​

But it is contrary to what appears from the words of the Seraph; The apparent meaning of his words is that what is relied upon from the books of Al-Hussein and Al-Hasan, the two sons of Saeed Al-Ahwazi, is what was narrated by Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Issa, the first way, and Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Attar Al-Qummi, the second way.

​

Here is the text of the words of the Negus and the Seraph:

Al-Najashi, may God have mercy on him, says—in the translation of Al-Hussein bin Saeed bin Hammad bin Mahran and in naming the books of Al-Hussein and his brother Al-Hassan bin Saeed—: “More than one of our companions told us about these books... including what Abu Al-Abbas Ahmad bin Ali bin Nuh Al-Sirafi, may God have mercy on him, wrote to me about. In a written answer to him, he says: What I asked to define is from the paths to the books of Al-Hussein bin Saeed Al-Ahwazi, may God be pleased with him. Abu Jaafar Ahmad bin Khalid Al-Barqi, Al-Hussein bin Al-Hasan bin Aban, and Ahmad bin Muhammad narrated... As for what our companions said, and what is relied upon is what Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa narrated from them, the distinguished Sheikh Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein bin Ali bin Sufyan Al-Bazufari told us. While he wrote to me in Shaban in the year 352 AH, he said: Abu Ali Al-Ash’ari, Ahmad bin Idris bin Ahmad Al-Qummi, narrated to us, saying: Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa narrated to us, on the authority of Al-Hussein bin Saeed, with his thirty books... Abu Ali Ahmed bin Yahya Al-Attar Al-Qummi told us, saying: My father, Abdullah bin Jaafar Al-Himyari, and Saad bin Abdullah all told us, on the authority of Ahmed bin Issa” [8].

​

This is an apparent statement in the documentation of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Attar Al-Qummi.

​

Al-Sirafi says: Their reliance—that is, our companions—and his reliance is in naming these books with these two narrations, and in one of them Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar falls... which, as we mentioned, is an apparent statement in what is required.

​

However, our Master, the Professor, may God have mercy on him, discusses the significance of this message about documenting the man, and he says: “And he replies: First: I did not know that the ancients’ reliance on a person’s narration does not indicate that they authenticated him. This is because I knew that this was based on the principle of justice, which we do not build on. Secondly: This would only be possible if the path were limited to the narration of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya, but it is not so. Rather, those reliable books were proven by another correct path, which is the first path that leads to Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa. Perhaps mentioning another way is for the sake of support” [9].

​

The two statements mentioned in the words of our Master, may God have mercy on him, are a subject for contemplation and pause.

​

As for the first implication: Relying on a narration is information about the authentication of narrators by continuity, so it is not valid to rely without trust unless it is proven otherwise by relying on the authenticity of justice, and this is information from our companions and on the authority of Ibn Noah regarding the authentication of the narrators who were mentioned in these two paths.

​

The apparent meaning of reliance is documentation, and the possibility that reliance and reliance is based on the authenticity of justice and not documentation is not taken into account unless this is known, and there is no doubt that such knowledge is lacking in the matter.

​

Also, what is apparent from the documentation is reliance on sense or intuition close to sense, and not on pure intuition and diligence, as our master, the professor himself, may God have mercy on him, says in the introduction to his book: “We said: This possibility should not be taken into account after establishing the biography on the authority of trustworthy information unless it is known that it arose from intuition, and there is no doubt that the possibility of sense in informing them, even in terms of narrating Kabir from Kabir and a trustworthy person from a trustworthy person, exists emotionally” [10].

​

Yes, if we know from a person that his reliance on a narrator is based on the authenticity of justice, then we do not accept his reliance and reliance. How do we have such knowledge?

​

How? Most of the documentation we have is from the ancients, in indexes, biographies, and biographies. The books of the ancients regarding documentation and analysis amounted to more than a hundred books at the time of the Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, as is evident from the Sheikh and Al-Najashi.

​

If it was the custom of the ancients—or most of them—to rely on the authenticity of justice in relying and relying on narrators, the ancients would not have written this large number of books of documentation and refutation, and what is the need for such a great effort in documentation?

​

The Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, says—in the kit in the last chapter mentioning the news of Al-Wahid—: “And what also indicates the validity of what we have reached is: We found that the sect distinguished the men who conveyed this news, it trusted the trustworthy among them, weakened the weak, and differentiated between those whose hadith and narrations were relied upon and those whose hadiths and narrations were relied upon. His experience cannot be relied upon, and they praised those who were praised and disparaged those who were blameworthy. They said: So-and-so is accused in his speech, so-and-so is a liar, so-and-so is mixed in doctrine and belief, so-and-so is a stand-up, and so-and-so is a fatheist. And other appeals they mentioned. They classified books in this regard, and excluded men [11] from among the classifications they narrated in their catalogues, to the point that if one of them denied a hadith, he looked at its chain of transmission and weakened his narration. This is their custom in ancient times, and its hadiths are not compromised” [12].

​

These are the words of the Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, about the sect’s persistence in dealing with narrators on the basis of documentation, and although his words, may God have mercy on him, are not in this context, they are clear and frank in that the approach of the ancients is investigation and documentation, and not building on the authenticity of justice, as our master, the professor, may God sanctify, says. Himself.

​

The Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, also says in Al-Iddah: “As for what I chose from the doctrine, it is that if a single narration comes from the path of our companions... and it is one of those whose narration cannot be challenged and is accurate in its transmission, then it is permissible to act on it... so much so that if one of them issued a fatwa about something they did not know. They asked him: Where did you say this? If he referred them to a well-known book or a well-known source, and its narrator was trustworthy and his hadith could not be denied, they would remain silent and submit to the matter in that regard and accept his statement. This has been their habit and characteristic since the time of the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family, and the imams after him, peace be upon them, and from the time of al-Sadiq Jaafar bin Muhammad, peace be upon him, about whom knowledge spread, and narrations about him abounded” [13].

​

These are the clear words of the Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, and he is the sheikh of the ancients and the expert in the knowledge of men, and he is clear that relying and relying in fatwas and narrations on trustworthy narrations and narrators, otherwise the fatwas are not valid, and they do not remain silent about them, then he clearly states that this is their practice in the hadiths of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. Upon him and his family and the imams after him, peace be upon them, and the hadiths of Al-Sadiq Jaafar bin Muhammad, peace be upon him, until the time of the Sheikh. If the predecessors had relied on the narrator based on his authenticity of justice—if his faith was proven—and no objection had been proven against him, then all of this would not have been true.

​

Al-Hurr Al-Ameli, may God have mercy on him, says—in the conclusion of Al-Wasa’il fi Al-Faydah Ninth in the fourteenth aspect—: “If they answered with the authenticity of justice, we answered that it was contrary to their doctrine, and only a few of them went to it. However, they are required to judge the justice of the unknown and the neglected, but they do not say so, and the requirement of justice remains useless” [14].

Accordingly; We rely on the reliance of the ancients and their reliance on the narrators, and we believe that what is apparent from the reliance and reliance is documentation.

​

There is no doubt that we work with the documentation of the ancients who were in the era of the Seraphic son of Noah, just as we work with the documentation of the sheikh and the Negus. He was the son of Noah in the era of the Negus, and a place of trust of the Negus. He relied on him, corresponded with him, and asked him to introduce the men and books [15].

​

As for the second statement that the professor, may God have mercy on him, mentioned regarding the significance of Ibn Nuh’s words regarding the authentication of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya: “This would only be possible if the path were limited to the narration of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya, but it is not so...”

​

I say: This is what is apparent from the words of Ibn Noah, and others are contrary to what is apparent.. If someone says: He relies on a piece of news narrated by so-and-so and so-and-so, then what is apparent from the words is that both narrations and the two narrators are reliable to him... and that he relies on it. Each one of them individually and independently.

​

The reference in this appearance is the general custom of people in dialogue, and this custom is in your door.

​

With the emergence of this phenomenon; There is no doubt that people do not care about possibilities that contradict the apparent meaning, and reject them with the apparent meaning. If we were to accept the possibilities that contradict the apparent meaning, no apparent meaning would be safe for us in dialogue between people. The street has adopted this method in which people conduct their daily conversations.

Accordingly; Ibn Nuh al-Sirafi’s letter to Sheikh al-Najashi appears in the documentation of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar al-Qummi, and this is the one chosen by the investigator Sheikh Abdullah al-Mamaqani, may God have mercy on him. He said in the translation of Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Attar al-Qummi: “And what indicates the majesty of the man is what Ibn Nuh wrote.” To Al-Najashi in the answer to his book in which he asked him to define the paths to the two sons of Saeed Al-Ahwazi Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein: As for what our companions are upon and what is relied upon is what was narrated by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa... Abu Ali Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Attar Al-Qummi told us, he said: Tell us..” [16].

​

Thus, he gives us the path of the Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, to Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi, which was included in the chain of transmission of the Ashura visit.

​

Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi

There was no slander or insult from any of the ancients or the moderns, at all.

​

A number of our venerable companions narrated from him, such as Muhammad bin Ali bin Mahboob, Ali bin Al-Hasan bin Faddal, Saad bin Abdullah, and Hamid bin Ziyad, and they are all trustworthy companions.

​

The Sheikh said in Al-Fihrist: “Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi has a book that we narrated on the authority of Al-Hussein bin Ubaidullah, on the authority of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Yahya, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ali bin Mahboob, on his authority” [17].

​

The Sheikh said about him in Al-Rijal—regarding those who did not narrate from them, peace be upon them—: “Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi, Humayd narrated many principles from him” [18].

​

This Hamid is Hamid bin Ziyad, and the Sheikh documented him in Al-Fahrist [19], Al-Najashi [20], Al-Allamah [21], and Ibn Shahr Ashub [22]. I knew Hamid’s interest in him and his narrations about him in many ways.

​

This undoubtedly achieves a level of beauty that brings reassurance to the soul regarding his narrations.

​

The researcher Al-Mamaqani says in his translation: “What appears to be the fact that he is an Imami, and he can be described with the lowest degree of goodness, given the narration of Al-Ajlah about him” [23].

​

Considering the following two points, we are comfortable adopting his narrations:

​

The First Point: There is no mention of any criticism—or challenge—in the catalogs and books of men.

The Second Point: The narration of eminent persons about him who were known for their trustworthiness, and whose trustworthiness was attested by men’s blogs. Among them are those who were known to rarely narrate on the authority of the weak, such as: Ali bin Hasan al-Faddal, who said: He did not narrate on the authority of his father [24], and such as Muhammad bin Ali bin Mahboob, about whom the Negus says: “Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and jurist” [25]. And Saad bin Abdullah, whom the Sheikh stated was reliable [26].

​

As for Hamid bin Ziyad, he narrated many principles from him—as the sheikh says. It was documented—as we said—by the Sheikh, the Negus, the scholar, and Ibn Shahr Ashub.

​

This point and that makes a person relax with his narrations, and be reassured that the man was not base or confused, otherwise he would not have taken the narrations of the eminent and documented narrators of the past.

​

The researcher Al-Mamaqani, may God have mercy on him, said in Al-Sakuni’s translation: “The abundance of narrations about him from his companions is an indication of his trustworthiness” [27]. If we stop at its significance of trustworthiness, it is no less an indication of its goodness and strength.

​

Our ancient and venerable companions were careful not to narrate from the weak and confused people directly and without an intermediary. Yes, they tolerated narrations about them through intermediary, and they saw narrations about the weak as flawed [28].

​

Whatever the case may be; We take comfort in the narrations of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi about visiting Ashura and others. Based on these two points, we believe that they are sufficient for improvement, if not sufficient for correction, and acting on good narrations is a common, well-known matter that is accepted by our scholars, such as the authentic ones. Based on the division of the scholar and his sheikh Ahmed bin Tawoos.

​

Saif bin Omairah Al-Nakhai

He is trustworthy, said by the Negus [29], the Sheikh in Al-Fihrast [30], Ibn Shahr Ashub [31], and Al-Allamah in Al-Khalasah [32].

​

Safwan Al-Jamal

He is Safwan bin Mahran bin Al-Mughirah Al-Asadi, Al-Jamal, a trustworthy Kufi, as Al-Najashi says: “It was narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, that he was a camel. He has a book that was narrated by a group...” [33].

​

In Al-Fihrist, he narrated his book via a chain of transmission, on the authority of Al-Sindi bin Muhammad, on the authority of him [34].

The narration of Sheikh al-Tusi on the authority of Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi is a considered narration.

​

The Second Narration: The Sheikh’s narration on the authority of Ibn Bazi’

Sheikh Abu Jaafar al-Tusi narrated in al-Misbah with his chain of transmission, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’, on the authority of Salih bin Uqba and Saif bin Amira, on the authority of Alqamah bin Muhammad al-Hadrami, on the authority of Abu Jaafar al-Baqir, peace be upon him [35].

​

Sheikh's Road to Ibn Bazi'

Our teacher, Al-Sayyid Al-Khoei, through Al-Saduq, says to him: “The path is correct, like the path of the Sheikh, even if Ibn Abi Jaid is in some of it” [36].

​

Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi'

As for Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’, Al-Najashi said about him: “He is one of the righteous and trustworthy of this sect” [37]. The Sheikh said about him: “Trustworthy, authentic” [38].

​

Saleh bin Uqba

It is unknown and has no documentation.

​

Saif bin Omairah Al-Nakhai

Advance talking about it.

​

Alqama bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami

He is one of the companions of Imam al-Baqir and al-Sadiq, peace be upon them. He had a situation with Zaid bin Ali, may God be pleased with him, narrated by Al-Kashi, which indicates his good condition [39]. Nothing was documented in it.

​

The chain of transmission is complete, then, except on the part of Alqamah bin Muhammad, and the presence of Salih bin Uqba in the chain of transmission does not matter. Because Saif bin Amira was with him.

​

But the first narration presented by the Sheikh to visit Ashura—which is the narration of Safwan bin Mahran Al-Jamal—attests to the authenticity of Alqamah’s narration.

​

Saif bin Amira says: “Safwan called for the visit that Alqama bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami narrated on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura,” as mentioned above.

​

It indicates the authenticity of Alqamah’s narration in this chain of narration. There is no problem with the rest of the men of the chain of transmission, nor with the Sheikh’s path to Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’.

​

Rather, in this narration—which the Sheikh narrates in Al-Misbah, on the authority of Muhammad bin Khalid Al-Tayalisi, on the authority of Saif bin Amira, on the authority of Safwan—there is evidence of the majesty of Alqamah bin Muhammad; It was mentioned at the end of the narration that when Safwan recited to them the prayer for the visit, Saif bin Amira said to him: Alqamah bin Muhammad al-Hadrami did not bring this to us on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, but rather he brought us the prayer for the visit. Safwan said: I received it from my master Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him... etc. It is as if Saif bin Omairah says to Safwan: If this supplication occurred after the visit, it was narrated to us by Alqamah bin Muhammad, and it indicates a high degree of trustworthiness of Saif bin Omairah in the narration of Alqamah bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami. Safwan explains to him that he heard this supplication from Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, directly.

Whatever it is, considering Al-Tayalisi’s narration leads to considering the second chain of transmission that the Sheikh mentions in Al-Misbah for visiting Ashura and praying for her.

​

The Second Approach: Proving the Validity of the Visit Itself

The truthfulness of the narration can be proven by the evidence present in its chain of transmission, even assuming that the narrators’ trustworthiness is not proven, and there is no contradiction between denying the narrators trustworthiness and the truthfulness of the narration.

Hence, the difference between the two approaches is that we talk about the reliability and consideration of the narrators in the first approach, and about the truthfulness and authenticity of the narration in the second approach.

​

Meaning of Reassurance and Exclusion

Reassurance is a psychological state adjacent to science, which rational people treat as science. Because the Law has not abolished this rational consideration, reassurance is an argument like knowledge, and it entails the same authority that results from knowledge.

​

The meaning of reassurance is the self’s confidence in the certainty of something.

​

In contrast to exclusion, it means relying oneself on the absence of the possibility of disagreement to borders bordering on zero. So that rational people do not care about it and remove it from the calculation in the position of work, as they are inseparable and two aspects of the same issue.

If we enter a powerfully constructed building, we are assured of the state of security and safety in the building to the limits bordering on knowledge, and we rule out the occurrence of danger to borders bordering on zero. Based on the calculation of probabilities, which is a rational scientific calculation upon which rational people build and arrange the effect, whether positive or negative.

​

There is no problem in the fact that relying on the absence of the possibility of disagreement differs from the case of knowledge of the absence, but rational people treat it as knowing the absence of the possibility of disagreement, which is in the sense of eliminating the possibility of disagreement in the place of work.

​

Each of them is an argument according to reasonable people and according to the law.

​

As for rational authority; This is because rational people deal with them in the same way as knowledge based on confirmation and knowledge based on the absence of the possibility of disagreement.

​

As for authenticity in the street; Because the Lawgiver did not abolish this rational consideration in both of them, and the lack of abolition in such cases in the sense of signature, it is equivalent to knowledge according to the Lawgiver and entails the same authority that results from knowledge.

​

Determine the Research Topic

We are not faced with a jurisprudential issue; there is no jurisprudential rule regarding visiting Ashura. There is no doctrinal issue, and if it were a doctrinal issue, a single report would not benefit us, unless it is fraught with evidence that requires definiteness or reassurance.

​

We are not in the process of knowing the complete, correct text issued by Imam Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him; the addition or subtraction of a word or sentence does not prejudice the visitation, and the visitation takes place through it, as is the case with the difference in versions in all the visits and supplications, and that does not prevent us from praying to God Almighty with it or visiting the infallible ones, peace be upon them, unless the addition leads us into an innovation or innovation. It is in violation of the Qur’an and Sunnah, unless the shortcoming is inconsistent with the purpose of the visit. There is nothing like that in visiting Ashura.

​

As for the issue of cursing, it is not found in the text narrated by Ibn Qulwayh, may God have mercy on him, and which was mentioned in Al-Misbah. The author, may God protect him, traced the written copies of it, and did not find this sentence in them.

​

Accordingly, the important issue for us in this research is to know whether the text of the visit contained in Kamil al-Ziyarat and Misbah al-Mutahajjid is majul or not.

​

To understand this issue, we must limit the people who we can accuse of fabrication and fabrication from among those mentioned in the chain of transmission of this narration by the two Sheikhs Ibn Qulwayh and Abu Jaafar al-Tusi.

​

So we say: We have five paths to this visit by reviewing the chains of transmission for this visit in the entire Al-Ziyarat and Al-Misbah, and here are the chains of transmission:

​

The Foundations of the Visit According to Sheikh al-Tusi, may God have mercy on him

1. Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’ ← on the authority of Salih bin Uqba ← on the authority of his father ← on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

2. Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’ ← on the authority of Salih bin Uqba and Saif bin Amira ← on the authority of Alqamah bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami ← on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

3. Muhammad bin Khalid Al-Tayalisi ← on the authority of Saif bin Amira ← on the authority of Safwan Al-Jamal ← on the authority of Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq, peace be upon him.

 

The Foundations of Visitation According to Ibn Qulwayh, may God have mercy on him

1. Hakim bin Dawood and others ← on the authority of Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani ← on the authority of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi ← on the authority of Saif bin Amira and Saleh bin Uqba ← on the authority of Alqama bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami ← on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

2. Hakim bin Daoud ← on the authority of Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani ← on the authority of Muhammad bin Khalid Al-Tayalisi and Muhammad bin Ismail ← on the authority of Saleh bin Uqba ← on the authority of Malik Al-Juhani ← on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

 

Narrators Who Are Not Documented in These Chains of Narrations

1. Saleh bin Uqba.

2. Uqba bin Qais bin Samaan bin Abi Dhabiha, Saleh’s father.

3. Alqama bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami.

4. Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi.

5. Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani.

6. Malik Al-Juhani.

​

None of them was charged with fabrication, fabrication, or lying, except for Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani.

​

However, we begin this new examination of the evidence for the visitation of Ashura based on the assumption that each of these six could be a factor in plagiarizing this visitation. Let us see whether this assumption is correct or not?

​

If it is proven that this assumption is abstained—or excluded to the extent of normal abstention—in all or all of them, the validity of the visit will be proven.

​

If we conclude that this assumption is possible, we stop validating the visitation with this approach and are satisfied with the advanced men’s approach in proving the validity of the visitation to Ashura.

​

The First and Second Chain of Transmission According to Sheikh al-Tusi

I say: In the first of the three chains of transmission that Sheikh Abu Jaafar, may God have mercy on him, mentions for visiting Ashura, we cannot accuse Saleh bin Uqba of fabrication; because Salih narrates the visit jointly with Saif on the authority of Alqamah in the second chain of transmission; Muhammad bin Ismail narrates the visit in the second chain of transmission on the authority of Salih and Saif together on the authority of Alqamah, and there is no problem in the trustworthiness of the narrator and the one being narrated on his authority, and they are: Muhammad bin Ismail and Saif, and Salih is Saif’s partner in the narration on the authority of Alqamah and the narration of it to Muhammad bin Ismail.

​

So why would he plagiarize this narration when he actually heard it from Alqamah?

​

There is no doubt that Salih heard the story that Alqamah narrates on the authority of Imam Al-Baqir, peace be upon him, even if we accuse him of fabrication, since it is impossible for him to plagiarize this visit, since he did not hear it from Alqamah directly or through him. Then the text that he plagiarized coincides, after a while, with the text that was Alqamah narrated it on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

​

If so, plagiarizing this text is an absurd and unnecessary act. Why would Saleh lie and plagiarize when he has a real way to narrate the visit from Alqamah without any intermediary or by means?

​

We must correct Saleh’s narration here and believe him in his narration, whether we document it or not.

​

As for his father, who is Uqba bin Qais bin Samaan bin Abi Dhabiha, it is very unlikely that he colluded with the rest of the narrators—who narrated this narration on the authority of Abu Jaafar Al-Baqir and Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq, peace be upon them—to plagiarize this visit in one form, and they were at least four, and they were the father of Saleh, Alqamah bin Muhammad Al-Hadrami, and Malik Al-Juhani, on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, and Safwan, on the authority of Imam Al-Sadiq, peace be upon him.

​

It is very unlikely that they would agree to plagiarize an entire text and then attribute it to Abu Jaafar and Abu Abdullah, peace be upon them.

Yes, there are many plagiarism cases, but we do not know of a group that conspires to plagiarize a text and attribute it to a specific source.

If this were true, it would be a very dangerous matter, and it would mean the presence of gangs in the chains of narrators who agree to plagiarize texts and attribute them to the infallibles, peace be upon them, and conspire to narrate them from them.

​

If that were the case, their matter would be exposed, they would be defamed and they would be overthrown, and it is not possible for their matter to be concealed from the memorizers of the hadith, the sheikhs of the narration, the authors of the jurisprudence and the hadiths who are keen on the deposits of prophecy and the imamate, and it is not possible to remain silent about them and not warn about their narrations.

The possibility of collusion between a number of hadith scholars to formulate unified texts regarding supplications, visits, and other things, for example, and to attribute them to the infallibles and modernize them is extremely unlikely.

​

Accordingly, if we find that Alqamah bin Muhammad al-Hadrami, Uqba bin Qais bin Samaan bin Abi Dhabiha, Malik al-Juhani, and Safwan bin Mahran narrated one text, with slight differences from the two imams Abu Jaafar and Abu Abdullah, peace be upon them, we cannot assume that they colluded on that.

​

If something like this had happened during the visit to Ashura through an organized network colluding with the establishment, making, and impersonating collectively, their matter would not have been limited to the visit to Ashura, and they would have expanded into making and placing in jurisprudence, interpretation, beliefs, supplications, and visits, even if something like this had occurred through a complicit group. From the men in the chains of hadiths; Their affairs would necessarily have been exposed, and there would have been many warnings against them and defamation of them, through scholars of wounding and modification who were keen on the deposits of revelation and prophecy.

 

The Third Chain of Transmission According to Sheikh al-Tusi

As for the third chain of transmission in Al-Misbah—which is narrated by Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi, with the sheikh’s narration from him—our opinion has become clear in considering his narrations. It is not possible to doubt this narrative; even based on the other opinion, which detracts from his novels; he cannot be accused of placing this narration in the words of Saif bin Amira. Saif bin Amira actually narrates this narration on the authority of Alqamah bin Muhammad on the authority of Imam Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, as in the second chain of transmission, and he is trustworthy in his narration.

​

If Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi did not know about Saif bin Omairah’s narration of the visit on the authority of Alqamah, on the authority of Imam Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, then he fabricated this visit so that it completely coincided with the text narrated by Saif bin Omairah—as a matter of coincidence—then it is almost impossible and impossible. Because it is impossible for Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi to compose a text that he attributes to Saif bin Omairah, and it happens that Saif bin Omairah narrates the exact same text on the authority of Alqamah on the authority of Abu Jaafar, peace be upon him, and Muhammad bin Khaled does not know about that, even if he knows about Saif’s narration of the visit on the authority of Alqamah, then he hastens to put it in Saif’s words—with the same words in another chain of transmission—is very irrational. There is no reason for this other than increasing the number of ways to visit, which is a very weak reason, and rational people do not pay attention to it in their daily conversations and reports.

​

If Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi had been so disdainful of the matter of placing and making, and embarking on placing it for the slightest reason, his matter would have become famous among the masters of wounding and modification.

​

We knew that the man was not mentioned in any male sources.

​

Accordingly, there is no reason to stop accepting the narration of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi in the third chain of transmission that Sheikh Abu Jaafar mentions. The rest of the narrators of the chain of transmission are trustworthy, and the companions have stated that they are trustworthy.

​

Support Full Visits

In the first and second chain of transmission in Kamil al-Ziyarat, Muhammad bin Musa al-Hamdani is accused of fabrication, but we rule out—according to the previous methodology—that he deliberately plagiarized the text of this visit in the words of Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi and Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’ [40]; Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazi’ narrates this text on the authority of Salih bin Uqba and Saif bin Amira, all on the authority of Alqamah, and the chain of transmission, except for Alqamah, is complete.

​

Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani is certainly familiar with the text narrated by Muhammad bin Ismail on the authority of Saleh and Saif, both on the authority of Alqamah, because the two texts are identical in many of their paragraphs, even if they differ in some paragraphs.

It is usually impossible for Muhammad bin Musa not to be familiar with this text, so he places a text in the words of Muhammad bin Khalid and Muhammad bin Ismail, identical to the text narrated by Muhammad bin Ismail, by coincidence.

​

This is very unlikely to the extent of normal abstinence.

​

If we accept that Muhammad bin Musa Al-Hamdani was familiar with the narration of Muhammad bin Ismail through or without an intermediary, then there is no reason to plagiarize the narration; it is possible for him to narrate it through or without an intermediary. Unless his goal is to multiply the paths of the text, which is a very far-fetched matter, except that our exclusion here is lighter than our exclusion of that in the narration of Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi.

​

As for the talk about Malik al-Juhani, who narrates the text of the visit on the authority of Imam al-Baqir, peace be upon him, we say—according to the methodology that we talked about before in believing Alqamah’s narration—that we very much rule out the collusion of these three, Uqba bin Qais bin Samaan bin Abi Dhabiha, Alqamah bin Muhammad, and Malik. Al-Juhani plagiarized a narration from Imam Al-Baqir, peace be upon him. We have known that in the narration of Saif bin Amira on the authority of Safwan, there is a correction and confirmation of the narration of Alqamah on the authority of Imam al-Baqir, peace be upon him.

​

In other words, we say: We have no more than two proven possible cases, and the rest of the cases are very weak assumptions:

The First Case: that the two narrators conspire—or the narrators conspire—to plagiarize a text in the supplication, a visit, a legal ruling, a historical event, or other things. This meaning, although it is possible to prove it, is very unlikely from an evidentiary standpoint. If something like this were to happen in our ways and our narratives when it is possible to conceal it. He is well known in the books of jarh and ta'deel. The scholars of men, wounds, and ta'deel would hasten to reject it and defame those who do it, and we cannot remain silent about it.

​

Accordingly, the failure of male scholars, both early and late, to declare cases like this is tantamount to its non-existence. That is, non-existence equals non-existence.

​

The Second Case: that each one of them is unique in placing the text, so the two texts or texts coincide by chance. This possibility, according to the calculation of probabilities, is further away from the first possibility, even if there is a slight difference between the texts, as in the visit to Ashura. There is a difference between the text narrated by Ibn Qulwayh in Al-Kamil and the text narrated by the Sheikh in Al-Misbah.

As for the rest of the cases, they are very weak or eventually turn into one of the two cases that we ruled to be excluded, meaning eliminating the possibility of disagreement completely according to rational people and according to Sharia law.

​

I say: Accordingly, the goal in Sindhi studies of such texts is to prove that the text is not completely plagiarized, such as the tragic visit, the supplication of my love, and the supplication of the treasure of the throne among the supplications that are made up of what the hadith scholar Sheikh Abbas al-Qummi, may God have mercy on him, mentions in Mafatih al-Jinan; he complains bitterly about the plagiarism of supplications and visits.

​

If so, some of what we have mentioned here is sufficient to reassure us that the text narrated by Alqamah and other companions regarding the visit of Al-Hussein, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura was delivered and dictated by Imam Al-Baqir, peace be upon him, and even by Al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, to their companions and Shiites regarding the visit of Al-Hussein, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura, and it is not forged or fabricated.

​

Then it is certain that this visit became widespread among the believers. It was passed down from generation to generation, and the sect’s scholars persevered in it. The observations mentioned were not hidden from them, and they would not fear people in denying them. However, they did not care about these observations for two reasons:

​

The First Reason: The points we mentioned in this article are based on these observations.

​

The Other Reason: There is no point in creating confusion around these issues, unless they involve innovation in religion, or a violation of the Qur’an and Sunnah. We learned that this visit does not include any of that.

​

As for the issue of cursing, the author discussed it in detail, and even devoted most of the pages of his book to it.

​

However, if we go beyond all of that, authentic narrations have been reported, without a doubt, regarding the absolute desirability of visiting Hussein, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura in particular, without being restricted by a special text, including:

​

What Al-Saduq narrates in Uyun Akhbar Al-Rida and Al-Amali, with his chain of transmission on the authority of Al-Rayyan bin Shabib—the maternal uncle of Al-Mu’tasim—said: “On the first day of Muharram, I entered upon Al-Rida, peace be upon him, and he said to me:...O Ibn Shabib, if it pleases you to meet God and there is no sin. You have the victory of Hussein” [41]. The story is true.

​

And what the Sheikh narrates in Al-Tahtheeb, with his chain of transmission, on the authority of Zaid Al-Shaham, on the authority of Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, said: “Whoever visits the grave of Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, on the day of Ashura, knowing his rights, is like one who visits God Almighty in His Throne” [42].

​

The well-known visit to Ashura is one of the examples of the visit of Al-Hussein, peace be upon him. It is included in what is mentioned in the absolute narrations of reward and reward, and it is desirable, and it is permissible to worship it, like any other text, unless there is something in the text that contradicts the Book and what is authentic from the noble Sunnah, and not in the visit to Ashura. Something like that.

The extensive investigation conducted by the author into the text narrated by the Sheikh in Al-Misbah raises the suspicion on which the author stops.

​

There is no reason to stop desiring this text and its obligation to reward the believers seek from it.

He said in the translation of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Ubaidullah bin Al-Bahloul: “In the beginning, he was consistent, then he was confused, and I saw most of our companions insinuating him and weakening him... until he said: I saw this sheikh and heard a lot from him, then I stopped narrating from him except through a conversation between me and him.” Men of the Negus, p. 282.

​

Although this point is characteristic of Sheikh Al-Najashi, may God have mercy on him, and some of our companions, it reflects for us the methodology of trustworthy and venerable narrators of the ancients in guarding against narrations from the weak, the weak, and the confused. Some may go to the trustworthiness of the trustworthy sheikhs in general, except for those who are proven otherwise.

​

This is a weak premise, without a doubt, but trustworthy narrators do not stop narrating about a person, and narrating a lot about him reveals the good condition of the narrator, and this amount is sufficient in narrating about him, unless the contrary is proven with evidence, and there are many examples of this in the narrators.

​

Mr. Mohsen Al-Araji Al-Kazemi says—in his book (The Kit of Men) on the signs of trustworthiness—: “Among them is the frequent mention by the eminent scholars of him and their narrations of him, and even the abundance of the sublime extracted in his narrations of him.” Several men, p. 134.​

​

This study aimed to investigate the authenticity of the well-known Ashura visit and its chain of transmission. By critically examining the narrators and chains of transmission, we have aimed to establish the credibility and authenticity of this revered text, passed down through generations of believers. The extensive scholarly investigation suggests that while certain elements may have been added over time, the core message and practice of the Ashura visit remain firmly rooted in Islamic tradition and teachings.

​

​

References:

1. Al-Tusi, Misbah Al-Mutahjad, p. 777. Al-Majlisi, Bihar Al-Anwar, vol. 101, pp. 296-300.

2. Al-Tusi, Al-Fihrist, p. 634.

3. Al-Khoei, Dictionary of Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 3, p. 122.

4. Previous source: Part 3, p. 121.

5. Previous source: Part 3, p. 121.

6. See: Previous source: Part 3, p. 122.

7. Previous source: Part 3, p. 122.

8. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 44.

9. Al-Khoei, Dictionary of Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 3, p. 122.

10. Previous source: Part 1, p. 41.

11. The verified scholar Khalil bin Al-Ghazi Al-Qazwini said in his explanation of (And They Excluded Men): “That is, the writings narrated by men, such as what was narrated on the authority of Ibn Al-Walid that he said: What Muhammad alone narrated from the books of Yunus cannot be relied upon.”

12. Al-Tusi, Al-Iddah, Part 1, 366. Explained by Al-Qazwini and edited by Sheikh Muhammad Mahdi Najaf.

13. Previous source: pp. 337-338.

14. Al-Hurr Al-Ameli, Wasa’il Al-Shi’a, vol. 20, p. 102.

15. Among this is what Sheikh Al-Najashi, may God have mercy on him, mentioned in the translation of Ahmed bin Isa; where he quotes his books from Ibn Noah, Ibn Noah narrates his books to him, and in the chain of transmission of Ibn Noah is also Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya. See: Men of the Negus, p. 60.

16. Al-Mamaqani, Revising the Article, vol. 2, p. 95, stone edition.

17. Al-Tusi, Al-Fihrist, p. 228.

18. Al-Tusi, Rijal Al-Sheikh, p. 499, in “Those who did not narrate on the authority of the Imams, peace be upon them,” No. 54.

19. Al-Tusi, Al-Fihrist, p. 114.

20. Al-Najashi, Men of the Negus, p. 132.

21. Summary of Sayings, Allama Al-Hilli, p. 436.

22. Ma’alim al-Ulama’, Ibn Shahr Ashub, p. 79.

23. Revising the Article, vol. 3, p. 114, stone edition.

24. Dictionary of Rijal al-Hadith, Al-Sayyid al-Khoei, vol. 12, p. 362.

25. Rijal Al-Najashi, Al-Najashi, p. 349.

26. Al-Fihrist, Sheikh Al-Tusi, p. 135.

27. Miqbas al-Hidaya by Muhaqqiq al-Mamaqani (supplement to Kitab al-Rijal, p. 78, stone edition).

28. Al-Najashi stated that he avoids narrating from weak people in places in his book. Among them is his statement in the translation of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Ubaidullah bin Ayyash: “I saw this sheikh and he was a friend of me and my father, and I heard a lot from him, and I saw our sheikhs detract from him, but I did not see anything from him and avoided him, and he was one of the people of knowledge and strong literature...” Rijal al-Najashi, p. 63.

29. Al-Najashi, Men of the Negus, p. 189.

30. Al-Tusi, Al-Fihrist, p. 140.

31. Ibn Shahr Ashub, Ma’alim al-Ulama’, p. 91.

32. Allama Al-Hilli, Khalisat Al-Aqwal, p. 160.

33. See: Al-Najashi, Men of the Negus, p. 198.

34. Al-Tusi, Al-Fihrist, p. 147.

35. Al-Tusi, Misbah Al-Mahtajud, pp. 772-773.

36. Al-Khoei, Dictionary of Men, vol. 15, p. 100.

37. Al-Najashi, Men of the Negus, p. 330.

38. Al-Tusi, Rijal Al-Tusi, p. 364.

39. Al-Tusi, Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al-Rijal (Rijal al-Kashi), Part 2, p. 714.

40. We accept what the author (may God protect him) suggests is likely that what Sheikh Ibn Qulwayh meant when he said: Likewise, Muhammad bin Ismail, Muhammad bin Ismail’s sympathy for Muhammad bin Khalid al-Tayalisi; Due to the proportion of class between him and Muhammad bin Khaled Al-Tayalisi and the lack of class proportion between him and Sheikh Ibn Qulwayh.

41. Sheikh Al-Saduq, Uyun Akhbar Al-Rida, peace be upon him, vol. 1, pp. 268-269. Sheikh Al-Saduq, Al-Amali, pp. 192-193.

42. Sheikh al-Tusi, Tahdheeb al-Ahkam, vol. 6, p. 51.