The Book of Sulaym Bin Qays Al Hilali

[Haji 2003]

What's the general opinion of this text?

 

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

@Haji 2003 majority of our classical scholars have accepted its reliability and i've heard a few akhbari scholars saying its authentic by consensus.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

53 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

@Haji 2003 majority of our classical scholars have accepted its reliability and i've heard a few akhbari scholars saying its authentic by consensus.

I have a question regarding this book that is to say Engr. Muhammad Mirza said in his lectures that Ayotullah Khoi considered Abaan ibn Abi Ayash to be unreliable so do we have this book from other sources too other than Abaan and was Engr's statement true about Ayotullah Khoi? 

[Abu_Zahra]

Unreliable according to early (Sh Mufeed) and recent (S. Al Khoie) scholars. In addition to the weakness of the narrators, the content is also odd and uncorroborated with additional sources  (for example the statement that there are 13 Imams)

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

2 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I have a question regarding this book that is to say Engr. Muhammad Mirza said in his lectures that Ayotullah Khoi considered Abaan ibn Abi Ayash to be unreliable so do we have this book from other sources too other than Abaan and was Engr's statement true about Ayotullah Khoi? 

I've seen Eng's video saying Ayatullah Khoei considered him Kazzab(Liar) .not just unreliable.

Ayatullah Khoei's (May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on him) manhaj is not considered or accepted very widely. He's fairly recent and discredits plenty of authentic traditions. I've heard from Allama Taqi Hashmi (Najaf) that people don't widely accept his Manhaj.

With that said, Ayatullah Khoei is not from classical scholars. So we'll have to check detail of Aban Bin Ayyash in his book Mujam Al Rijal Al Hadith and figure out why he said so as Ayatullah khoei never met Aban Bin Abi Ayyash, so it's not like he says something and it becomes absolute Hujjah on everyone to accept it. We've to look for more evidence and need to find more people closer to Aban to figure out the truth.

Looking into Ayatullah Khoei's book we find this:

 (185) 22 - أبان بن أبي عياش فيروز:
عده الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب السجاد (10) والباقر (36) والصادق (190) عليهم السلام، وقال - عند ذكره في أصحاب الباقر عليه السلام - تابعي ضعيف، وعند ذكره في أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام: البصري تابعي.
وقال ابن الغضائري: أبان بن أبي عياش - واسم عياش هارون - تابعي، روى عن أنس بن مالك، وروى عن علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام، ضعيف لا يلتفت إليه، وينسب أصحابنا وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس إليه.
وذكره البرقي في أصحاب السجاد وفي أصحاب الباقر من أصحاب الحسن والحسين عليهم السلام. ويأتي في سليم ما يتعلق بكتابه.

معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ١ - الصفحة ١٢٩
 

Aban ibn Abi Ayyash Fayruz

Al-Shaykh (Al-Tusi) listed him in his Rijal (biographical dictionary of narrators) as one of the companions of Al-Sajjad (Imam Ali ibn Al-Husayn) (entry 10), Al-Baqir (entry 36), and Al-Sadiq (entry 190), peace be upon them. He stated—when mentioning him among the companions of Al-Baqir (peace be upon him)—that he was a weak Tabi‘i (successor of the Companions). When mentioning him among the companions of Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), he referred to him as Al-Basri (from Basra) and a Tabi‘i.

Ibn Al-Ghadhā’irī said: Aban ibn Abi Ayyash—and the name of Abi Ayyash is Harun—was a Tabi‘i who narrated from Anas ibn Malik and from Ali ibn Al-Husayn (peace be upon them). He is weak and not to be considered reliable. Our scholars attribute the fabrication of the book Kitab Sulaim ibn Qays to him.

Al-Barqi mentioned him among the companions of Al-Sajjad and among the companions of Al-Baqir, as well as among the companions of Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn (peace be upon them).

Further details regarding his book will be mentioned in the entry on Sulaim.

-- end --

Now, Khoei called him weak and yes it means he's unreliable according to Khoei.

As for Ibn Al-Ghadhā’irī he is almost a classical scholar but his quote comes from a book attributed to him without any proof. Therefore his words can't be taken as Hujjah.

As for Khoei calling him weak, where's the proof? Why is he weak? how do you know?

Now, point is a number of people from Ashaab Al Ijma (people of consensus) have narrated from him and according to Rijal Al Kashi, there's consensus of classical scholars on validity & reliability of narrations transmitted by them. So if something was accepted by ijma by classical scholars, how do later scholars come weaken him without proof? It's against Ijma too! Besides a number of classical scholars including Kyulani, Sadooq and many more etc who testified to narrate from only authentic sources in introduction of their famouse books narrated from book Sulaym Bin Qais.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

2 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

(for example the statement that there are 13 Imams)

as for this, either we talk about content of book or either we talk about first establishing its authenticity.

because there are narrations in Al-kafi too which everyone runs off from i:e Quran having 17,000 verses ( and it's very clear it's not from Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Sayyar but Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa and has been discussed many times plus Majlisi Amili etc all said Sahih us Isnad, same books also have chapters on rejection of Taqlid that you don't accept too ) so let's stick to the topic instead.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

50 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I've seen Eng's video saying Ayatullah Khoei considered him Kazzab(Liar) .not just unreliable.

Ayatullah Khoei's (May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have mercy on him) manhaj is not considered or accepted very widely. He's fairly recent and discredits plenty of authentic traditions. I've heard from Allama Taqi Hashmi (Najaf) that people don't widely accept his Manhaj.

With that said, Ayatullah Khoei is not from classical scholars. So we'll have to check detail of Aban Bin Ayyash in his book Mujam Al Rijal Al Hadith and figure out why he said so as Ayatullah khoei never met Aban Bin Abi Ayyash, so it's not like he says something and it becomes absolute Hujjah on everyone to accept it. We've to look for more evidence and need to find more people closer to Aban to figure out the truth.

Looking into Ayatullah Khoei's book we find this:

 (185) 22 - أبان بن أبي عياش فيروز:
عده الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب السجاد (10) والباقر (36) والصادق (190) عليهم السلام، وقال - عند ذكره في أصحاب الباقر عليه السلام - تابعي ضعيف، وعند ذكره في أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام: البصري تابعي.
وقال ابن الغضائري: أبان بن أبي عياش - واسم عياش هارون - تابعي، روى عن أنس بن مالك، وروى عن علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام، ضعيف لا يلتفت إليه، وينسب أصحابنا وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس إليه.
وذكره البرقي في أصحاب السجاد وفي أصحاب الباقر من أصحاب الحسن والحسين عليهم السلام. ويأتي في سليم ما يتعلق بكتابه.

معجم رجال الحديث - السيد الخوئي - ج ١ - الصفحة ١٢٩
 

Aban ibn Abi Ayyash Fayruz

Al-Shaykh (Al-Tusi) listed him in his Rijal (biographical dictionary of narrators) as one of the companions of Al-Sajjad (Imam Ali ibn Al-Husayn) (entry 10), Al-Baqir (entry 36), and Al-Sadiq (entry 190), peace be upon them. He stated—when mentioning him among the companions of Al-Baqir (peace be upon him)—that he was a weak Tabi‘i (successor of the Companions). When mentioning him among the companions of Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), he referred to him as Al-Basri (from Basra) and a Tabi‘i.

Ibn Al-Ghadhā’irī said: Aban ibn Abi Ayyash—and the name of Abi Ayyash is Harun—was a Tabi‘i who narrated from Anas ibn Malik and from Ali ibn Al-Husayn (peace be upon them). He is weak and not to be considered reliable. Our scholars attribute the fabrication of the book Kitab Sulaim ibn Qays to him.

Al-Barqi mentioned him among the companions of Al-Sajjad and among the companions of Al-Baqir, as well as among the companions of Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn (peace be upon them).

Further details regarding his book will be mentioned in the entry on Sulaim.

-- end --

Now, Khoei called him weak and yes it means he's unreliable according to Khoei.

As for Ibn Al-Ghadhā’irī he is almost a classical scholar but his quote comes from a book attributed to him without any proof. Therefore his words can't be taken as Hujjah.

As for Khoei calling him weak, where's the proof? Why is he weak? how do you know?

Now, point is a number of people from Ashaab Al Ijma (people of consensus) have narrated from him and according to Rijal Al Kashi, there's consensus of classical scholars on validity & reliability of narrations transmitted by them. So if something was accepted by ijma by classical scholars, how do later scholars come weaken him without proof? It's against Ijma too! Besides a number of classical scholars including Kyulani, Sadooq and many more etc who testified to narrate from only authentic sources in introduction of their famouse books narrated from book Sulaym Bin Qais.

These are valid question to ask that 1. if he was weak then where is the proof of it? And,

2. Why early scholars had consensus upon him as a narrator. 

I would like to ask also is there another version of the book Sulyam ibn Qais from other sources?

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

1 hour ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

These are valid question to ask that 1. if he was weak then where is the proof of it? And,

2. Why early scholars had consensus upon him as a narrator. 

I would like to ask also is there another version of the book Sulyam ibn Qais from other sources?

Not an expert on the subject, but i'm not aware if a different version of book is available.

However if you talk about Isnad Chain of book without Aban, yes there is but people have issues with it too.

because the two chains go like this

1. Ibrahim bin umar from Aban bin Abi Ayyash from Sulaim Bin Qais
2. Ibrahim bin umar from Sulaim Bin Qais

These are two chains we have for EXISTING version of book if i'm not wrong. There were other manuscripts too but they're probably not with us.

people say 2nd chain isn't a separate chain and name of aban was missed out, however others say it's not the case and consider it a separate turk which doesn't have Aban and i think most scholars also have the latter view (the chain without aban is Sahih)

Ibrahim Bin Umar Al Yamani (رضي الله عنه) having direct access to Sulaim Bin Qais is not impossible because he could've had his book directly as they are from overlapping times and not only Aban Bin Abi Ayyash had access to Sulaim's book means Aban bin Abi Ayyash is not the only person who got Sulaim's book.

Here see Ayatullah Khoei's words on this:

الوجه الثاني: أن راوي كتاب سليم بن قيس هو أبان بن أبي عياش، وهو ضعيف على ما مر، فلا يصح الاعتماد على الكتاب، بل قد مر عن العقيقي أنه لم يرو عن سليم بن قيس غير أبان بن أبي عياش.
والجواب عن ذلك أن ما ذكره العقيقي باطل جزما، فقد روي عن سليم ابن قيس في الكافي وغيره من غير طريق أبان

Ayatollah Khoei is saying:

**"The second point: The narrator of the book of Sulaim bin Qays is Aban bin Abi Ayyash, and he is weak, as previously mentioned. Therefore, reliance on the book is not valid. In fact, it has been reported from Al-‘Aqiqi that no one narrated from Sulaim bin Qays except Aban bin Abi Ayyash.

The response to this is that what Al-‘Aqiqi mentioned is certainly false. The book of Sulaim bin Qays has been narrated in Al-Kafi and other sources through means other than Aban."**

Ayatullah Khoei rejects the claim that no one else had the book of Sulaim Except for Aban saying there are plenty of narrations quote in Al Kafi and other sources which narrated text from book of sulaim bin qais without Aban Bin Abi Ayyash

So the view that chain is missing ibn Abi Ayyash is just desperate attempt of reformists to somehow prove book is fake.

Even if Aban is Weak, the Book is STILL SAHIH. Weak doesn't mean a person is liar and can't pass on a book. There's huge difference between shia/sunni hadith. our hadith isn't heard from someone who heard from someone man that's nonsense thats just never acceptable, who remembers exactly what they heard through generations? Shia hadith were written down and the chains you see in majority of shia books are paths to books or Mashaikh narrating the books.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

Here's more from Ayatullah khoei on Ibrahim Bin Umar directly narrating from Sulaim

He first mentions:

ثم إن بعض أهل الفن قد استغرب رواية إبراهيم بن عمر عن سليم بلا واسطة، واستظهر سقوط الواسطة

Then, some experts in the field found it strange that Ibrahim bin Umar narrated from Sulaim without an intermediary and concluded that an intermediary must have been omitted.

Then Ayatullah refutes it:

أقول: هذا الاستغراب غريب! فإن رواية إبراهيم بن عمر، عن سليم مع الواسطة أحيانا لا ينافي روايته عنه كتابا بلا واسطة، فإن إبراهيم بن عمر من أصحاب الباقر عليه السلام، فيمكن أن يروي عن سليم بلا واسطة، ودعوى أن ما في الكافي رواية عن كتاب سليم أيضا دعوى بلا بينة وتخرص على الغيب، بل الظاهر أن لسليم أحاديث من غير كتابه، والشاهد على ذلك: ما قدمناه عن ابن شهرآشوب من أنه صاحب الأحاديث، له كتاب، ويشهد له أيضا: أن النعماني بعد ما روى عدة روايات عن كتاب سليم، روى رواية عن محمد بن يعقوب باسناده عن سليم، وقد تقدمت الروايات ويظهر من ذلك: أن رواية محمد ابن يعقوب لم تكن موجودة في كتاب سليم

I say: This astonishment is itself strange! The fact that Ibrahim bin Umar sometimes narrates from Sulaim with an intermediary does not contradict his narration of the book from him directly without an intermediary. Ibrahim bin Umar was among the companions of Imam al-Baqir (peace be upon him), so it is possible that he narrated from Sulaim without an intermediary.

The claim that what is in Al-Kafi is also a narration from the book of Sulaim is a claim without evidence and mere speculation. In fact, it appears that Sulaim had narrations outside of his book. The proof of this is what we previously mentioned from Ibn Shahr Ashub, who stated that Sulaim was a transmitter of hadith and that he had a book.

Additionally, another piece of evidence is that Al-Nu‘mani, after narrating several reports from the book of Sulaim, also narrated a report from Muhammad bin Ya‘qub through his chain from Sulaim. These narrations have already been mentioned, and it becomes apparent from this that the narration of Muhammad bin Ya‘qub was not from the book of Sulaim."**

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/3000_معجم-رجال-الحديث-السيد-الخوئي-ج-٩/الصفحة_233#top

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

So considering this, even if Ayatullah khoei says Aban is weak, book is still authentic in view of Ayatullah Khoei because it has a separate SAHIh chain that doesn't have Aban.

[Abu_Zahra]

On 3/21/2025 at 1:48 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Besides a number of classical scholars including Kyulani, Sadooq and many more etc who testified to narrate from only authentic sources in introduction of their famouse books narrated from book Sulaym Bin Qais.

By this logic you would take everything in Al Kafi, Al Faqih etc as sahih, which obviously isn't the case. 

On 3/21/2025 at 1:59 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

as for this, either we talk about content of book or either we talk about first establishing its authenticity.

Both have weaknesses 

On 3/21/2025 at 1:59 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

because there are narrations in Al-kafi too which everyone runs off from i:e Quran having 17,000 verses ( and it's very clear it's not from Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Sayyar but Ahmed Bin Muhammad Bin Isa and has been discussed many times plus Majlisi Amili etc all said Sahih us Isnad, same books also have chapters on rejection of Taqlid that you don't accept too ) so let's stick to the topic instead.

Yes, which is why we don't claim Al Kafi to be sahih. 
 

On 3/21/2025 at 4:44 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

So considering this, even if Ayatullah khoei says Aban is weak, book is still authentic in view of Ayatullah Khoei because it has a separate SAHIh chain that doesn't have Aban

Just to clarify for the readers, this is not the statement of Sayyid al Khoie. 

Anyone who is interested in reading about the different opinions on the work and the author can refer to this article 

https://iqraonline.net/sulaym-bin-qays-the-thin-line-between-a-fictitious-name-a-loyal-companion/

[Borntowitnesstruth]

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Just to clarify for the readers, this is not the statement of Sayyid al Khoie. 

Brother, he just quoted Ayotullah Khoei's opinion on chain that did not include Aban ibn Abi Ayash. Here is the quote: 

11 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Here's more from Ayatullah khoei on Ibrahim Bin Umar directly narrating from Sulaim

He first mentions:

ثم إن بعض أهل الفن قد استغرب رواية إبراهيم بن عمر عن سليم بلا واسطة، واستظهر سقوط الواسطة

Then, some experts in the field found it strange that Ibrahim bin Umar narrated from Sulaim without an intermediary and concluded that an intermediary must have been omitted.

Then Ayatullah refutes it:

أقول: هذا الاستغراب غريب! فإن رواية إبراهيم بن عمر، عن سليم مع الواسطة أحيانا لا ينافي روايته عنه كتابا بلا واسطة، فإن إبراهيم بن عمر من أصحاب الباقر عليه السلام، فيمكن أن يروي عن سليم بلا واسطة، ودعوى أن ما في الكافي رواية عن كتاب سليم أيضا دعوى بلا بينة وتخرص على الغيب، بل الظاهر أن لسليم أحاديث من غير كتابه، والشاهد على ذلك: ما قدمناه عن ابن شهرآشوب من أنه صاحب الأحاديث، له كتاب، ويشهد له أيضا: أن النعماني بعد ما روى عدة روايات عن كتاب سليم، روى رواية عن محمد بن يعقوب باسناده عن سليم، وقد تقدمت الروايات ويظهر من ذلك: أن رواية محمد ابن يعقوب لم تكن موجودة في كتاب سليم

I say: This astonishment is itself strange! The fact that Ibrahim bin Umar sometimes narrates from Sulaim with an intermediary does not contradict his narration of the book from him directly without an intermediary. Ibrahim bin Umar was among the companions of Imam al-Baqir (peace be upon him), so it is possible that he narrated from Sulaim without an intermediary.

The claim that what is in Al-Kafi is also a narration from the book of Sulaim is a claim without evidence and mere speculation. In fact, it appears that Sulaim had narrations outside of his book. The proof of this is what we previously mentioned from Ibn Shahr Ashub, who stated that Sulaim was a transmitter of hadith and that he had a book.

We have to take notice of every kind of chain if one chain has weak narrator but another does not, it does not mean, we have to refute the whole work. We can refute the weak one but if there is sahih chain explaining same things, we have to accept it.

[AbdusSibtayn]

@Haji 2003 (in Urdu). 

This is Allamah Aftab Jawadi (ha) of Pakistan, and he is one of the greatest bibliologists and archivists of our era. He's known widely in the hawzas of Najaf and Qum, and I'd say he's second only to Agha Buzurg Tehrani (rh) in our era ie the 21st century. 

He discusses the reliability of the book in this video. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa21721

Here is a summation of the entire debate. 

@Haji 2003

[AbdusSibtayn]

@Haji 2003 I have gone through all the back and forth arguments regarding the book, and have come to the conclusion that we must treat it as just any other book that must be read critically. 

People generally doubt its reliability on two counts- 1. The soundness of its attribution and transmission 2. The presence of some outlandish narrations in the book. But I believe these are not entirely unsurmountable difficulties, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't consider it totally pseudoepigraphical. 

I am also open to the possibility that the author was indeed one of the companions of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who wrote under a pseudonym, which is completely understandable given the period of the book's composition- the reign of Hajjaj bin Yusuf (la). 

This is just my opinion. 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

8 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

By this logic you would take everything in Al Kafi, Al Faqih etc as sahih, which obviously isn't the case. 

17 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

It's the case actually and it's how majority of classical scholars treated those books and so did the likes of HurAmili and have heard Majlisi also did the same, the author of kamil al ziarat, kifaya al asr, sadooq, kyulani, and much more gave testimonies for including authentic resources in their books. Question is why isn't it accepted? Matan of hadiths can be explained and disputed and can have weird content due to taqqiyah. Even recent ayatullahs also adhere to this or similar approaches because isnadi manhaj doesn't make any sense when explored.

You rely on a disconnected isnadi manhaj as if it's absolute hujjah to establish narrations. For Example, Tusi, Najashi says, (someone) is Thiqa or Weak. That's what establishes a Saheeh chain? okay, whats the proof of that person being Thiqa? Najashi never met 99.99% of people he mentions so didn't tusi or Ghadairi. How come they're taken is absolute Hujjah while testimonies of Authors in intros of books having saheeh chains is discarded? One logical reason would suffice but no one has it.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

8 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Yes, which is why we don't claim Al Kafi to be sahih. 

Understandable bro no book after Quran can be taken as 100% authentic however, majority of contents are authentic if understood properly. That's what our scholars have claimed and still do. Hadiths are prone to human error because they aren't as mutawatir as Quran Al Kareem is. There's no doubt about it.

However, there are plenty of Sahih chain hadiths which you wouldn't take or accept especially regarding tehreef. So point is, if one follows your manhaj, one still ends up with problems that you said we have and to fix whom you made us lean towards Rijali Manhaj. Classical methodology of accepting kutab e arba as reliable is better and has more evidence than those who reject majority of it's traditions.

[Haji 2003]

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa21721

Here is a summation of the entire debate. 

@Haji 2003

Thanks.

 

I think this is pretty critical to the debate:

Quote

From sixth century on Sulaym's book gains growing prominence and his traditions enter Shiite hadith collections with more details. In this period, books with more citations from Sulaym's book are al-Ehtejaj by Sheikh Tabarsi and then Ershad ul-Qulub by Deylami. It is approximately from this time that some of Sulaym's hadiths find their way into Sunni sources as well.

 

Notwithstanding the criticisms others have levelled, can the two specific points above be substantiated? Your article cites these two sources to do so. I wonder if anyone has access to them?

Baba'ee Aria, Ali; Fakhla'ee, Mohammad Taqi, In search of Sulaym ibn Qays Helali, p.16, Magazine of Divinities and Theology Department of University of Mashad, no.72, Summer 2006

Sobhani, Mohammad Taqi, Another Step to Identify and Revive Sulaym bin Qays Helali's Book, p.20, Ayeneye Pajouhesh Magazine, no.37, 1996

 

To put it another way and more explicitly, is your article from IslamQuest claiming that we, and indeed Sunnis, currently accept hadiths that originated from Sulaym's book and for which there is no other source?

 

5 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

Baba'ee Aria, Ali; Fakhla'ee, Mohammad Taqi, In search of Sulaym ibn Qays Helali, p.16, Magazine of Divinities and Theology Department of University of Mashad, no.72, Summer 2006

I Googled for this book and found this lecture by Sheikh Modaressi:

https://www.instagram.com/reels/audio/1708586759623844/

He's supportive of Sulaym (FWIW).

[AbdusSibtayn]

30 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

To put it another way and more explicitly, is your article from IslamQuest claiming that we, and indeed Sunnis, currently accept hadiths that originated from Sulaym's book and for which there is no other source?

I haven't read those two articles, nor have I investigated the presence of Sulaym's narration so I am not aware if the sulaym narrations have any other source or not, but what I think the article is getting at is that a lot of scholars from that era found his book reliable enough to quote. 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

This is yet another detailed Video which speaks about the authenticity of the book of Sulaim ibn Qais-e-Hilali:

Brief facts are that; This books has one more chain of Narration that did not include Aban ibn Abi Ayyash that is to say it is also narrated throughAls Ibrahim ibn Umar who narrated it from Sulaim ibn Qais Hilali. Also, this scholar gives answer of questions like as to why there are hadith which says there are 13 Imams, in response to which he says that Allama Hili (رضي الله عنه) said that one of Imam being Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) because he is Imam-ul-Anbiya.

[Haji 2003]

Potentially useful source (in Arabic)

indicative content below

https://albadri.info/rodod/rodod14.htm

 

الفصل السابع : كتاب سليم بن قيس الهلالي

قوله : ان كتاب سليم لم يكن معروفا عند أحد من الشيعة في زمن الأئمة الأحد عشر مما يؤكد اختلاقه في عصر الغيبة الصغرى (260-329) من قبل العبرتائي والصيرفي .

أقول : لاتنحصر رواية كتاب سليم بن قيس او احاديثه في الاثني عشر بالصيرفي والعبرتائي وهناك روايات صحيحة تثبت وجود كتاب سليم او احاديثه في الاثني عشر عند محمد بن ابي عمير (تـ217) وحماد بن عيسى (تـ206) وعمر بن أذينة (تـ168) .

نص الشبهة

«ولكن عامة الشيعة في ذلك الزمان كانوا يشكّون في وضع واختلاق كتاب سليم ، وذلك لروايته عن طريق (محمد بن علي الصيرفي أبو سمينة) الكذاب المشهور ، و(احمد بن هلال العبرتائي) الغالي الملعونوقد قال ابن الغضائري : (كان أصحابنا يقولون : أن سليما لا يعرف ولا ذكر له . . والكتاب موضوع لا مرية فيه وعلى ذلك علامات تدل على ما ذكرنا . .) (الحلي : الخلاصة 83)  ⁽¹⁾ .

وقد كانت المشكلة الكبرى التي تواجه الكتاب هو انه خبر واحد ولم يكن معروفاً في عصور الائمة الاحد عشر من الشيعة مما يؤكد وضع الكتاب في عصر الغيبة الصغرى من قبل أصحاب نظرية الاثني عشرية وخاصة احمد بن هلال ومحمد بن علي الصيرفي (أبو سمية) الكذاب المشهور واختلاقه أساساً أو إضافة روايات (الاثني عشرية) إليه خاصة وانه لم تكن هناك نسخ ثابتة ومعروفة منه . . . ولم يصل الكتاب إلى الاجيال المتعاقبة بصورة موثقة ومروية»  ⁽²⁾ .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/22/2025 at 4:42 AM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

We have to take notice of every kind of chain if one chain has weak narrator but another does not, it does not mean, we have to refute the whole work. We can refute the weak one but if there is sahih chain explaining same things, we have to accept it.

Salam at first source of recognition of all kind of narration whether with  weak or strong chain is being in line with holy Quran which even if  Sahih chain hadith won't be in line with holy Quran so therefore you must throw it on wall (do not accept it although of having Sahih strong chain) which matter of strngth of chain of hadith will be next level after verification by holy Quran & similar verified Hadiths. 

On 3/22/2025 at 7:27 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Understandable bro no book after Quran can be taken as 100% authentic however, majority of contents are authentic if understood properly. That's what our scholars have claimed and still do. Hadiths are prone to human error because they aren't as mutawatir as Quran Al Kareem is. There's no doubt about it.

Person or chain is not the case which as it has been   mentioned Hadith at first must be verified by being in line with holy Quran which we can find so then accept a valid hadith through comparison with holy Quran &  similar verified Hadiths  which even it has been narrated by a weak narrator  likewise Aban between other his weak Hadiths which name of book or narrator is not solid & undeniable source of verification which first & most important point of verification  on any hadith whether with weak or strong is comparison with the holy Quran &  the similar verified Hadiths which talking about weakness or strength of narrator & hadith is steps of further verification after verification by the holy Quran &  the similar verified Hadiths .

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 3/25/2025 at 11:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hadith at first must be verified by being in line with holy Quran

you can't verify 95% of hadith using this method though. Most of hadith neither go against Quran nor are inline with it.

Also, how come authentic narrators narrate a hadith going against Quran? Does it mean those narrators aren't authentic too? if so what about other hadiths they've?

It's not that simple always.

Edited March 26 by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi