2. Taqiyyah and its impact on the extinction of the Jafari School

Muslims are unanimous that a person is permitted to (outwardly)[1] utter contrary to his beliefs at the time of coercion and harm from disbelievers or polytheists[2] because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says in the Qur’an:

لَّا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ الْكَافِرِيْنَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ وَمَنْ يَّفْعَلْ ذٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِيْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَنْ تَتَّقُوْا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً

Believers should not take disbelievers as guardians instead of the believers—and whoever does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah—unless it is a precaution against their tyranny.[3]

Taqiyyah is a temporary exception to a general absolute principle, due to special circumstance which a Muslim individual or group experiences. Therefore, its Shar’i classification is that it is a concession permitted at the time of necessity, which is resorted to due to coercion or harm. Practicing on it stops as soon as the cause which necessitated it, such as coercion etc., is removed.

As for the Imamiyyah, the concept of Taqiyyah is much broader. It is not dependant on coercion or perception of harm and not from a disbeliever; rather it is from a Muslim opposition in most cases. It is not during specific circumstance or temporarily, but according to them it is a continuous condition and a permanent collective behaviour. Regarding this, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi (d. 381 AH) states:

والتقية واجبة لا يجوز تركها إلي أن يخرج القائم فمن تركها فقد دخل في نهي الله تعالى ونهي رسوله والأئمة صلوات الله عليهم

Taqiyyah is obligatory and impermissible to leave out till the emergence of al Mahdi. Whoever discards it has disobeyed Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams.[4]

Taqiyyah has a great presence in the lives of the Imamis, as is the condition of an Imami person’s actual life. It may be continuously on their tongues and in their behaviour, even when there is no justification for it. Transmissions encourage the Imamis to practice Taqiyyah with those who they trust so that it becomes their natural temperament which would enable them to use it against those who they fear without any pretence or simulation.

Thus, the Imamiyyah narrate from Jafar al Sadiq that he said:

عليكم بالتقية فإنه ليس منا من لم جعلها شعاره ودثاره مع من يأمنه لتكون سجيته مع من يحذر

Hold on to Taqiyyah. He is not of us who does not make Taqiyyah his motto and mantle with those who he trusts so that it can be his temperament with those who he fears.[5]

To such a degree, that their motto, which they are proud of, became the statement which is attributed to Jafar al Sadiq:

التقية ديني ودين آبائي ولا دين لمن لا تقية له

Taqiyyah is my din and the din of my forefathers. There is no din for the one who does not practice Taqiyyah.[6]

It has been narrated from him thus:

إن تسعة أعشار الدين في التقية ولا دين لمن لا تقية له والتقية في كل شيء إلا في شرب النبيذ والمسح علي الخقين وفي بعضها ومتعة الحج

Nine-tenth of din is Taqiyyah. There is no din for the one who does not practice Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is in everything except drinking Nabidh[7] and wiping the Khuff (leather socks). Some narrations mention Tamattu’ Hajj[8] also.[9]

They also narrate his statement to Habib ibn Bishr wherein he states:

لا والله ما علي وجه الأرض شيء أحب إلي من التقية يا حبيب إنه من كانت له تقية رفعه الله يا حبيب من لم تكن له تقية وضعه الله يا حبيب إن الناس إنما هم في هدنة فلو قد كان ذلك كان هذا

By Allah, there is nothing on the surface of the earth more beloved to me than Taqiyyah. O Habib, whoever practices Taqiyyah, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will elevate him and whoever does not practice Taqiyyah, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will degrade him. O Habib, people are in a truce. As long as there is this (truce), there will be Taqiyyah.[10]

According to the Imamiyyah, Taqiyyah has two considerations or dimensions. One is at the time of necessity and coercion, as is established by Shari’ah for all Muslims. This is called al Taqiyyah al Khawfiyyah. Second is with the intention of concealment and expressing outwardly contrary to the inner belief, without any harm or coercion. This is known as al Taqiyyah al Mudaratiyyah.

The late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i mentions them by saying:

وأما التقية بالمعنى الأعم فهي في الأصل محكومة بالجواز والحلية وحديث رفع ما اضطروا إليه وما ورد من أنه ما من محرم إلا وقد أحله الله في مورد الاضطرار وغير ذلك مما دل على حلية أي عمل عند الاضطرار إليه فكل عمل صنعه المكلف اتقاء لضرره واضطرار إليه فهو محكوم بالجواز والحلية في الشريعة المقدسة وأما التقية بالمعني الأخص أعني التقية من العامة فهي في الأصل واجبة وذلك للأخبار الكثيرة الدالة على وجوبها بل دعوى تواترها الإجمالي والعلم بصدور بعضها عنهم ولا أقل من اطمئنان ذلك قريبة جدا هذا على أن في بينها روايات معتبرة كصحيحتي ابن أبي يعفور ومعمر بن خلاد وصحيحة زرارة وغيرهما من الروايات الدالة علي وجوب التقية ‎ففي بعضها أن التقية ديني ودين آبائي ولا دين لمن لا تقية له وأي تعبير أقوى دلالة علي الوجوب من هذا التعبير حيث أنه ينفي التدين رأسا عمن لا تقية له فمن ذلك يظهر أهميتها عند الشارع وأن وجوبها بمثابة قد عد تاركها ممن لا دين له وفي بعضها الآخر لا إيمان لمن لا تقية له وهو في الدلالة علي الوجوب كسابقه وفي ثالث لو قلت إن تارك التقية كتارك الصلاة لكنت صادقا ودلالته علي الوجوب ظاهرة لأن الصلاة هي الفاصلة بين الكفر والإيمان كما في الأخبار وقد نزلت التقية منزلة الصلاة ودلت علي أنها أيضا كالفاصلة بين الكفر والإيمان وفي رابع ليس منا من لم يجعل التقية شعاره ودثاره وقد عد تارك التقية في بعضها ممن أذاع سرهم وعرفهم إلى أعدائهم إلي غير ذلك من الروايات فالتقية بحسب الأصل الأولي محكومة بالوجوب ‎

As for Taqiyyah in the most general meaning, originally, the verdict regarding it is that it is permissible and Halal. The hadith about pardoning that which a person is forced to do and that everything that is Haram, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has made it Halal in the event of coercion, indicates to its permissibility; i.e., one is permitted to practice on it at the time of coercion. Thus, every action that an obliged person does, fearing harm or out of coercion, the verdict regarding it is that of permissibility according the noble Shari’ah. As for Taqiyyah in the specific meaning, i.e. from the masses, then this, originally, is obligatory. This is due to the large number of transmissions that indicate to its obligation. In fact, the claim of brief Tawatur (consecutively narrated)—whilst having the knowledge that some of it originated from the Imams, which itself is assuring—is very possible. This is based on the fact that there are reliable narrations, like the two authentic narrations of Ibn Abi Ya’fur and Ma’mar ibn Khallad, and the authentic narration of Zurarah and other narrations that indicate to the obligation of Taqiyyah.

Some narrations mention, “Taqiyyah is my din and the din of my forefathers. There is no din for the one who does not practice Taqiyyah.”

Which expression can be stronger in indicating to its obligation than this, as it negates din completely for those who do not practice Taqiyyah. From this, its importance in Shari’ah becomes clear and that its obligation is such that those who abandon it are regarded as having no din.

Some other narrations state, “There is no faith for the one who does not practice Taqiyyah.”

This also indicates to its obligation like the previous narration.

The third narration states, “If I say that the one who abandons Taqiyyah is like the one who abandons Salah, I would be truthful.”

This narration’s indication to its obligation is very clear, as Salah is the differentiating factor between disbelief and faith, as narrated in various narrations. Taqiyyah has been equated to Salah which indicates that it is also a differentiating factor between disbelief and faith.

The fourth narration states, “He is not of us who does not make Taqiyyah his motto and mantle.”

The one who abandons Taqiyyah is regarded as the one who broadcasts secrets and exposes it to the enemies; and similar other narrations. Thus, Taqiyyah according to the original principle is ruled to be obligatory.[11]

It appears that this Taqiyyah, which was supposed to be a protective shield for the Imamiyyah, as claimed by Imami theorists, turned against the School for specific reasons and became a source of concern and scourge for it. The malicious hypocrites who infiltrated amongst the Muslims and the renegade extremists, promoted transmissions regarding Taqiyyah, spread it amongst the people, and published it in their books and treatises to create a condition amongst the masses which would enable them to instil false beliefs among their ranks in the name of Jafar al Sadiq, without any reproach; and under the pretext that the denial and lack of promotion of these narrations by the people was motivated by Taqiyyah.

The Imamiyyah narrate from Jafar al Sadiq that he realised very early, the great negative impact Taqiyyah had on the Imamiyyah, and that the false shelter and deliberate flattening of the meaning of Taqiyyah, at that time, became a striking tool for the Batinites and the hypocrites to promote their false schools in his name. Hence, he began criticising and warning them by saying:

إنما جعلت التقية ليحقن بها الدم فإذا بلغت التقية الدم فلا تقية وايم الله لو دعيتم لتنصرونا لقلتم لا نفعل إنما نتقي ولكانت التقية أحب إليكم من آباتكم وأمهاتكم ولو قد قام القائم ما احتاج إلى مساءلتكم عن ذلك ولأقام في كثير منكم من أهل النفاق حد الله

Taqiyyah was only ordained to spare blood. If Taqiyyah reaches the blood then there is no Taqiyyah. By Allah, if you were called to assist us, you would say, “We will not do so. We were merely practicing Taqiyyah.”

Taqiyyah would be more beloved to you than your fathers and mothers. If al Mahdi had to emerge, he would not need to question you and he would enforce the punishment of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala on many of you hypocrites.[12]

However, what will this warning change?

Is it not possible that the people of Kufah will regard this as Taqiyyah also?

Ponder carefully on the following narration, to understand how Taqiyyah became a tool in the hands of some narrators to easily use it to attribute a statement to Jafar al Sadiq or adapting it to a meaning completely opposite to the apparent meaning, under the pretext that he did it as Taqiyyah.

Ibn Sammak al Kufi states:

خرجت إلى مكة فلقيني زرارة بن أعين بالقادسية فقال لي إن لي إليك حاجة وارجو أن أبلغها بك وعظمها فقلت ما هي فقال إذا لقيت جعفر بن محمد فأقرئه مني السلام وسله أن يخبرني من أن أهل الجنة أنا أم من أهل النار فأنكرت ذلك عليه فقال لي إنه يعلم ذلك فلم يزل بي حتى أجبته فلما لقيت جعفر بن محمد أخبرته بالذي كان منه فقال هو من أهل النار فوقع في نفسي شيء مما قال فقلت ومن أين علمت ذاك فقال من ادعي علي أني أعلم هذا فهو من أهل النار فلما رجعت لقيني زرارة بن أعين فسألني عما عملت في حاجته فأخبرته بأنه قال لي إنه من أهل النار فقال كال لك يا عبد الله من جراب النورة فقلت وما جراب النورة؟ قال عمل معك بالتقية

I went to Makkah. Zurarah ibn A’yan met me in Qadisiyyah and said, “I have a need to be fulfilled by you and I hope you will fulfil it.”

He magnified the need so I said to him, “What is the need?”

He replied, “If you meet Jafar ibn Muhammad, convey my greetings to him and ask him to inform me whether I am from the people of Paradise or the people of Hell.”

I disliked this but he said that Jafar knows about this. He persisted until I agreed. When I met Jafar ibn Muhammad, I informed him about what had transpired with him. He replied, “He is from the people of Hell.”

What he said struck me so I asked him, “How do you know that?”

He replied, “Whoever claims that I know about this, is from the people of Hell.”

When I returned, Zurarah ibn A’yan met me and asked me as to what did I do regarding his need. I informed him that he said that you are from the people of Hell.

He said, “O servant of Allah, he measured for you from the pouch of Nurah.”[13]

I asked, “What is the pouch of Nurah?”

He replied, “He practiced Taqiyyah with you.”[14]

Usage of the phrase ‘he gave you from the pouch of Nurah’ to express practicing on Taqiyyah, is not confined to this narration only. In fact, it is a widespread expression by the Imamiyyah, as stated by Muhammad Baqir al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH):

قد‏ ورد في الأخبار أن الشيعة كانوا يقولون في الحديث الذي وافق التقية أعطاك من جراب النورة قيل مرادهم تشبيه المعصوم بالعطار وكانوا يبيعون أجناس العطارين بالجربان وكان النورة أيضا يبيعونها في جرابها فإذا أعطي التقية قالوا أعطاك من جرابها أي ما لا يؤكل ولو أكل لقتل والفائدة فيه دفع القاذورات وأمثالها

It has been reported in transmissions that the Shia used to say regarding those narrations which conformed to Taqiyyah that he gave you from the pouch of Nurah. It is said that the meaning of this is, comparing the infallible Imams to a perfume seller. They used to sell different types of perfumes in pouches and Nurah was also sold in pouches. When Taqiyyah was used on someone, they would say ‘he gave you from its pouch’, i.e. something that cannot be eaten. If anyone eats it, he would die. The benefit in it is to remove dirt, etc.[15]

However, the actual result of this belief and Fiqhi structure, based on the concept of Taqiyyah according the Imamiyyah, is confusion and destruction.

Regarding this, Yusuf al Bahrani states in the forward of his Fiqhi encyclopaedia, al Hada’iq al Nadirah, discussing the condition of the Imams:

وتزايد الأمر شدة بعد موته أي موت النبي صلوات الله عليه وما بلغ إليه حال الأئمة صلوات الله عليهم من الجلوس في زاوية التقية والإغضاء على كل محنة وبلية وحث الشيعة على استشعار شعار التقية والتدين بما عليه تلك الفرقة الغوية حتي كورت شمس الدين النيرة وخسفت كواكبه المقمرة فلم يعلم من أحكام الدين علي اليقين إلا القليل لامتزاج أخباره بأخبار التقية كما قد اعترف بذلك ثقة الاسلام وعلم الأعلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني نور الله تعالي مرقده في جامعه الكافي حتي إنه قدس سره تخطأ العمل بالترجيحات المروية عند تعارض الأخبار والتجأ إلي مجرد الرد والتسليم للأئمة الأبرار فصاروا صلوات الله عليهم محافظة علي أنفسهم وشيعتهم يخالفون بين الأحكام وإن لم يحضرهم أحد من أولئك الأنام فتراهم يجيبون في المسألة الواحدة بأجوبة متعددة وإن لم يكن بها قائل من المخالفين كما هو ظاهر لمن تتبع قصصهم وأخبارهم وتحرى سيرهم وآثارهم

The matter became more severe after his demise—demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—and the condition of the Imams reached a stage where they sat in the corner of Taqiyyah and ignored all the adversities and calamities. The Shia encouraged the awareness of the slogan of Taqiyyah and practicing on the views of the deviant group till the brilliant sun of din was put off and its moonlit stars were eclipsed. Thus, only a few rulings of din were known with certainty due to the mixture of its transmissions with the transmissions of Taqiyyah, as acknowledged by the most trustworthy person of Islam and the flag bearer of the luminaries, Muhammad ibn Yaqub al Kulayni in his Jami’ al Kafi, to such a degree that he also faltered by practicing on the narrated preferences when transmissions were contradictory and he resorted to mere responses and submission to the Imams. Hence, they began to differ—protecting themselves and their sects—in the rulings, even if none of the people came to them. Thus, one would see them giving multiple answers to one ruling even though none of the opposition holds that view, as is obvious to those who research their stories and transmissions and investigate their history and traditions.[16]

This is an important confession from a great Imami jurist which informs a person about the gross defect that afflicted the school of the Ahlul Bayt, due to political circumstances which encompassed them, to such an extent that a person can hardly recognise their actual rulings from others.

Yusuf al Bahrani expressed it frankly, whilst other Imami scholars whispered it secretly or expressed it out of shame or avoided it under the banner of ‘grievances that befell the Ahlul Bayt.’[17]

It should not be said that what al Bahrani has mentioned, is his specific opinion and Ijtihad, and that majority of the Imamiyyah do not pay attention to it or that it is closely related to the Akhbari movement and not the Usuli movement, which has a Fiqhi and pioneering presence today.

Here is a statement from the leader of the Usuli movement Muhammad Baqir al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH) which strengthens al Bahrani’s previous statement, wherein he states:

وورد عنهم أخبار كثيرة في أن الرشد في ما خالف العامة لا الخبر الذي وافقهم وورد منهم الأمر بترك ما وافقهم والأخذ بما خالفهم مع أنه ورد منهم أن من أسباب اختلاف الأخبار منهم بل وعمدتها التقية

Many transmissions have been reported from them that guidance is in contradicting the masses, not in transmissions that conform to them. It has been reported from them that they instructed abandoning that which conforms to them and holding onto that which contradicts them, despite the fact that it has been reported from them that one of the causes of differences in transmissions, rather its foundation, is Taqiyyah.[18]

‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Babawayh al Qummi (d. 329 AH)[19] preceded them in this acknowledgement by attributing the differences in transmissions in the famous books, to the practice of Taqiyyah. He states:

فلأجل الحاجة إلى الغيبة اتسعت الأخبار ولمعاني التقية والمدافعة عن الأنفس اختلفت الروايات وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُضِلَّ قَوْمًا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَاهُمْ حَتّٰى يُبَيِّنَ لَهُم مَّا يَتَّقُوْنَ ولولا التقية والخوف لما حار أحد ولا اختلف اثنان ولا خرج شيء من معالم دين الله تعالى إلا علي كلمة لا تختلف وحرف لا يشتبه ولكن الله عظمت أسماؤه عهد إلى أئمة الهدى في حفظ الأمة وجعلهم في زمن مأذون لهم بإذاعة العلم وفي آخر حلماء يَغْفِرُوْا لِلَّذِيْنَ لَا يَرْجُوْنَ أَيَّامَ اللَّهِ لِيَجْزِيَ قَوْمًا بِمَا كَانُوْا يَكْسِبُوْنَ

Because of the need of concealment, transmissions expanded, and because of the need of the meanings of Taqiyyah and defence, narrations differed. Allah would never consider a people deviant after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what they must avoid.[20] Had it not been for Taqiyyah and fear; no one would get heated up, no one would differ and the salient features of the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would come out on one word, without any differences and on one letter, without any doubt. But Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala—may His names be exalted—entrusted the Imams to protect the Ummah and placed them in an era where they were authorised to broadcast knowledge and amongst the last of the patient ones who forgive those who do not fear Allah’s days of torment, so that He will reward each group for what they used to commit.[21][22]

The Imami scholar’s confusion is not confined to this ruling only. In fact, they are confused about the concept of Taqiyyah itself.

Hence, a group of Imami scholars hold the view that Jafar al Sadiq used to differ in his rulings when there was a view of Sunni scholars in a particular ruling, which did not conform to his view. The researcher, al Bahrani and at times other Imamis also, hold the view that Jafar al Sadiq and other Imams would deliberately differ and intentionally issue contradictory rulings in one council, without the presence of any opposition of the Shia in the gathering, and they would substantiate it through evidence from Shia narrations itself.

Regarding this, al Bahrani continues by saying:

وحيث أن أصحابنا رضوان الله عليهم خصوا الحمل على التقية بوجود قائل من العامة وهو خلاف ما أدى إليه الفهم الكليل والفكر العليل من أخبارهم صلوات الله عليهم رأينا أن نبسط الكلام بنقل جملة من الأخبار الدالة على ذلك لئلا يحملنا الناظر على مخالفة الأصحاب من غير دليل وينسبنا إلى الضلال والتضليل

فمن ذلك ما رواه في الكافي في الموثق عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر الباقر قال سألته عن مسألة فاجابني ثم جائه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي فلما خرج الرجلان قلت يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من أهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال يا زرارة إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لكم ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم قال ثم قلت لأبي عبد الله شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الأسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين قال فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه

فانظر إلي صراحة هذا الخبر في اختلاف أجوبته في مسألة واحدة في مجلس واحد وتعجب زرارة ولو كان الاختلاف إنما وقع لموافقة العامة لكفي جواب واحد بما هم عليه ولما تعجب زرارة من ذلك لعلمه بفتواهم أحيانا بما يوافق العامة تقية ولعل السر في ذلك أن الشيعة إذا خرجوا عنهم مختلفين كل ينقل عن إمامه خلاف ما ينقله الآخر سخف مذهبهم في نظر العامة وكذبوهم في نقلهم ونسبوهم إلى الجهل وعدم الدين وهانوا في نظرهم بخلاف ما إذا اتفقت كلمتهم وتعاضدت مقالتهم فإنهم يصدقونهم ويشتد بغضهم لهم ولإمامهم ومذهبهم ويصير ذلك سببا لثوران العداوة وإلي ذلك يشير قوله ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا

ومن ذلك أيضا ما رواه الشيخ في التهذيب في الصحيح على الظاهر عن سالم أبي خديجة عن جعفر الصادق قال سأله إنسان وأنا حاضر فقال ربما دخلت المسجد وبعض أصحابنا يصلي العصر وبعضهم يصلي الظهر فقال أنا أمرتهم بهذا لو صلوا علي وقت واحد لعرفوا فأخذ برقابهم وهو أيضا صريح في المطلوب إذ لا يخفى أنه لا تطرق للحمل هنا على موافقة العامة لاتفاقهم على التفريق بين وقتي الظهر والعصر ومواظبتهم على ذلك إلي أن قال ولعلك بمعونة ذلك تعلم أن الترجيح بين الأخبار بالتقية بعد العرض على الكتاب العزيز أقوى المرجحات فإن جل الاختلاف الواقع في أخبارنا بل كله عند التأمل والتحقيق إنما نشأ من التقية ‎

Since some of our companions have singled out that Taqiyyah was possibly carried out due to one of the masses (Sunni) being present who advocated it, which is contrary to what the transmissions of the Imams led the blunt thoughts and dull understandings to, we intend simplifying the speech by quoting from some of the transmissions that indicate to that, so that an observer does not consider us to be differing with our companions, without any proof and associate us with deviation and misguidance.

From amongst them is the Muwaththaq[23] narration in al Kafi from Zurarah, who narrates from Abu Jafar al Baqir saying, “I asked him about a ruling and he answered me. Then another person came and asked the same question. He gave him an answer contrary to what he answered me. Then another person came (and posed the same question) and he gave him an answer contrary to what he answered me and my companion. When the two men left, I asked, “O son of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, two men from Iraq, from your sect, came and asked you a question. You answered each one of them differently from the other?”

He replied, “O Zurarah, this is better for us and longer lasting for you. If you agree on one matter, then the people will believe you against us and this would be detrimental for our survival and yours.”

He states that thereafter he said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “They are from your sect. If you incite them to take spearheads or fire, they would have done it, yet they leave from you differing.”

He gave me the same answer as his father.

Look at the clarity of this narration regarding the differences in their answers in one ruling in the same gathering, as well as Zurarah’s astonishment. If the difference occurred in order to conform to the masses then one answer in conformance to them would suffice and Zurarah would not be astonished from that because of his knowledge pertaining to their ruling in conformity of the masses, practicing on Taqiyyah. Perhaps the secret to that is that if the Shia come out from the Imams differing, each one transmitting from the Imam contrary to the other, then their school would be regarded as absurd according to the masses, they would falsify their transmission, attribute ignorance and lack of din towards them and they would be humiliated in their eyes. On the contrary, if their statements agreed with each other and supported each other, then the people would believe them and their hatred for them—the Imams and the school—would intensify, which would become the means for the eruption of enmity. His statement, ‘If you agree on one matter, then the people will believe you against us’, alludes to this.

From amongst those narrations is the authentic narration—apparently—which the Sheikh reported in al Tahdhib from Salim Abu Khadijah, from Jafar al Sadiq, wherein he says that a person asked him while I was present, “Sometimes I enter the masjid and find that some of our companions are performing Zuhr salah while others are performing ‘Asr.”

He replied, “I instructed them to do so. If they all perform at the same time, they would be recognised and seized by their necks.”

This is also explicit about what is desired, as it is obvious that there is no question about considering this to be in conformity with the masses because they all agree on the difference between the times of Zuhr and ‘Asr and their adherence to it… till he says, “And perhaps through this you will realise that giving preference amongst the transmissions through Taqiyyah—after referring to the Qur’an—is the strongest way, as majority of the differences that occur in our transmissions, in fact all of them, after pondering and researching, arose from Taqiyyah.[24]

What al Bahrani and others mention that the Imam would frequently differ in his views and this is the ultimate reason for the differences in their views, not the requirement of them to contradict the masses. In the sense that there should be a view which contradicts the masses, let alone the presence of one of the prominent people from the masses in the gathering, is very strange. It is unthinkable that an Imam would sow discord amongst his companions for the slightest reason and call to ignorant mysticism over multiple meanings of speech, which would lead to the destruction of the reality of din and confusing truth with falsehood. This is actually what occurred due to excessive contradictions in the narrations.[25]

Majority of the Imami scholars may not agree with al Bahrani in restricting the causes for the differences and the contradictions amongst the narrations emanating from the Imams, to one, which is Taqiyyah; however, everyone acknowledges that Taqiyyah is one of the most important causes, if not the most important one.

In this regard, Sheikh Fadil al Furati states:

أما حديثهم فهو أشد صعوبة وأكثر تعقيدا وتحييرا فإنه ينقسم إلى

أ- أحاديث قالوها تقية والبعض لا يفقه ذلك

ب- أحاديث قالوها مجازا والبعض اعتقدها حقيقة

ج-‏ أحاديث قالوها من باب التشبيه والتمثيل والمصداق والبعض تصورها حقيقة كلية

د- أحاديث قالوها من باب التورية أو التعريض

ه- أحاديث فيها خاص وعام ومطلق ومقيد.

‏و- أحاديث قالوها بشكل متفاوت مع وحدة الموضوع لأن السائلين كانوا علي تفاوت في العقول أو المذاهب أو الإيمان

ولذا جاءت الروايات تؤكد صعوبة هذا القسم على الخصوص لأهميته فإن الأحاديث والروايات تراث أهل البيت وطريقتهم التي أودعوها إلى الناس فلابدمن فهمها ولكن فهمها ليس سهلا فالأمر يحتاج إلى قلوب سليمة وعقول حكيمة وأخلاق سامية لتعي وتفهم أولا ثم لتحمل هذا العلم وهذا الحمل لا يستقر ما لم يطبق في الحياة ولذا قال: فما ورد عليكم من حديث آل محمد فلانت له قلوبكم وعرفتموه فاقبلوه وحتي العلماء في تفاوت فظيع واختلاف رهيب في فهم حديثهم وأمرهم أرأيت قوله والله لو علم أبو ذر ما في قلب سلمان لقتله ولقد آخي رسول الله ‎صلي الله عليه وسلم بينهما فما ظنكم بسائر الخلق ‏لأن سلمان حمل من أمرهم ما لا يطيقه أبو ذر بل أكثر من ذلك لو طرحه سلمان أمام أبو ذر لقتل أبو ذر سلمانا أو أمر بقتله وترحم على قاتل سلمان لأنه لا يطيق سماع ما في قلب سلمان من الحكمة العالية والأسرار الغالية

Their ahadith are most difficult, complex and confusing. They are divided into:

A) Those ahadith which they uttered as Taqiyyah and some don’t understand this.

B) Those ahadith which they said figuratively and some believe to be factual.

C) Those ahadith which they said in a form of analogy, illustration, and corroboration and some imagine it to be completely factual.

D) Those ahadith which they said as dissimulation and illusion.

E) Those ahadith which contain specific, general, absolute and restricted meanings.

F) Those ahadith which they said in different ways despite the subject matter being same because of the variances in the questioner’s intellect, schools and faith.

Therefore, many narrations have been transmitted which confirms the difficulty of this specific type, due to its importance. The ahadith and narrations are the legacy and ways of the Ahlul Bayt which they entrusted to the people. Thus, it is necessary to understand it. However, understanding it is not easy. It requires a sound heart, wise intellect and sublime character, to firstly grasp and understand and then bear this knowledge. Bearing this knowledge cannot be achieved until it is applied in one’s life.

That is why he said, “Whatever is narrated to you from the household of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, your hearts become soft by it and you recognise it, then accept it.”

Even the scholars are in terrible disparity and have horrendous differences in understanding their ahadith and matters. Have you seen his statement, “By Allah, if Abu Dharr knew what is in Salman’s heart, he would have killed him whereas the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared brotherhood between them. Then what do you think about the rest of the people?”

Because Salman carried about them which Abu Dharr was unable to; in fact, more than that. If Salman had to expose it before Abu Dharr, he would have killed Salman or ordered him to be killed and show mercy on his killer. This is because he is unable to listen to the lofty wisdom and valuable secrets that Salman’s heart contained.[26]

Sheikh Haydar Hubb Allah reflects on the cognitive instability that afflicted the school, caused through the expansion—by the Imami scholars or most of them—of the circle of Taqiyyah to an extent that any hope of reaching the reality of din, without any doubt or confusion, was lost. He states:

لا ينبغي الاستهانة بحجم التأثيرات التي تتركها نظرية التقية عند الإمامية في موضوع نقد المتن إذ يذهب الكثير جدا من الشيعة إلى أن أئمة أهل البيت النبوي عاشوا ظروفا صعبة في العصرين الأموي والعباسي وأن هذه الظروف فرضت عليهم ممارسة التقية لكن هذه التقية امتدت في التصور الإمامي إلى أن يصدر أهل البيت في كثير من الأحيان تشريعات أو يبينوا أحكام الدين بطريقة غير صحيحة ولا مطابقة للواقع وذلك بهدف رفع التهمة عنهم أو حماية أنفسهم وجماعاتهم

وهذا معناه أنه قد يصدر عن أهل البيت ما هو على خلاف الواقع مع علمهم بأنه علي خلاف الواقع لمصالح زمنية يرونها وهذا يعني أن مجرد مخالفة الحديث للواقع أو العقل أو غير ذلك لا يسمح بتكذيب الراوي لاحتمال صدور الخبر تقية

الأمر الذي يدفعنا إلى تصحيح صدور الخبر وفي نفس الوقت عدم العمل بمضمونه وهو ما يعيق في بعض الأحيان عند الإمامية بالخصوص ادعاء وضع الحديث لأن الراوي هنا لم يضع الحديث بل الإمام قاله حقا غير أنه لم يكن يريد مضمونه بل اضطر إليه تقتة

وربما لهذا لم يكتب الإمامية في الموضوعات كما فعل أهل السنة وكان من الصعب عليهم ادعاء الوضع رغم أنهم قد يردون الرواية بأنها صدرت بنحو التقية والتي أي التقية لا تقف بالمناسبة عند الإمامية على التقية من السلطان بل تشمل التقية من الرأي العام أيضا ولهذا لا يجد الإمامية في اختلاف الحديث عندهم ضرورة لتكذيب الرواة وتضعيف النصوص وأسانيدها لأن كثيرا من أسباب هذا الاختلاف عندهم لا يعود لوضع الحديث بل لظروف صدور الحديث هذا ولي شخصيا موقف متحفظ من بعض امتدادات هذه النظرية التي اختارها جمهور الإمامية

ويترك هذا الأمر تأثيره علي موضوع آخر يرتبط بعلم الجرح والتعديل وذلك أن تبرئة الراوي للحديث من تهمة الكذب عبر إقحام احتمال التقية معناه أنه لم يعد يمكن دائما اكتشاف وضع الرواة من خلال مراجعة رواياتهم ومقارنتها بروايات الثقات الأثبات أو من خلال تحليل مضمونها ووزانته وصدقيته في نفسه فكتب الرجال عند أهل السنة تحكم علي الراوي بالكذب مثلا نتيجة تتبع مروياته ومقارنتها بروايات الثقات وبنصوص الكتاب والسنة المعلومة ونحو ذلك كما نجد ذلك في الكتب المطولة في علم الرجال ككتب المزي والحافظ ابن حجر والذهبي وغيرهم وهذا الأمر سيصبح أقل نسبيا إذا أخذنا مثل مفهوم التقية

كما أن حالات الاختلاف بين الأحاديث والتي قد تمنحنا مؤشرات معينة عن حال الرواة أو حال الأحاديث المتعارضة سوف يمكن تفسيرها حينئذ بأنها من النصوص المختلفة التي صدرت حقا عن أهل البيت إما نتيجة الخوف من الغير أو إرادة من أهل البيت لإيقاع الفرقة بين الشيعة كي لا يطمع بهم الآخرون كما كان يذهب إلى هذه المقولة المحدث الشيخ يوسف البحراني (١١٨٦ﻫ)

إن تطبيق نظرية التقية في هذا الإطار التبليغي للدين سيعكس آثاره المتعددة على فهم الحديث ودرجات تقييمه وطبيعة تعاطينا مع الرواة وكذلك على مستوى نقد متنه من وجهة نظري الشخصية لا أؤمن في الحد الأدني بان أهل البيت قد استخدموا التقية في بيان الدين إلى هذا الحد الذي يذهب إليه الكثير من علماء الإمامية فهناك فرق بين أن يسكت الداعية الذي تحوطه ظروف قاهرة عن بيان الدين وأحكامه وبين أن يلقي مئات وربما آلاف الأحاديث التي تخبر عن الدين إخبارا غير صحيح

One cannot underestimate the magnitude of the effects left by the Imami concept of Taqiyyah in the field of scrutinizing texts, as many of the Shia believe that the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt lived through difficult circumstances during the era of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, and these circumstances compelled them to pursue Taqiyyah. However, this Taqiyyah expanded in the Imami’s perception to a point that that the Ahlul Bayt began issuing legislations or explaining the rulings of din in an incorrect manner, contrary to reality. This was done with the aim of eradicating accusations against them or protecting themselves and their group.

This means that sometimes the Ahlul Bayt issue that which is contrary to reality—despite knowing that it is contrary to reality—for some temporary reasons which they experience. This means that mere contradiction of a Hadith to reality, intellect, etc., does not necessitate falsifying the narrator because of the possibility of the transmission being issued in a form of Taqiyyah. This is the matter that compels us to accept the issuance of the transmissions but at the same time abstain from practicing on its subject matter and this is what hinders sometimes, according to Imamiyyah in particular, the claim of fabrication of ahadith because the narrator does not fabricate the hadith. In fact, the Imam says it in reality; however, he does not intend its subject matter. He is forced to it through Taqiyyah.

Perhaps this is the reason the Imamiyyah did not write any books on Mawdu’at (fabricated ahadith) as the Ahlus Sunnah did.[27] It was difficult for them to claim fabrication despite the fact that they would reject some narrations as they were issued in a form of Taqiyyah, which, by the way, is not confined to Taqiyyah in front of a ruler only according to the Imamiyyah, rather, it includes Taqiyyah from public opinion also. Hence, regarding the differences of ahadith, the Imamiyyah do not see the need to falsify any narrator or declare any text or chain as weak because many of the reasons of these differences, according to them, are not due to fabricating hadith but due to circumstances during the issuance of these ahadith. This is my personal conservative stance regarding some of the extensions of this concept that majority of the Imamiyyah have chosen.

This matter leaves its effect on another topic related to al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (disapproval and approval of narrators), and that in the acquittal of the narrator of hadith from accusation of lies through inserting the possibility of Taqiyyah. This means that it is not always possible to discover the fabrication of narrators through reviewing their narrations and comparing them with the narrations of trustworthy reliable narrators or by analyzing its contents and the narrator’s conformity and credibility. The books on narrators by the Ahlus Sunnah pass the verdict of lies against a narrator, for example, based on his narrations and comparing them with narrations of reliable narrators, and the Qur’an and the known Sunnah etc., as we see in the lengthy books in the field of narrators like the books of al Mizzi, al Hafiz Ibn Hajar, al Dhahabi etc. This will become relatively less if we take the concept of Taqiyyah into consideration.

Similarly, the cases of differences among the ahadith, which may give us specific indications to the condition of the narrators and the contradictory narrations, will make it possible to explain that these different texts were truly issued by the Ahlul Bayt, either out of fear from others or with the intention of the Ahlul Bayt to create division among the Shia so that others do not covet them, as the statement of the Muhaddith Sheikh Yusuf al Bahrani (d. 1186 AH) alludes to it.

The application of the concept Taqiyyah in the framework of propagating din will reverse its multiple effects in understanding Hadith, its ratings and the nature of our dealings with the narrators, and similarly on the level of scrutinizing its texts. From my personal viewpoint, I do not believe in the least bit that the Ahlul Bayt used Taqiyyah to explain din to the extent many of the Imami scholars claim. There is a difference between a preacher who is surrounded by compelling circumstances, remaining silent about explaining din and its rulings and between producing hundreds and perhaps thousands of ahadith which give wrong information about din.[28]

However, he answers a question posed to him regarding Taqiyyah, in a much more emotional language. He states:

إن بعضنا اليوم عندما يواجهون إحراجا أو مشكلة فكرية في مكان ما يقولون هذا صدر تقية وهذا ضاع تقية وخوفا وهذا سكت عنه تقية وهذا قيل تقية وهذا فعل تقية دون أن يقموا دليلا موضوعيا على التقية ووقوعها هنا أو هناك وهذا أكبر دليل لغير الإمامية لكي يقولوا قولهم المشهور إن علماء وأبناء هذه الطائفة لا يمكن الاعتماد عليهم في شيء لأن تصرفاتهم قائمة على المراوغة والتقية ولا يمكن اكتشاف رأيهم الحقية وسط فوضي الكلام المتداخل والملتبس الذي يقمونه بل بعضنا اليوم صور الأئمة أيضا بأن آلافا من رواياتهم صدرت تقية حتي في التفاصيل الجزئية البسيطة في الفقه والآداب والأخلاق والتي غالبها مما اختلف فيه سائر علماء المسلمين أشد الاختلاف بحيث قدمنا تجربتهم لبيان الدين على أنها أسلوب مبهم مراوغ مشوش لأذهان العلماء والرواة والفقهاء بعدهم فكيف كانوا مبيني الدين وبعضنا اليوم يقدمهم بهذه الطريقة وكلما وصلنا إلى نقطة محرجة لقناعاتنا الشخصية قلنا بأن الإمام قال هذا تقية حتى نفر من حديث صحيح السند هنا أو رواية معتبرة هناك دون أن نقدم أي دليل على ذلك أي بيان هذا أن نقدمهم في آلاف النصوص يقولون غير الحق فقط لأسباب منها تبرئة الرواة من الوضع والدس ومنها عدم وجود فهم تاريخي وزمني لبعض نصوص الأئمة فلكي تبرئ ساحة بعض الرواة حول بعضنا دون أن يشعر الأئمة إلى أشخاص يقولون كل يوم قولا

وراجعوا كتب بعض الناس في تعاملهم مع الحديث وكيف أفرطوا في استخدام التقية بحيث حولوا وهم لا يشعرون أهل البيت إلى أشخاص لو دخلت عليهم اليوم لقالوا لك شيئا ولو دخلت أنت بنفسك غدا عليهم لقالوا شيئا آخر فهل هذه طريقة مبتكرة حقا في بيان الدين أم طريقة مبهمة ملتبسة ابتكرت للحفاظ على بعض النصوص والرواة والقناعات حتي أن بعض الروايات المتعارضة التي حمل بعضها على التقية يمكن أن يكون راويها شخصا واحدا كمحمد بن مسلم وهذا مثال واقعي فكيف اتقى منه الإمام في مكان دون مكان هذا يحتاج لتفسير تاريخي ولو كان هناك حضور آخرون غير محمد بن مسلم في إحدى المناسبتين فلماذا لم يشر لنا إلى ذلك محمد بن مسلم نفسه وهو الذي يفترض أن يعرف أكثر منا طريقة الأئمة هذه ويعيشها معها إن استخدام فكرة التقية بهذه الطريقة المفرطة للفرار من أي حقيقة تاريخية هو في وجهة نظر ليس سوى مراوغة

When some of us are confronted with any embarrassment or intellectual problem today, we say, “This was issued as Taqiyyah, this was destroyed because of Taqiyyah or out of fear, this was kept silent because of Taqiyyah, this was said as Taqiyyah or this was done as Taqiyyah,” without producing any objective evidence for Taqiyyah or its occurrence here or there. This is the greatest proof for the non Imamiyyah to express their famous saying that the scholars and followers of this group cannot be relied upon in anything because their actions are based on evasiveness and Taqiyyah, and it is not possible to discover their true opinion amongst the chaos of slurred and ambiguous speech which they present. In fact, some of us today, portray the Imams as issuing thousands of their narrations as Taqiyyah, even in the details of simple subsidiary rulings of Fiqh, etiquettes and morals, majority of which, all the Muslim scholars differ upon intensely, in such a way that we presented their experiences to explain din, that it is a vague, in an evasive way that confuses the minds of scholars, narrators, and jurists that come after them. How were they explaining the din that some of us, presently, present them in this manner?[29] Whenever we reach a point that embarrasses our personal conviction, we say that the Imam said it as Taqiyyah until we flee from an authentic hadith here and reliable narrations there, without providing any evidence for it.[30] What explanation is this that we present them in thousands of texts, saying something other than the truth due to some reasons? Amongst them being the acquittal of narrators from fabrication and insinuation, and lack of historical and temporal understanding of some of the Imam’s texts. To exonerate the field of some of the narrators, some of us turned—without realising—the Imams into people who have a different view every day.

Refer to the books of some people[31] regarding their mannerism with hadith, how they exaggerate in using Taqiyyah to such an extent that they turned the Ahlul Bayt—without realizing it—into such people that if you go to them today, they will tell you one thing and if you go to them again the next day, they would say something else. Is this an innovative way to explain din or is it an ambiguous and dubious way, invented to protect some texts, narrators, and convictions? Some of the contradictory narrations which were deemed to be issued as Taqiyyah were possibly narrated by one person like Muhammad ibn Muslim. This is a realistic example. How did the Imam practice Taqiyyah from him in one place and not in another place? This requires a historical explanation. If there were other people present in one of these two occasions, besides Muhammad ibn Muslim, then why did he not indicate to that himself? Presumably, he is supposed to know the ways of the Imams more than us as he lived with them. Using the concept of Taqiyyah in this extreme manner, to flee from any historical reality—in one point of view—is nothing but evasion.

He then extends an invitation to reconsider the sources of Taqiyyah and its dimensions narrated from the Ithna ‘Ashari Imams. He states:

أنا أدعو وأشرت لذلك في بحثي حول نقد المتن الحديثي إلى إعادة النظر في الصورة النمطية التي قدمها بعضنا للأئمة على أنهم يقولون كل يوم قولا متناقضا ويقدمون للشيعة أكثر من دين ويوقعون بينهم التيه والضياع فبدل هذا الأمر فلنتهم الرواة الذين كانوا السبب قاصدين أم غير قاصدين في اضطراب الروايات وتعارضها

I invite—and I alluded to it during my discussion around criticism of the text of hadith—to reconsider the stereotyping some of us present to the Imams that they give a contradictory view every day, they present more than one din to the Shia and cause haughtiness and destruction amongst them. Instead of this, we should accuse the narrators who were the cause—intentionally or unintentionally—of upheaval and contradictions in the narrations.

Then Hubb Allah poses a question:

هل كان الأئمة ملزمين بالإجابة عن كل سؤال وهم الذين روي عنهم أنهم قالوا لأصحابهم عليكم السؤال وليس علينا الإجابة؟ فلماذا لايسكتون بدل أن يقولوا ما يعرفون أنه غير الحق في الدين؟ ولنفرض أنهم سيبرزون رأيا مخالفا لمالك أو أبي حنيفة هل سيؤدي ذلك إلى جرهم للسجن وأبو حنيفة كان بنفسه مضطهدا في الدولة العباسية الأولى ألا يحق لنا المطالبة بإعادة النظر بهذه الصورة التي قدمها بعضنا لأهل البيت وربما يكون أصلها الرواة أو بعض الغلاة الذين كانوا يريدون أن يقولوا للناس بأن لدينا أسرارا‏ وإذا رأيتم روايات تخالف ما نقوله لكم عن أهل البيت من أسرار فلا تكذبونا فإن أهل البيت يقولون كلاما مختلفا تقية وتكتيكا وغير ذلك أليس هذا الاحتمال ينبغي وضعه علميا علي طاولة البحث لدراسة المشهد وفق أكثر من افتراض تاريخي كيف كان الإمام الصادق وهو الذي روينا عنه أن عنده آلاف التلامذة أي لديه جمهور علمي كبير في المحافل العلمية وكان رجلا موقرا محترما جدا في أوساط أهل العلم والزهد عند المسلمين كيف يمكن له أن يمارس التقية بهذه الطريقة المفرطة ليس في أن يتكتف هو في الصلاة بل في أن يبين الدين بغير واقعه الصحيح فيقول مثلا تكتفوا في الصلاة علما أن مالك ومذهبه لم يكن يرى التكتف مثلا واجبا ولا حتى مخالفته مشكلة هل حقا يوجد معطي تاريخي يؤكد أن المخاطر كانت تطال حتى هذه التفاصيل الجزئية التي وقعت خلافات كبيرة و تفصيلية بين أهل السنة أنفسهم فيها لاسيما والجميع يعرف أن الدولة العباسية لم تشهد إعلان مذهب فقهي على أنه المذهب الرسمي إلى ما بعد على الأقل الإمام الكاظم فإسقاطك فكرة المذهب الرسمي علي تلك الأزمنة هو أيضا يحتاج لدراسة معمقة فقد يكون كلاما غير دقيق أبدا وإنما صورة نمطية غير مبرهنة وقد تكون جاءت تبريرا نتيجة الخوف من أن التخلي عنها يوجب هدر النصوص أو الوقوع في مشاكل في الأسانيد والرواة

Were the Imams compelled to answer every question, whereas it reported from them that they said to their followers, “You have to ask questions but it is not necessary for us to answer.”

Why do they not remain silent instead of saying something which they know is not the truth? Should we assume that if they express any view contrary to Malik or Abu Hanifah, they would be dragged into prison? Abu Hanifah, himself, was persecuted during the first Abbasid rule. Do we not have the right to request a reconsideration of this image that some of us created about the Ahlul Bayt, the origin of which, perhaps, are the narrators or extremists who intend telling the people that we possess secrets.[32] If you see narrations from the Ahlul Bayt that contradict what we say, then do not falsify us because the Ahlul Bayt make contradictory statements as a form of Taqiyyah, tactically, etc. Should this possibility not be addressed scholarly on the research table to study the scene according to more than one historical assumption? How is it possible that Jafar al Sadiq, regarding who we report that he has thousands of students, i.e. he had a large scholarly audience in scholarly forums and he was revered and much respected by the people of knowledge and asceticism amongst the Muslims, practiced Taqiyyah in such an excessive way, not only (for example) regarding folding the hands in Salah, but in explaining din contrary to its correct reality. Hence, he would order to fold the hand, knowing that Imam Malik and his Mazhab do not regard it to be obligatory and they do not have any problem with those who oppose it. Is there really any historical data confirming that these dangers were affecting the details of such subsidiary rulings wherein great detailed differences has occurred amongst the Ahlus Sunnah themselves, particularly when everyone is aware that the Abbasid state did not witness the declaration of any Mazhab as an official Mazhab till—at least—after Musa al Kazim. Thus, projecting the idea of an official Mazhab in those times will also require in-depth research. This could be a completely inaccurate statement, in fact an unproven stereotype one, which may have been uttered as a justification, out of the fear that abandoning it would necessitate wasting texts and falling into problems with regards to the chain of narrations and narrators.[33]

It is very far from convincing to me, as a researcher or any Sunni, Zaidi, or Ibadite, what is attributed to Jafar al Sadiq about criticising the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum or declaration disbelief towards the opposition, and opposing the majority of Muslims in beliefs and acts of worship. I am trying to—and I am a researcher who is trying his utmost to avoid his own personal and religious convictions before getting the results of the research—establish the Imamiyyah’s stance about this Jafari School, which they claim to be protected from misguidance and deviating from the truth, with regards to its issuance from an infallible Imam who has to be followed.

However, what I cannot overlook in this regard is the thorny complex issue of Taqiyyah, which struck the school deeply, which would lead the religious people to lose confidence in what is narrated from Jafar al Sadiq.[34]

The Imamiyyah followed the school of Jafar al Sadiq believing that in following the infallible Imam, there is protection for him as an individual and his groups from misguidance and deviating from the truth. However, the surprising thing about the school which he practices and is said to be protected from misguidance, is that a person can hardly differentiate between Jafar al Sadiq’s words which he uttered as a ruling and guidance, from that which he uttered as Taqiyyah and subterfuge.

It can be said that Taqiyyah—according to the Imami concept—which entered into every fundamental and subsidiary ruling, preserved the Imami existence and protected it from extinction, just as it protected it from attempts to correct the path that some Imami men confronted; however, it became a heavy burden on the shoulders of the followers and the school.

This heavy burden and confusion which Taqiyyah and the differences in determining its resources left behind, reaches to such a degree that Sheikh Jafar al Shakhuri states about it:

ويبدو أن هذا الوضع الذي تعرض له الشيعة دون غيرهم قد امتدت آثاره السلبية إلى ما بعد انتهاء مرحلة التقية لأننا نجد أن كبار علماء الشيعة يختلفون في تحديد الروايات الصادرة تقية واللروايات الصادرة لبيان الحكم الواقعي وخذ مثالا علي ذلك مسألة نجاسة الخمر فيما يفتي الكثيرون بالنجاسة ومنهم الشيخ الطوسي لأنهم حملوا روايات الطهارة على التقية نجد أن هناك من الفقهاء من يفتي بالطهارة كالمقدس الأردبيلي وغيرهم لأنهم حملوا روايات النجاسة على التقية وهذا يكشف عن التخبط في استخدام التقية عند القدماء

It becomes apparent that the negative effects of this situation which the Shia suffered from, not others, extended beyond the stage of Taqiyyah, because we see that the senior Shia scholars differ in stipulating those narrations that were issued as Taqiyyah and those that were issued to explain a real ruling. Take the ruling of the impurity of wine for example. Many issue the ruling of it being impure, among them is Sheikh al Tusi, because they regard the narrations regarding its purity as Taqiyyah. We find that there are jurists who issue the ruling of it being pure, like al Muqaddas al Ardibili and others, as they regard the narrations of its impurity to be Taqiyyah. This reveals the confusion in the usage of Taqiyyah among the former scholars.[35]

In another place he says:

لو أردنا غيره من عشرات الأمثلة لألفنا كتابا خاصا يؤكد فوضى تحديد موارد التقية التي تشبه فوضي ادعاءات الإجماع في مسائل الفقه مما أدى إلى اختلاف كثير من فتاوى العلماء تبعا لتحديد ما هي الروايات الصادرة عن التقية وغيرها

If we wanted dozens of other examples, we would be able to write a separate book which confirms the chaos in determining the resources of Taqiyyah which resembles the chaos of the claims of consensus in Fiqhi rulings that led to great differences in the rulings of the scholars, following the stipulation of which narrations were issued as Taqiyyah and which were not.[36]

Muhaddith Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi (d. 1033 AH) states in al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, while commenting on al Tusi’s statement in ‘Uddat al Usul:

ومحصول كلامه هناك أن اختلاف فتاوى أصحابنا المبني على اختلاف الفتاوى الواردة عنهم لا يستلزم تناقضا بين تلك الفتاوى حتي يكون الحق في واحد وذلك لأن كل واحد منهم يقول هذه الفتوى ثبت ورودها عنهم ولم يظهر عندي إلي الآن أن ورودها من باب التقية وكل ما هو كذلك يجوز لنا العمل به إلي ظهور القائم وإن كان وروده في الواقع من باب التقية وكل واحدة منهما حق إحداهما عند الاختيار والأخرى عند ضرورة التقية‏ بخلاف اختلاف الفتاوى المبني على غير ذلك فإنه يستلزم التناقض بينها لأن كل واحد منهم يقول أولا هذا حكم الله في الواقع حال الاختيار بحسب ظني ثم يقول كل ما هو كذلك يجوز لي ولمقلدي العمل به قطعا ويقينا

The gist of his statement is that the differences in the rulings of our companions, which are based on the rulings that emanated from the Imams, do not necessitate contradiction in those rulings in such a way that the truth is in one of them only. This is because each one of them say, “The issuance of this rulings is proven from them and it has not appeared to me, until now, that its issuance was as a form of Taqiyyah.” Everything that is like this, it is permissible for us to practice on it till the emergence of al Qa’im (al Mahdi), even though, in reality, it was issued as Taqiyyah. Each one is the truth. One, when a person has choice and the other at the time of the necessity of Taqiyyah. Contrary to rulings that were based on other than that, because this necessitates contradiction between them because each one of them would initially say, “This is the rule of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in reality, in the state of choice, according to my understanding.”

Then he would say that, “Everything that is like this, it is permissible for me and my followers to act upon with certainty and conviction.”[37]

See, may Allah protect you, how the senior scholars of the School stumble in this issue and how Taqiyyah became a tool to destroy the truth to such a degree that the pillars (leaders) of the School became confused with narrations from Jafar al Sadiq. Do they regard it as Taqiyyah or the truth?

Perhaps Jahiz (d. 255 AH) was astonished with what I am astonished. He states:

فمتي إذن تزول التقية ويجب إظهار الحق والنصرة للدين والمباينة للمخالفين أحين يموت الخصم ويبيد أثره ويهلك عقبه ويقل ناصره ويزول جميع الخوف ويكون على يقين من السلامة وكيف يكون القائم حينئذ بالحق مطيعا ولله معظما فقد سقطت المحنة وزالت البلوي والمشقة وهل المعصية إلا ما مازجه الهوى والشهوة وهل الطاعة إلا ما شابه المكروه والكلفة وكيف يتكلف ما لامؤونة فيه وكيف يحمد مالا مرزئة عليه وكيف يكون شجاعا من أقدم في الأمن وتكمن في الخوف أو ليست النار محفوفة بالشهوات أو ليست الجنة محفوفة بالمكاره وكيف صاروا في باطلهم أيام قدرتهم أقوى منا في حقنا أيام قدرتنا

Thus, when will Taqiyyah stop? And when will it be necessary to manifest the truth and assist the din and express difference to the opposition? When the opposition dies, his traces wiped out, his successors perish, his helpers diminish, all fear is removed, and one is certain of safety? How will a person existing at that time be obedient to the truth and glorifying Allah when the test has been removed and the affliction and difficulty has vanished? Is disobedience only when it is mixed with passion and desire and is obedience only that which resembles the abhorred and discomfort? How can a person be obliged to something that he was not burdened of and be praised for something he was not afflicted of? How can a person be brave if he advances at times of safety and stays behind at times of fear? Is Hellfire not fraught with desires and is Paradise not fraught with adversities? How did they become stronger than us in their falsehood, in their days of power compared to us, in our truth, during our days of power?[38]

Sheikh Ahmed Al Ta’an al Bahrani al Qatifi (d. 1315 AH), while reviewing the reasons for the great divide that occurred among the ranks of the Imami scholars, which divided them into two conflicting directions,[39] i.e. the Usulis and the Akhbaris, attributes them to various matters, most important of them being the differences in the transmissions narrated from the Imams wherein Taqiyyah is considered to be the strongest reason, according to him. He justifies that by saying:

لأنهم لم يزالوا في زاوية التقية والإغضاء والغض عن كل محنة وبلية فيخالفون بين الأحكام وإن لم يحضر أحد من أولئك الطغاة الطغام اللئام محافظة وخوفا على شيعتهم الكرام إذ بعدمهم يؤول الدين إلى الانهدام فيجيبون في المسألة الواحدة بأجوبة غير متحدة والأخبار في هذا المعنى أكثر من أذ تحصى وأجل من أن تستقصى

Because they were always in the angle of Taqiyyah and ignoring and turning a blind eye to every trial and affliction, thus they would differ in the rulings—even though none of those tyrants, lowly and wicked people were present—to preserve and protect their noble sect because without them the din would lead to extinction. Hence, they would give several answers to one question. Transmissions of this type are too many to enumerate and investigate.[40]

Then he mentions examples of these transmissions. From among them is what al Kulayni reported in al Kafi, which is a Hassan (good narration) from Mansur ibn Hazim who says:

قلت لأبي عبد الله ما بالي أسألك عن المسألة فتجيبني فيها بالجواب ثم يجيئك آخر غيري فتجيبه فيها بجواب آخر فقال إنا نجيب الناس على الزيادة والنقصان

I said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “What is the matter? I ask you regarding a ruling and you give an answer. Then someone else comes and you give him another answer?”

He replied, “We answer the people according to increase and decrease.”

He mentions other transmissions like these and then he comments by saying:

ومعني قوله إنا نجيب الناس أي قدر زيادة التقة أو نقصانها ويحتمل أن يكون مراده قدر إيمانهم أو أفهامهم أو علي الزيادة والنقصان في الجواب أو في السؤال والتعبير

The meaning of his statement ‘we answer the people’ is; according to the increase and decrease in Taqiyyah. It is possible that the meaning could be; according to the increase and decrease of their faith and understanding, or increase and decrease in the answer or question and expression.[41]

One can notice the confusion in his statement when interpreting the above-mentioned text, which presumably, the Imam said with the object of removing dispute and confusion from the followers. Thus, they are confused with the senior scholars of the School.

To assume that the opposition of the Ithna ‘Ashari Shia formed a single Fiqhi school against the Jafaris, is strange and has nothing to do with reality, because majority of the Muslims have many Fiqhi schools with different opinions and directions.

To consider every difference in the Imami narrations to be attributed to Taqiyyah, amongst them being historical and cosmic narrations which have no connection with beliefs, Fiqh, and Tafsir, from those narrations that were issued in the context of Taqiyyah, is misplacing them.

From amongst them is what al Majlisi reported in his Bihar regarding dozens of narrations that they were issued as Taqiyyah. Some examples are:

1) Some of the transmissions that discuss the matter from which Hawwa’ was created.[42]

2) Those transmissions that discuss the place where Adam and Hawwa’ ‘alayhima al Salam descended from Paradise.[43]

3) Transmissions regarding Habil and Qabil’s marriage to their sisters.[44]

4) Transmissions pertaining to Ismail and Ishaq’s ‘alayhima al Salam age.[45]

5) Transmissions pertaining to the nature of kinship between Yahya and ‘Isa ‘alayhima al Salam.[46]

6) Transmissions that prove precedence of the death of Yahya ‘alayh al Salam upon the raising of ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam and vice versa.[47]

7) Transmissions that indicate that the birth ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam occurred on the day of ‘Ashura’ (10^th Muharram) and specific transmissions about the time he was conceived and the place of his birth.[48]

8) Transmissions that discuss the length of the war of Bukhtnasr [Nebuchadnezzar] with the Banu Isra’il.[49]

9) Transmissions that indicate that the person who Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala caused to die for a hundred years is ‘Uzayr ‘alayh al Salam.[50]

10) Transmissions pertaining to the length of time Yunus ‘alayh al Salam remained in the belly of the fish,[51] and other countless narrations.

Yahya Muhammad asks:

ما إذا كانت التقية بهذا الشكل المضخم كما يتحدث عنها فقهاء الإمامية لكان المتوقع أن نجد ما يرد خلاف التقية من الحديث قليلا جدا وذلك بسبب الكتمان والسرية في حين أن الروايات التي تشير إلى الدلالات المنافية لها هي ذات أعداد كبيرة جدا يروى أغلبها عن الإمام الصادق فكيف ينسجم ذلك مع العمل بالتقية؟ وكيف لا يعرف المخالفون بهذه الأعداد الضخمة من الأحاديث لو صح أنها فعلا صدرت عن الإمام الصادق كتلك التي تطعن في القرآن وفي كبار الصحابة؟ فقد يكفي واحد منها لتضليله أو تكفيره وربما قتله وهو خلاف ما عرف عنه لدى علماء عصره من المذاهب الأخرى فقد كانوا يكتون له التقدير ويعدونه من سادات العلم والإيمان ولم يرد منهم أي طعن أو تشكيك فيه وفي أقواله

وبعبارة أخرى كيف حق لنا التسليم بالكثرة الروائية الدالة على المناكير التي ينكرها المخالفون من الارتفاع والغلو والطعن واللعن والتكفير والتحريف والعصر عصر تقية كما يقال حيث يفترض أن لا يعلم بهذه الأمور إلا أقرب المقربين

فنحن هنا بين أمرين فإما الأخذ بالتقية وإبطال ما روي من الأحاديث المنافية لها واعتبارها موضوعة من قبل المتأخرين عن زمن التقية أو الاعتراف بهذه الأحاديث من غير تقية

ومن الواضح أن أحد هذين الافتراضين يقتضي نفي الآخر لكن التعويل علي الافتراض الأخير يفضي بدوره إلى التردد بين أمرين آخرين فإما أن تكون تلك الروايات صادرة فعلا عن الأئمة أو أنها صادرة عن رجال وأصحاب نسبوها إليهم كذبا وزور

If Taqiyyah was present in this exaggerated manner, as expressed by the Imami scholars, then we would expect to find the narrations that were issued against Taqiyyah to be very little, due to secrecy and confidentiality. Meanwhile, narrations that indicate towards connotations opposing Taqiyyah are found in very large numbers, most of which are narrated from Jafar al Sadiq. How can this be compatible with practicing Taqiyyah? How can the opposition not know about this huge amount of ahadith if it is true that they were actually issued by Jafar al Sadiq, like those that criticise the Qur’an and the senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum? Just one of these narrations is sufficient for his deviation, disbelief, or perhaps his killing, whereas this is contrary to what was known about him among the scholars of other Mazhabs in his era. They appreciated him and considered him to be from the leaders of knowledge and faith. There is no criticism or doubt narrated about him and his views. How is it right for us to accept the abundant narratives that indicate to evils which the opposition reject such as exaggeration, extremism, criticism, cursing, declaring disbelief and distortion, when the era was an era of Taqiyyah, as it is said, and it is assumed that only the closest of the close were aware of these matters?

Here, we are caught between two things: Either to adopt Taqiyyah and invalidate the narrations that oppose it and consider them to be fabricated by those who came after the era of Taqiyyah, or acknowledge these ahadith without Taqiyyah.

It is obvious that adopting one of these assumptions necessitates negating the other. However, relying on the second assumption will in turn lead to doubt in two other matters. Either those narrations were issued by the Imams in reality or they were issued by other men and followers who falsely attribute it to them.[52]

We always talk about the political persecution and targeting of some of the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt by the ruling authority at that time. Therefore, it would be apt to point out that the political pressure, during the era of al Baqir and al Sadiq was not confined to them only, but it affected other Imams and jurists also.

To use Taqiyyah and political circumstance prevailing at that time to justify the contradictions is neither logical or acceptable, because when circumstances compel a scholar to Taqiyyah and compliance in order to protect his life, wealth, and honour from who he fears, then it is not permissible for the people to follow him in the rulings he issues which are contrary to the truth. At that time, it is necessary for the Muslims to be cautious in their din and follow others who are out of the atmosphere of Taqiyyah and issue rulings according to the truth that his Ijtihad led him to, without caring for anyone.

A person can ask the question: Who is more likely to be targeted and his School be eradicated? Imam Zaid, who took up arms against the ruling authority just as his grandfather, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, did till he was martyred; or Jafar al Sadiq who submitted to the ruling authority and throughout his life did not pose any threat to the Umayyad and Abbasid kingdom?

Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain was hanged and it is said that his noble body was left hanging on the wood for four years, then it was brought down and burnt;[53] however, his Mazhab did not die.[54]

The Zaidi scholars—despite what transpired with the Imam of their school—are most severe in criticising the attribution of Taqiyyah to the school of the Ahlul Bayt. Their books are replete with criticism of the Imamiyyah for their belief of Taqiyyah regarding their Imams,[55] despite having reasons and excuse in the form of being targeted by the ruling authority due to their Imams situation with them. Despite of all this, their school remained established and their scholars came out openly about it without any ambiguity.

Here is Abu Hanifah, whose soul reached its Creator while he was in the prison of Abu Jafar al Mansur after he issued a ruling for supporting Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah) during his revolt against al Mansur and due to his correspondence (after the martyrdom of Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah) with his brother, Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah who managed to gain power over vast parts of Persia and Iraq, and due to him sending the only four thousand dirhams he possessed to Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah. Despite this, his Mazhab remains lofty and there is no contradiction and confusion in it. Nothing of Taqiyyah is attributed to it.

Here is Imam Malik ibn Anas, being led to the governor of Madinah, Jafar ibn Sulaiman—the cousin of Abu Jafar al Mansur—and lashed till his shoulder was dislocated, due to a slander that reached the governor that he issued a ruling of permissibility to revolt with Dhu al Nafs al Zakiyyah against al Mansur, and due to the fact that when he was told:

إن في أعناقنا بيعة للمنصور

The pledge of allegiance to al Mansur rests on our necks.

He replied:

إنما بايعتم مكرهين وليس علي مكره يمين

You only pledged allegiance out of force and an oath of a forced person does not occur.

He derived this from the Hadith of Thabit al Ahnaf regarding divorce of a forced person that it does not take place.

It has been reported that when Imam Malik was lashed, shaved, and carried on a camel, he was told, “Call unto yourself”, He replied:

ألا من عرفني فقد عرفني ومن لم يعرفني فأنا مالك بن أنس أقول طلاق المكره ليس بشيء

Behold, whoever recognises me, knows me. Whoever does not know me, I am Malik ibn Anas and I say that the divorce of a forced person is nothing.

When this news reached Jafar ibn Sulaiman, he said, “Catch him and bring him down.”[56]

Despite these hardships, Imam Malik did not resort to Taqiyyah, neither in this situation which followed the lashing nor in any other and the scholars of his Mazhab did not use this oppression or any other as excuse. The Mazhab remained lofty in Madinah. Then it was destined to spread to Spain and Morocco till today.

Here is Ahmed ibn Hanbal. He was afflicted in the calamity of Khalq al Qur’an[57]which ravaged the Ummah at that time. Afflictions continued on him, one after another, from the Abbasid kings, i.e. Abu al ‘Abbas al Ma’mun (d. 218 AH), Abu Ishaq al Mu’tasim (d. 227 AH), and Abu Jafar al Wathiq bi Allah (d. 232 AH).

He remained in the prisons of al Ma’mun and al Mu’tasim in Baghdad for 64 months. They tortured him and beat him so severely that his hands were dislocated. He remained patient and steadfast on his stance, debating and fighting.[58]

Then he was afflicted by al Wathiq bi Allah who passed an order that no one is allowed to gather by Imam Ahmed, that he should not live in a place or city in which he resides, he must be confined to house arrest and not go out for Jumu’ah (Friday prayers) and Jama’ah (congregational prayer) or else he will be afflicted with the same conditions that he bore during the era of Abu Ishaq al Mu’tasim. This isolation was a year long, after which al Wathiq passed away. Thereafter Imam Ahmed returned to his role in narrating Hadith and teaching.[59]

Imam Ahmed’s Mazhab remains till today as well as his transmissions which he wrote with his hands, without any Taqiyyah or doubt.

Here is Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH)—leader of the Zahiris[60]—who did not only differ with the four Mazhabs in subsidiary rulings, but he differed in fundamental principles also. Thus, he rejected Qiyas and adopted many isolated Fiqhi rulings due to which he was fiercely attacked by the fanatics, in addition to his fierce differences with Imams whose nobility is agreed upon and his aggression towards them. As a result of this, his books were burnt by the king of Seville, al Mu’tadid ibn ‘Abbad (d. 461 AH).

Ibn Hayyan al Qurtubi (d. 469 AH) says:

استهدف إلى فقهاء وقته فتألبوا علي بغضه ورد قوله وأجمعوا على تضليله وشنعوا عليه وحذروا سلاطينهم من فتنته ونهوا عوامهم عن الدنو إليه والأخذ عنه فطفق الملوك يقصونه عن قربهم ويسيرونه عن بلادهم إلى أن انتهوا به منقطع أثره بتربة بلده من بادية لبلة وبها توفي غير راجع إلى ما أرادوا به يبث علمه فيمن ينتابه بباديته من عامة المقتبسين منه من أصاغر الطلبة الذين لا يحسون فيه الملامة بحداثتهم ويفقههم ويدرسهم ولا يدع المثابرة على العلم والمواظبة على التأليف والإكثار من التصنيف حتى كمل من مصتفاته في فنون العلم وقر بعير حتي أحرق بعضها بإشبيلية وفي ذلك يقول

تضمنه القرطاس بل هو في صدري	فإن تحرقوا القرطاس لا تحرقوا الذي
وينزل إن أنزل ويدفن في قبري	يسير معي حيث استقلت ركائبي

He targeted the jurists of his time, so they conspired upon his hatred, rejecting his views, agreed upon his deviation, slandered him, warned the rulers about his mischief and prevented the masses from getting close to him and adopting his views. Thus, the rulers began cutting their close associates from him and expelled him from their territories till it led to the end of his trace in the sand of his town in the desert of Lablah. He passed away there without reverting to what they wanted from him, spreading his knowledge to whoever could grasp and amass from him, in his desert, including young students who would not perceive any blame due to their adolescences. He would teach them Fiqh and he did not stop his perseverance in knowledge and diligence in writing heaps of books to an extent that he completed a camel load of literature in the sciences of knowledge. However, some of them were burnt in Seville.

Regarding this he states:

If they burnt the pages, they cannot burn,

What is contained in those pages, in fact it is in my heart.

It travels with me wherever my mount embarks,

It descends where I descend and it will be buried in my grave.[61]

Despite what happened to Imam ibn Hazm, his Mazhab became lofty, prominent and clear, without any Taqiyyah and obscurity. Although some of his books were burnt, others remain till today by the Will of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.

When this was the condition of the Imams of the Mazhabs, then other Imams and Mujtahids also suffered great amount of difficulties, but they persevered and fulfilled their responsibilities without any form of Taqiyyah and confusion.

Perhaps it is remarkable to see, in this same context, that we find Taqi al Din ibn Taymiyyah, who was transferred from one prison to another and suffered difficulty after difficulty from the ruling authority and his opposition in the form of defamation, suppression of opinion, and imprisoning him and his brothers. Despite this, his rulings, books, and voice remained aloft, without any tempering or Taqiyyah although everyone assailed him.

When he was imprisoned; his followers dispersed, his books were scattered and his followers were threatened not to expose his books, everyone took what he possessed and concealed it and did not expose it. One would run away with what he possessed, another one would sell or present it as a gift; someone would conceal and borrow it, to such an extent that anyone’s books were stolen or rejected, he would be unable to look for it and would be unable to obtain it. Without this, all the books and literature would be completely destroyed.[62]

Taqi al Din al Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) states:

أن أكثر مصنفاته مسودات لم تبض وأكثر ما يوجد منها الآن بأيدي الناس قليل من كثير فإنه أحرق منها شيء‏ كثير ولا قوة إلابالله

That most of his literature is in manuscripts and not published. What is found amongst the people is tip of the iceberg, because a large amount was burnt. There is no power except with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. [63]

I say this, overlooking the oppositions’ opinion, because the emergence of Ibn Taymiyyah and the existence of his Mazhab is a reality, acknowledged by friends and foes, something which no just person can dispute.[64]

As for Jafar al Sadiq, he was a contemporary of the end of the Umayyad rule and passed away during the rule of Abu Jafar al Mansur, the second Abbasid khalifah.

By investigating that period of history, we can be certain and all of us can say with confidence, that it has never been established in history that Jafar al Sadiq was either constrained by the Umayyad authority that he lived in nor under the rule of al Saffah, the first Abbasid ruler. He was only constrained during the rule of Abu Jafar al Mansur, for a short while, after which Jafar al Sadiq resumed his activities in teaching.

Testament to that is the clear acknowledgement by Sheikh ‘Abbas al Qummi (d. 1359 AH) who states:

لما منع الصادق من القعود للناس شق ذلك على شيعته وصعب عليهم حتي ألقى الله في روع المنصور أن يسأل الصادق ليتحفه بشيء من عنده لا يكون لأحد مثله فبعث إليه بمخصرة كانت للنبي طولها ذراع ففرح بها فرحا شديدا وأمر أن تشق له أربعة أرباع وقسمها في أربعة مواضع ثم قال له ما جزاؤك عندي إلا أن أطلق لك ونفشي علمك لشيعتك ولا أتعرض لك ولا لهم فاقعد غير محتشم وأفت الناس ولا تكن في بلد أنا فيه ففشا العلم عن الصادق

When al Sadiq was prevented from sitting with the people, this grieved his sect and it became difficult on them until Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala instilled awe in al Mansur that he asked al Sadiq to present him with such a gift which no one else had the like there of. So, he sent a staff which belonged to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which was a cubit’s length. He became extremely pleased with this and instructed that it should be divided into quarters and distributed to four places. Then he said to Jafar, “Your recompense from me is that I release you and we spread your knowledge to your sect and I will not interfere with you or them. So, sit without being shy and issued rulings to the people and do not be in the same place where I am.”

Thereafter, knowledge spread from al Sadiq.[65]

Sheikh Muhammad Hassan al Muzaffar states:

أما الصادق فقد عاصر الدولتين المروانية والعباسية ووجد فترة لا يخشي فيها سطوة ظالم ولا وعيد جبار وتلك الفترة امتزجت من أخريات دولة بني مروان وأوليات دولة بني العباس لأن الأمويين وأهل الشام لما أجهزوا على الوليد بن يزيد وقتلوه انتفضت عليهم أطراف البلاد وتضعضعت أركان سلطانهم وكانت الدعوة لبني هاشم قد انتشرت في جهات البلاد فكانت تلك الأمور كلها صوارف لبني مروان عما عليه الصادق من الحياة العلمية ولما انكفأ بهم الزمن وسالم بني العباس اشتغل بنو العباس بتطهير الأرض من أمية وبتأسيس الدولة الجديدة وأنت تعلم بما يحتاجه الملك الغض من الزمن لتأسيسه ورسوخه فكان انصرافهم لبناء الملك وإحاطته شاغلا لهم برهة من الزمن عن شأن الصادق في بثه العلوم والمعارف وإن لم يتناسه السفاح ولكن لم يجد عنده ما يخشاه ولما جاء دور المنصور وصفا الملك له ناصب العداء للصادق فكان يضيق عليه مرة ويتغاضي عنه أخرى

As for al Sadiq, he lived through two empires, the Marwanid and the Abbasid, and he found a period of time wherein he did not fear the power of any oppressor or threat from any tyrant. That period coincided with the termination of the Marwanid Empire and the emergence of the Abbasid Empire. When the Umayyads and the people of Sham destroyed and killed al Walid ibn Yazid, the people of the outskirts of the city rose up against them and the pillars of their authority weakened. The call to Banu Hashim had spread throughout the regions of the country. All these issues were distractions to Banu Marwan from al Sadiq’s scholarly life. When the Abbasids had sufficient time and they settled down, they began cleansing the earth from the Umayyads and establishing the new state and one knows the period of time it takes for a king to establish and consolidated a new empire. Thus, their attention in building the state and protecting it, kept them occupied, for a period of time, from the affairs of al Sadiq and his spreading of knowledge and education. Although al Saffah did not forget him; however, he did not find anything that would threaten him. When the era of al Mansur dawned and the state became more serene, he began displaying enmity towards al Sadiq. Thus, he would constrain him at times and overlook at other times.[66]

If we look at his grandson ‘Ali al Rida,[67] who the Ithna ‘Ashari Shia regard to have inherited the knowledge of al Sadiq from his father Musa al Kazim and the atmosphere of Taqiyyah was not imposed on him, as he was appointed a guardian for the era of the Abbasid al Ma’mun. Despite this, we see that contradictory and turbulent narrations were narrated from him during his time[68] and the activities of the extremists who attribute falsehood to him and his forefathers were most active.[69] What do you think of that which is narrated from him after centuries?

It is strange that the Imamiyyah, who excessively exaggerate regarding the subject of Taqiyyah by the infallible Imams—who were appointed to preserve and explain the Shari’ah—are the ones who forbid Imami jurists from utilising Taqiyyah when explaining the Shari’ah as expressed by the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Jafar al Subhani in al ‘Aqidah al Islamiyyah fi Daw’ Madrasat Ahlul Bayt:

ولكن لا تجوز التقية مطلقا في بيان معارف الدين وتعليم أحكام الإسلام مثل أن يكتب عالم شيعي كتابا علي أساس التقية ويذكر فيه عقائد فاسدة وأحكاما منحرفة علي أنها عقائد الشيعة وأحكامهم ولهذا فإننا نرى علماء الشيعة أظهروا في أشد الظروف والأحوال عقائدهم الحقة ولم يحدث طيلة التاريخ الشيعي ولا مرة واحدة أن أقدم علماء الشيعة علي تأليف رسالة أو كتاب على خلاف عقائد مذهبهم بحجة التقية وبعبارة أخرى أن يقولوا شيئا في الظاهر ويقولوا في الباطن شيئا

And Taqiyyah is not permitted at all to explain knowledge of din and teaching the rulings of Islam. For example, a Shia scholar writes a book on the basis of Taqiyyah and mentions corrupt beliefs and deviant rulings in it, claiming that these are the beliefs and rulings of the Shia. Hence, we see Shia scholars express their true beliefs in the severest circumstances and conditions. This did not occur, throughout the Shia history, not even once that the Shia scholars embarked on writing a treatise or a book contrary to the beliefs of their school under the pretext of Taqiyyah. In other words, they say one thing outwardly and something else inwardly.[70]

NEXT⇒ 3. Abundant infiltration and forgery in the Jafari School

[1] ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas states:

التقاة التكلم باللسان والقلب مطمئن بالإيمان ولا بيسط يده فيقتل ولا إلي إثم فإنه لا عذر له

Al Tuqah refers to utter with the tongue whereas the heart is reassured with belief. One does not stretch his hand toward fighting, nor towards sin, as there is no excuse for this.

Al Dahhak states:

التقية باللسان من حمل على أمر يتكلم به وهو لله معصية فتكلم مخافة عل نفسه وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان فلا إثم عليه إنما التقية باللسان

Taqiyyah is with the tongue when a person is compelled to utter something which is disobedience of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. If he utters it out of fear and his heart is reassured with belief, then there I no sin on him. Taqiyyah is only with the tongue. (Tafsir Tabari, 5/318.)

[2] Al Hassan al Basri states:

ذلك في المشركين يكرهونهم على الكفر وقلوبهم كارهة ولا يصبرون لعذابهم

That is regarding the polytheists who force the Muslims towards disbelief, their hearts dislike it, and they cannot tolerate their punishments. (Tafsir Ibn al Mundhir, 1/166.)

[3] Surah Al ‘Imran: 28.

[4] Al Hidayah, pg. 53.

[5] Al Tusi: al Amali, pg. 293; Wasa’il al Shia, 16/212; Bihar al Anwar, 72/395.

[6] Al Barqi: al Mahasin, 1/255; Wasa’il al Shia, 16/210; Bihar al Anwar, 2/74.

[7] A traditional fermented drink from Arabia made from dates soaked in water.

[8]One of three types of Hajj where a person performs ‘Umrah and Hajj in the same journey.

[9] Al Kafi, 3/32, Hadith: 2; Tahdhib al Ahkam, 1/362.

[10] Al Kafi, 2/217, Hadith: 4; Wasa’il al Shia, 16/206.

[11] Al Tanqih fi Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, book on cleanliness, 4/254–256.

[12] Tahdhib al Ahkam, 6/172; Wasa’il al Shia, 16/235.

[13]An alkaline chemical manufactured from limestone.

[14] Al Du’afa’ al Kabir, 2/96.

Al ‘Uqayli (d. 322 AH) states:

حدثنا أبو يحي عبد الله بن احمد بن أبي مسرة‎ (٢٧٩ﻫ) وهو إمام محدث ثقة قال حدثني سعيد بن منصور (٢٢٧ﻫ) وهو إمام محدث ثقة من‎ أوعية العلم قال حدثنا ابن السماك (١٨٣ﻫ) وهو صدوق فذكره

Abu Yahya ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Abi Masarrah (d. 279 AH)—he is an Imam, Muhaddith and trustworthy—narrated to us, who says that Sa’id ibn Mansur (d. 227 AH)—he is an Imam, Muhaddith and trustworthy, a container of Knowledge—narrated to me, who says that Ibn Sammak (d. 183 AH) narrated to us—and he is truthful— then he mentions the narration.

[15] Al Fawa’id al Ha’iriyyah, pg. 461.

[16] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/4.

[17] Some of them use the method—best form of defence is attack—when presenting the causes of Taqiyyah and the grievances that befell the Ahlul Bayt, in an emotional manner that has its own specific framework which does not match our ruling on the School attributed to the great Imam Jafar al Sadiq. Whatever the justification for Taqiyyah be, this does not concern us, like their followers, except gaining knowledge. Is the School which is presently known as the School of Jafar al Sadiq, in reality his school or someone else’s? This is our concern.

[18] Al Hashiyah ‘ala Madarik al Ahkam, 2/204.

[19] Amongst the Imamiyyah, he is known as al Saduq al Awwal. He is the father of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Babawayh al Qummi.

[20] Surah al Tawbah: 115.

[21] Surah al Jathiyah: 14.

[22] Al Imamah wa al Tabsirah min al Hayrah (forward), pg. 9 – 10.

[23] Those narrations wherein al Kulayni quotes texts of the companions of the Imams.

[24] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 1/5-8; al Durar al Najafiyyah, 2/311-312.

[25] Murtada al Ansari: Fara’id al Usul, 1/325-326.

[26]Hadhihi hiya al Haqiqah fi Shu’un Wilayat Al Muhammad, pg. 80 – 82.

[27] Haydar Hubb Allah states in Nazriyyat al Sunnah fi al Fikr al Imami al Shia, pg. 577:

يبدو من المؤكد تقريبا أن الشيعة لم يعرفوا تصنيفا أو علما أو اهتماما خاصا بظاهرة الموضوعات في الأحاديث لهذا لم نعثر بعد تفتيشنا على مصنفاتهم وكتبهم علي تصنيف لهم بهذا العنوان أو ما يشبهه وفق ما تتبعناه وذلك على خلاف الحال مع أهل السنة حيث وجدنا هذا الموضوع مفردا عندهم بالدرس والتنقيب والبحث والتصنيف فالكتب السنية في هذا المجال عديدة تبدأ من القرون الهجرية الأولي وحتى الفترات الأخيرة فقد صنفوا كتبا عديدة تحت هذا العنوان كان منها المرضوعات للمقدسي ‎(٥٠٧ﻫ)‏ والموضوعات لابن الجرزي (٥٩٧ﻫ) والدر الملتقط في تبيين الغلط للصاغاني (٦٥٠ﻫ)،‏ والمنار المنيف لابن قيم الجوزية ‎(٧٥١ﻫ)‏ واللآلي المصنوعة في الأحاديث الموضوعة لجلال الدين السيوطي(٩١١ﻫ) وتنزيه الشريعة لابن عراق (٩٦٣ﻫ) والموضوعات الكبير للملا علي قاري (١٠١٤ﻫ) والمصنوع في معرفة الحديث الموضوع للمؤلف نفسه والفوائد المجموعة للشوكاني ‎(١٢٥٥ﻫ)

It almost certainly seems that the Shia do not know of any book, possess knowledge or pay attention to the phenomenon of Mawdu’at in Hadith. Hence, we have not come across—after researching their literature and books—any literature on this or similar topic, according to our research. Contrary to the Ahlus Sunnah, where we see this topic being taught, explored, researched and written about exclusively. Thus, literatures in this field are plenty which begin from the first century after Hijrah until recent times. They wrote many books on this topic. Some of them are:

- Al Mawdu’at of al Maqdisi (d. 507 AH).
- Al Mawdu’at of Ibn al Jawzi (d. 597 AH).
- Al Durr al Multaqit fi Tabyin al Ghalat of al Saghani (d. 650 AH).
- Al Manar al Munif of Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah (d. 751 AH).
- Al La’ali al Masnu’ah fi al Ahadith al Mawdu’ah of Jalal al Din al Suyuti (d. 911 AH).
- Tanzih al Shari’ah of Ibn ‘Iraq (d. 963 AH).
- Al Mawdu’at al Kabir of Mulla ‘Ali Qari (d. 1014 AH).
- Al Masnu’ fi Ma’rifat ah-Hadith al Mawdu’ of Mulla ‘Ali Qari.
- Al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah of al Shawkani (d. 1255 AH).

[28] Abridged from his article called Naqd al Matan fi al Tajrabah al Imamiyyah, published in the 23^rd edition of the magazine al Ijtihad wa al Tajdid, summer of 2012 CE.

[29] The issue is not about a distorted presentation of a correct and beautiful reality; rather what the Imami scholars narrate is a presentation of tangible reality of the narrative legacy filled with contradictions, differences, and claims of Taqiyyah. Any proposal besides this, which is not based on disclosing and presenting the reality of things, not beautifying them, can never be truthful or intellectual.

[30] This refers to what Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi did in his book Taahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar by basing those narrations that conform with Sunni Fiqh on Taqiyyah, despite it being reported from al Baqir and al Sadiq though authentic chains such as basing the narrations regarding the fast of ‘Ashura’, or the forbiddance of Mut’ah in the year of the battle of Khaybar, or confining Khums to spoils of war etc., on Taqiyyah.

[31] By saying ‘some people’ he is referring to these senior scholars of the Imamiyyah: Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi, Muhaqqiq al Hilli, Muhaddith Yusuf al Bahrani, Muhaddith al Astarabadi, the two late Shia scholars of reference Sayed Muhammad Baqir al Sadr and Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i, and his student Ayatollah Muhammad Asif Muhsini, etc. These are not lightweight personalities or normal narrators or followers that he addresses them as ‘some people’.

[32] Take note that this criticism is attached with ‘perhaps’ denoting that Professor Haydar does not have a decisive answer to the issue even though he criticised it so severely and demanded reconsideration of it. How can he have a decisive answer when the senior scholars of the school, generation after generation, till today, do not possess a satisfactory decisive answer that will absolve us of research and discussion about it? Neither the narrative legacy serves them, nor the principles and legislations on which the school is based on, assists them. Yes, I agree with Professor Haydar regarding his question, “Why can it not be that everything in this well-known stereotype of the school, from the minor disappearance till today, is the work of extremist and lying narrators?” However, treating the problem that this school suffers from, with these kinds of assumptions—which Professor Haydar himself dared to be certain of—only leads to condemning the school and creating doubt in its fundamental and subsidiary rulings, not restoring confidence in it. Soon it will expose the extent of fabrication by the extremists and liars in the belief and Fiqhi structure of the school. Similarly, it will expose the confusion of the senior Imami scholars regarding the extent and type of this fabrication as well its limits, in addition to determining the names of these liars and extremists, and their agreement on a correct criterion for understanding the concept of extremism, on which the former do not differ with the latter ones and it does not pass under the pretext of ‘our Ahadith are difficult and complex’ in any way. Likewise, reconsidering those narrators whose reliability is agreed upon, despite various reports being narrated from the Imams criticising them. It is said that this criticism was done as Taqiyyah also.

[33] Website of Professor Haydar Hubb Allah: Answer to the question: Is it true that Sheikh al Mufid and others like him adopted non-Imami beliefs because of Taqiyyah?

[34]What is strange is that the Imamiyyah do not permit Taqiyyah for the prophets ‘alayh al Salam because of the text of the Qur’an:

الَّذِيْنَ يُبَلِّغُونَ رِسَالَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَخْشَوْنَهُ وَلَا يَخْشَوْنَ أَحَدًا إِلَّا اللَّهَ

That is His way with those prophets who deliver the messages of Allah, and consider Him, and none but Allah. (Surah al Ahzab: 39.)

However, they do not merely suffice of permitting the twelve Imams —who are appointed from Allah Ta’ala to preserve din— rather they exaggerate excessively regarding it to such an extent that the late Shia scholar of reference Abu al Qasim al Khu’i, in his book Kitab al Ijtihad wa al Taqlid, pg. 161, considered this alleged Taqiyyah to be gradual progression in Shari’ah. Hence, he states:

إن ديدن الأئمة جرى على التدرج في بيان الأحكام الشرعية وما اعتبر فيها من القيود والشروط ولم يبينوها – بقيودها وخصوصياتها- في مجلس واحد مراعاة للتقية ومحافظة علي أنفسهم وتابعيهم عن القتل أو غيره من الأذى أو لغير ذلك من المصالح، ومن هنا ترى أن العام يصدر من إمام والمخصص من إمام آخر أو أن حكما يصدر من أحدهم فيصدر منه نفسه أو من إمام آخر خلافه

The practice of the Imams was to gradually explain the rulings of Shari’ah and whatever restrictions and conditions were found in it, they did not explain it —with its restrictions and specialties— in one gathering in consideration of Taqiyyah and protecting themselves and the followers from death and other types of harm or for other reasons. Hence, one will notice that a general rule will be issued from one Imam and the specific from another or a ruling is issued from an Imam then he, himself or another Imam issues a ruling contrary to that.

[35] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah wa Harakiyyat al ‘Aql al Ijtihadi, pg. 72.

[36] Ibid., pg. 72 -75.

[37] Al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, pg. 96-97.

[38] Al Rasa’il, al Risalah al Sadisah, 1/287.

[39] He states in the beginning of his statement:

قد آل الحال بين مجتهدي علمائنا واخبارتيهم إلى إبطال أكثر أقوالهم وفتاويهم ولازم ذلك عدم صحة صلاة مقلديهم عند التخالف بمعنى مقلدي المجتهدين إذا اتوا الأخباريين وبالعكس إني لم اقف على تصريح فيه من احد منهم إلا إنه الظاهر من أكثر عباراتهم في التخطئة في أمهات المسائل وناهيك ﺑهداية الأبرار من كتاب كاشف عن المعني الأستار وكذلك الفوائد المدنية وكذلك كتاب الأخبار وحدائق مولانا المشار إليه آنفا ومقدمات شرح المفاتيح و المفاتيح نفسها وما لا ياتي عليه قلم الإحصاء تصريحا تارة وتلويحا اخرى علي وجه لا يقبل الجمع بوجو من الوجوه وانتم ممن لا يخفي عليه الوجه

The situation between our Mujtahid scholars and the Akhbaris has led to the invalidation of most of their views and rulings and this necessitates the invalidity of their follower’s Salah when there are differences, meaning, when the followers of the Mujtahids go to the Akhbaris and vice versa. I have not come across any declaration from anyone of them regarding it; however, it is apparent from most of their excerpts regarding errors in the most important issues. Not to mention Hidayat al Abrar, the book that reveals the hidden meanings. Similarly, al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, al Akhbar and Hada’iq of the scholars mentioned previously, the forward of Sharh al Mafatih and al Mafatih itself and others that the pen cannot encompass, sometimes explicitly and other times by alluding to it, in a manner that cannot be reconciled in any way. You are from those on who the reason is not concealed.

[40] Al Rasa’il al Ahmediyyah, 3/127.

[41] Al Rasa’il al Ahmediyyah, 3/131.

[42] Bihar al Anwar, 11/222.

[43] Ibid., 11/180.

[44] Ibid., 11/226.

[45] Ibid., 12/113.

[46] Ibid., 14/202.

[47] Ibid., 14/190.

[48] Ibid., 14/215.

[49] Ibid., 14/355.

[50] Ibid., 14/378.

[51] Bihar al Anwar, 14/401.

[52] From an article which he published on his website titled: Mabda’ al Taqiyyah wa Ta’arud al Riwayat (Principal of Taqiyyah and contradictions of narrations.)

[53] Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 3/415.

[54] By saying his School, I mean his beliefs more than his Fiqh, because this belief was tainted by many people. The Zaidis are followers of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, committed to his fiqh and practice on his Fiqhi Ijtihad, as is the situation with the followers of the four Sunni Mazhabs, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is, and the Hanbalis, who practice upon the Fiqh of their respective Imams. However, the issue, with regards to the Zaidis, is clearly different, because they are not committed to practicing on the school of Zaid ibn ‘Ali and adhering to it, rather they regard him as one of the oppositions in Fiqhi rulings, as mentioned by Sharif ‘Abdul Samad ibn ‘Abdullah al Damaghani (d. After 997 AH) in his booklet, al Jawharah al Khalisah ‘an al Shawa’ib fi al ‘Aqa’id al Naqimah ‘ala Jami’ al Mazahib. He states:

ومنهاأي ومن الأمور التي نقم بها علي الزيدية انهم يخالفون زيد بن علي إمامهم في كثير من الفروع مع انتسابهم إليه ويزعمون أنهم أخذوا بفروع أتباعه كما أخذت الشافعية بفروع أصحاب الشافعي والمالكية بفروع أصحاب مالك والحنفية بفروع محمد بن الحسن الشيباني وأبي يوسف وزفر أصحاب ابي حنفة وليس بصحيح لأن أصحاب كل فقيه ممن رووا زادوا علي فروع إمامهم وفرعوها ونقحوا الصحيح منها والزيدية لم يفعلوا ذلك في فقه زيد بن علي بل جعلوه كأحد المخالفين في مسائل الفقه وجعلوا عمدتهم في المذهب ثلاثة أئمة من أولاد الحسن اثنان أي المؤيد بالله أحمد الهاروني (٤١١ﻫ )‏ وأبو طالب يحي الهاروني ‎(٤٢٤ﻫ ) ومن أولاد الحسين واحد أي الناصر الأطروش (٣٠٤ﻫ) وكلهم من اتباع زيد في العقيدة والإمامة وفروعهم توافق الحنفية اكثر من غيرهم من الفقهاء

From among them—i.e. from amongst the issues that the Zaidis are taken to task for—is that they contradict their Imam, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, in many subsidiary rulings despite being attributed to him. They claim to adopt the subsidiary rulings of his followers just as the Shafi’is adopted the subsidiary rulings of al Shafi’i’s companions, the Malikis adopted the subsidiary rulings of Malik’s companions and the Hanafis adopted the subsidiary rulings of Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Shaybani, Abu Yusuf, and Zufar, the companions of Abu Hanifah. This is incorrect, because the companions of each jurist that they narrate from, added to the subsidiary rulings of their Imam, branched it, and revised the authentic from it. The Zaidis did not do that to the fiqh of Zaid ibn ‘Ali, rather they regarded him as of the opposition in Fiqhi rulings and made three Imams their leaders in the school. Two of them were from the progeny of al Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, i.e. al Muayyad bi Allah Ahmed al Haruni (d. 411 AH) and Abu Talib Yahya al Haruni (d. 424 AH), and the other from the progeny of al Hussain, i.e. al Nasir al Atrush (d. 304 AH). All of them followed Zaid in beliefs and Imamah and their subsidiary rulings conform more to the Hanafis than any other jurists.

This confirms that the former Zaidi Imams were more affected by Abu Hanifah in subsidiary rulings than Zaid ibn ‘Ali.

Imam al Mahdi li Din Allah Ahmed ibn Yahya al Murtada (d. 840 AH) endorses what we previously mentioned about the Zaidis not being committed to the fiqh of Imam Zaid. He states in al Munyah wa al Amal, pg. 96:

فالزيدية أي زيدية اليمن منسوبة إلي زيد بن علي لقولهم جميعا بإمامته وإن لم يكونوا على مذهبه في مسائل الفروع وهي تخالف الشافعية والحنفية في ذلك لأنهم إنما نسبوا إلى أبي حنيفة والشافعي لمتابعتهم لهما في الفروع

The Zaidis—Zaidis of Yemen—are attributed to Zaid ibn ‘Ali because they all attest to his Imamah, even though they do not follow him in subsidiary rulings. This is in contrast to the Shafi’is and the Hanafis, as they are attributed to Shafi’i and Abu Hanifah because they follow them in subsidiary rulings.

Imam al Mu’ayyad bi Allah Yahya ibn Hamzah adds to that in al Risalah al Wazi’ah, pg. 48, by saying:

فمن كان على عقيدته أي عقيدة الإمام زيد بن علي في الديانة والمسائل الإلهية والقول بالحكمة والاعتراف بالوعد والوعي وحصر الإمامة على الثلاثة الذين هم علي وولديه (الحسين والحسين) وان طريق الإمامة الدعوة في من عداهم فمن كان مقرا في هذه الأصول فهو زيدي ( إلى أن قال) فهذه هي معتقدات الزيدية التي هي مصداق اللقب عليها من دون المسائل الاجتهادية التي لا حظ لها في هذا اللقب اي لقب زيدي ولكنه توسع في مدلول هذا اللقب فشمل حتى الذين بخالفون زيذا في كثير من المسائل الاجتهادية والمضطربات النظرية بمن فيهم أئمة الزيدية المخالفون لزيد بن علي فإن لقب زيدي يشملهم

Whoever adopts his belief—belief of Zaid ibn ‘Ali—in religion, divine matters, attesting to wisdom, acknowledging the promises and awareness, confining Imamah to three personalities, i.e. ‘Ali and his sons Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum and that the way of the Zaidis is to invite others, then whoever acknowledges to these principles is a Zaidi… till he says, these are the Zaidi beliefs that is the criterion for the title, not Ijtihadi rulings which have no part in this title, i.e. title of Zaidi. However, this title has a broader meaning which includes even those who differed with Zaid in many Ijtihadi rulings and theoretical confusions, amongst them being the Zaidi Imams who differed with Zaid ibn ‘Ali. This title includes them also.

[55] From among that is what Imam al Mansur bi Allah ‘Abdullah ibn Hamzah (d. 613 AH) stated, as reported in Ma’athir al Abrar, 1/233-234:

فهذا مذهبنا لم نخرجه غلط ولم نكتم سواه تقية ومن هو دوننا مكانا وقدوة يسب ويلعن ويذم‎ ويطعن ونحن إلى الله تعالي من فعله براء وهذا ما يقضي به علم آبائنا منا إلى علي وفي هذه‎ الجهة من برى محض الولاء سب الصحابة والبراء منهم فيتبرأ من محمد صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم‎ من حيث لا يعلم

This is our school. We did not derive it in error and we do not conceal other than that out of Taqiyyah. Those who are lower than us in position and status swear, curse, slander and criticise. We are absolved of their actions by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. This is the decision of our forefathers’ knowledge, from us till ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In this regard, whoever sees pure loyalty to be in slandering the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and renouncing them, he is in reality renouncing the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam inadvertently.

[56] Hilyat al Auliya’, 6/316; Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 8/96.

[57] Ruling of whether the Qur’an is created or eternal.

[58] Abu al ‘Arab (d. 333 AH) reported in al Mihan, pg. 452, through his chain from Imam Ahmed who explains what transpired in those days. He says:

ناظروني يوم المحنة ونحن بحضرته يعني أبا إسحاق المعتصم وفي رجلي ثلاثة قيود قد أثقلتني وجمعوا علي نحوا من خمسين من المناظرين فقلت لا أكلمكم إلا بما في كتاب الله أو سنة رسوله فقطعتهم فلكزني عجيف بقائم سيفه وقال أنت وحدك تريد أن تغلب هذا الخلق ولكزني إسحاق بن إيراهيم بقائم سيفه وأشار أبو عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل بيده إلى عنقه قال وأنت تقول إلا ما كان في كتاب الله أو سنة رسوله فقال أيو إسحاق المعتصم خذوه فأخذوا بضبعي فخلعوني فانا أجد ذلك في كتفي إلى الساعة وكانا جلادين وكان يضرب كل واحد منهما سوطا ويتنحي فضرب ثلاثين سوطا يقال إنها تعدل ثلاثمائة سوط

They debated with me on the day of the ordeal while we were in his—Abu Ishaq al Mu’tasim’s—presence. I had three shackles on my legs which weighed me down. They had gathered about 50 debaters. I said to them, “I do not speak to you except that which is in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,” thus, I cut them off. ‘Ajif jabbed me with the handle of his sword and said, “You alone want to overpower this group?” Then Ishaq ibn Ibrahim jabbed me with the handle of his sword—Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmed ibn Hanbal pointed with his hand to his throat—and said, “You say only that which is in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet?”

Thereafter Abu Ishaq al Mu’tasim said, “Take him.”

They caught my hands and dislocated it. I get pain in my shoulders till now. They were executioners. Each one would lash me once and move away for the other one to lash.

He was lashed 30 times. It is said that they were so severe that it was equivalent to 300 lashes.

[59]Salih ibn Ahmed: Sirat al Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, pg. 94.

[60] There is no doubt that the founder of the Zahiris is Imam Dawood ibn ‘Ali al Asbahani; however, after him and his son, the Mazhab was close to extinction, had it not been for the revival by Imam ibn Hazm al Andalusi in the fifth century. Thus, he revived it and established its structure and pillars.

[61] Ibn Khatib: al Ihatah fi Tarikh Gharnatah, 4/115-116, researched by Muhammad ‘Abdullah ‘Inan, al Khanji, Cairo print, first edition 1397 AH – 1977 CE, quoting from Tarikh Fuqaha’ Qurtubah of Ibn Hayyan which is lost.

[62] Al ‘Uqud l-Durriyyah, pg. 109.

[63] Al Muqaffa al Kabir, 1/468.

[64] That is why his student, Ibn Rushayyiq said, as reported in al ‘Uqud al Durriyyah, pg. 109-110:

ولولا أن الله تعالى لطف وأعان ومن وانعم وخرق العادة في حفظ أعيان كتبه وتصانيفه لما امكن أحدا أن يجمعها ولقد رأيت من خرق العادة في حفظ كتبه وجمعها وإصلاح ما فسد منها ورد ما ذهب منها لو ما و ذكرته لكان عجبا‏ يعلم به كل منصف أن لله عناية به وبكلامه لأنه يذب عن سنة نبيه تحريف الغالين وانتحال المبطلين وتأويل الجاهلين

Had it not been for the kindness, assistance, graciousness, favour, and miracle from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, He would not have enabled anyone to compile it. I have seen such miracles in preserving and compiling his books, as well as rectifying what was corrupted and returning that which was deleted from it, that if I have to mention them it would be a wonder, through which every just person will realise that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala took care of him and his speech because it is He, who defends the Sunnah of His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the distortion of extremists, plagiarism of the invalids, and interpretation of the ignorant.

[65] Al Anwar al Bahiyyah, pg. 170.

[66] Al Imam al Sadiq, 1/188-189.

[67] i.e. ‘Ali ibn Musa ibn Jafar. Al Rida is his agnomen.

[68] An observer into the narrative legacy of the era that ‘Ali al Rida lived in, will notice the propagation of lies and ahadith fabricated upon him and his forefathers, particularly al Baqir, al Sadiq, and al Kazim. Sometimes it is not possible for a student to understand the reality of the circumstances that surrounded ‘Ali al Rida or his sect during that period of time; however, some narrations remain testament to what transpired and what fabrication was taking place in that time. Some of them are:

That which Ibn Babawayh al Qummi reported in ‘Uyun Akhbar al Rida, 2/197, from Abu al Salt’Abdul Salam al Harawi that he said to ‘Ali al Rida:

يا ابن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما شيء يحكيه عنكم الناس قال وما هو قلت يقولون أنكم تدعون أن الناس لكم عبيد فقال اللهم فاطر السماوات والأرض عالم الغيب والشهادة أنت شاهد بأني لم أقل ذلك قط ولا سمعت احدا من آبائي قاله قط وانت العالم بما لنا من المظالم عند هذه الأمة وان هذه منها ثم اقبل علي فقال لي يا عبد السلام إذا كان الناس كلهم عبيدنا علي ما حكوه عنا فممن نبيعهم

O son of the Prophet of Allah, what are these things that people are narrating from you?

He asked, “What is it?”

I replied, “They said you claim that the people are your slaves.”

He said, “O Allah, Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen, You are witness that I have never said that and I have never heard any of my forefathers saying that. You are the Knower of what oppression we have endured from this Ummah and this is from it.”

Then he turned to me and said, “O ‘Abdul Salam, if they were our slaves, as they narrate from us, then who do we sell them to?”

It is reported in Rijal al Kashshi, 22/489, from Yunus ibn ‘Abdur Rahman—who is from companions of al Kazim and al Rida—that some of the companions asked:

يا أبا محمد ما أشدك في الحديث وأكثر إنكارك لما يرويه أصحابنا فما الذي يحملك على رد الأحاديث فقال حدثني هشام بن الحكم أنه سمع أبا عبد الله جعفرا الصادق يقول لا تقبلوا علينا حديثا إلا ما وافق القرآن والسنة أو تجدون معه شاهدا من أحاديثنا المتقدمة فإن المغيرة بن سعيد لعنه الله دس في كتب أصحاب أبي أحاديث لم يحدث بها أبي فاتقوا الله ولا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا تعالي وسنة نينا صلى الله عليه وسلم فإنا إذا حدثنا قلنا قال الله وقال رسول الله

“O Abu Muhammad, how severe are you regarding hadith and rejecting what our companions narrate. What provoked you to reject the Ahadith?”

He replied, “Hisham ibn al Hakam narrated to me that he heard Abu ‘Abdullah Jafar al Sadiq saying, “Do not accept ahadith from us except that which conforms to the Qur’an and the Sunnah or you find an endorsement for it from our former ahadith because Mughirah ibn Sa’id—may Allah curse him—inserted some ahadith in my father’s companions’ books, which my father did not narrate. So, fear Allah and do not take from us that which contradicts the sayings of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When we narrate, we say, ‘Allah said’ and ‘the Prophet of Allah said’.”

The curious thing about this is that with regards to Yunus, who mentions this narration that he is one of the hardliners in accepting ahadith, out of fear of accepting ahadith that were fabricated and lies from the extremists, a clear and authentic—authenticated by everyone of the following: al Wahid Bahbahani, Muhsin al Amin, and Abu al Qasim al Khu’i—narration has been transmitted pertaining to the prohibition of Salah behind those who adopt his views, disassociating from them, and impermissibility of paying zakat to them.

Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, in al Amali, pg. 352, and al Hurr al ‘Amili in Wasa’il al Shia, 8/312, have reported from ‘Ali ibn Mahziyar who states:

كتبت إلى أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن موسي الرضا جعلت فدالك أصلي خلف من يقول بالجسم ومن يقول بقول يونس بن عبد الرحمن فكتب لا تصلوا خلفهم ولا تعطوهم من الزكاة وابرؤوا منهم برئ الله منهم

I wrote to A b u Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida, “May I be sacrificed for you, should I perform Salah behind those who are of the view that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has a body and those who adopt the views of Yunus ibn ‘Abdur Rahman?”

He wrote back saying, “Do not perform Salah behind them, do not give your Zakat to them and disassociate from them. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala be free of them.”

Where are you going?

[69][69] The Imamiyyah narrate regarding this from Abu al Salt al Harawi who states:

قلت للرضا يا ابن رسول الله إن في سواد الكوفة قوما يزعمون أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لم يقع عليه السهو في صلاته فقال كذبوا لعنهم الله إن الذي لا يسهو هو الله الذي لا إله إلا هو

I said to al Rida, “O son of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there are some amongst the people of Kufah who claim that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not make any mistake in Salah.”

He said, “They have lied, may Allah curse them. The only being that does not err is Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, besides who there is no other diety.” (Refer to ‘Uyun Akhbar al Rida of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, 2/219.)

This belief, which al Rida regarded as outrageous exaggeration, and the one who believes in it deserves to be falsified and cursed, is one of the Imami beliefs’ requirements today, wherein al Rida is considered to be protected from forgetfulness and error. Ponder!

Al Rida states regarding the extremists and the Mufawwidah:

الغلاة كفار والمفوضة مشركون من جالسهم أو خالطهم أو آكلهم أو شاربهم أو واصلهم أو زوجهم أو تزوج منهم أو آمنهم أو ائتمنهم على أمانة أو صدق حديثهم أ و أعانهم بشطر كلمة خرج من ولاية الله وولاية رسول الله وولايتنا أهل البيت

The extremists are disbelievers and the Mufawwidah are polytheists. Whoever sits with them, mixes with them, eats with them, drinks with them, joins ties with them, marries them, gets someone married to them, grants them security, entrusts them with a trust, verify their speech or assists them with half of a word, comes out of the guardianship of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well as our, i.e. the Ahlul Bayt’s, guardianship. (Refer to ‘Uyun Akhbar al Rida of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, 2/218)

[Translators note: The Mufawwidah refers to an extremist Shia sect who believed that Allah created Muhammad and handed the creation or the universe and its administration of the universe to him. He in turn handed the administration thereof to ‘Ali and he is thus the second administrator. See: Maqalat al Islamiyyin, 1/88; al Farq bayn al Firaq, p. 251; and from the books of the Shia refer to al Mufid: Tashih al I’tiqad p. 64-65; Bihar al Anwar, 25/345.]

He used to say in his supplication:

اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من الحول والقوة فلاحول ولا قوة إلا بك اللهم إني أبرا إليك من الذين ادعوا لنا ما ليس لنا بحق اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من الذين قالوا فينا ما لم نقله في أنفسنا اللهم لك الخلق ومنك الأمر وإياك نعبد وإياك نستعين اللهم أنت خالقنا وخالق آبائنا الأولين وآبائنا الآخرين اللهم لا تليق الربوبية إلا بك ولا تصلح الإلهية إلا لك فالعن النصارى الذين صغروا عظمتك والعن المضاهين لقولهم من بريتك اللهم إنا عبيدك وابناء عبيدك لا نملك لأنفسنا ضرا ولا نفما ولا موتا ولا حياة ولا نشورا اللهم من زعم أننا أرباب فنحن إليك منه براء ومن زعم أن إلينا الخلق وعلينا الرزق فنحن إليك منه براء كبراءة عيسى من النصارى اللهم إنا لم ندعهم إلى ما يزعمون فلا تؤاخذنا بما يقولون واغفر لنا ما يزعمون رَّبِّ لَا تَذَرْ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ مِنَ الْكَافِرِيْنَ دَيَّارًا إِنَّكَ إِنْ تَذَرْهُمْ يُضِلُّوا عِبَادَكَ وَلَا يَلِدُوْا إِلَّا فَاجِرًا كَفَّارًا

O Allah, I absolve myself from strength and power as there is no strength and power except from you. O Allah, I absolve myself from those who claim for us what we have no right to. O Allah, I absolve myself from those who say regarding us that which we do not say about ourselves. O Allah, for You is the creation and from You is the command and You alone do we worship and You alone do we seek assistance from. O Allah, You are the creator of our former and latter forefathers. O Allah, lordship is suitable only for You and only You are worthy of divinity. Curse the Christians who minimise your greatness and curse from the people those who emulate their speech. O Allah, we are Your servants and sons of Your servants. We do not possess, for ourselves, harm, benefit, life, death and resurrection. O Allah, whoever claims that we are their lords, we are absolved of that and whoever claims that creation is for us and sustenance is from us then we are free of that just as ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam was free of the Christians. O Allah, we did not call them to what they claim, so do not take us to task for what they say and forgive us for what they claim. My Lord! Do not leave a single disbeliever on earth. For, if You spare any of them, they will certainly mislead Your servants, and give birth only to wicked sinners, staunch disbelievers. (Surah Nuh: 26-27.)

[70] Al ‘Aqidah al Islamiyyah fi Daw’ Madrasat Ahlul Bayt, pg. 277.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents