An Analysis of Ziyarat Ashura
Note: This is a brief analysis; a much more detailed study will be published at a later stage.
Ziyarat Ashura is recognized as one of the most popular texts among the Shia community today. It is presented as highly authentic and universally accepted by most scholars, though a scholarly examination reveals a different reality. Those who have sought to establish its authenticity have often relied on speculation (Dhann).
An introductory observation is that while no potential language leaning into Shirk is established from this Ziyarat, it is occasionally utilized by some to justify the practice of publicly cursing or invoking malediction (La’nah).
Because this is a highly popular Ziyarat, many scholars and speakers have invested considerable effort into familiarizing the public with it, with some devoting entire ten-day gatherings (Ashras) to explaining its meanings, and others authoring complete commentary books.
A common myth spread by scholars is that there is no need to question the authenticity of Ziyarat Ashura, claiming it is unequivocally accepted by all the leading authorities (Maraje) and the scholars of the science of narrators (Ilm al-Rijal). In reality, objective research presents a different picture.
Ayatullah Sheikh Husain al-Radhi, a contemporary scholar of Ilm al-Rijal from the Hawza of Najaf, authored a 548-page book analyzing both the chain of transmission (Sanad) and the text (Matn) of Ziyarat Ashura, entitled Ziyarah Ashura fil Meezaan1. The book concludes that the text’s chains are manifestly weak and unreliable. Furthermore, he highlights that the last two sections of the Ziyarat—which contain the malediction instructed to be repeated one hundred times—are interpolations and even later additions to the texts found earlier. This fact is corroborated by the testimony of Sayyid Ibn Tawoos, who possessed an original manuscript containing the unaltered text of the Ziyarat as found in earlier texts. Other scholars, such as Ayatullah Syed Kamal Haydari, have also affirmed this reality, as seen in the video resource titled: كمال الحيدري ينكر مقطع اللعن الاخير من زيارة عاشوراء المقدسة.
While this book stimulated controversy, its findings received the approval of Ayatullah Sayyid Mohammad Husain Fadhlallah. He clarified that the research presented in it was unassailable and remains unrefuted by other scholars. By focusing primarily on the analysis of the chains (Asaaneed), researchers establish a principle: once it is determined that a chain is invalid and unreliable, one is freed from the burden of examining the text, as there is insufficient proof that the words originated from an Imam to begin with.
The Chains of Transmission
Ziyarat Ashura has been attributed to Imam al-Baqir through multiple chains, all of which scholars have identified as manifestly weak (dhaeef). Among the scholars who have made mention of this Ziyarat are Ibn Qawlawayh, Sheikh Toosi, and Kafa’mi, although the latter scholar did not provide a complete chain. However, the first two scholars provided chains, offering an opportunity for analysis.
Ibn Qawlawayh narrated this Ziyarat in his work Kaamilu Ziyaaraat (page 325, chapter 71, Hadith number 556) and offered two distinct chains for it.
The first chain (Sanad) is recorded as:
السند الأول : حكيم بن داود بن حكيم وغيره ، عن محمد بن موسى الهمداني ، عن محمد بن خالد الطيالسي ، عن سيف بن عميرة وصالح بن عقبة جميعاً ، عن علقمة بن محمد الحضرمي.
The second chain (Sanad) is recorded as:
السند الثاني : ……… ومحمد بن إسماعيل ، عن صالح بن عقبة عن مالك الجهني عن أبي جعفر الباقر عليه السلام.
Analysis of the First Chain
An examination of the first chain reveals insights regarding its narrators:
- Hakeem bin Dawood bin Hakeem: Acknowledged as unknown (Majhool) based on the admission of Sheikh Habeebullah Kashaani (died 1340 AH).
- Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadani: Recognized as a certified extremist liar (Ghaali Kazzab) by the testimonies of the classical Qummi scholars of Hadith and Rijaal. Sheikh Mohammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Waleed, a Muhaddith and the teacher of Sheikh Sadooq, testified that Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadani used to fabricate Hadith and was known for it. Consequently, Sheikh Sadooq rejected his narrations, writing:
قال الشيخ الصدوق : وأما خبر صلاة يوم غدير خم والثواب المذكور فيه لمن صامه ، فإن شيخنا محمد بن الحسن – رضي الله عنه – كان لا يصححه ويقول : إنه من طريق محمد بن موسى الهمداني ، وكان غير ثقة ( كذاباً خ ل ) وكل ما لم يصححه ذلك الشيخ – قدس الله روحه ولم يحكم بصحته من الأخبار فهو عندنا متروك غير صحيح
( من لا يحضره الفقيه ج 2 باب صوم التطوع وثوابه من الأيام ذيل حديث 241)
This translates to:
“As for the narration about the Salaah recommended for the day of Ghadeer and reward mentioned for those who fast it, it should be known that our Shaykh, Muhammad bin al-Hasan (May Allah be Pleased with him) regarded it as weak and unreliable, and he used to say: this narration has been transmitted to us by Mohammad bin Musa al-Hamadaani, and he was an unreliable narrator, (in fact he was a liar), and every narration that has been discredited by our Sheikh (i.e. Sheikh Mohammad bin al-Hasan), then it is not authentic in our sight and must be abandoned.”
In addition to being accused of extremism (Ghluww) by the classical Qummi scholars and labeled a liar by Sheikh Sadooq and his teacher, this narrator was further discredited and exposed by Allama Ibn al-Ghadhaairi. This narrator was additionally declared weak and unreliable by scholars, including Abul Abbas Ahmad bin Ali bin al-Abbas bin Nooh al-Syraafi, Sheikh Ahmad bin Ali al-Najaashi, Sheikh Toosi (in his Fihrist), Ibn Dawood in his Rijaal (page 276), Allamah Hilli in his Khulaasah (page 401, recapitulating the prior testimonies), Sheikh Hasan Saahibul Ma’aalim in Al Tahreer al-Tawoosi (pages 223 and 444), al-Muhaqqiq Ahmad bin Mohammad al-Ardabeli in Majma al-Faaidah (Volume 10, page 440), Mohammad bin Ali al-Ardabeli in Jaami al-Ruwaat (Volume 2, page 205), Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzwaari in Zakheeratul Ibaad (Volume 2, page 205), and al-Muhaqqiq al-Khoonsaari in Mashaariq al-Shumoos (Volume 2, page 451).
Among contemporary scholars, Ayatullah Sayyid al-Hakeem declared this narrator to be weak (dhaeef) in his Mustamsak (Volume 1, page 427), and Ayatullah al-Muhaqqiq al-Tustari remarked in his Qamoos (Volume 9, page 612) that the unreliability of this narrator is a matter of consensus.
Furthermore, Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui wrote:
( الذي يظهر من مجموع الكلمات أن الأساس في تضعيف الرجل هو ابن الوليد وقد تبعه على ذلك الصدوق وابن نوح وغيرهما وهذا يكفي في الحكم بضعفه ) انظر معجم رجال الحديث ج
18 ص 298 في ترجمته .
This translates to:
“It appears from the sum total of these statements that the main basis for discrediting this narrator is the testimony of Ibn al-Waleed, and Sheikh Sadooq followed him and so did Ibn Nooj as well as others, and this is sufficient as evidence to discredit him and declare him unreliable.”
The evidence against this single narrator is enough to render the chain unreliable, yet for the sake of comprehensive knowledge, the remaining narrators are also evaluated:
- Mohammad bin Khalid al-Tayaalisi: Unknown (Majhool).
- Salih bin Uqbah: Identified as an extremist and liar (Ghaali and Kazzab) by the testimony of Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, and deemed unknown (Majhool) by other scholars of Rijaal.
- Alqamah bin Muhammad al-Hadhrami: Unknown (Majhool).
Analysis of the Second Chain
The second chain passes through the aforementioned Salih bin Uqbah. While modern Qummi scholars have attempted to rescue this narrator by affording him the benefit of the collective mass authentication of the narrators found in Kaamil Ziyaaraat and Tafseerul Qummi, the withdrawal of this mass authentication by Sayyid Khui illustrates that such mass authentications are not dependable.
Furthermore, according to the modern Qummi methodology (Manhaj), it remains impermissible to rescue Salih bin Uqbah using this mass authentication. The condition laid down by their own scholars is that a mass authentication must not be contradicted by the specific discrediting (Jarh) of a Rijaalist. Salih bin Uqbah has been explicitly exposed by Allamah Ibn al-Ghadhaairi, who recorded:
قال ابن الغضائري برقم 70 : صالح بن عقبة بن قيس بن سمعان بن أبي ذبيحة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ، روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ، غالٍ ، كذاب ، لا يلتفت إليه .
This translates to:
“Salih son of Uqbah son of Qays son of Sam’aan son of Abi Zubayha, the slave of Rasoolullah (SAWW). He used to narrate from Imam Sadiq (as), and was a Ghaali and a Kazzaab (Serial liar), and no attention should be paid to anything he narrates.”
Allamah Hilli endorsed and recapitulated this testimony in his Khulaasah (page 130 and 230), writing:
وقال العلامة في الخلاصة ص 230 رقم 4 صالح بن عقبة بن قيس بن سمعان بن أبي ذبيحة مولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام : كذاب ، غال ، لا يُلتفت إليه .
This confirms his status as a serial liar and extremist whose narrations should be disregarded. Ibn Dawood also confirmed that this narrator was a serial liar whose narrations are worthless, recording:
وقال ابن داود في رجاله : ( ليس حديثه بشيء ، كذَّاب ، غالٍ كثير المناكير ) انظر رجال ابن داود القسم الثاني رقم 237 وفي فصل آخر : أنه ليس بشيء .
Ayatullah Sheikh Husayn al-Raadhi expressed surprise that some modern-day Qummi scholars have ignored these testimonies from Ibnul Ghadhaairi, Allamah Hilli, and Ibn Dawood, choosing instead to authenticate the narrator based on speculative (dhanni) arguments.
- Maalik bin A’yun al-Juhani: Unknown (Majhool).
The Chains of Sheikh Toosi Sheikh Toosi also provides chains for this Ziyarat in his Misbaah, yet analysis shows that none of them achieve authenticity, as they feature the same discredited narrators. Ayatullah Sheikh Husain al-Radhiy opines that Sheikh Toosi most probably copied his chains from Ibn Qawlawahy, given the slight variations between the two versions. Because the unknown narrators, fabricators, and extremists in Ibn Qawlawahy’s chains have already been shown, applying the same findings to Toosi’s chains confirms their unreliability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, research demonstrates that there is not a single authentic (Saheeh) chain for Ziyarat Ashura within the literature. Every presented chain is weak (dhaeef) and contains extremist (Ghaali) liars. This reality lends credence to the idea that the entire Ziyarat, or at least large chunks of it, is a product of the fabrication of the extremists (Ghulaat), who invented material and falsely attributed it to the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt. These Ghulaat were cursed by the later Imams, who warned believers not to rely on their narrations and urged the community to reject their inventions.
- Ayatullah Shaykh Ḥusayn Al-Rāḍī al-ʿAbdallāh. Ziyāratu ʿĀshūrāʾ fī al-Mīzān. Dār al-Maḥajjah al-Bayḍāʾ, Beirut, 1st ed., 1429 AH/2008 CE. ↩︎