Did Kulayni tamper with a Hadith?

Anonymous
Nov 12
5 min read

There’s a narration in al-Kafi that’s stirred a bit of controversy concerning Shaykh al-Kulayni(RH). Our opponents have alleged that he tampered with the report to suit his own narrative.

The report is as follows in Al-Kafi Vol. 2, pg. 69, Hadith. # 10 by al-Kulayni

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ عَنْ فُضَيْلٍ عَنْ طَاهِرٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله قَالَ:

كَانَ أَبُو عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيْهِ السَّلام) يَلُومُ عَبْدَ الله وَيُعَاتِبُهُ وَيَعِظُهُ وَيَقُولُ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَكُونَ مِثْلَ أَخِيكَ فَوَ الله إِنِّي لاعْرِفُ النُّورَ فِي وَجْهِهِ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ الله لِمَ أَ لَيْسَ أَبِي وَأَبُوهُ وَاحِداً وَأُمِّي وَأُمُّهُ وَاحِدَةً فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو عَبْدِ الله إِنَّهُ مِنْ نَفْسِي وَأَنْتَ ابْنِي.

Muhammad b. Yahya narrated from Muhammad b. al-Husayn, from Ja‘far b. Bashir, from Fudayl, from Tahir, from Abu ‘Abdillah (Ja’far al-Sadiq) (AS):

Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) used to reproach ‘Abdullah (his eldest son), admonish him, and advise him, saying, “What prevents you from being like your brother? By Allah, I truly see the light shining from his face.”

‘Abdullah said, “Why? Is not my father and his father one and the same, and my mother and his mother one and the same?”

Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) replied, “He is from myself, while you are my son.”

The claim is that al-Kulayni tampered with this report because he believed it supported the Imamate of Imam Musa al-Kadhim (AS), whereas, in reality, they argue it was evidence for the Imamate of Isma'il ibn Ja'far (RA).

The evidence for this claim comes from the fact that the same report appears in a different hadith collection al-Imama wal-Tabrisa pg. 73, Hadith no. 63 compiled by Ibn Babawayh, the father of Shaykh al-Saduq, where it reads as follows:

محمد بن يحيى ، عن محمد بن الحسين ، عن جعفر بن بشير ، عن فضيل ، عن طاهر ، عن ابي عبد الله عليه السلام ، قال :

كانَ يَلُومُ عبد الله ويُعاتبه ويَعِظُه ويقول : ما يمنعك أن تكون مثل أخيك ؟ فوالله إني لأعرف النور من وجهه ! فقال عبد الله : ليس أبي وأبوه واحداً ؟ وأمي وأمه واحدةً ؟ فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام : إِنَّ اسماعيل من نفسي وأنت ابني

Muhammad b. Yahya narrated from Muhammad b. al-Husayn, from Ja‘far b. Bashir, from Fudayl, from Tahir, from Abu ‘Abdillah (AS), who said:

He used to reproach ‘Abdullah, admonish him, and advise him, saying: “What prevents you from being like your brother? By Allah, I surely recognize the light upon his face!”

‘Abdullah said, “Is not my father and his father one, and my mother and his mother one?”

Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) replied, “Indeed, Isma‘il is from myself, and you are my son.”

According to TwelverShia.net, the claim is that al-Kulayni removed the name of Isma'il because its inclusion would suggest his Imamate and, by implication, undermine the Imamate of Musa al-Kadhim (AS).

Response to this accusation

After carefully examining these hadiths, we found no sufficient evidence to suggest that al-Kulayni himself tampered with the report. Below are some of the reasons that support this conclusion.

Firstly, the narration itself does not establish Imamate. Expressing profound love or affection for one’s son does not, by any means, imply that this son holds the position of Imam. What the report does indicate, however, is that Abdullah al-Aftah was not an Imam which, at the time, was a point of contention among certain groups.

Secondly, the narration cannot be referring to Musa al-Kadhim (AS), as it contains the phrase “and my mother and his mother are one.” Abdullah al-Aftah’s mother was Fatima bint al-Husayn ibn al-Athram ibn Imam al-Hasan (AS), whereas Musa al-Kadhim’s mother was Hamida al-Barbariyya (RA). This makes it clear that the report cannot be about Musa al-Kadhim, since the two do not share the same mother. In contrast, Isma'il ibn Ja'far does share the same mother as Abdullah al-Aftah.

Therefore, if Shaykh al-Kulayni had truly wished to censor or alter the report, the most logical part to omit would have been the phrase mentioning “the same mother,” since that clearly points to Isma'il. The fact that he preserved it instead demonstrates that he had no intention to tamper with the report.

Cause of the discrepancy

The lack of mention for Ismail's name is not the only discrepancy of the report. If you compare both reports, you’ll find several differences in their transmissions.

Al-Kafi for example states مَا مَنَعَكَ while Ibn Babawayh’s states ما يمنعك.

Al-Kafi states إِنِّي لاعْرِفُ النُّورَ فِي وَجْهِهِ while Ibn Babawayh records إني لأعرف النور من وجهه.

Al-Kafi records لِمَ أَ لَيْسَ أَبِي وَأَبُوهُ وَاحِداً while Ibn Babawayh records ليس أبي وأبوه واحداً.

We can clearly observe other differences in their transmissions, which were clearly not a result of intentional distortion, but rather issues pertaining to scribal errors that occur when narrating from another book.

What we mean by this is that Muhammad b. Yahya did not narrate this Hadith to Kulayni or Ibn Babawayh directly, but rather they copied this down from the books he had which he gave them permission (ijaza) to narrate from.

This is known by the fact that the chain of “Muhammad b. Yahya, from Muhammad b. al-Husayn, from Ja’far b. Bashir” is a very common repeated chain we find in many Hadith books. In fact, Muhammad b. al-Husayn almost exclusively is only narrated by Muhammad b. Yahya, which is a clear indicator that it is being handed down through writings and not oral transmission. As a result, two different scribal books can inevitably have differences due to human nature making mistakes.

Proof for scribal variants

What decisively proves this is that in al-Tabrasi’s rendition of the report, quoting al-Kafi, he reveals a different variant as we read in 'Alam al-Wara', Vol. 2, pg. 12 - 13:

فقال عبد الله : ولم ، أليس أبي وأبوه واحداً وأصلي وأصله واحداً؟

Abd Allah said: “And why not? Are not my father and his father the same, and my ancestry and his ancestry the same?

Despite quoting al-Kafi, al-Tabrasi reveals his manuscripts had a different variant, namely that it was وأصلي instead of وأمي.

If someone claims al-Tabrasi was the one who censored this report then they would be evidently wrong, as other scholars besides al-Tabrasi had variants of this copy as well, such as Shaykh al-Mufid in Al-Irshad Vol. 2, pg. 218:

فقال عبد الله : وكيف؟ أليس أبي وأبوه واحداً، وأصلي وأصله واحداً؟

Abd Allah said: “And how is that? Are not my father and his father the same, and is not my ancestry and his ancestry the same?”

You can see as well there are some differences from the Irshad rendition than from the Tabrasi’s one, such as the presence of وكيف؟ in his reply. This shows they’re quoting different manuscripts, and both of them stated وأصلي.

This shows that there were multiple renditions of this report across the manuscripts and scribes, and no signs of distortions are present. As we mentioned earlier, it does not prove Imamate to begin with in order for someone to have the motive to tamper with it.

This is all in sharp contrast to the likes of Sunni scholars, who are very famous for obvious distortions of Hadiths, as we showed in our “Lies of Bukhari” and “Censorships of Ahmad b. Hanbal” articles.