THE OBJECTION THAT ZURARAH DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE IMAMATE OF AL-KADHIM (ع)

______________________________________________

The Issue

______________________________________________

The claim upon which this objection is based is not substantiated.

The objection is founded on the assertion that Zurārah ibn A‘yan—who was among the most prominent and distinguished companions of the Shi‘a—passed away without knowing of the Imamate of Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him). However, this claim cannot be confirmed with certainty, nor can it even be assumed to be likely. Consequently, how can an argument be built upon a premise whose accuracy and conformity to reality cannot be verified?

To elaborate: The basis of this claim is that Zurārah (may Allah have mercy on him) allegedly passed away shortly after the death of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), within a period not exceeding two months. While he was in Iraq, news of the passing of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) reached him. At the time, he was ill, so he sent his son, ‘Ubayd ibn Zurārah, to Medina to ascertain who the rightful Imam was after Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him)—whether it was ‘Abdullāh al-Afṭaḥ, the eldest son of Imam al-Ṣādiq, or Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā ibn Ja‘far (peace be upon him). ‘Ubayd traveled to Medina for this purpose, but he did not return until after Zurārah had already passed away.

This is the claim upon which the aforementioned objection is built.

Examining the Evidence Cited for the Claim and Its Response

Accordingly, the foundation of this objection collapses if it is established that this incident did not occur, if there is doubt regarding its occurrence, or if it becomes evident that it did not take place in the manner alleged. Therefore, the necessary approach is to review the evidence cited for the occurrence of this incident, which consists of several narrations.

The First Narration

This narration is cited by al-Kashshī in Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, where he states:

حدَّثني محمد بن قولويه قال: حدَّثني سعد بن عبد الله بن أبي خلف، قال: حدَّثني محمد بن عثمان بن رشيد قال: حدَّثني الحسن بن عليِّ بن يقطين عن أخيه أحمد بن علي عن أبيه علي بن يقطين قال: لمَّا كانت وفاة أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال الناسُ بعبد الله بن جعفر واختلفوا، فقائلٌ قال به وقائلٌ قال بأبي الحسن (عليه السلام) فدعا زرارةُ ابنه عبيدًا فقال: يا بني، الناسُ مختلفون في هذا الامر، فمَن قال بعبد الله فإنَّما ذهب إلى الخبر الذي جاء أنَّ الإمامة في الكبير مِن ولد الامام، فشُدَّ راحلتك وامضِ إلى المدينة حتى تأتيَني بصحَّة الامر، فشدَّ راحلتَه ومضى إلى المدينة واعتلَّ زرارة، فلمَّا حضرته الوفاة سأل عن عبيد فقيل له: لم يقدم فدعا بالمصحف فقال: اللهمَّ إنِّي مصدِّقٌ بما جاء به نبيُّك محمد صلَّى الله عليه وآله فيما أنزلته عليه وبيَّنته لنا على لسانه، وإنِّي مصدِّقٌ بما أنزلته عليه في هذا الجامع، وأنَّ عقيدتي وديني الذي يأتيني به عبيدٌ ابني وما بيَّنته في كتابك، فإنْ أمتني قبل هذا فهذه شهادتي على نفسي وإقراري بما يأتي به عبيدٌ ابني، وأنت الشهيد عليَّ بذلك، فمات زرارة وقدم عبيدٌ وقصدناه لنسلِّم عليه، فسألوه عن الأمر الذي قصده فأخبرهم أنَّ أبا الحسن (عليه السلام) صاحبُهم

Muḥammad ibn Qulawayh narrated to me, saying: Saʿd ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Khalaf narrated to me, saying: Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Rashīd narrated to me, saying: al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn narrated to me from his brother Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, from their father ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn, who said:

When Abū ʿAbdullāh (peace be upon him) passed away, the people turned to ʿAbdullāh ibn Jaʿfar, and there was disagreement—some followed him, while others followed Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him). At that time, Zurārah called his son ʿUbayd and said:

"My son, people are divided on this matter. Those who follow ʿAbdullāh base their view on the report stating that Imamate belongs to the eldest son of the Imam. So, prepare your mount and travel to Medina to verify the truth of this matter for me."

So, ʿUbayd set out on his journey to Medina. Meanwhile, Zurārah fell ill. As death approached, he inquired about ʿUbayd, and he was told that he had not yet returned. He then called for the Qur’an and said:

"O Allah, I affirm my belief in what Your Prophet Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) brought, in what You revealed to him, and in what You clarified to us through him. I affirm my belief in what You have revealed in this scripture, and my creed and religion shall be based on what ʿUbayd, my son, brings to me and on what You have explained in Your Book. If You take my life before his return, then this is my testimony upon myself and my declaration of faith in what ʿUbayd will bring. You are my witness in this regard."

Zurārah then passed away before ʿUbayd’s return. When ʿUbayd arrived, we went to greet him. He was asked about the matter he had traveled to confirm, and he informed them that Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) was the rightful Imam. [1]

I say: Although this narration initially appears to suggest that Zurārah was unaware of who the Imam was after Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), it cannot be cited as evidence due to the weakness of its chain of transmission. The chain includes Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Rashīd, who is unknown (majhūl), as well as Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn, who is also unknown. Therefore, the narration is unreliable and lacks probative value.

The Second Narration

This narration is also reported by al-Kashshī in Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, where he states:

حدَّثني محمد بن مسعود، قال: أخبرنا جبرئيل بن أحمد، قال: حدَّثني محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن إبراهيم المؤمن، عن نضر بن شعيب، عن عمَّةِ زرارة، قالت: لمَّا وقع زرارة واشتدَّ به، قال: ناوليني المصحف، فناولتُه وفتحتُه فوضعتُه على صدره، وأخذه منِّي، ثم قال: يا عمة اشهدي أنْ ليس لي إمامٌ غير هذا الكتاب

Muḥammad ibn Masʿūd narrated to me, saying: Jibrāʾīl ibn Aḥmad informed us, saying: Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā narrated to me from Yūnus, from Ibrāhīm al-Muʾmin, from Naḍr ibn Shuʿayb, from Zurārah’s paternal aunt, who said:

"When Zurārah fell severely ill, he said, ‘Hand me the Qur’an.’ So, I handed it to him, and he opened it, placed it on his chest, held it, and then said: ‘O my aunt, bear witness that I have no Imam except this Book.’" [2]

I say: This narration is also weak in its chain of transmission, as most of its narrators are unknown (majhūl), including Jibrāʾīl ibn Aḥmad, Ibrāhīm al-Muʾmin, and Naḍr ibn Shuʿayb. Furthermore, Zurārah’s aunt is also of unknown status, making the narration unreliable.

Additionally, its content is implausible. It is highly unlikely that Zurārah—given his esteemed status—would testify that he had no Imam. At most, according to the assumption (bi-ḥasab al-farḍ), he would have been unaware of the identity of the Imam after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), but not that the Imamate itself had ceased with al-Ṣādiq’s passing.

The Third Narration

This narration was also reported by al-Kashshī in Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, where he states:

حدَّثني حمدويه، قال: حدَّثني يعقوب بن يزيد، قال: حدَّثني عليُّ بن حديد عن جميل بن دراج، قال: ما رأيتُ رجلًا مثل زرارة بن أعين، إنَّا كنا نختلفُ إليه فما كنَّا حوله إلا بمنزله الصبيان في الكتَّاب حول المعلِّم، فلمَّا مضى أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام) وجلس عبدُ الله مجلسه بعث زرارة عُبيدًا ابنه زائرًا عنه ليتعرَّف الخبر ويأتيه بصحَّته، ومرض زرارةُ مرضًا شديدًا قبل أنْ يوافيه ابنُه عبيد، فلمَّا حضرته الوفاة دعا بالمصحف فوضعه على صدره ثم قبَّله. قال جميل: حكى جماعةٌ ممَّن حضره أنَّه قال: اللهمَّ إنِّي ألقاك يوم القيامة وإمامي مَن بينتَ في هذا المصحف إمامتَه، اللهمَّ إنِّي أُحلُّ حلاله وأُحرِّمُ حرامه، وأومنُ بمحكمه ومتشابهه وناسخه ومنسوخه وخاصِّه وعامِّه، على ذلك أحيى، وعليه أموتُ إنْ شاء الله"

Ḥamdawayh narrated to me, saying: Yaʿqūb ibn Yazīd narrated to me, saying: ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd narrated to me from Jamīl ibn Darāj, who said:

*"I have never seen a man like Zurārah ibn Aʿyan. We used to frequent his gatherings, and we would sit around him as if we were children in a school around a teacher. When Abū ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) passed away, and ʿAbd Allāh (his son) took his seat, Zurārah sent his son ʿUbayd as an emissary on his behalf to verify the matter and bring him certainty. Before ʿUbayd returned, Zurārah fell seriously ill. When death approached him, he requested the Qur’an, placed it on his chest, and kissed it.

Jamīl reported that a group of those present narrated that Zurārah then said: ‘O Allāh, I will meet You on the Day of Judgment while my Imam is the one whose Imamate You have clarified in this Qur’an. O Allāh, I declare lawful what it makes lawful and unlawful what it makes unlawful. I believe in its definitive and ambiguous verses, its abrogating and abrogated verses, and its specific and general rulings. Upon this, I live, and upon this, I die, if Allāh wills.’” [3]

I say: This narration is also weak in its chain of transmission due to the presence of ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd. Although he was among the teachers (mashāyikh) of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr and appears in the transmission chains (asānīd) of Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī, he has been explicitly weakened by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī , may Allāh have mercy on him, in multiple instances within his works. For example, in al-Istibṣār, while commenting on a narration from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā from ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd from some of our companions, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī states:

"فأوَّلُ ما في هذا الخبر أنَّه مرسَل وراويه ضعيف، وهو عليُّ بن حديد، وهذا يُضعف الاحتجاج بخبره"

"The first issue with this report is that it is mursal (lacking full attribution), and its transmitter is weak, namely ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd. This weakens the argument based on this report." [4]

Additionally, in another section of al-Istibṣār, commenting on a narration from Jamīl ibn Darāj about Zurārah, he writes:

"وأما خبر زرارة فالطريق إليه علي بن حديد وهو ضعيف جدا لا يعول على ما ينفرد بنقله"

"As for the report from Zurārah, the chain of transmission includes ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd, who is extremely weak and cannot be relied upon in isolated reports." [5]

Furthermore, in Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, he makes a similar remark:

وأمَّا خبرُ زرارة فالطريقُ إليه عليُّ بن حديد، وهو مضعَّف جدا لا يُعوَّلُ على ما ينفرد بنقله

"As for the report from Zurārah, the chain includes ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd, who is severely weakened and cannot be relied upon in isolated reports." [6]

This narration is weak due to the presence of ʿAlī ibn Ḥadīd, either because he was explicitly weakened by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī or because his status is unknown, given the conflicting evaluations—where his reliability is suggested by Ibn Abī ʿUmayr and ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, yet contradicted by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī’s explicit weakening.

Moreover, the narration does not explicitly indicate that Zurārah was unaware of who the Imam was after Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him). The most it suggests is that Zurārah sent his son ʿUbayd to Medina "to verify the matter," but it does not specify what aspect of the matter he sought to confirm. As will be clarified in the authentic narration of al-Hamdhānī from Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him), what Zurārah sought to verify was his duty regarding the new circumstances following the passing of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him)—namely, whether he should openly declare the Imamate of Imam Al-Kādhim (peace be upon him) or whether he was obligated to maintain secrecy in observance of taqiyyah (dissimulation).

The Fourth Narration

Al-Kashshī reported in Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, stating:

حدَّثني محمد بن قولويه، قال: حدَّثني سعدُ بن عبد الله عن الحسن بن علي بن موسى بن جعفر عن أحمد بن هلال عن أبي يحيى الضرير عن درست بن أبي منصور الواسطي، قال: سمعتُ أبا الحسن (عليه السلام) يقول: إنَّ زرارة شكَّ في إمامتي فاستوهبتُه من ربِّي تعالى

Muḥammad ibn Qulawayh narrated to me, saying: Saʿd ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to me from al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar from Aḥmad ibn Hilāl from Abū Yaḥyā al-Ḍarīr from Durust ibn Abī Manṣūr al-Wāsṭī, who said:

"I heard Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) say: ‘Zurārah doubted my Imamate, so I asked my Lord, the Almighty, to grant him to me (i.e., to forgive him).’” [7] 

I say: This narration is also weak in its chain of transmission due to the presence of al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar, who is of unknown status (majhūl al-ḥāl), as there is no mention of him in the books of rijāl (biographical evaluation of narrators), rendering him neglected (muhmal). Apparently, he is not mentioned anywhere except in this specific chain of transmission. Furthermore, the chain includes Abū Yaḥyā al-Ḍarīr, who is also of unknown status.

Conclusion

These are the primary narrations used to support the claim that Zurārah did not know of the Imamate of Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him). However, as has been demonstrated, these narrations suffer from weak chains of transmission and cannot be used as valid evidence.

Yes, there are additional narrations, but it will become evident that they do not clearly establish that Zurārah was unaware of Imam al-Kāẓim’s Imamate. At most, they are ambiguous (mujmalah) and can be interpreted in a manner other than what the proponents of the objection seek to establish.

The Authentic Report of al-Hamadānī Reveals the Truth of What Transpired

Regardless, these narrations are contradicted by what was reported by Shaykh al-Ṣadūq with an authentic chain of transmission from Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him). Al-Ṣadūq (may Allah have mercy on him) stated in Kamal al-Dīn:

حدَّثنا أحمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي الله عنه، قال: حدَّثنا عليُّ بن إبراهيم بن هاشم، قال: حدَّثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد عن إبراهيم بن محمَّد الهمداني رضي الله عنه قال: قلتُ للرضا (عليه السلام): يا ابن رسول الله (صلَّى الله عليه وآله) أخبرني عن زرارة، هل كان يَعرفُ حقَّ أبيك؟ فقال (عليه السلام): نعم، فقلتُ له: فلِمَ بعثَ ابنَه عبيدًا ليتعرَّف الخبر إلى مَن أوصى الصادقُ جعفر بن محمد (عليه السلام)؟ فقال: إنَّ زرارة كان يعرفُ أمرَ أبي (عليه السلام) ونصَّ أبيه عليه، وإنَّما بعثَ ابنَه ليتعرَّف من أبي هل يجوزُ له أنْ يرفع التقية في إظهار أمره ونصِّ أبيه عليه، وأنَّه لمَّا أبطأ عنه طُولبَ بإظهار قوله في أبي (عليه السلام) فلمْ يُحِبْ أنْ يقدمَ على ذلك دون أمرِه فرفعَ المصحفَ، وقال: (اللهمَّ إنَّ إمامي مَن أثبت هذا المصحف إمامته من وُلد جعفر بن محمد (عليه السلام)"

"Aḥmad ibn Ziyād ibn Jaʿfar al-Hamadānī (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated to us, saying: ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim narrated to us, saying: Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ibn ʿUbayd narrated to me from Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-Hamadānī (may Allah be pleased with him), who said:

I asked Imam Al-Riḍā (peace be upon him): ‘O son of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), inform me about Zurārah—did he recognize the truth of your father’s Imamate?’

The Imam (peace be upon him) replied: ‘Yes.’

I then asked: ‘Then why did he send his son ʿUbayd to verify to whom Imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) had designated his succession?’

The Imam (peace be upon him) said: ‘Zurārah was fully aware of my father’s Imamate and that he was explicitly designated by his father. However, he sent his son to verify whether he was permitted to lift the veil of taqiyya (dissimulation) and openly declare the Imamate of my father. When his son’s return was delayed, he was pressured to disclose his stance regarding my father, yet he refused to do so without direct authorization. Therefore, he raised the Qurʾān and said: “O Allah, my Imam is the one whose Imamate is affirmed in this Book from among the descendants of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him).”’” [8]

Commentary on the Authenticity of al-Hamdani’s Narration and Its Validity in Interpreting Traditions

This narration is of authentic isnād and serves as a direct exposition of the reality of what transpired with Zurārah. There is no need to seek further evidence beyond it, as Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him) explicitly states that Zurārah (may Allah have mercy on him) was well aware of the Imamate of Imam Abū al-Ḥasan al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him), recognized him as the designated successor of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), and understood that he was explicitly appointed by his father. Zurārah had sent his son, ʿUbayd, to ascertain from Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him) whether he should publicly disclose his Imamate or maintain discretion due to the exigencies of taqiyyah, given the perilous circumstances under the Abbasid regime, which sought to eliminate the designated successor of Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him).

This was the sole purpose behind Zurārah’s decision to send his son, contrary to what some have mistakenly assumed. Zurārah could not publicly disclose the true reason for dispatching his son, as his inquiry was precisely about whether revealing the Imamate was permissible or not.

Had he openly stated the purpose of sending his son, it would have constituted an explicit declaration of Imam al-Kāẓim’s Imamate—an issue yet to be determined as either permissible or impermissible. His silence and reluctance to clarify the matter, despite his prominent status within the Shiʿi community and the expectation that he would disclose the identity of the next Imam after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), gave rise to speculation and misinterpretations regarding his actions. This ambiguity led to various conjectures about the true nature of Zurārah’s decision and the purpose behind his son's journey to Medina.

However, Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him) has definitively clarified the matter, leaving no room for further doubts or misleading assumptions propagated by certain individuals for various motives.

From this, the meaning of the muʿtabarah (reliable narration) of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zurārah, transmitted from his father, becomes clear. He narrates that Zurārah sent his son ʿUbayd to inquire about the status of Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him), but before ʿUbayd could return, Zurārah passed away. As death approached, he took the muṣḥaf (Qur'an), placed it above his head, and declared:

إنَّ الامام بعد جعفر بن محمد، مَن اسمه بين الدفتين في جملة القرآن منصوص عليه من الذين أوجب الله طاعتهم على خلقه، أنا مؤمنٌ به

"The Imam after Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad is the one whose name is inscribed within these pages, among those whom God has mandated obedience to. I believe in him."

He said: When Abū al-Ḥasan al-Awwal (peace be upon him) was informed of this, he said: "By Allah, Zurārah was a migrant toward God, the Exalted." [9]

This narration does not explicitly state the nature of the inquiry or the specific news that Zurārah had sent his son to seek. While it is possible that his intent was to identify the rightful Imam after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), it is equally plausible that he sent him to ask about his own duty—whether he should openly declare the Imamate of al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him) or maintain discretion due to the need for taqiyyah (dissimulation).

Given that the ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration] of Ibrāhīm al-Hamdānī, transmitted from Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him), explicitly states that the purpose of Zurārah sending his son was to determine his obligation regarding whether to proclaim or conceal the Imamate, this narration should be interpreted in accordance with the evidence provided by al-Hamdānī’s ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration].

The same interpretive approach applies to the ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration] of Jamīl bin Darraj, who narrates:

وجَّه زرارة عبيدًا ابنه إلى المدينة ليستخبر له خبر أبي الحسن (عليه السلام) وعبد الله بن أبي عبد الله، فمات قبل أنْ يرجع إليه عبيد، قال محمد بن أبي عمير: "حدَّثني محمد بن حكيم، قلتُ لأبي الحسن الأول (عليه السلام) وذكرت له زرارة وتوجيهه ابنه عبيدا إلى المدينة، فقال أبو الحسن: إني لأرجو أنْ يكون زرارة ممَّن قال الله تعالى: ﴿وَمَنْ يَخْرُجْ مِنْ بَيْتِهِ مُهَاجِرًا إلى اللهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ يُدْرِكْهُ الْمَوْتُ فَقَدْ وَقَعَ أَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللهِ﴾

"Zurārah dispatched his son ʿUbayd to Medina to inquire about the status of Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him) and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī ʿAbd Allāh. However, before ʿUbayd could return, Zurārah passed away."

Muḥammad ibn Abī ʿUmayr reports that Muḥammad ibn Ḥakīm said:"I mentioned Zurārah to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Awwal (peace be upon him) and recounted how he had sent his son ʿUbayd to Medina. In response, Abū al-Ḥasan stated: 'I hope that Zurārah is among those of whom God says: ‘And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant toward God and His Messenger, and then death overtakes him, his reward is incumbent upon God.’’” (Qur'an 4:100). [10] [11]

The narration does not explicitly state the nature of the information that Zurārah sent his son to inquire about. It is possible that he sent him to learn what he should do regarding the issue of Imamate after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) — whether he should remain silent or if he should openly declare the Imamate of al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him) and publicly refute ʿAbd Allāh al-Afṭaḥ. This possibility is sufficient, given that it is a plausible alternative to other potential explanations. Consequently, the ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration] of al-Hamdānī suggests that this is the most likely interpretation, and that it represents the true purpose of the message that ʿUbayd ibn Zurārah carried from his father to Medina.

As for the statement of Imam Abū al-Ḥasan Al-Kādhim (peace be upon him): "I hope that Zurārah is among those of whom Allah says: ‘And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant toward Allah and His Messenger, and then death overtakes him, his reward is incumbent upon Allah’" (Qur'an 4:100), the meaning is that the Imam hopes that Zurārah will receive the reward of the pledge of allegiance to the Imam of his time, given that he passed away before he could formally declare his allegiance.

In other words, the Imam intended to express that the mere act of Zurārah sending his son was sufficient for him to be considered among those who have earned the reward of Allah, as explicitly stated in the muʿtabarah [reliable narration] of ʿAbd Allāh bin Zurārah. It is as though Zurārah were considered one who emigrated to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), but death overtook him before reaching his destination. Zurārah passed away before knowing that his duty was to publicly announce what he had been entrusted with—namely, the declaration of Imam al-Kāẓim's Imamate.

At the very least, the narration remains ambiguous and does not contradict the clear ṣaḥīḥah of al-Hamdānī. In fact, the ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration] of al-Hamdānī is compatible with interpreting the ṣaḥīḥah of Jamīl bin Darraj, as well as the muʿtabarah [reliable narration] of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zurārah.

The Lack of Proof of the Claim Is Sufficient to Dispel the Doubt

What can be concluded from what we have mentioned is that it has not been proven that Zurārah ibn Aʿyn (may Allah have mercy on him) was ignorant of the Imamate of Imam Abū al-Ḥasan al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him) after his father, Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him).

This, in turn, invalidates the foundation of the aforementioned doubt. The doubt posed was that if Zurārah—who was a close associate of both Imam Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) and Imam Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him)—did not know about the Imamate of Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him), how could it be claimed that the names of the Imams (peace be upon them) were known to the distinguished members of the Shiʿah?

However, as has been clearly shown, there is no evidence to suggest that Zurārah was ignorant of the Imamate of Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him) after his father. On the contrary, it is well-established that he knew about it through the explicit text and the designation from his father, Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), as indicated in the ṣaḥīḥah [authentic narration] of al-Hamdānī narrated from Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him).

Moreover, how is it conceivable that any rational person who respects themselves would ignore the numerous narrations that exceed the threshold of tawātur (mass transmission) and explicitly name the Twelve Imams one by one? How could such a person overlook this substantial body of narrations transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and his Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), which have been passed down through trustworthy sources in our authentic texts, and cling to such a weak doubt unless they are misled?

We seek refuge in Allah from deviation after guidance.

In this regard, I have compiled a substantial number of these narrations in my book, The Tawātur of the Texts on the Imams (peace be upon them) تواتر النصِّ على الأئمة (ع), which I recommend you review.

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

References

[1] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi), Volume 1, p. 153-154

[2] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi), Volume 1, p. 156

[3] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi), Volume 1, p. 154-155

[4] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Al-Istibsar. Volume 1, p. 40

[5] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Al-Istibsar. Volume 3, p. 95

[6] Al-Tusi, Shaykh al-Ta'ifah. Tahdhib al-Ahkam. Volume 7, p. 101

[7] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi) with the commentary of Mir Damad al-Isfahani. Volume 1, p. 372

[8] Al-Saduq, Shaykh. Kamal al-Din wa Tamam al-Ni'mah. Volume 1, p. 75

[9] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. (n.d.). Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi). Volume 1, p. 372

[10] The Holy Qur'an 4:100

[11] Al-Tusi, Shaykh. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat al-Rijal (known as Rijal al-Kashi). Volume 1, p. 155-156

The original text in Arabic can be found here

______________________________________________

Answer

______________________________________________

Zurārah passed away without knowing that the Imam after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) was al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him). He did not know the Imam of his time and was left in a state of confusion. This serves as evidence that the claim of the existence of narrations from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and subsequent Imams that explicitly name all twelve Imams, but which were supposedly circulated only among the elite, is not accurate. It is established that Zurārah was one of the elite, and yet he did not know who the Imam was after al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him).

﷽