Response to the Objections on the Chain of Narration of the Samari Epistle (Tawqi‘ al-Sāmari)

Dar al-Hidaya : Followers of Ahmad Ismail raise two objections concerning the chain of narration of the Samari Epistle, attempting to discredit its authenticity. This article presents a comprehensive refutation to both objections.

Objection 1: Interrupted Chain (Mursal Narration)

One of Ahmad Ismail’s followers claims that the Samari Epistle is mursal (i.e., missing a direct chain), referencing the version found in Ihtijaj by Sheikh Tabarsi.

Response:

This claim selectively focuses on a single version while ignoring more complete narrations. In Kamal al-Din by Sheikh Saduq, the epistle is fully connected with a proper chain of transmission (non-mursal).

Additionally, Sheikh Tabarsi himself explains in the introduction of Ihtijaj that he often omits chains due to:

• Consensus on authenticity

• Rational coherence

• Widespread acceptance among Shia and non-Shia

“We do not mention the chain of narrators for most of the narrations we present, either due to consensus on their authenticity, agreement with rational evidence, or because they are widely known in both Shia and non-Shia sources.”
(Ihtijaj, Vol. 1, p. 10)

Hence, many scholars accept mursal narrations in Ihtijaj as credible and authoritative.

Objection 2: Alleged Weakness of Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Maktab

A second objection targets Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Maktab, claiming he is unknown in rijal literature and therefore unreliable.

Response:

While he may not be individually authenticated in all rijal works, two major evidences affirm his credibility:

1. Direct Recipient of Imam Mahdi’s Epistles

Sheikh Saduq (Kamal al-Din, Vol. 2, p. 516) and Sheikh Tusi both report that Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Maktab received the Samari Epistle directly through the appointed deputies of Imam Mahdi (AJ).

2. General Authentication by Sheikh Tusi

In Ghaybah, Sheikh Tusi writes:

“In the time of the praised deputies, there were trustworthy individuals to whom epistles were sent by the appointed deputies of Imam al-Mahdi.”
(Al-Ghaybah, Vol. 1, p. 415)

Thus, Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Maktab is covered under this general authentication, making him reliable by default according to established Shia hadith methodology.

Conclusion

• The claim of mursal narration is invalid due to the fully connected version in Kamal al-Din and the methodological credibility of Tabarsi’s mursal style.

• Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Maktab is indirectly authenticated by Sheikh Tusi, based on his status as a recipient of the Imam’s epistles via his deputies.

The Samari Epistle remains a historically authentic and theologically foundational document, affirmed by rigorous scholarly tradition and well-documented transmission.