Rijal Al Kashi Report 176 ~repack~ Jun 2026

Report 176 is a moderating document against extremist jarh (discrediting). It protects us from throwing out possibly authentic historical or legal reports simply because a narrator momentarily followed the wrong claimant to the Imamate.

After 1,200 years of scholarship, the majority position of Twelver Shi’ite maraji‘ (sources of emulation) is clear:

Report 176 highlights the fundamental divide in how different theological traditions interpret the same historical records. Theological Perspective Interpretive Framework for Report 176 View on Transmitters Rijal Al Kashi Report 176

In the report, the Imam utilizes severe language, invoking curses ( la'nah ) and declaring disassociation ( bara'ah ) from those who misrepresent his status.

The second is the phrase " muttaham bihi " (متهم به), translated as "accused" or "tainted" by it. This is a severe term in rijal, indicating that the individual was not just a casual consumer but was known for this practice, raising suspicions about their overall religious commitment and, by extension, their reliability in transmitting sacred traditions. Report 176 is a moderating document against extremist

His work is unique because it records "raw data"—statements from the Imams describing a narrator as a "liar," a "forger," a "believer," or a "ghali" (extremist). is one such raw data point.

Later usulis (principlists), such as Muhammad Baqir al-Wahid al-Bihbahani (d. 1791), argued that Report 176 does not impugn Yunus directly. Instead, it only explains why Hasan ibn Faddal personally avoided Yunus. In other words, it is a report about Hasan’s personal ijtihad (legal reasoning), not an objective fact about Yunus’s standing. His work is unique because it records "raw

| Citation Type | Reference | | :--- | :--- | | | Hadith 302 | | Page Number (Older Editions) | Page 176 | | Page Number (Mu'assasat Al al-Bayt Edition) | Volume 2, Page 455 |

In contrast, some modern scholars and critics, such as the late Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Behbudi, have taken a more skeptical view of Rijal al-Kashi as a whole. They argue that a significant portion of its reports are unreliable. For instance, one modern analysis has suggested that out of the 1,150 reports in the extant text, no more than 300 are likely to be authentic. This perspective, while radical, sees the report about Abu Hamza as just one example of the general unreliability that plagues the entire corpus.