Infallibility According to the Zaydis and the Ja’faris (12ers)

9 months ago

72 minutes

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon the most noble of prophets and messengers — the trustworthy Prophet, protected from grave suspicions and sins — and upon his pure and righteous family: those covered by his cloak, who are infallible; and his descendants, who are collectively purified. May Allah’s pleasure also be upon the rightly guided and pious Companions, and upon those who follow them in goodness and excellence until the Day of Judgment.

To proceed:

The subject of ʿIsmah (infallibility) is one that has preoccupied a group of researchers — and even the imitators among the common people. It is a topic that is intricate in its paths and elegantly adorned in the arguments of its adherents.

This study, by Allah’s permission, seeks to contribute to clarifying the concept of infallibility from a perspective that may be unfamiliar to some. We have devoted our discussion to two sects among the Shiʿah — the Zaydis and the Jaʿfaris — and we have given particular attention to the Jaʿfaris because they have investigated this issue extensively and taken it to evident extremes.

In contrast, we present another view — that of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as represented by the noble descendants of al-Hasan and al-Husayn among the Zaydis — since the Jaʿfaris have restricted their view to the opinions of the twelve Imams alone.

Our purpose in discussing both perspectives is solely to arrive, by Allah’s permission, at the correct understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.

This study is divided into three chapters:

Chapter One: The Zaydi belief concerning infallibility.
Chapter Two: The Jaʿfari belief concerning infallibility.
Chapter Three: An examination of the objections raised by the Jaʿfaris against the Zaydi theory of infallibility.

Chapter One: Explanation of the Zaydi Doctrine of Infallibility

Our discussion of infallibility (‘ismah) according to the Zaydis is divided into four aspects, as follows:

First Aspect:

You should know that the Zaydis hold two doctrines concerning infallibility (‘ismah) — both of them sound and well-founded by evidence:

Individual infallibility, and
Collective infallibility.

As for individual infallibility, it applies only to those concerning whom an explicit text (nass) has been established and whose status has been confirmed by recurrent indications from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Explicit texts affirm the designation of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and his two sons al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them), and both the Qur’an and Sunnah confirm their infallibility and his — peace be upon them all — in the Verse of Purification.

This discussion pertains to the three Imams, although, in general, the statement includes the five people of the Cloak (Aṣḥāb al-Kisā’). However, our focus here is specifically on the infallibility of the Imams among them.

Imam Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him) was heard — as transmitted by Ismāʿīl ibn Isḥāq — being asked:

“Can the testimony of a single man be accepted?”
He replied:
“No — except that of ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn.”
He was asked:
“And how is that?”
He said:
“Because they are infallible.” [1]

The ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Kūfī, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated in his Kitāb Manāqib Amīr al-Mu’minīn with his chain of transmission from Imam Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) that he said:

“The infallible ones among us are five: the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn.” [2]

This narration is also related by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq [3].
Likewise, al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān narrated from Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) that he said:

“The infallible ones among us are five: the Messenger of Allah, ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn — peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all.” [4]

Imam al-Manṣūr Billāh ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him), speaking on individual infallibility in his book al-Risālah al-Nāfiʿah bi-l-Adillah al-Wāqiʿah, said:

“Infallibility has not occurred among those we know of from the descendants of Ismāʿīl except for Muḥammad, ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, and her two sons — peace be upon them all.” [5]

Second Aspect:

You should also know that the infallibility of those designated by text (nass) among the Imams — those who are the People of the Cloak: ʿAlī and his two sons, as well as the Prophets (peace be upon them) — according to the Zaydis, does not mean that they are absolutely sinless. Rather, they are protected only from committing major sins that compromise integrity or uprightness.

As for minor sins, they are not infallible from them; no created being is entirely free from such slips — such as minor errors unrelated to prophetic conveyance, in the case of the Prophets (peace be upon them). These fall under the type of “wronging oneself” that the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him), referred to when he said:

“As for the wrong that is forgiven, it is the wrong of a servant against himself in some small lapses.” [6]

The term al-hanāt (small lapses) refers to the incidental human weaknesses that may lead to minor sins.

The noble scholar Sayyid Ḥusayn ibn Yaḥyā al-Ḥūthī — may Allah preserve him — explained the difference between the Zaydi and Jaʿfari understandings of infallibility, saying:

“Infallibility, according to us [the Zaydis], is protection from major sins. But according to them [the Jaʿfaris], it is protection from both major and minor sins.

Our proof is that the Prophets — peace be upon them — are infallible, yet Allah described them as committing sins.

Allah, Exalted be He, said:
‘That Allah may forgive you your past and future sins’ [Qur’an 48:2];
He said about Mūsā: ‘My Lord, I have wronged myself, so forgive me’ [28:16];
about Yūnus: ‘There is no god but You; glory be to You! Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers’ [21:87];
about Dāwūd: ‘He sought forgiveness from his Lord and fell down bowing and turned in repentance’ [38:24];
about Sulaymān: ‘We cast upon his throne a body; then he turned in repentance’ [38:34];
and about Ādam: ‘And Ādam disobeyed his Lord and erred’ [20:121].

Infallibility, according to us, is a form of divine grace and enlightenment whereby its possessor chooses to avoid the forbidden and perform the obligatory acts. It is not coercion, for if it were forced, the possessor would have neither merit nor virtue, nor would he deserve reward.” [7]

Likewise, Sayyid al-ʿAllāmah al-Ḍuḥayānī, in his book Naẓarāt fī Malāmiḥ al-Madhhab al-Zaydī (“Reflections on the Features of the Zaydi School”), stated:

“Among [our beliefs] is that the Prophets of Allah — peace be upon them — are free from committing major sins and from minor sins involving baseness or moral depravity. What is narrated in some tafsīr works [suggesting otherwise] is not authentic. As for what Allah, Glorified be He, mentions in the Qur’an regarding the disobedience of some of them, that was on the basis of error and misinterpretation, not deliberate defiance or rebellion.” [8]

Indeed! That which occurred from the Prophets (peace be upon them) — who, according to the Zaydis, hold a higher rank than the Five People of the Cloak (Aṣḥāb al-Kisā’), except for our Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him and his family) — serves as a precedent. Here, we shall demonstrate the non-infallibility (regarding minor sins) of those specifically designated by divine text — ʿAlī and his two sons (peace be upon them) — meaning infallibility from minor sins that neither harm nor suggest deviation from the path of truth, similar to the minor errors attributed to the Prophets (peace be upon them) mentioned earlier.

So, relying on Allah, we say:

Among these instances is what is found in the supplication of the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (peace be upon him), in which he said:

“O Allah, forgive me for that which You know of me better than I know of myself.
If I return (to sin), then return to me with Your forgiveness.
O Allah, forgive me for what I promised myself but did not fulfill.
O Allah, forgive me for what I drew near to You with my tongue, then my heart opposed it.
O Allah, forgive me for the flickers of the eyes, the slips of the tongue,
the desires of the heart, and the lapses of the speech.” [9]

All of this is possible of occurrence for the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him), and it does not contradict infallibility — for infallibility, as explained, is protection from major sins, and Allah protected him from these when He made obedience to him obligatory.

What applies to the Commander of the Faithful also applies to his two sons, who, though lesser than he in rank, are superior to others.

Among the examples of this is what Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr al-Murādī narrated with his chain from Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (peace be upon him), who said:

“A man came to al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī with a request for help. He asked him to assist him in it, and al-Ḥusayn said: ‘I am in retreat (iʿtikāf).’
The man then went to al-Ḥasan and informed him, saying: ‘I came to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (al-Ḥusayn) to help me in a matter, but he said, “I am in retreat.”’
So al-Ḥasan went with him to fulfill his need, and as they passed by al-Ḥusayn, al-Ḥasan said:
‘O my brother, what prevented you from helping him in his need?’
He replied: ‘I am in retreat.’
Al-Ḥasan said: ‘To go forth with my Muslim brother to fulfill his need is more beloved to me than a month of retreat.’” [10]

Now reflect — may Allah have mercy on you — how al-Ḥasan gently reproached al-Ḥusayn for a minor mistake, though al-Ḥusayn had an excuse, as his abstention was based on his understanding of the rules of iʿtikāf (spiritual retreat). Yet al-Ḥasan al-Mujtabā (peace be upon him and his brother) corrected his interpretation.

This is a minor error, and infallibility does not entail protection from such minor lapses for the designated Imams — ʿAlī and his two sons (peace be upon them).

There are many other examples of this, but we summarize our words with this clarification. Further elaboration will come when we discuss the Jaʿfarī doctrine regarding the infallibility of their Twelve Imams, by Allah’s permission.

Third Aspect:

This concerns the Zaydi doctrine of the collective infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

Here we address who the Ahl al-Bayt are after al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.

Know, may Allah have mercy on you, that according to Zaydi sources, there is no explicit nominative text (nass by name) confirming the Imamate of anyone other than ʿAlī and the two Ḥasans (al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn). The Zaydis do not accept what the Jaʿfarīs alone assert — apart from the rest of the ummah — namely, a text explicitly designating the nine descendants of al-Ḥusayn as Imams.

Although in reality, we and they agree on the Imamate of the three (ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn), we do not concede to them that the other nine possess a divinely appointed, textually-established (imāmah rabbāniyyah naṣṣiyyah) Imamate.

Nevertheless, we and they both agree on the authenticity and authority of the Prophet’s saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family):

“Indeed, I leave among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray after me: the Book of Allah and my progeny, the people of my household. The All-Knowing, the All-Aware has informed me that they will never separate until they return to me at the Fountain (of Kawthar).”

And his saying (peace be upon him):

“The likeness of my household among you is that of Noah’s Ark: whoever embarks upon it is saved, and whoever turns away from it is drowned and lost.”

As well as the ḥadīth of the stars, and other narrations similar in meaning — all indicating the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) and the impossibility of their separating from the truth.

Where we differ with the Jaʿfarīs is in identifying who the Ahl al-Bayt truly are.

Indeed! After agreeing on the authority of these prophetic traditions, we and the Jaʿfarīs differ regarding who the “Ahl al-Bayt” actually are as mentioned in those narrations.

The Jaʿfarīs maintain that they are the Twelve Imams — ʿAlī, the two Ḥasans (al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn), and the nine descendants of al-Ḥusayn.

We, on the other hand, hold that they are the Imams and the rightly-guided among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn — continuing until the Day of Resurrection.

One of the objections we, and reason itself, raise against the Jaʿfarīs is their restriction of the term “Ahl al-Bayt” to only twelve specific individuals — even though the term Ahl al-Bayt linguistically and contextually encompasses all the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. By confining it to the Twelve, they have effectively made those twelve the entirety of the Prophet’s Household.

According to that reasoning, there would no longer be, in our time, any people who could rightfully be called Ahl al-Bayt — for the Household would have ceased to exist except in the person of the twelfth, hidden Imam!

And in my view — and I do not believe that any rational person would disagree with me — this is an extreme claim. The truth is that the Jaʿfarī limitation of these sacred narrations — the traditions of al-Thaqalayn (“the Two Weighty Things”), al-Nujūm (“the Stars”), and al-Safīnah (“the Ark”) — to twelve individuals is a presumptuous overreach. Its cause lies in the clear textual basis for the Twelver doctrine among them, a basis that is obscure — indeed absent — among the Zaydis, and even among the Muslim Ummah at large!

Now, if it is said:

“Wait! You have criticized us for something you yourselves believe. How is it that you have limited those traditions to the Imams and the rightly-guided among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, while excluding the wrongdoers among their offspring? By your reasoning, the wrongdoers from that lineage should also share in the sacred status implied by those hadiths — yet you have excluded them without any clear justification!”

We answer:

We have preferred the Ahl al-Bayt in general — that is, the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn — because of Allah’s preference and selection of them, as He had chosen them while they were still within the loins of their forefathers.

Then, when one of them is born and reaches the age of moral responsibility (taklīf), he inevitably falls into one of three categories:

One who wrongs himself, committing sins like other people;
One who is moderate, devout, and ascetic (muqtaṣid);
One who strives foremost in good deeds (sābiq bil-khayrāt).

The Ḥasanī or Ḥusaynī individual who belongs to the third category is the best among his forefathers — for he is the Imam, the one who enjoins good and forbids evil, the devout and the ascetic.

If you say:

“Your reasoning still leaves an inconsistency: why have you excluded the wrongdoers from the lineage?”

We reply:

We have excluded only those whom Allah Himself has excluded, for Allah the Exalted excluded the class of wrongdoers in His saying:

‘And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain words, and he fulfilled them, He said, “I will make you a leader for the people.” Abraham said, “And of my descendants?” He said, “My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers.”’
— Qur’an 2:124

The implication of the verse is that Imamate, O Abraham, will indeed remain within your descendants. Among them will be the righteous — the foremost in good deeds — and in them will Imamate be established. But among them will also be wrongdoers, and these are excluded from leadership.

There is no disagreement between us and the Jaʿfarīs that “the descendants of Abraham” in this verse refers to the descendants of Muḥammad (peace be upon him and his family); that the descendants of Muḥammad are the descendants of ʿAlī; and that the descendants of ʿAlī are the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.

Not that they are the descendants of al-Ḥusayn alone, nor that they are the nine among his progeny alone — but rather, the descendants of Abraham are the descendants of both al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, without distinction.

This is consistent with both reason and revelation.

Supporting our previous statement about Allah’s choosing of the entire progeny of Abraham — i.e., the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn — and their division into three groups, is His saying:

“Then We gave the Book as inheritance to those of Our servants whom We had chosen; and among them are those who wrong themselves, and among them are those who are moderate, and among them are those who are foremost in good deeds, by Allah’s permission — and that is the great bounty.”
— Qur’an 35:32

Thus, yes — we exclude from emulation those who wrong themselves, and deny that they partake in the specific sacred authority of “the lesser weight” (thaqal Allāh al-aṣghar), or that following them is obligatory.

Yet we do not deny that they remain part of the Ahl al-Bayt in name and lineage. Rather, we distinguish them by the moral category to which they belong:

this one is a wrongdoer to himself,
that one moderate,
another foremost in goodness.

And Allah has not commanded us to follow a wrongdoer.

The eminent jurist of the Ahl al-Bayt, al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), has a most eloquent discourse confirming the essence of our statement here, preserved in Jāmiʿ ʿUlūm Āl Muḥammad by the noble Sharīf al-Ḥasanī — and it should be consulted for further detail.

The Summary of Our Discussion in This Section:

The conclusion of our words in this matter is that the Jaʿfarī restriction of the term “Ahl al-Bayt” — as mentioned in the Prophetic traditions — to their twelve Imams alone, while excluding the rest of the Ḥasanid and Ḥusaynid descendants, is invalid.

Rather, the correct and stronger interpretation — supported by both evidence and reason — is to apply the term “Ahl al-Bayt” generally to the righteous, the moderate, and the Imams among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, while excluding the wrongdoers among them. This interpretation is more consistent with the proofs and more in harmony with the divine pattern of selection.

And if the Jaʿfarīs object to this and dispute with us, we say to them — may Allah have mercy on you — tell us:

Who are those servants of Allah whom He has chosen, among whom are the wrongdoers, the moderate, and the foremost in good deeds?

For it has been established even through Jaʿfarī chains of transmission, by numerous narrations, that the Qur’anic verse referring to these categories applies specifically to the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.

We also caution against falling into the trap of the notion that the nine descendants of al-Ḥusayn alone possess the quality of being foremost in good deeds, while the Ḥasanids and other Ḥusaynids are confined to the categories of wronging themselves or being merely moderate.

This claim has many flaws and contradictions, and we have several points of critique concerning it — though this is not the place to elaborate on them here.

We then invite our brothers to reflect carefully on the saying of Allah, Exalted is He:

“And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain words, and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘I will make you a leader for the people.’ Abraham said, ‘And from my descendants?’ He said, ‘My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers.’”
— Qur’an 2:124

Within this verse lies a subtle inference, closely aligned with the position we have just presented — and we leave its full contemplation and extraction to the discerning reader.

Fourth Aspect: The Zaydi Doctrine Concerning the Infallibility of the Collective Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)

In this section, we discuss the meaning of collective infallibility (ʿiṣmat al-jamāʿah) as understood by the Zaydis.

After having already explained that no explicit divine text by name exists designating Imams from among the progeny after al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him), and after identifying who the Ahl al-Bayt are — namely, the righteous among the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn — and after establishing that they are the ones addressed in the prophetic traditions of al-Thaqalayn, al-Nujūm, and al-Safīnah, we now turn to the scope and importance of these narrations, and how they support our doctrine of the infallibility of the consensus of the righteous collective of the Ahl al-Bayt.

The Significance of the Hadiths

The importance and implications of these traditions are neither obscure nor hidden. To summarize:

Allah — Exalted and Glorious is He — in His eternal knowledge, knew that the nation of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), after the cessation of prophethood and revelation with the death of its final Messenger, would suffer the same divisions and fragmentation that afflicted past nations.

Out of His boundless mercy, Allah willed to establish signs that would guide this Ummah to the truth. Thus, He set among them the Household of their Prophet — the progeny of Fāṭimah, the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn — and He joined them, through the tongue of His noble Messenger, to His Book, making them like Noah’s Ark: whoever boards it is saved, and whoever turns away from it perishes.

Hence, the truth resides within this blessed progeny, among its Imams and scholars, within its principles and teachings.

Addressing the Objection of Intra-Zaydi Differences

If it is said:

“But how can that be, when we and you both know that there are differences among the scholars of the descendants of Fāṭimah — the Zaydi Imams — in matters of both fundamentals and branches?”

We respond:
This objection exaggerates the extent of differences among the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

In reality, upon closer examination, they do not differ in the fundamental principles of faith (uṣūl al-dīn al-ʿaqīdiyyah). Their differences are confined to the secondary branches of jurisprudence, where independent reasoning (ijtihād) is allowed.

The Zaydi Imams see no harm in legitimate juristic variation, provided that such reasoning remains bound by the Prophetic Sunnah.

It is also worth reminding the reader that there exist many settled juristic principles which Zaydi Imams rarely diverge from, such as:

reciting the Basmala aloud in audible prayers,
including ḥayya ʿalā khayr al-ʿamal in the adhān,
repeating the phrases of the iqāmah twice,
rejecting wiping over leather socks,
forbidding mutʿah (temporary marriage),
prohibiting anal intercourse, and
requiring the presence of a guardian (walī) and witnesses in marriage contracts, etc.

In contrast, there are minor issues where their ijtihād may vary — for example:

whether the qunūt in Fajr prayer precedes or follows bowing (rukūʿ),
whether to raise the hands at the opening takbīrah,
or whether to raise or lower them in each rakʿah.

Such differences do not undermine the core of Islamic belief, especially since every Imam bases his position on evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.

Moreover, all Zaydi Imams agree on the essentials of faith:

Tawḥīd (divine unity),
ʿAdl (divine justice),
Waʿd wa-waʿīd (divine promise and threat),
Amr bil-maʿrūf wa-nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining right and forbidding wrong),
Imāmah (leadership),
as well as on the five pillars of Islam — prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.

On Deviation and Collective Infallibility

If it is said:

“Suppose a Zaydi Imam makes an independent judgment in a foundational issue and contradicts his predecessors — is his view binding? And may others follow him in that disagreement?”

We reply:
Here lies the true meaning of our doctrine of collective infallibility — the ʿiṣmah of the righteous group of the Ahl al-Bayt.

If it is proven that a given Imam’s view contradicts the established consensus of the “people of Noah’s Ark” — the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt — then his statement in that matter is not to be followed.

The succeeding Imams are obligated to clarify that disagreement, after fully understanding the intent of the Imam who issued it — for perhaps it was falsely attributed to him or misunderstood.

Once the error is confirmed, it must be publicly refuted, and the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) must be recognized as the decisive authority.

Evidences for the Authority of the Ahl al-Bayt’s Consensus

We shall now present proofs demonstrating the authenticity and authority of the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt, which gladdens the eye of fairness and stands as testimony for the Zaydi school and against the Jaʿfarī one.

Among these evidences:

Imam Muḥammad al-Bāqir (peace be upon him), our Imam, exemplar, and light of the Prophet’s knowledge, was once asked: “You (the Ahl al-Bayt) differ among yourselves?”
He replied:
“We differ, yet we also agree; but Allah will never gather us upon misguidance.” [11]
The jurist of the Ahl al-Bayt, al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) (d. 247 AH), said regarding the consensus of the Ḥasanid and Ḥusaynid line: “Everything upon which the righteous of the ʿItrah (Prophetic progeny) have agreed — that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said it — then it is binding upon the Muslims to act upon it.” [12]
And al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥyā (peace be upon him) also said — in words worthy of being inscribed in gold: “If a report is transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), and the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt transmit it differently from what the rest of the Ummah transmits, the proof lies in what the Ahl al-Bayt have transmitted and established.
Likewise, if the Ummah narrates something from the Commander of the Faithful that contradicts what the best of the Ahl al-Bayt transmit from him, then the authentic and authoritative report is that which the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt have narrated.
Therefore, if the Ummah differs after the Commander of the Faithful regarding lawful and unlawful matters and Sunnahs, what is authentically reported from the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt must be taken, and what contradicts it must be abandoned.
This is what they were commanded to hold fast to when differences and divisions arise.
And if differing reports come from the righteous of the Ahl al-Bayt, we take the most reliable of what has come from them, the most cautious for religion, and the farthest from doubt…” [13]

If it is said:

“How can you argue using reports transmitted in your own books, when we do not have them in our collections?”

We respond:
You have long argued against us — in the past and the present — using twelve names of the Ahl al-Bayt recorded in your own books, which we have not transmitted, nor has the rest of the Ummah!

Thus, you cannot object to us here.

Moreover, your own books transmit from your infallible Imams narrations that support our earlier reports — confirming the authority of the consensus of the Fāṭimid, Ḥasanid, and Ḥusaynid line, while denying the absolute authority of any single individual among them, and affirming the possibility of disagreement among them.

For example, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār, in his Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, narrates with his chain from Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that he said:

“The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said:
‘Whatever you find in the Book of Allah, act upon it — you have no excuse to neglect it.
Whatever is not in the Book of Allah but is found in my Sunnah, you have no excuse to abandon my Sunnah.
And whatever is not in my Sunnah, then take what my Companions say, for they are to you like the stars — whichever of them you follow, you will be guided.
The difference of my Companions is a mercy for you.’
It was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, and who are your Companions?’
He said: ‘My Ahl al-Bayt.’” [14]

This is clear — and praise be to Allah.

From all this, we come to know — and I trust you, my brother in faith, have also come to know — that proof and infallibility (ʿiṣmah) reside only within the collective of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

Differences among individuals within that group do occur, and even the Jaʿfarīs themselves do not deny that their Imams sometimes issued divergent rulings on the same issue, which they explain away by invoking the doctrine of taqiyyah (dissimulation).

Yet this, in our view, constitutes a flaw in the theory of individual infallibility.

Whoever studies the lives of the People of the Cloak — ʿAlī and his two sons (peace be upon them) — will find that they never issued contradictory fatwas, nor held mutually opposing views, despite the abundance of danger, persecution, and pressure surrounding them.

And Allah is our Helper.

With this, we conclude our discussion of these aspects, hoping that the Zaydi doctrine of infallibility has become clear, by Allah’s permission.

It will, God willing, become even clearer and more evident when we proceed to the second chapter, which will discuss the Jaʿfarī doctrine of infallibility.

Chapter Two: Explanation of the Jaʿfarī Doctrine of Infallibility

We begin this chapter with an introduction:

The reader must know — and the discerning researcher must take heed — that the Jaʿfarī doctrine of infallibility (ʿiṣmah) concerning the individual Imams is, in truth, mere ink on the pages of their commentators and mere sound in the air of their preachers and orators, for their own hadith sources condemn their claim.

We say, then, that the Jaʿfarīs introduced into the doctrine of infallibility concepts that their early authorities never upheld — namely, their claim that the Imams are infallible from error in both religious and worldly matters, in major and minor affairs alike, whether intentional or by mistake.

This is their claim — and the burden of proof lies upon them.

We shall now, relying upon Him Who never forgets nor errs, present our argument through several points.

First Point:

We shall demonstrate the disagreement among the early Jaʿfarī scholars and Imams themselves concerning the definition of infallibility.

Among the later Jaʿfarī scholars, al-ʿAllāmah al-Majlisī states:

“The Imāmiyyah are unanimously agreed upon the infallibility of the Prophets and Imams from minor and major sins, whether intentional, accidental, or out of forgetfulness — before prophethood and Imamate and after them — indeed, from the time of their birth until they meet Allah, the Exalted.” [15]

Here, al-Majlisī presents as a matter of consensus the belief that the Prophets and Imams never err, never forget, and are absolutely immune from all sin or lapse.

Yet we find that Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (peace be upon him) — who is their own Imam! — curses those who deny the possibility of forgetfulness in the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).

As narrated by al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq in ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā:

Abū al-Ṣalt al-Harawī said:
“I said to al-Riḍā (peace be upon him): O son of the Messenger of Allah, in Kūfa there are people who claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) never experienced forgetfulness in his prayer.”

He said:
“They have lied — may Allah curse them! Indeed, the One who never forgets is Allah, there is no god but He.” [16]

And I say: Kūfa was the very cradle of Imāmī Shiʿism — so there was no cause here for taqiyyah (dissimulation). The matter was not political nor under threat, so concealment cannot be claimed.

Thus we see Imam al-Riḍā cursing those who deny that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) could ever forget, even in prayer.

However, we find al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413 AH) — a major Jaʿfarī theologian — rejecting this and denying that the Prophet could forget, saying:

“The narration transmitted by the nawāṣib and by the imitators among the Shīʿah, that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) forgot in his prayer … is one of the solitary reports (akhbār al-āḥād) that do not yield certainty nor require action. Whoever acts upon them acts upon conjecture rather than certainty, and Allah has forbidden acting upon conjecture in religion and warned against speaking therein without knowledge and conviction.” [17]

So — how is it, we ask — that al-Majlisī and al-Mufīd and the rest of the Jaʿfarīs contradict their own Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him), who cursed those who deny that the Prophet could forget?

Then we find al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq (d. 381 AH) — who is earlier and highly revered among the Jaʿfarīs — clarifying the Jaʿfarī concept of infallibility without including the denial of forgetfulness.

He says:

“All Prophets, Messengers, and Imams are superior to the angels. They are purified from all defilement and impurity, and they never even think of committing a sin, minor or major, nor do they commit it.” [18]

And al-Ṣadūq also explicitly states — in contrast to al-Mufīd — that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) could indeed forget.

In his Man lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, he writes:

“The extremists (ghulāt) and the mufawwiḍah — may Allah curse them — deny the Prophet’s forgetfulness (peace be upon him and his family) and say: ‘If it were possible for him to forget in prayer, it would be possible for him to forget in conveying revelation, since prayer is obligatory upon him just as conveying revelation is.’

But our teacher, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad ibn al-Walīd, may Allah have mercy on him, used to say:
‘The first degree of extremism is to deny the Prophet’s forgetfulness.’” [19]

So we ask: Who, then, truly expresses the religion of the Ahl al-Bayt according to the Jaʿfarīs?

Is it al-Riḍā (peace be upon him) and al-Ṣadūq and Ibn al-Walīd, or al-Mufīd, al-Majlisī, and the later scholars?

Which group should be followed — the early authorities closest to the time of the Imams, or the later scholastic theologians who contradicted them?

Moreover, anyone who examines Volume Two, “The Book of the Rules of Forgetfulness”, in Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām by Shaykh al-Ṭāʾifah Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī (d. 460 AH), will find support for Imam al-Riḍā’s position — that forgetfulness did indeed occur to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) during prayer.

Thus, even within Jaʿfarī sources, it becomes evident that their own Imams, and their early authorities, disagreed — some affirming forgetfulness for the Prophet, others denying it — and that the claim of an unbroken consensus on absolute infallibility from birth to death is untenable.

Second Point:

We now turn to explain the flaw and inconsistency in the Jaʿfarī definition of ʿiṣmah (infallibility), as exposed by their own narrations recorded by their leading ḥadīth scholars.

Even if these reports were few in number, or seemingly interpretable, we would have accepted an explanation for them.
Even if they could be excused under taqiyyah (dissimulation), we would have conceded that excuse.
But they cannot — for these reports contradict the Jaʿfarī claim of absolute infallibility outright, in both form and meaning.

We shall now present examples of such narrations.

1. The Report of the Prophet Being Affected by Magic

As narrated by the erudite scholar ʿAbd ʿAlī al-ʿArūsī al-Ḥuwayzī in his Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn:

From al-Mufaḍḍal ibn ʿUmar, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, peace be upon him), who said:

“The Commander of the Faithful (ʿAlī, peace be upon him) said:
Gabriel came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and said:
‘O Muḥammad.’
The Prophet replied: ‘At your service, O Gabriel.’
Gabriel said: ‘So-and-so has bewitched you, and the spell has been placed in a certain well belonging to the family of so-and-so. Send to it the most trustworthy and most honored of those around you — the one who is your equal in soul — so that he may bring you the charm.’

So the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) sent ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) and said:
‘Go to the well of Dharwān (or Azwān), for in it lies the charm with which Labīd ibn al-Aʿṣam, the Jew, has bewitched me. Bring it to me.’

ʿAlī (peace be upon him) said:
‘So I went forth in service of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family). When I descended to the well, I saw that its water had become as red as henna because of the spell. I searched hastily until I reached the bottom of the well, but I did not find it.
Those with me said: “There is nothing here; come up.”
But I said: “By Allah, I have neither lied nor been lied to, and my soul is not like your souls” — meaning the soul of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family).

Then I searched again carefully until I found a small box (ḥuqqah). I brought it to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
He said: “Open it.”
I opened it and found inside it a date-palm fiber tied with twenty-one knots.
On that day, Gabriel had brought down the Muʿawwidhatayn (the two protecting chapters: Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās).
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) said:
“O ʿAlī, recite them over the knots.”

So the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) recited one verse for each knot, and with every verse a knot was untied — until he completed them both, and Allah removed from His Prophet the spell that had been cast upon him and restored him to well-being.” [20]

This narration — found in a Jaʿfarī canonical tafsīr and transmitted with approval — directly contradicts the Jaʿfarī claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) is infallible from all forms of human susceptibility, including forgetfulness, error, or harm.

If, as they say, infallibility means absolute protection from any external or internal defect, how can they then accept — or even narrate — that the Prophet was affected by magic, such that it impaired his state until the verses were revealed and the knots were untied?

Indeed, the same event is known from Sunni narrations, but the Jaʿfarīs have often rejected it — yet here it stands affirmed in their own books, narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) through ʿAlī (peace be upon him), preserved by their trusted scholar al-Ḥuwayzī, who described his tafsīr as a compilation of the authentic traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt.

Thus, we see that the very texts of the Jaʿfarīs contradict their own theoretical definition of infallibility — not in a marginal case, but in the most central figure of all: the Prophet himself (peace be upon him and his family).

Commentary and Analysis

Reflect, my Jaʿfarī brother — with the eye of fairness and reason — is not this narration in direct contradiction to the kind of infallibility you affirm for the one who is greater than all of your Twelve Imams, namely, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)?

We say this because, if you — O Imāmiyyah — argue with us on the basis of reason that infallibility (ʿiṣmah) must be an essential condition in the Imam, and that an Imam cannot err nor forget, and that if he were prone to error or forgetfulness we could never be certain he was upon the truth — that such certainty is needed to avoid following him merely on conjecture — then your entire argument, we say, is no more than words on the pages of your theologians and logicians, a comfortable theory unsupported by the reality of your Imams’ own legacy and transmitted reports.

For what is founded upon an illusion cannot stand as truth.

Do you not see that Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), by affirming the incident of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) being affected by sorcery, implicitly opens the door to doubt regarding the Prophet’s state — as one might then say: “If he was bewitched, how can we be sure his message was not affected?”

And that is precisely the same objection you, O Jaʿfarīs, raise against us Zaydis when we deny absolute infallibility for our Imams — that “if an Imam could err, then one could not trust his leadership!”

So let us reason fairly:
If you reply, “This is not comparable; for the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) remained correct in delivering the divine message even if bewitched, because Allah Himself guaranteed the protection and purity of revelation — and when the Prophet was afflicted, Allah revealed the cure and exposed the illusion; moreover, the sorcery affected only his personal affairs, not the matters of religion,”

then we answer:

By this very defense, you yourselves have admitted that the Prophet’s infallibility does not exclude all human susceptibility — that he could experience a temporary affliction affecting his worldly perception — and that divine protection lies only in matters of revelation and major sins.

Therefore, we say analogously:
If a Fāṭimid Ḥasanid or Ḥusaynid Imam were ever to be afflicted (for instance, by sorcery or misjudgment), and erred in applying a point of religion, his error would be known — for we would measure his act against the Book of Allah, then against the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), who are the vessels of the authentic Prophetic traditions.

What agrees with the Qur’an and the collective Ahl al-Bayt, we accept; what contradicts it, we reject.

Thus, our position preserves divine protection — through collective infallibility and scriptural criteria, not through the personal impeccability of one man.

On the Rational Basis Claimed by the Imāmiyyah

The Jaʿfarīs pride themselves on the so-called rational necessity of an infallible Imam, arguing that “if he could err, his followers would be left to conjecture.”

But, we say, this argument does not apply to the Zaydīs — for though we do not deem our Imams absolutely infallible, we have objective standards against which all their acts are judged:

the Book of Allah,
the authentic Sunnah, and
the consensus of the noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, the Lesser Weight (al-Thaqal al-Aṣghar) on earth.

Thus, the Imam’s role for us is not to invent new principles, but to uphold and apply the foundations already established by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Ahl al-Bayt.

Consequently, your rational objection — that a fallible Imam would mislead the Ummah — does not hold in our system.

Did not your earliest forefathers among the Jaʿfarīs suffice with what al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) had already laid down for them in creed and law?
Were not the teachings of al-Sajjād, al-Ḥusayn, al-Ḥasan, ʿAlī, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon them) sufficient foundations of divine religion?

Then your religion was complete — whether al-Ṣādiq or al-Kāẓim or those after them came or not — for the later Imams only reiterated and applied what had already been delivered by their predecessors.

This, precisely, is the Zaydī view of the function of the Imamate:
that the Ḥasanid or Ḥusaynid Imam is tasked with implementing and upholding the established principles of the Prophetic and ʿAlid faith, not with revealing new fundamentals.

Thus, the divine religion was already completed by the consensus of the early Ahl al-Bayt, in matters of:

tawḥīd (divine unity),
ʿadl (divine justice),
waʿd wa-waʿīd (promise and threat),
imāmah (leadership), and
enjoining right and forbidding wrong.

When any later Imam deviates from this collective consensus, he necessarily contradicts the Book of Allah — for the two are bound together until they return to the Prophet at the Fountain.
Hence, error cannot go undetected in the Zaydī model.

And with that, the rational argument for mandatory individual infallibility collapses.

A Challenge Regarding the Era of Occultation

If the Jaʿfarīs argue that certain new or unprecedented situations arise — matters requiring ijtihād, or political decisions such as declaring jihad or revolution — for which they claim an infallible Imam is necessary, then we respond:

This objection strikes not the Zaydīs, but you, O Jaʿfarīs.

Tell us: in this Era of Occultation, are you upon truth or upon error?

If you say: “We are upon the truth,”
we ask: How do you know?

If you say: “By following the transmitted teachings and consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt,”
we say: And if no such consensus exists in a newly arisen issue requiring judgment — as in daily rulings, or in matters of warfare and revolution — what then?

Consider your recent history: when Imam Khomeini launched his revolution, most of your scholars supported it.
But tell us — how did you know it was upon truth?

If you say: “We would ask our Imam al-Mahdī (peace be upon him), the infallible Imam,”
we reply: There is no access to him, and he gives you no answer.

If you say: “We turn to our jurists (fuqahāʾ) and scholars, and follow their fatwas,”
we ask: Are those jurists infallible?

If you say: “No, they are not — and they sometimes agree, sometimes differ,”
then the arrow has struck the very heart of your doctrine.

You have confessed that you follow non-infallible men, whose rulings differ, and whose followers imitate them nonetheless.

Thus you admit that your practice is based on conjecture, not certainty — the very thing you accuse us of when we deny infallibility in our Imams.

The Practical Collapse of the Jaʿfarī Doctrine

Look then at your situation today:
Do your religious authorities (marājiʿ) issue identical fatwas?
No — they differ widely.

Are they infallible?
No — you yourselves admit they are not.

Then what becomes of your theory that leadership and guidance must come only from an infallible Imam, lest people follow conjecture?

In practice, you follow fallible jurists, and your community is divided among their opinions — some permitting what others forbid.

For instance:
Some of your jurists permit anal intercourse with women, while others forbid it.
The followers of each act upon their respective fatwas.
Which one, then, is upon truth — and which upon falsehood?
And what of those who follow the false ruling — are they not then led astray?

Thus, I ask you sincerely:
Has ʿiṣmah ever been realized in the lived history of the Jaʿfarī community — in over fourteen centuries — anywhere outside of books, papers, and imaginations?

The Logical Conclusion

Indeed, the Jaʿfarīs cannot truly implement their doctrine of infallibility during the Occultation — except by suspending all religious activity:
no issuing of fatwas,
no collection of zakāt,
no jihad,
no Friday congregations,
no judicial rulings —
for all these require the presence and command of the infallible Imam, according to their own creed.

If they argue:
“Our marājiʿ only issue rulings after examining the Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and the sayings of the Twelve Imams — if their ijtihād is correct, they are rewarded; if mistaken, the mistake lies only in subsidiary matters, not fundamentals,”

then we say:

You have just negated the need for infallibility in leadership, for you have admitted that:

the Book,
the Sunnah, and
the authentic teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt
are sufficient to guide the community, even if its leaders are not infallible.

And that, precisely, is the Zaydī position:

The Ḥasanid or Ḥusaynid Imam, when he assumes leadership, is tasked only with implementing the established principles of the Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and the consensus of the noble Ahl al-Bayt.
He may perform ijtihād where there is no binding consensus, guided by the same sources — and he need not be infallible to fulfill this duty.

The Muslim Ummah, therefore, requires leadership in worship, justice, governance, and defense, and these duties stand firm under Zaydī conditions, which do not require infallibility.
But under Jaʿfarī conditions, they cannot stand at all — for only an infallible, ever-present Imam may lead them, and such an Imam is hidden.

Therefore, the Jaʿfarī rationale collapses:
either they must abandon their claim that the Imamate is invalid without infallibility,
or they must suspend the divine laws of Allah altogether — which is an immense contradiction and a grave claim.

And with this, I conclude this argument — apologizing to the learned for the length and repetition in my words, which arose only from an earnest desire for clarity.
We ask Allah to complete this work sincerely for His sake.

Indeed, after all that has been said, it has become clear that the Jaʿfarī theory of infallibility has no practical reality in the time of occultation — and, as we shall soon demonstrate, it had no sound foundation even before the occultation, in the eras of the Imams themselves.

Second Example

As narrated again by ʿAbd ʿAlī al-ʿArūsī al-Ḥuwayzī in Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn:

The Jews of Khaybar insulted the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family).
When word reached him, he said:
“O ʿAlī, perhaps they have reviled me; indeed, if they were to see me, Allah would abase them.”

Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) approached their fortress and said:
“O brothers of apes and swine, worshippers of the false god! Do you insult me — me? When we descend upon a people’s courtyard, evil is their morning indeed!”

Then Kaʿb ibn Asīd looked down from the fortress and said:
“By Allah, O Abū al-Qāsim, you have never been ignorant!”

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) felt shame at what he had said, so much so that his cloak fell from his shoulders out of embarrassment. [21]

This narration again stands in tension with the Jaʿfarī conception of absolute prophetic infallibility — for if, according to their doctrine, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) is free not only from sin and error but from any lapse in judgment, emotion, or decorum, how can such a report — found in their own primary tafsīr — describe him as feeling shame over his words, to the point that his cloak slipped from his back?

Indeed, such reports — admitted in their own heritage — reveal that their exaggerated, philosophical definition of infallibility finds no confirmation in the historical or scriptural legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

Commentary and Completion of the Argument

Here, my Jaʿfarī brother — reflect carefully and fairly — observe how the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), in this narration, felt shame over something he had said, and his cloak even slipped from his shoulders out of modesty.
And the Messenger of Allah does not feel shame except from a matter that appeared to him as better left unsaid, something that his perfect sense of propriety recognized as in need of correction.
So, consider: is such an incident compatible with the concept of infallibility you hold — an infallibility that allows for no slip, no lesser mistake, no human reaction?

3. The Incident of Sending Abū Bakr, Then ʿAlī

Among the reports accepted unanimously among the Shīʿah, both Jaʿfarī and Zaydī, is that when the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) sent the verses of Sūrat al-Barāʾah (al-Tawbah) to the people of Mecca, he first dispatched Abū Bakr ibn Abī Quḥāfah, then recalled him by divine command, and sent ʿAlī (peace be upon him) in his place to deliver the message.

Comment:
We ask our Jaʿfarī brethren — was this initial act of sending Abū Bakr a mistake or a correct decision?
If it was correct, then why was he recalled by divine command?
And if it was an oversight later corrected, then it shows that even the Messenger (peace be upon him and his family) may act upon what he perceives right in the moment, then be guided by revelation to a better course — which is not sinful, but also not compatible with the claim of absolute infallibility in all actions, large and small.
Thus, it falls under the category of minor, harmless human error, as the Zaydiyyah affirm for Prophets and Imams alike.

4. The Supplication of ʿAlī (peace be upon him)

Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him) says in Nahj al-Balāghah:

“O Allah, forgive me that which You know of me better than I know myself;
and if I return, then return to me with forgiveness.
O Allah, forgive me that which I pledged to myself and did not fulfill before You.
O Allah, forgive me the words of my tongue by which I sought closeness to You while my heart opposed them.
O Allah, forgive me the gestures of the eyes, the slips of the tongue, the desires of the heart, and the lapses of the speech.” [22]

This supplication, unanimously acknowledged by the Shīʿah, plainly acknowledges error and lapse — though not grave sin.
It shows ʿAlī (peace be upon him) repenting of lesser human faults, the kind the Zaydiyyah deem possible for the Prophets and the rightly guided, without impugning their truthfulness or divine selection.

5. The Report of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn (ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn)

Al-Majlisī narrates in Biḥār al-Anwār:

From Abū Baṣīr, from Abū Jaʿfar (al-Bāqir, peace be upon him), who said:
“My father (ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn) struck his servant once with a whip, having sent him on an errand and he was late in returning.
The servant wept and said, ‘O ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn! You send me on your errands, and then you strike me?’
My father wept and said: ‘My son, go to the grave of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family), pray two rakʿahs, and say:
“O Allah, forgive ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn his sin on the Day of Judgment.”’
Then he said to the servant, ‘Go, you are free for the sake of Allah.’
Abū Baṣīr said: I asked Abū Jaʿfar, ‘Was the freeing of the slave the atonement for striking him?’
He remained silent.” [23]

Comment:
Here, we see Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn (peace be upon him) acknowledging a “sin” upon himself, seeking forgiveness for it on the Day of Judgment, and repenting by freeing the servant.
This is clear evidence that he recognized that what he did, even if slight, was an error.
Would a man infallible from all minor and major sin, even from forgetfulness and haste, act thus?

6. The Statement of al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him): “When I Rave (Ahtajir)”

From Ḥumrān, who said:

“I said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh (al-Ṣādiq): Are you Prophets?
He said: No.
I said: Someone I trust told me that you said, ‘We are Prophets.’
He said: Who said that — Abū al-Khaṭṭāb?
I said: Yes.
He replied: When I rave (ahtajir)!” [24]

Comment:
The phrase ahtajir here literally means to speak incoherently, to lapse in words, indicating a human error of speech or momentary lapse — something incompatible with the Jaʿfarī definition of perpetual, absolute impeccability.

7. The Statement of Human Limitation

Also narrated from him (peace be upon him):

“By Allah, we are but servants of the One who created us and chose us.
We have no power to harm or benefit ourselves.
If He has mercy on us, it is by His mercy; and if He punishes us, it is for our sins.
By Allah, we have no proof against Allah, nor do we possess any guarantee from Him.
Indeed, we shall die, be buried, resurrected, raised up, and held accountable.” [25]

Comment:
This is an open declaration of human limitation and accountability, denying any divine exemption or absolute protection from sin or error.

8. Confession of Sin and Repentance

Also from al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him):

“Indeed, we commit sins and do wrong, then repent to Allah with sincere repentance.” [26]

Comment:
This is a straightforward acknowledgment of error and repentance, and it directly contradicts the Jaʿfarī claim that their Imams are immune from sin, forgetfulness, and lapses altogether.

Conclusion

Yes, and with this selection of narrations — though there are many more that could be cited — we suffice.
As you see, my brother in faith, these texts refute the exaggerated doctrine of absolute infallibility and instead purify the Imams from the falsehood of that claim.

They remain pure and noble, not by being beyond all human error, but by their piety, repentance, and moral excellence.
They never claimed divine impeccability or textual appointment (naṣṣ) of the kind the later Imāmiyyah asserted for them.

It suffices them — and it suffices us — that they are branches of the blessed Prophetic tree, noble descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon them), whose virtues and righteousness have been attested by all, near and far.

“Whomever of them you meet, you will say:
‘I have met their master,’
Like stars guiding the traveler through the night.”

And thus we conclude our words in this introduction.
From all that has been shown, it is clear that the Jaʿfarī doctrine of infallibility was never well-formulated nor substantiated.
All the Imāmiyyah are, in truth, suspect in their creed for holding to it, as we have demonstrated in its proper place.

And Allah is the One whose help we seek.

Chapter Three: Doubts Raised by the Ja‘fariyya (Twelvers) Against the Zaydiyya

In this chapter, with the permission of Almighty God, we speak about the doubts raised by the Ja‘fariyya against the Zaydiyya concerning the issue of ‘ismah (infallibility). We do not reproach them for this, because we neither hope nor expect them to reproach us for our research addressing the Ja‘fari doctrine. Rather, it is upon us to respond with evidence, and wherever the evidence inclines, we incline with it — whether with them or against them.

Among the objections the Ja‘fariyya have made against the Zaydiyya is the following:

The Ja‘fariyya said:

“Infallibility (‘ismah) with respect to the Imām was affirmed by the Zaydi ḥāfiẓ (traditionist) Abū al-Ḥasan Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥasanī (peace be upon him) (d. 353 AH), the author of al-Maṣābīḥ. This indicates that the doctrine of infallibility, as affirmed by the Ja‘fariyya, has original and authentic roots.”

The Zaydiyya replied:

As for what concerns the Zaydi ḥāfiẓ and traditionist Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥasanī (peace be upon him) (d. 353 AH), and his statement obligating ‘ismah in the Imām, this must be interpreted — especially since we are certain of his Zaydi affiliation and his rejection of the belief in textual designation (naṣṣ) upon the Imāms after ʿAlī and the two Ḥasans (peace be upon them).

Therefore, whenever a Zaydi speaks of ‘ismah, it is impossible that he means by it what the Ja‘fariyya intend — namely, immunity from both major and minor sins, and from error and forgetfulness.

If one asks, “Why?” we reply:
Because he was Zaydi in his doctrine of Imamate, and the Zaydi denies the notion of divine textual appointment (naṣṣ) of the Imāms after al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. He believes that the path to Imamate is through public calling (daʿwah) when the necessary conditions are met in a descendant of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn.

So how could such a person assert the Ja‘fari form of ‘ismah for someone not designated by explicit text? Would that not be an impossible demand — a kind of burden beyond human capacity, and something unknowable about any given Imām?

Furthermore, considering the stature, virtue, and rank of Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī among the Zaydiyya, it is inconceivable that he meant by ‘ismah the same as the Ja‘fariyya do.

Indeed, the meaning of ‘ismah differs according to one’s doctrinal school. For example:

Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Mufīd of the Ja‘fariyya made ‘ismah encompass both major and minor sins, as well as error and forgetfulness.
Whereas al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq and Ibn al-Walīd, both Ja‘fari scholars, restricted it to protection from major and minor sins, but not from error and forgetfulness.
As for the Zaydiyya, they affirm ‘ismah only for the People of the Cloak (Aṣḥāb al-Kisā’) and the prophets — protection from major sins and from persistence in minor sins.

For those below the People of the Cloak among the Imāms, ‘ismah applies only to their collective consensus (ijmāʿ).

Thus, we must interpret the statement of Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Ḥasanī (peace be upon him) in this light. His being a Zaydi prevents him from holding either of the Ja‘fari views on the matter. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation is that he meant the Imām who rises (al-qā’im) from among the descendants of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn must be granted divine assistance and guidance (‘iṣmat tawfīqiyyah) from God — such that in most, if not all, of his actions, he is correct and just.

This divine, grace-based form of ‘ismah can only be recognized by the Imām’s upright conduct, the manifestation of righteousness in him, and the justice he brings to his people — that the land and its inhabitants find safety, the weak are defended, the rights of the strong are restrained, and the divine limits (ḥudūd) are upheld.

For example, the conduct of al-Hādī and al-Nāṣir al-Uṭrūsh (peace be upon them) exemplifies this. Neither of them was ever accused of a major sin or grave injustice. Such men truly deserve to be described as “infallible by divine success” — protected by God in sound decision-making.

Furthermore, in the statement of Abū al-ʿAbbās is also the implication that anyone who takes up this role among the descendants of Fāṭimah, if he were corrupt in his inner self, would be deprived of divine victory and success — for none attains God’s favor and assistance except one whose intention is exalted and whose aim is to elevate the word of the Most Merciful to the loftiest heights.

Thus, Zayd ibn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) called his companions toward Paradise with full confidence — even though he knew he was not infallible in the Ja‘fari sense. Yet the hidden, guiding hands of God’s assistance encompassed him without his awareness. He was crucified, yet his trust in his divine mission was vindicated, for God’s signs and miracles appeared upon him after his martyrdom and burning.

The same applies to Imām al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him). He spent his life in the community of his grandfather the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) as a caller, planner, jurist, and struggler — all with firm confidence in his mission, which he inherited from his noble ancestors of the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.

He did all this knowing that he was not infallible in the Ja‘fari sense — yet the unseen divine support surrounded and protected him until he was martyred. He was indeed the Pure Soul (al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah) of whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) foretold that his blood would flow upon the stones of al-Zayt.

Had we followed the Ja‘fari doctrine — requiring infallibility from all minor and major sins and forgetfulness — and therefore rejected the call of that noble Ḥasanid leader, using as our excuse that he “might err or be mistaken,” we would have missed a tremendous blessing and reward from God.

The same applies to the rest of the Imāms (peace be upon them all). The ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things (al-Thaqalayn), the Ark (al-Safīnah), and the Stars (al-Nujūm) guarantee the continuation of goodness and reform among them for all eternity.

And we have heard the scholar of the family of Muḥammad, the learned Sayyid al-Ḥasanī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥusayn Shaym — may God preserve him — say, or say something to this effect:

“The scholars of the family of Muḥammad possess an ‘ismah of divine success (‘iṣmat tawfīq) in what they do.”

And indeed, he spoke the truth — may God’s pleasure be upon him.

The Jaʿfariyya said:

Al-Sayyid Mujadd al-Dīn al-Muʾayyidī mentioned in Majmaʿ al-Fawāʾid that Imām al-Muʾayyad bi-Allāh Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah (peace be upon him) said:

“It is permissible for the Imām to err — there is no disagreement about this.”

So how can it be valid for us to have faith in Imāms who may be right at times and wrong at others? Would that not mean we are following them on the basis of doubt and conjecture?!

The Zaydiyya replied:

The discussion about the possibility of the Imām erring has already been addressed [see Chapter One]. This issue, in truth, is one that people exaggerate according to their inclinations and biases. In reality, from a scholarly and objective standpoint, it is minor — especially when one compares the differences found among the Zaydiyya (followers of non-infallible Imāms) with those found among the Jaʿfariyya (followers of allegedly infallible Imāms).

Anyone who studies this matter carefully will find that the disagreements among the Zaydi Imāms are, in most cases, minor jurisprudential differences (furūʿ fiqhiyyah). And as we have already mentioned, such differences are not objectionable among the Zaydiyya so long as they remain supported by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Fatimid guidance.

In other words, these differences do not touch the Muhammadan creed itself. As for those — among scholars, jurists, judges, and lay followers who are called “Zaydis” — who may contradict Zaydi doctrinal beliefs, they typically speak according to their own personal reasoning and opinion, and not based on any report or proof from the Ahl al-Bayt in those opposing conclusions.

As for the Imāms themselves, they do not differ in their core Muhammadan doctrines — the principles of religion (uṣūl al-dīn). And if any Imām were to err (hypothetically), then consensus (ijmāʿ) would correct that error.

But now tell me, O Jaʿfari questioner — how do you know the religion of your eleven Imāms, when the reports transmitted from them are contradictory, even mutually opposing?!

Your own Shaykh al-Ṭāʾifah, al-Ṭūsī, bears witness to this contradiction in the introduction to his book Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām. He states that the reason for writing the book was:

“Because of what has occurred among the Jaʿfari narrations of differences, inconsistencies, conflicts, and contradictions — so much so that hardly any report exists except that there is another opposing it, and scarcely a ḥadīth survives without another that contradicts it!” [27]

Indeed! How can you know the religion of your Imāms when you find a narration transmitted by al-Nuʿmānī:

“From al-Aṣbagh ibn Nubāta, who said: I heard ʿAlī (peace be upon him) say: ‘It is as if I see the Persians with their tents pitched in the mosque of Kūfah, teaching people the Qur’an as it was revealed!’

I said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, is it not as it was revealed?’

He said: ‘No! Seventy verses were erased from it — from Quraysh — by name, along with the names of their fathers! And only Abū Lahab was left, as a reproach against the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), for he was his uncle.’” [28]

This narration explicitly affirms the distortion (taḥrīf) of the Qur’an. Yet, when you find other reports and statements from your own scholars denying any distortion, there arises a direct contradiction and conflict regarding a fundamental belief — one whose denial or affirmation determines faith or disbelief (God forbid).

If you say, “We follow the statements and preferences of our scholars,” I reply: They are not infallible, while the reports from your infallible Imāms are conflicting and contradictory. Thus, the scholars’ judgments, their choices, and their assessments of soundness or weakness are not reliable in resolving these contradictions, because they are human — they may be right or wrong.

It is entirely possible that they weakened an authentic report and authenticated a weak one, with grave consequences — such as in the case of the doctrine of Qur’anic distortion!

If you say, “Your words are an exaggeration and a harsh restriction,” I respond: Is it not just as harsh and restrictive when you claim that the entire Muslim community is following its faith in doubt and uncertainty merely because they follow non-infallible Imāms?

You have fallen into the very thing you condemn in others! For in the era when you yourselves have no living infallible Imām, you too are in need of new “infallibles” to determine for you the principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and to teach you which narrations in your own books are authentic and which are weak.

And your books contain a vast number of such narrations — so many that al-Muḥaddith al-Baḥrānī declared that half of al-Kāfī, the foundational work of your “Thiqatu’l-Islām” Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī, is weak [29]!

So how could non-infallible men judge half of a book — into which its author poured around twenty years of effort [30], collecting and authenticating ḥadīths — to be weak?

If you answer, “Through ijtihād and by returning to the Qur’an and Sunnah,” we say: That does not remove our argument against you, namely that ijtihād is, according to your own doctrine, the function of the infallible Imāms — not of ordinary scholars and jurists.

Still, for the sake of argument — so that our discussion does not grow repetitive — we will grant you this point hypothetically and say:

This Jaʿfari ijtihād of yours — does it allow for disagreement?

If you say, “No,” then you contradict reality.

But if you say, “Yes,” then why do you reproach us, when you yourselves are surrounded by disagreement upon disagreement, and contradiction upon contradiction?

So let the questioner answer himself, guided by careful, thorough research — and God is the Watchful Witness.

[Benefit and Conclusion to This Discussion on Infallibility (ʿIṣmah)]

After all that has been presented and discussed concerning ʿiṣmah (infallibility), I wrote what my reason dictated before what my sources conveyed — desiring to increase the benefit and to convey the idea as clearly as possible to whoever seeks it.

While reviewing my library, I came across an excellent and profound study by my brother and companion in research, Yāsir ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Wazīr al-Ḥasanī — may God make him happy — entitled:

“Religious and Political Imamate among the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)”

I found in it the very voice of truth, and its conclusions did not contradict what we have rationally reached here. For that reason, I now quote it in full for the benefit of the reader. Everything enclosed in [brackets] is an addition from us to clarify the text.

[If it is said:]
“The Imām must be infallible; otherwise, confusion will occur in the affairs of religion and the state — he may command what is forbidden or forbid what is obligatory. This is supported by the verse:
‘My covenant does not include the wrongdoers’ (Qur’an 2:124),
and by His saying: ‘O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’ (Qur’an 4:59),
as well as by analogy with the Prophet.”

Refutation:

[We say:]
The claim of infallibility (ʿiṣmah) for the Imām is one of the objections some opponents raise, alleging that it is necessary. We shall respond — with God’s help — with a sufficient and conclusive reply.

This ʿiṣmah that is claimed is sought for only two purposes:

The preservation of religion, and

The management of the state.

We shall refute both purposes and then expose the contradictions that surround the opponents’ claim, according to their own principles, which they cannot reasonably escape.

1. Regarding the claim that infallibility is necessary to preserve religion:

Transmission (naql) of the Sharīʿah in general — and the mutawātir transmission of matters of doctrine in particular — has already made infallibility unnecessary for preserving religion.
All schools of thought that do not require infallibility nevertheless do not doubt the Qur’an or its preservation, and that is only because its transmission from the Messenger reached the level of tawātur (mass narration), which renders falsehood rationally impossible.

As for most jurisprudential matters that are transmitted by āḥād (single-chain reports) which yield only conjecture, that is not a flaw. For the Lawgiver has commanded us to act on conjecture (ẓann) when its proper conditions are met — as in accepting the testimony of two just witnesses in matters of retribution and the like, even though their testimony provides only probabilistic certainty.

Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) sent individuals to convey the Sharīʿah to other regions — and his practice proves that acting upon such reports is valid. Numerous other evidences detailed in works of legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh) confirm this point.

This does not imply that divine rulings could ever be lost or changed, for God has promised to preserve them.
How could they be lost, when the Ahl al-Bayt — who, along with the Qur’an, are the divine proof over us — remain among us? The truth never departs from their sayings, as we have already shown. Hence, we do not allow that the evidences leading to God’s intent could ever be hidden or lost.

2. Regarding the claim that infallibility is needed for managing the state:

This claim actually extends the concept of infallibility beyond what even applies to the Prophets themselves (peace be upon them).

For even a Prophet could err in certain worldly matters, and that would not detract from his religious integrity.

This is confirmed by several examples:

In the Battle of Badr, when the Prophet descended before reaching the wells, one of his companions asked whether this was a command from God or merely his opinion. The Prophet said it was his opinion. The man suggested moving beyond the wells so that the enemy would have no access to water, and the Prophet accepted his advice.
Likewise, in the Battle of the Trench, the Prophet consulted his companions, and Salman al-Khair (may God be pleased with him) advised him to dig a trench, as was done in his homeland. The Prophet agreed and did so.
Another example: the Prophet’s journey to Ṭāʾif, thinking he might find a positive response there — yet he did not.
Furthermore, the Prophet said: “You bring your disputes to me, and perhaps one of you is more eloquent in argument than another. So if I judge in his favor at the expense of his brother’s right, let him not take it, for I am granting him a portion of the Fire.”
(A well-known ḥadīth)

All of these show that the Prophet could err in judgment on worldly matters without that detracting from his perfection in conveying religion.

This does not mean that the Prophet or the Imām is ignorant of the affairs necessary for governance, but rather that error is possible, not that it occurs constantly or habitually.

If an Imām were habitually prone to error, his Imamate would not be valid in the first place, since one of its conditions is competence in administering affairs — and this is clearly fulfilled in the true Imām.

Then we say to our opponents:
We have established and verified our position — so here are our proofs against yours; refute them if you can:

1. On your claim that the infallibility of the Imām is necessary to preserve religion

You say that the ʿiṣmah (infallibility) of the Imām is obligatory in order to protect the religion.
But today, according to your own belief, there is no infallible Imām present — your Imām has been absent for one thousand one hundred and sixty years.

So we ask:
Is the true religion still preserved among us or not?

If you say: “It is not preserved,” then are we still obligated to follow it or not?
- If you say: “We are not obligated” (and far be it from you to say so), this would be apostasy from the religion and a denial of what is necessarily known of it.
- If you say: “We are obligated,” then is that not a burden beyond capacity (taklīf bimā lā yuṭāq)? And God is exalted above such injustice.
If you say: “It (the true religion) still exists, but we cannot know it except through the Imām,” we ask again: Are we now obligated to follow it or not?
- If you say: “No,” that would be an abandonment of the religion (and far be it from you).
- If you say: “Yes,” then are we obligated to follow the very religion brought by Abū al-Qāsim (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), or only what we have been able to reach by ourselves?

If you say: “We are obligated to follow exactly what the Messenger of God brought,” then either we can know it without an infallible Imām — which is our position — or we cannot know it except through him, in which case, since you do not claim to have him present, that would be a burden beyond capacity.

And if you say: “We are not obligated to follow exactly what the Prophet brought, but only what we can reach by our own efforts, whatever it may be,” then you have undermined the Sharīʿah itself and opened the door for atheists and Jews to attack and nullify it.

We say: By our reasoning and evidence, we have reached the conclusion that the infallibility of the Imām is not a necessary condition.

But tell us: What then is the meaning of your defense of your doctrine and your insistence that others must follow it? Is it because you believe you possess the truth?
If so, how did you know that truth with the absence of the infallible Imām you say is the only one capable of conveying it?

2. On your claim that the infallibility of the Imām is required to manage the state

What state is this that he supposedly governs and preserves?
In your entire history, none of your Imāms ever ruled a state — except Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him), and even he ruled only for five years.

So, what benefit did the infallibility of the rest of your Imāms bring in this regard?

And here is Imām al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) — according to you, an infallible Imām — did he not send ʿUbayd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās, who betrayed him (may God recompense him), as the vanguard of his army?
Would that not be a flaw in his infallibility?

And here is Imām al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him) — did he not err in accepting the call of the treacherous people of Kūfah?
Would it not have been better for him to follow the advice of his cousin ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās, may God be pleased with them both, to head for Yemen instead?

Then, by your logic, should you not also declare all judges, governors, ministers, and other state officials infallible — since they too might commit errors in judgment?

3. Refutation of the remaining arguments you claim as proof

(a) Regarding the verse:

“My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:124)

This verse provides no indication whatsoever — neither direct nor indirect — of infallibility.
Does every person who is not infallible automatically count as a wrongdoer (ẓālim)?
And is someone who merely errs in a ruling to be called a wrongdoer?
Would that not again be to impose a burden beyond capacity?

If it is said: “A non-infallible Imām might secretly harbor evil,”
we reply: We have already required justice and piety (ʿadālah and waraʿ) as conditions for Imamate — and these are signs of inner righteousness.
We even used this very verse to establish that.

If, however, his inner state contradicts his outward appearance, we are not held accountable for that — unless he reveals it openly; in that case, his Imamate becomes invalid.

Just as the Imām of prayer may secretly be a disbeliever, or a husband likewise — does the mere possibility of such things carry any weight in the Sharīʿah?
Did the Lawgiver ever command us to act upon mere hypothetical possibilities? Never.

(b) Regarding the verse:

“O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” (Qur’an 4:59)

The intended meaning here is obedience in matters related to governance, because the purpose of Imamate cannot be realized without obedience.
It does not mean that the Imām’s word is an absolute proof that it is forbidden to contradict — especially in matters outside what he is protected from (if anything).

The remainder of the verse proves this, for God says immediately after:

“If you disagree about anything, refer it to God and the Messenger.”

As for analogy between Imamate and Prophethood, it is invalid, because of a clear and decisive difference:
We only declare prophets infallible in what pertains to revelation and divine conveyance, so that we may be certain of the authenticity of what they deliver from God.
We do not attribute to them infallibility beyond that.

And the mass-transmitted reports (tawātur) from the infallible Prophet himself suffice for that purpose — there is no need to extend it to Imāms.

End of the Treatise

Thus we conclude, pointing out that the Jaʿfari doctrine of infallibility collapses under scrutiny.
Only one who is deeply familiar with Jaʿfari thought and literature will truly perceive the force of our argument.

If we reflect on what has emerged among later Jaʿfaris — their introduction of a new fundamental principle unknown to their early scholars and even to their own Imāms — namely, the doctrine of “Wilāyat al-Faqīh” (Guardianship of the Jurist) —
we see in it an implicit negation of the very doctrine of infallibility that they used as an argument against us.

It shows that their claim leads only to following conjecture, not certainty.

We leave it at this brief indication — whose depth and implications only the intelligent and discerning will grasp.

May God’s peace and blessings be upon our master Muḥammad and his pure, righteous family.

Written by: al-Kāẓim al-Zaydī
Date: Sunday, 8 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1427 AH

Footnotes

[1] Al-Jāmiʿ al-Kāfī, by al-Sharīf al-ʿAlawī, vol. 6.
[2] Manāqib Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa), by al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn Sulaymān al-Kūfī (ʿa), vol. 2, p. 153, ḥadīth no. 628.
[3] Tārīkh Dimashq (History of Damascus), vol. 19, p. 464.
[4] Manāqib Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿa), vol. 2, p. 162, ḥadīth no. 639.
[5] Al-Risālah al-Nāfiʿah bi-l-Adillah al-Wāqiʿah.
[6] Nahj al-Balāghah, Sermon 176.
[7] Al-Jawāb al-Kashshāf li-l-Iltibās ʿan Masāʾil al-Ifriqī Ilyās, followed by Al-Jawāb al-Rāqī ʿan Masāʾil al-ʿIrāqī.
[8] Naẓarāt fī Malāmiḥ al-Madhhab al-Zaydī, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Ḍuḥayānī.
[9] Nahj al-Balāghah, Sermon 78.
[10] Amālī Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā — electronic edition.
[11] Amālī Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsā — electronic edition; also cited by al-Sharīf al-ʿAlawī in Jāmiʿ ʿUlūm Āl Muḥammad, vol. 6.
[12] Jāmiʿ ʿUlūm Āl Muḥammad, vol. 6, chapter “On Consensus.”
[13] Jāmiʿ ʿUlūm Āl Muḥammad, vol. 6, chapter “On Consensus.”
[14] Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt fī Faḍāʾil Āl Muḥammad (ṣ), vol. 1, chap. 6, rare section, ḥadīth no. 2.
[15] Biḥār al-Anwār, vols. 17/108, 25/350.
[16] ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā, vol. 2, chap. 46, ḥadīth no. 5.
[17] ʿAdam Sahw al-Nabī, by al-Shaykh al-Mufīd, p. 20.
[18] Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 10, p. 393.
[19] Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, by al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, “Book of Forgetfulness in Prayer,” vol. 1, p. 359.
[20] Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn, vol. 5, p. 718 (and another chain from al-Ṣādiq [ʿa] at p. 719).
[21] Tafsīr Nūr al-Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 216.
[22] Nahj al-Balāghah, Sermon 78.
[23] Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 46, p. 32.
[24] Al-Baṣāʾir, p. 134; Biḥār al-Anwār, vols. 25/56, 52/320.
[25] Al-Kashshī, p. 147; Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 25, p. 289.
[26] Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 25, p. 207.
[27] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, vol. 1, p. 2.
[28] Al-Ghaybah, by al-Nuʿmānī, chap. 21, ḥadīth no. 5.
[29] Quoted by al-Shaykh al-Subḥānī from al-Muḥaddith al-Baḥrānī, who narrated from his teachers as follows:

“As for al-Kāfī, all its aḥādīth amount to 16,199 narrations. Of these, the ṣaḥīḥ (sound) ones — according to later scholars’ terminology — number 5,072; the ḥasan (good) 144; the mawthūq (reliable) 1,118; the qawī (strong) 302; and the ḍaʿīf (weak) — note this well — amount to 9,485 narrations.” (Kulliyyāt fī ʿIlm al-Rijāl, p. 307).
[30] Kulliyyāt fī ʿIlm al-Rijāl, p. 312.

#12ers #aqeedah #imamis #shia #theology #zaydi aqeedah