False Claimants’ Allegations that Shia Scholars Abandoned the Samari Epistle (Tawqi‘ al-Sāmari)

Dar al-Hidaya : One of the baseless allegations propagated by the followers of Ahmad Ismail Basri is the claim that Shia scholars have “abandoned and turned away” from the Sāmari Epistle—the final decree of Imam Mahdi (AJ) before the beginning of the Major Occultation.

Basri asserts:

“There has been much discussion regarding this narration, which is sufficient in response. Therefore, the scholars have long abandoned it and turned away from it, as they know that arguing based on it holds no value or credibility.”

This article provides a scholarly and historical refutation of this claim, supported by authoritative sources and documented transmission of the epistle throughout Shia history.

The Scholarly Reliance on the Sāmari Epistle

To begin with, consider the testimony of Allama Muhaqqiq Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Isfahani, a highly respected Shia scholar, who writes:

“Our scholars, from the time of al-Saduq to our present day, have relied upon it and trusted in it, and none of them have questioned its authenticity or validity, as is clear to anyone who has followed and studied their words and writings.”
(Makyal al-Makarem, Vol. 2, p. 355)

This statement alone decisively undermines Ahmad Ismail’s claim. But to further clarify the issue, we must examine what exactly is meant by “abandonment” in this context.

Clarifying the Claim: Abandoning the Narration or Its Content?

Basri’s accusation may be interpreted in two possible ways:

1. That scholars have stopped narrating or citing the Sāmari Epistle.

If this is the intended claim, it reflects a deep ignorance of Shia hadith literature. A vast number of Shia scholars across centuries have faithfully transmitted the epistle in their major works. Below is a non-exhaustive list of 30+ scholars and hadith authorities who cited and preserved the epistle:

List of Notable Scholars Who Transmitted the Sāmari Epistle

1. Sheikh al-Saduq (d. 381 AH) — Kamal al-Din, p. 516

2. Sheikh al-Tusi (d. 460 AH) — Ghaybat al-Tusi, p. 395

3. Sheikh al-Tabarsi (d. 548 AH) — Al-Ihtijaj, A‘lam al-Wara, Taj al-Mawalid

4. Sheikh Ibn Hamza al-Tusi (d. 560 AH) — Al-Thaqib fi al-Manaqib, p. 601

5. Sheikh Qutb al-Din Rawandi (d. 573 AH) — Al-Kharaij wal-Jara’ih, Vol. 3

6. Sayyid Ibn Tawus (d. 664 AH) — Al-Taraf fi Ma‘rifat Mazāhib al-Tawā’if

7. Sheikh Ali ibn Isa al-Arbili (d. 693 AH) — Kashf al-Ghumma, Vol. 3

8. Sheikh Imad al-Din al-Tabari (d. after 689 AH) — Asrār al-Imāmah

9. Sayyid Baha’ al-Din Najafi (d. 803 AH) — Muntakhab al-Anwār al-Mudhiyya

10. Sheikh Amali Nabaati Bayyadi (d. 877 AH) — Al-Sirāt al-Mustaqīm, Vol. 2

11. Muqaddas Ardabili (d. 993 AH) — Hadiqat al-Shī‘a, Vol. 2

12. Shahid Thani (d. 1019 AH) — Majālis al-Mu’minīn

13. Fayz Kashani (d. 1090 AH) — Nawādir al-Akhbār

14. Sheikh Hurr al-‘Amili (d. 1104 AH) — Ithbāt al-Hudāt, Hidāyat al-Ummah

15. Sayyid Hashim Bahrani (d. 1107 AH) — Madinat al-Ma‘ājiz

16. Allama Majlisi (d. 1111 AH) — Bihār al-Anwār, Vol. 51

17. Sayyid Ni‘matullah Jazairi (d. 1117 AH) — Riyād al-Abrār

18. Sheikh Sulayman Mahuzi (d. 1121 AH) — Al-Arba‘īn

19. Sheikh ‘Ināyat Allah Qahbai (d. 1126 AH) — Majma‘ al-Rijāl

20. Sheikh Muhammad Ismail Khajouei (d. 1173 AH) — Al-Rasā’il al-Fiqhiyya

21. Sayyid Abdullah al-Shubbar (d. 1220 AH) — Haqq al-Yaqīn, Jalā’ al-‘Uyūn

22. Sheikh Ahmad Naraqi (d. 1245 AH) — Rasā’il wa Masā’il

23. Sheikh Agha Mahmud Bahbahani (d. 1269 AH) — Tuhfat al-Salātīn

24. Sheikh Mirza Husayn Nuri (d. 1320 AH) — Al-Najm al-Thāqib

25. Sheikh Ali Aliyari Tabrizi (d. 1327 AH) — Bahjat al-A‘māl

26. Mirza Muhammad Taqi Isfahani (d. 1348 AH) — Makyal al-Makārem

27. Sheikh Abdullah Mamqani (d. 1351 AH) — Al-Fawā’id al-Rijāliyya

28. Sheikh Abbas Qummi (d. 1359 AH) — Muntahā al-Āmāl, Al-Kunā wa al-Alqāb

29. Sayyid Mohsen Amin Amili (d. 1371 AH) — A‘yān al-Shī‘a, Al-Majālis al-Sunniyya

This consistent and rich transmission proves that the epistle was never abandoned. On the contrary, it has been central to Shia theological discourse on occultation and deputyship.

2. That scholars have ignored or abandoned acting on the epistle’s content.

This interpretation is equally flawed. The Sāmari Epistle clearly states the end of special deputyship during the Major Occultation — a foundational belief upheld by all mainstream Shia scholars.

Throughout the centuries, Shia scholars have:

• Affirmed the cessation of special representation after the death of the fourth deputy

• Rejected claims of new divinely-appointed representatives or deputies

• Uphold the authority of qualified jurists (marāji‘) within the framework of general guidance, not special appointment

This uniform practice, from the era of Sheikh al-Saduq to the modern marāji‘, shows unwavering adherence to the epistle’s guidance.

Conclusion: A Baseless and Refuted Allegation

The claim by Ahmad Ismail Basri that Shia scholars have abandoned the Sāmari Epistle is historically and theologically inaccurate.

• The text of the epistle has been repeatedly transmitted, cited, and relied upon by leading scholars across centuries.

• The contents of the epistle — particularly the end of special representation — have been consistently implemented in doctrine and practice.

• The accusation betrays either ignorance or deliberate distortion of Shia scholarly history and theology.

The Sāmari Epistle remains a cornerstone of Shia understanding of the Major Occultation and continues to be affirmed by all credible scholars in opposition to false claimants and deviated sects.