Press "Enter" to skip to content

Did Imām al-Sādiq (as) curse the Khulafa and Wives of the Prophet ﷺ after every prayer?

This is a translation of an article which is a Q&A with Shaykh Hobbollah, original article here


What is your opinion on this narration that Al-Kulayni narrated with his chain of narration on the authority of Al-Hussein Bin Thawir and Abi Salamah Al-Sarraj, they said: (“We heard Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, curse after each obligatory prayer four of the men and four of the women: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Aisha, Hafsa, Hind and Ummul Hakam sister of Muawiya”)? 

What do you think of those in our current age, who use the likes of this narration to curse the sahaba and the wives of the Prophet ﷺ ?


The narration that you mentioned was not accurately presented in this form, as it was mentioned in the book Al-Kafi in the following way: Muhammad bin Yahya, on the authority of Muhammad bin Al-Hussein, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazee’, on the authority of Al-Khaibari, on the authority of Al-Hussein bin Thawir, and Abi Salamah Al-Sarraj whom said:

We have heard Abu Abdullah (peace be upon him) laying curse upon four men and four women after each obligatory prayer, Fulan, Fulan, Fulan and Muawiya, he used to mention them by name, Fulana, Fulana, Hind and Ummul Hakam sister of Muawiya

Al-Kafi, vol 3, pg 342

And then transmitted by Sheikh Al-Tusi in (Tahdheeb Al-Ahkam, vol 2, pg 321) also from the chain of narration on the authority of Muhammad bin Yahya with the ommision of the name Al-Khaibari in the chain.

However, the scholar Al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar transmitted the narration from Tahdheeb and Al-Kafi in another way, which is: 

On the authority of Hussein bin Thawir and Abu Salamah al-Sarraj, they said: We heard Abu Abdullah, peace be upon him, curse after each obligatory prayer, four men and four women: Al-Taymi, Al-Adawi, Fa’lan and Muawiya.. he used to mention them by name, Fulana, Fulana, Hind and Ummul Hakam sister of Muawiya

Bihar al-Anwar, vol 83, pg 58

And Al-Faydh al-Kashani mentioned it in this shape in his (al-Wafi, vol 8, pg 803) and this is correctly what is mentioned nowadays in Tahdheeb, and we do not find it this shape in the version of Al-Kafi that is in our hands today.

The scholar Al-Majlisi commented in Mir’at al Uqool on the narration in Al-Kafi by saying:

[Al-Majlisi first mentions his grading of the chain] Majhool [Unknown]. He narrated it in Tahdheeb, with the name of Al-Khaibari omitted from between the chain of narrators, so the companions counted it as sahih, and it seems that he was omitted by the Sheikh al-Tusi’s slip of the pen or by the copyist as mentioned in al-Mantiqa, where he said: Some of the companions thought this to be sahih. As is the issue of building on the apparent, and after looking into it you will know that there is a clear explanation of its weakness, because al-Kulayni narrated it from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, from Muhammad ibn Isma`il ibn Bazee’, from al-Khaibari with the rest of the chain of transmission, and this is what you see as the path of the Sheikh, except for the intermediary between Ibn Bazee’ and Ibn Thuwair, and its existence [the intermediary; Al-Khaibari] prevents the authentication of the report; because the narrator is unknown. And it seems the inadvertently omitting [of the unknown narrator] from the Sheikh’s narration is based on a way in which suspicions prevail, and that the defect is proven in the report, and in the Sheikh’s Fihrist it is stated that Muhammad bin Ismail bin Bazee’ narrated the book of Al-Hussein Bin Thawir from Al-Khaibari from him, and perhaps connecting this to what Al-Kulayni narrated suffices the clarity of the weakness of the chain, […] and al-Matarzi said: […] The first titles are an expression of the three in their order, and the last two titles are about Aisha and Hafsa

Mir’at al Uqool, vol 15, pg 174-175

And the origin of this comment that al-Majlisi took is – as declared by himself – from Shaykh Hassan al-Amili in (Mantiqa al-Jaman, vol 2, pg 89).

If we review the chain of this narration, we will find in it Abu Salamah Al-Sarraj, an unknown person; but his being unknown does not harm the chain, because in his position in the chain there is also Hussein Bin Thuwair and he is thiqa [trustworthy], there is no problem in this regard, but the main problem of the hadith lies in Al-Khaibari, and his name is Khaibari bin Ali The Kufi al-Tahan al-Kufi, who was described by Al-Najashi, who said about him:

Khaibari Bin Ali al-Tahan (the miller) Kufan. Weak in his madhab [doctrine], this was mentioned by Ahmed bin Al-Hussein, it is said in his madhab is irtifa’ [exaggeration]. Khaibari narrated from Al-Hussein Bin Thawir, and from al-Asbagh, and there was nobody in his time other than him who narrated from al-Asbagh

Rijal al-Najashi, pg 154-155

and Ibn al-Ghadhaeri said:

Khaybarī b. ʿAlī, al-Ṭaḥḥān (the miller). Kufan. Weak in ḥadīth. Ghālī in madhhab. He had been a companion of Yūnus b. Ẓabyān, and narrated a lot from him. He has a book on the authority of Abū ʿAbdillāh عليه السلام . His ḥadīth are not regarded.

Rijal ibn al-Ghadhaeri, pg 56

But the weakening of al-Ghadhaeri is insignificant because of the lack of the establishment of the attribution of the copy of the book that is in our hands today to him. So it is referred to as a possibility and indication only. As for the weakening of al-Najashi, it is weakening in the doctrine, not in the hadith, and it seems that the man was close to ghuluw [exaggeration] in accordance with these two texts, and besides that there was not one of the scholars who authenticated this man for us to work with his hadiths, yes his name was mentioned in the chains of Kamil al-Ziyarat, so whoever believes in the the trustworthiness of all the narrators in Kamil al-Ziyarat may authenticate this hadith, and whoever does not acknowledge the authentication of all narrators other than the direct sheikhs of Ibn Qulawayh in Kamil al-Ziyarat – as is the correct opinion Sayed Al-Khoei held at the end of his life, and the position of Sayed Baqir Al-Sadr, and Muhadith Al-Nuri, and Sheikh Jawad Al-Tabrizi from whom came to mind, and the apparent adoption [of this position] from Sayed Ali Al-Sistani:

In other words, he said that some of the book’s narrators were authenticated in an unspecified way, so that the authentication mentioned in the introduction is practically useless

Buhuth fi Sharh al-Manasik, vol 3, pg 68-69

As was reported by his son, Sayed Muhammad Ridha Sistani, may God protect him, and see (Qaidat la Dharar, 21-22), so this narration would not be reliable by its chain according to him.

It has become clear that the the omitting of the name of al-Khaibari from Tahdheeb al-Ahkam does not impose the authentication of the chain; because what is present in Al-Kafi is the presence of al-Khaibari in the chain, and that Shaykh al-Najashi and others also mentioned that al-Khaibari narrates his book on the authority of Al-Hussein Bin Thawir, and that he was among those whom Ibn Bazee’ narrates from, which very much strengthens the possibility of a transcriptional omission or suspicion from the book al-Tahdheeb, whose transcriptional and editorial problems are many, as is well known.


This hadith is not established through a reliable path from Imam Al-Sadiq (as), and adding to that; the application of the names mentioned in the hadith to the wives of the Prophet ﷺ Aisha and Hafsa needs a collection of indicators [for this], because al-Majlisi applied the hadith to them based on his own ijtihad; as some suppose that it is about Marjana and the wife of Imam al-Hassan (as). This and the origin of cursing by name, is a research that needs another review that is longer than this, and our words here are on this narration in particular.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.