BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Ayatollah al Sayed Muhammad Baqir al Hakim (d.1424 AH) believes, as stated in his book ‘Ulum al Qur’an:
أن من أهم المشكلات التي تعرض لها حديث أئمة أهل البيت الدس والوضع والتزوير في حديثهم وكان الأمر مبكرا منذ عهد الأئمة واستمر إلى ما بعد ذلك في العصور المتأخرة عنهم وأن ظروف الاضطهاد والمطاردة للنشطاء من أتباع الأئمة من جهة والسرية التي اتخذها هؤلاء النشطاء في العمل والحركة ساهمت بشكل مباشر في اختفاء البيانات الواقعية لحال الأئمة وأحاديثهم وفي استغلال أعداء الأئمة أو المنافقين الذين يظهرون الارتباط بهم في هذه الظروف في الدس والتزوير تحت شعار التقية
Amongst the most important problems faced by the narrations of the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt are infiltration, fabrication, and forgery in their narrations. This issue began early during the time of the Imams and continued thereafter in later times. The conditions of persecution and pursuit of the activists from the followers of the Imams on one side, and the confidentiality that these activists adopted in their work and movement, directly contributed to the disappearance of factual data about the conditions of the Imams and their narrations and in exploitation—by the Imams’ enemies or hypocrites who would outwardly show cohesion in these circumstances—in infiltration and forgery under the banner of Taqiyyah.[1]
The process of infiltration and forgery was completed in complete confidentiality and in a malicious way that the companions of the Imams were not aware of it. The Imam, himself was not aware of it, rather, it was the Imam after him that noticed it or was alerted to it, after the misfortune occurred and the process of infiltration was completed in the manner it was planned, books were spread out and the narrations were mixed up among the people.
The Imamiyyah narrate from Hisham ibn al Hakam that he heard Jafar al Sadiq narrating from his father, Muhammad al Baqir thus:
كان المغيرة بن سعيد يتعمد الكذب علي أبي ويأخذ كتب أصحابه وكان أصحابه المستترون بأصحاب أبي يأخذون الكتب من أصحاب أبي فيدفعونها إلى المغيرة فكان يدس فيها الكفر والزندقة ويسندها إلى أبي ثم يدفعها إلى أصحابه ويامرهم أن بيثوها في الشيعة فكلما كان في كتب أصحاب أبي من الغلو فذاك ما دسه المغيرة بن سعيد في كتبهم
Al Mughirah ibn Sa’id used to deliberately lie against my father and take his companion’s books. His companions, who were concealed with my father’s companions, used to take my father’s companions’ books and give it to al Mughirah. He would insert disbelief and apostasy in them and attribute them to my father. He would then give them to his companions and instruct them to spread it amongst the Shia. Whenever there is exaggeration in my father’s companions’ books, it is what al Mughirah ibn Sa’id inserted in their books.[2]
You can see that the process of infiltration took a very dangerous turn during the era of the Imams, particularly al Baqir and al Sadiq. The extremists used to insert false ahadith during the time of the Imam and in his reliable companions’ books through their intrusive companions that were concealed amongst them, in such a way that Jafar al Sadiq was certain, in this narration, that a great deal of infiltration took place in the principle hadith books which were narrated from his father, to such degree that he attributed all the extremism found in this book to Mughirah ibn Sa’id and other liars like him. However, what is the criterion of this extremism? How is it possible to differentiate between what Mughirah ibn Sa’id and others infiltrated and what they did not? Is Jafar al Sadiq spared from this infiltration?
‘Allamah Abu Zaid al ‘Alawi (d. 326 AH)[3] criticised the Imamiyyah on their differences and great confusion, towards which their twelfth Imam—since his assumed birth—did nothing. He says:
ثم لم يخل اختلافهم من أن يكون مولدا من أنفسهم أو من عند الناقلين إليهم أو من عند أئمتهم فإن كان اختلافهم من قبل أئمتهم فالإمام من جمع الكلمة لا من كان سببا للاختلاف بين الأمة لا سيما وهم أولياؤه دون أعدائه ومن لا تقية بينهم وبينه وما الفرق بين المؤتمة والأمة إذ كانوا مع أئمتهم وحجج الله عليهم في أكثر ما عابوا على الأمة التي لا إمام لها من المخالفة في الدين وإكفار بعضهم بعضا وإن يكن اختلافهم من قبل الناقلين إليهم دينهم فما يؤمنهم من أن يكون هذا سبيلهم معهم فيما ألقوا إليه من الإمامة لا سيما إذا كان المدعى له الإمامة معدوم العين غير مرئي الشخص وهو حجة عليهم فيما يدعون لإمامهم من علم الغيب إذا كان خيرته والتراجمة بينه وبين شيعته كذابين يكذبون عليه ولا علم له بهم وإن يكن اختلاف المؤتمة في دينها من قبل أنفسها دون أئمتها فما حاجة المؤتمة إلى الأئمة إذ كانوا بأنفسهم مستغنين وهو بين أظهرهم ولا ينهاهم وهو الترجمان لهم من الله والحجة عليهم هذا أيضا من أدل الدليل على عدمه وما يدعي من علم الغيب له لأنه لو كان موجودا لم يسعه ترك البيان لشيعته كما قال الله تعالى وَمَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُوْا فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ فكما بين الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لأمته وجب على الإمام مثله لشيعته
Then, their differences are either born from themselves or those who transmit to them or from the Imams. If their differences arose from their Imams, then an Imam is one who unites people and not become a cause of differences among the Ummah, particularly if they are his allies and not enemies and those with whom he does not need to practice Taqiyyah. What is the difference between the Imamiyyah and the Ummah when they are with their Imams? The evidence of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is against them regarding most of their criticism of the Ummah that has no Imam, such as differences in din and declaring disbelief against each other. If their differences arose from those who transmitted their din to them then what reassures them that this would not be their modus operandi with them when transmitting about Imamah, especially when the one for whom Imamah is alleged is a non-existent and invisible person. This is evidence against them for their claim of knowledge of the unseen for their Imam, when his choicest people and the interpreters between him and his sect are liars who lie against him and he has no knowledge of them. If the Imami differences in their din came from themselves and not their Imams, then what is the need for the Imams, because they are independent whilst he is among them and he does not prevent them, whereas he is their interpreter from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and evidence is against them? This is also a clear proof about his non-existence and what is claimed that he has knowledge of the unseen, because if he existed, it would not be permissible for him to omit explanation to his sect as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says, “We have revealed to you the Book only to clarify for them what they differed about, and as a guide and mercy for those who believe.” [4] Thus, just as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explained to his Ummah, similarly it is incumbent on the Imam to explain to his sect.[5]
Ibn Babawayh al Qummi responded to him in a way that confirms the confusion rather than removing it. He says:
إن اختلاف الإمامية إنما هو من قبل كذابين دلسوا انفسهم فيهم في الوقت بعد الوقت والزمان بعد الزمان حتي عظم البلاء وكان أسلافهم قوما يرجعون إلى ورع واجتهاد وسلامة ناحية ولم يكونوا أصحاب نظر وتميز فكانوا إذا رأوا رجلا مستورا يروي خبرا أحسنوا به الظن وقبلوه فلما كثر هذا وظهر شكوا إلى أئمتهم فامرهم الأئمة بأن يأخذوا بما يجمع عليه فلم يفعلوا وجروا على عادتهم فكانت الخيانة من قبلهم لا من قبل أئمتهم والإمام أيضا لم يقف على كل هذه التخاليط التي رويت لأنه لا يعلم الغيب وإنما هو عبد صالح يعلم الكتاب والسنة، ويعلم من أخبار شيعته ما ينهي إليه
The Imami differences stemmed from the liars who infiltrated amongst them, from time to time and from era to era, until the calamity intensified. Their predecessors were inclined to piety, ijtihad, and respectful peace. They were not people of vision and distinction. When they would see a concealed person narrating any transmission, they had good opinion of him and accepted it. When this increased and became apparent, they complained to their Imams, who instructed them to adopt only that which is agreed upon. However, they did not do that and continued on their normal habit. Therefore, the disloyalty was from the people and not the Imams. The Imam was not even aware of these mixed up narrations that were transmitted, as he is not the knower of the unseen. He is a mere pious servant who knows the Qur’an, Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and transmissions of his sect which reach him.[6]
Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi discusses the two main phases that the narrations of the Ahlul Bayt went through. They are:
The phase of Taqiyyah and concealment; which is the first phase.
The phase of infiltration from the extremists and the apostates; which is the second phase.
Both of these phases are troublesome in the narrative legacy of transmissions which we find today. He states:
وقد كان حديث أهل البيت محفوظا عن مكائد الغلاة ودسائسهم في دوره الأول حيث كان أصحاب الحديث وكلهم فقهاء مخلصين مستأنسين مترافقين لايتدارسون حديثهم إلا في خفاء كامل ولا يبثون مواريثهم إلا عند من يثقون به خوفا علي دمائهم واما في الدور الثاني فبعد ما كثر أصحاب الحديث ورواد المذهب وتوفرت الأصول والمؤلفات وتداولتها أيدي الوراقين والصحفيين تلاعبت بمواريثهم أيدي الغلاة الخونة وعملاء الزنادقة فزادوا ونقصوا وغيروا وبدلوا وأحلوا حرام الله وحرموا حلال الله عند ذلك كثر التضاد والتهافت بحيث لا يوجد في أبواب الفقه والمعارف حديث إلا وبإزائه ما يخالفه ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابله ما يناقضه ويضاده وبذلك تطرقت المضادة والاختلاف إلى العقائد والفتاوى والأحكام وكثيرا ما نرى كتب الحديث مختلفة بالزيادة والنقصان
The narrations of the Ahlul Bayt were protected from the plots of the extremists and their conspiracies, during the first phase, where the narrators of Hadith were all sincere jurists and familiar associates. They would not teach Hadith except in complete secrecy and they would not pass on their legacy except to those who they trusted, out of fear for their lives.
As for the second phase; after the narrators of Hadith and pioneers of the school increased, sources and literatures were freely available, and they were circulated among the scribes and reporters, the hands of the extremists manipulated their legacy. Thus, they added, deleted, changed, permitted what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbade and forbade what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala permitted, whereupon, inconsistency and contradictions increased to such a degree that one would not find a narration in the chapter of fiqh and knowledge except that there would be another one contradicting it and no narration would be accepted, except that there would be another that would oppose and contradict it. Through this, contradiction and differences crept into beliefs and legal rulings. Very often we see books of Hadith differing with increases and decreases.[7]
However, Sayed Hashim Ma’roof al Hassani (d. 1403 AH) disagrees with al Bahbudi regarding his view on the integrity of the first phase, rejecting the Hadith scholars’ and the jurists’ ability in preserving and documenting the Imams’ narrations away from infiltration and forgery, during this phase. He believes that authentic narrations from the Imams confirm the existence of infiltration, fabrication, and forgery from an early stage. He states:
وكان من أخطر الدخلاء على التشيع جماعة تظاهروا بالولاء لأهل البيت واندسوا بين الرواة وأصحاب الأئمة مدة طويلة من الزمن استطاعوا خلالها أن يتقربوا من الإمامين الباقر والصادق واطمأن إليهم جمع من الرواة فوضعوا مجموعة كبيرة من الأحاديث ودسوها بين أحاديث الأئمة وفي أصول كتب الحديث كما تشير إلى ذلك بعض الروايات…وجاء عن أبي الحسن الرضا أنه قال كان بيان يكذب على علي بن الحسين فأذاقه الله حر الحديد وكان المغيرة يكذب على أبي جعفر الباقر وكان محمد بن فرات يكذب علي أبي الحسن موسى بن جعفر وكان أبو الخطاب يكذب على أبي عبد الله الصادق
وجاء عن يحي بن عبد الحميد الحماني أن جعفر بن محمد كان رجلا صالحا مسلما ورعا فاكتنفه قومم جهال يدخلون عليه ويخرجون يقولون حدثنا جعفر بن محمد ويحدثون بأحاديث منكرة كلها كذب على الإمام جعفر بن محمد يستأكلون بها الناس كالمفضل بن عمر وبيان وعمر النبطي وغيرهم من الوضاعين ونسبوا إليه أنه قال إن معرفة الإمام تكفي عن الصلاة والصيام وإن عليا في السحاب يطير مع الريح وأن الله إله السماء والإمام إله الأرض إلى غير ذلك من المقالات
وتؤكد المرويات الصحيحة عن الإمام الصادق وغيره من الأئمة أن المغيرة بن سعيد وبيانا وصائدا الهندي وعمر النبطي والمفضل وغيرهم من المنحرفين عن التشيع والمندسين في صفوف الشيعة وضعوا بين المرويات عن الأئمة عددا كبيرا في مختلف المواضيع
وجاء عن المغيرة أنه قال وضعت في أخبار جعفر بن محمد اثني عشر ألف حديث وظل هو وأتباعه زمنا طويلا بين صفوف الشيعة يترددون معهم إلى مجلس الأئمة ولم ينكشف حالهم إلا بعد أن امتلأت أصول كتب الحديث الأولى بمروياتهم كما تشير إلى ذلك رواية يحي بن عبد الحميد السابقة
وجاء في الكشي عن الإمام الصادق أنه قال كان المغيرة بن سعيد يتعمد الكذب على أبي ويأخذ كتب أصحابه وكان أصحابه المتسترون بأصحاب أبي يأخذون كتب أصحاب أبي فيدفعونها إلى المغيرة فيدس فيها الكفر والزندقة ويسندها إلى أبي ثم يدفعها إلى أصحابه ليبثوها بين الشيعة وبلاشك كان هو واتباعه ينسبون الرواية المدسوسة إلى الموثوقين من أصحاب الأئمة حتي لا ينكشفوا على واقعهم هذا بالإضافة إلى فريق آخر من الوضاعين كانوا يضعون الأحاديث التي تنفر الناس منهم كما يرشد إلى ذلك قول الإمام الباقر لقد رووا عنا ما لم نقله ولم نفعله ليبغضونا إلى الناس
One of the most dangerous infiltrators to the Shia was a group who pretended to be loyal to Ahlul Bayt and infiltrated between the narrators and the companions of the Imams for a long period of time during which they managed to get close to the two Imams, al Baqir an al Sadiq. A group of narrators trusted them. They fabricated a large compilation of narrations and infiltrated them among the narrations of the Imams and in the sources of the books of Hadith, as some narrations indicate to that. It has been reported from Abu al Hassan al Rida that he said, “Bayan used to attribute lies to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala made him taste the heat of the iron (he was executed). Mughirah used to attribute lies to Abu Jafar al Baqir, Muhammad ibn Furat to Abu al Hassan Musa ibn Jafar and Abu al Khattab to Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq.”
It has been reported from Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid al Himmani that Jafar ibn Muhammad was a pious, peaceful, and righteous man. Some ignorant people surrounded him. They would go to him and return saying, “Jafar ibn Muhammad narrated to us such and such.”
They would narrate reprehensible narrations, all of which would be lies attributed to Jafar al Sadiq, to eat from the people; like al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, Bayan, ‘Umar al Nabati, and other fabricators. They attribute to Jafar that he said that recognition of the Imam suffices from Salah and fast, that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is in the sky, flying with the wind, that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is the deity in the sky and the Imam is the deity on earth, and other such statements.
Authentic narrations from Jafar al Sadiq and other Imams confirm that al Mughirah ibn Sa’id, Bayan, Sa’id al Hindi, ‘Umar al Nabati, al Mufaddal, and others who deviated from Shi’ism and infiltrated amongst their ranks, fabricated in large numbers, amongst the narrations from the Imams, in various topics.
It is narrated from al Mughirah that he said, “I fabricated twelve thousand narrations in transmissions from Jafar al Sadiq.”
He and his followers remained in the ranks of the Shia for a long period wherein they would frequent the gatherings of the Imams. Their condition was only exposed after the sources of the initial Hadith books were filled with their narrations, as indicated by the aforementioned narration of Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid.
It has been reported in al Kashshi from Jafar al Sadiq that he said, “Al Mughirah would deliberately lie against my father and take his companions’ books. His followers, who were concealed with my father’s companions, would take my father’s companions’ books and give it to al Mughirah, who would insert disbelief and apostasy in them and attribute it to my father. Then he would hand them over to his followers to spread them among the Shia.”
Undoubtedly, he and his followers used to attribute fabricated narrations to the trusted companions of the Imams so that their reality does not become exposed. This is in addition to another group of fabricators, who used to fabricate narrations which would repel people from them, as the statement of al Baqir points to that. He states, “They narrated from us that which we did not say so that people hate us.”[8]
Therefore, the late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah (d. 1431 AH) believes that the greatest problem in the method which the extremists and the fabricators adopted in fabricating narrations was targeting the books of the Imams’ companions whose reliability was unquestioned and were called the ‘people of consensus’, i.e. the Shia agree upon their reliability. He states:
إن هناك فوضي أحاطت بالأحاديث الواردة عن الأئمة من وضاع الحديث الذين كانوا لا يكتفون بنقل الأحاديث الموضوعة بشكل مباشر بل كانوا يدسونها في كتب أصحاب الأئمة الموثوقين كزرارة ومحمد بن مسلم وأمثالهما ليدخل الحديث الموضوع إلى الذهنية الإسلامية العامة من خلال هؤلاء الثقاة الذين لا يدخل الريب إلى ما ينقلونه عن الأئمة انطلاقا من وثاقتهم
Indeed there is chaos that has surrounded the narrations transmitted from the Imams, from the fabricators of Hadith, who did not suffice on narrating the fabricated narrations directly; rather, they used to insert them in books of the Imams’ trusted companions such as Zurarah, Muhammad ibn Muslim, and others like them; so that the fabricated narration enters the general Islamic mentality through these trusted people, regarding whom there is no doubt about what they narrate from the Imams, based on their trustworthiness. [9]
Al Bahbudi explains their method of fabrication and forgery in greater detail. He states:
تارة كانوا يأخذون أصلا معروفا أو كتابا مشهورا وينتسخون منه نسخا عديدة ويدسون في خلالها أحاديث من موضوعاتهم أو يحرفون كلماتها طبقا لأهوائهم وبعد إتمام النسخة يسجلون علي ظهرها :قرئ على فلان في الشهر الفلاني بمحضر من أصحابه ثم يفرّقون هذه النسخ المدسوس فيها في دور الوراقين أو يجعلونها في متناول الضعفاء من المحدثين وتارة كانوا يختلقون صحيفة كاملة فيها الغلو والأكاذيب ويكتبون علي ظهرها: أصل فلان كتاب فلان ثم يدسون هذه النسخ المفتعلة في كتب الوراقين أو يبيعونها بأيدي الصبيان والعجائز الأميين كأنها موروثة من أكابر المحدثين…
Sometimes they would take a well known source or a book, make multiple copies of it and insert some of their fabricated narrations in it or distort its wording in accordance to their whims. After completing the copy, they would write at the back that ‘it was read to so and so, in such and such city, in the presence of his companions.’ Then they would disperse these infiltrated copies in the cities of the scribes or make it accessible to the weak scholars of Hadith. Sometimes they would fabricate a complete journal, full of exaggerations and lies, and write at the back that ‘this is the original literature of so and so’ or ‘this is the book of so and so’. Then they would insert these fabricated copies in the books of the scribes or sell them through children and old illiterate people, as if it is inherited from senior scholars of Hadith…
Then he says:
إلى أن يقول: وتنفيذا لمكائدهم وترويجا لأكاذييهم زوروا أحاديث في جواز الأخذ عن النسخ من دون تحقيق وتبين واختلقوا روايات تجوز الرواية عن الغلاة والكذابين من دون تحرج فانخدع بهذه المكيدة -وهي أخبث المكائد- جماعة من المشايخ الساذجين والرواة المغفلين فأوردوا تلك الأكاذيب المزورة في مؤلفاتهم واجتهدوا في نشر ترهاتهم وأساطيرهم يحسبون أنهم يحسنون صنعا
To implement their schemes and promote their lies, they forged narrations about the permissibility of taking from copies without investigation and clarification. They also fabricated narrations that permit narrating from extremists and liars without any embarrassment. As a result, some naive scholars and foolish narrators got deceived by this scheme—which the worst of schemes—and reported those fabricated lies in their books and strove in spreading their nonsense and myths, thinking that they are doing good work.[10]
Then he gives examples of those methods and their infiltration into the Imami narrative group. He states:
وإن كان هذا الذي تلوناه عليكم ثقيلا صعبا فهلم معي نلمسكم غناء هذه السيرة المزعوم في الكفاح بها ونتدارس إحدى الروايات التي صرحوا بأنها صحيحة عالية مشيا علي أضوائها وهي صحيحة حماد بن عيسي الجهني في آداب الصلاة وكيفيتها كلهم زبروها في كتبهم ورسالاتهم العملية وعملوا بها واعتمدوا عليها ومنهم شيخنا وعمادنا جمال الدين أبو منصور الحسن بن زين الدين الشهيد (١٠١١ﻫ) في كتابه منتقى الجمان في الأحاديث الصحاح والحسان ج١ ص٤٥١- باب كيفية الصلاة وبيان ما بقي من أفعالها وقد رمز لها صحي يعني أن هذا الحديث صحيح عندي فإن رواته كلهم معدلون بتعديل إمامين من أئمة الرجال خلافا للمشهور فإنهم يكتفون في تصحيح الحديث بتعديل إمام واحد من أئمة الرجال فقط ثم ذكر الرواية وعلق بقوله ولكنا إذا سبرنا سند الحديث ومتنه عملا بالخطة التي خطتها الأقدمون من أصحابنا نجده مجعولا مزورا مختلقا يشهد علي جعله واختلاقه دلائل عديدة نذكر منها في هذا المجال الضيق بعضها وهي:
١- قال أبو الحسين أحمد بن العباس ابن النجاشي في فهرسته ص١٠٩ قال حماد بن عيسى سمعت من أبي عبد الله سبعين حديا فلم أزل أدخل الشك على نفسي حتي اقتصرت على هذه العشرين وهذه العشرون حديثا هي التي نراها في كتاب قرب الإسناد ص١٢-١٥ ط النجف رواها عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري عن محمد بن عيسي بن عبيد والحسن بن ظريف وعلي بن إسماعيل كلهم عن حماد بن عيسى الجهني وليس في هذه الرواية المذكورة عن حماد عن أبي عبد الله فإذا كانت رواياته عن أبي عبد الله محصورة في تلك العشرين حديثا وليس منها هذه الرواية المذكورة فلابد وأنها موضوعة عليه
٢- مات حماد بن عيسي سنة ٢٠٩ﻫ وله نيف وسبعون سنة نص علي ذلك شيخنا أبو عمرو الكشي ونقله عنه شيخنا أبو جعفر الطوسي في اختياره ص٣١٧ ونص على ذلك شيخنا ابن داود الحلي أيضا كما في رجاله ص ٥٥٦ فيكون مولد حماد حوالي سنة ١٣٥ﻫ ولم يكن له حين وفاة الصادق السنة ١٤٨ﻫ إلا ثلاث عشرة سنة أو نحوها فإذا كان لقاؤه لأبي عبد الله الصادق في صغره فكيف يقول أبو عبد الله الصادق لغلام ليس له إلا اثنتي عشرة سنة ونحوها ما أقبح بالرجل أن يأتي عليه ستون سنة أو سبعون سنة فما يقيم صلاة واحدة بحدودها تامة
٣ – حماد بن عيسي الجهني هو راوية كتاب حريز في الصلاة ولا يروي أصحابنا كتاب حريز إلا عن حماد بن عيسي الجهني هذا وبعدما قال حماد لأبي عبد الله الصادق يا سيدي أنا أحفظ كتاب حريز في الصلاة فلم يعبأ أبو عبد الله بمقاله وادعائه وقال له لا عليك قم فصل لا بد وان حمادا قامة وصلى بين يديه بأحسن الآداب التي كان قد حفظها من كتاب حريز في الصلاة ونحن راجعنا روايات حريز في الصلاة برواية حماد بن عيسي الجهني هذا فوجدناه يروي عن حريز عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر الباقر نفس هذه الآداب المذكورة في هذا الحديث بل وأحسن منها وأتم وأوفي وإذا كان حماد حفظ نفس هذه الآداب بل حفظ أتممها وأوفاها وتأدب بها في صلاته بين يدي أبي عبد الله الصادق كيف يرد عليه الإمام أبو عبد الله الصادق ويقول له يا حماد لا تحسن أن تصلي ما أقبح بالرجل أن يأتي عليه ستون سنة أو سبعون سنة فما يقيم صلاة واحدة بحدودها تامة
If, what we have mentioned is weighty and difficult, then come; let us make you taste the melody of the struggles of this alleged biography and let us study one of the narrations that they declare to be authentic and lofty, by shedding light about it. It is the authentic narration of Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani pertaining to the etiquettes of Salah and its methodology. All of them have included this narration in their practical books and treatises, practiced upon it and relied on it, among them is our teacher and pillar Jamal al Din Abu Mansur al Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al Shahid (d. 1011 AH) in his book Muntaqa al Juman fi al Ahadith al Sihah wa al Hisan, 1/451, chapter on the methodology of Salah and what remains of its actions. He categorised it as ‘Sahih’ meaning that it is authentic according to him because all the narrators are approved by two experts in the field of narrators, contrary to a ‘Mashhur’ narration wherein they suffice with the approval of one expert for its authenticity. Then he mentioned the narration and commented on it by saying, “However, if we probe the chain and text of this narration in accordance to the pattern drawn by our former companions, we find that it is made up, forged, and fabricated, with multiple evidences testifying to its forgery and fabrication, some of which we will mention in this narrow domain. They are:
1) Abu al Hassan Ahmed ibn al ‘Abbas ibn al Najashi states in his al Fihrist, pg. 109:
Hammad ibn ‘Isa said, “I heard 70 narrations from Abu ‘Abdullah. I continued to doubt myself regarding them until I confined them to these twenty narrations.”
These twenty narrations which we see in the book, Qurb al Isnad, pg. 12 -15, al Najaf, are narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar al Himyari from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubaid, al Hassan ibn Zarif, and ‘Ali ibn Ismail, all of them narrating from Hammad ibn ‘Isa. The above mentioned narration does not state ‘from Hammad from Abu ‘Abdullah’. If his narrations from Abu ‘Abdullah are confined to twenty and this above mentioned narration is not amongst them, then definitely it is fabricated upon him.
2) Hammad ibn ‘Isa died in 209 AH when he was seventy-odd years old. Our sheikh Abu ‘Amr al Kashshi specified this and Abu Jafar al Tusi quoted it from him in his book Ikhtiyar, pg. 317. Our sheikh Ibn Dawood al Hilli also specified this, as seen in his Rijal, pg. 556. Therefore, Hammad was born around 135 AH. When al Sadiq passed way in 148 AH, he was around 13 years old only. If he met al Sadiq during his youth, how is it possible for Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq to say to a boy of around 13 years old, “How disgraceful it is that a man reaches 60 or 70 years and he did not complete one Salah with all its requisites?”
3) Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani is the narrator of Hariz’s book on salah. Our companions only narrate it from this Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani. When Hammad told Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq, “O my leader, I am memorizing the book of Hariz on Salah.” Then Abu ‘Abdullah did not pay attention to his statement and claim, and instructed him, “No, you must get up and perform Salah.” Then it is obvious that Hammad got up and performed it in front of him, with the best of etiquettes which he memorized from Hariz’s book. When we reviewed the narrations of Hariz on Salah, with the narration of Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani, we found that he narrates the same etiquettes mentioned in this narration from Hariz, who narrates from Zurarah, who narrates from Abu Jafar al Baqir. In fact, better than them and more complete. When Hammad memorised these same etiquettes, rather, better and more complete ones and applied them in his Salah before Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq, how is it possible for Abu ‘Abdullah to reject them and say to him, “How disgraceful it is that a man reaches 60 or 70 years and he did not complete one Salah with all its requisites?”[11]
However, the problem is much greater than that.
The extremists and the leaders of desires have inserted, in the Jafari School, whatever beliefs and concepts they want, through ‘reliable’ Shia narrations that are accepted by Imami scholars which plunged the distinguished scholars into a dilemma,[12] let alone their masses. They could neither falsify it because of the authenticity of the chain and the possibility of it being issued by an infallible Imam as a form of Taqiyyah nor could they verify it completely except by crippling the mind.
This is a great problem that the School faces which their scholars shamefully acknowledge.
Take for example the topic of the distortion of the Qur’an, which we alluded to when discussing the lies attributed to the Ahlul Bayt. We mentioned some testimonies of Imami luminaries regarding the narrations being Mutawatir (consecutively narrated), and the testimony of the late Shia scholar of reference, Abu al Qasim al Khu’i that some of its narrations are reliable[13], meaning that it is Mutawatir briefly.[14] It has been a hot topic for the Imami luminaries to solve, generation after generation, to a degree that it compelled the learned Mufassir Sayed Hussain al Tabataba’i (d. 1402 AH) to acknowledge that fabrication of narrations and adjusting authentic chains to it by attributing it to trusted narrators, was a matter that was prevalent during the period of the Imams; and that infiltration and fabrication that was prevalent in that period, is the real cause of these authentic or Mutawatir narrations with regards to the view of distortion of the Qur’an, etc. He states:
واما ما ذكرنا من شيوع الدس والوضع في الروايات فلا يرتاب فيه من راجع الروايات المنقولة في الصنع والإيجاد وقصص الأنبياء والأمم والأخبار الواردة في تفاسير الآيات والحوادث الواقعة في صدر الإسلام وأعظم ما يهم أمره لأعداء الدين ولا يألون جهدا في إطفاء نوره وإخماد ناره وإعفاء أثره هو القرآن الكريم الذي هو الكهف المنيع والركن الشديد الذي يأوي إليه ويتحصن به المعارف الدينية والسند الحي الخالد لمنشور النبوة ومواد الدعوة لعلمهم بأنه لو بطلت حجة القرآن لفسد بذلك أمر النبوة واختل نظام الدين ولم يستقر من بنيته حجر على حجر
والعجب من هؤلاء المحتجين بروايات منسوبة إلى الصحابة أو إلي أئمة أهل البيت على تحريف كتاب الله سبحانه وإبطال حجيته وببطلان حجة القرآن تذهب النبوة سدى والمعارف الدينية لغي لا آثر لها وماذا يغني قولنا إن رجلا في تاريخ كذا ادعى النبوة وأتى بالقرآن معجزة و أما هو فقد مات وأما قرآنه فقد حرف ولم يبق بايدينا مما يؤيد أمره إلا أن المؤمنين به أجمعوا علي صدقه في دعواه وإن القرآن الذي جاء به كان معجرا دالا على نبوته والاجماع حجة لأن النبي المذكور اعتبر حجيته أو لأنه يكشف مثلا عن قول أئمة أهل بيته
وبالجملة احتمال الدس وهو قريب جدا مؤيد بالشواهد والقرائن يدفع حجية هذه الروايات ويفسد اعتبارها فلا يبقي معه لها لا حجية شرعية ولا حجية عقلائية حتى ما كان منها صحيح الإسناد فإن صحة السند وعدالة رجال الطريق إنما يدفع تعمدهم الكذب دون دس غيرهم في أصولهم وجوامعهم ما لم يرووه
As for what we have mentioned about the prevalence of infiltration and fabrication in the narrations, anyone who reviews the narrations transmitted regarding creation, existence, stories of the Prophets ‘alayh al Salam and the previous nations, transmissions narrated about the commentary of Qur’anic verses, and incidents that occurred during the initial days of Islam, will have no doubt about it. What matters most to the enemies of din; for which they leave no stone unturned in extinguishing its radiance, suppressing its fire and waving its impact, is the noble Qur’an; which is the impenetrable cave, the strong pillar toward which the knowledge of din is sheltered and fortified and a living and perpetual support for the propagation of Prophethood and materials of invitation, because they know that by invalidating the evidence of the Qur’an, the issue of Prophethood would be corrupted and the system of din would be disturbed, with no foundation to stabilize its structure.
It is surprising that these people justify the distortion of the Qur’an and invalidating its authority through narrations that are attributed to the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum or the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt. By invalidating the Qur’an’s authority, Prophethood would be in vain and the knowledge of din would be wasted, having no impact. What does our saying benefit that a man claimed Prophethood on such and such date and brought the Qur’an as a miracle. He passed away and his Qur’an was distorted and there is nothing left in our hand that would support his matter except that the believers are unanimous upon the truth of his claim, that the Qur’an which he brought is a miracle that indicates to his Prophethood and consensus is a proof because the aforementioned Prophet recognised its authority or because—for example—he reveals the views of the Imams of his household?
In brief, the possibility of infiltration—which is very possible, supported by evidences, and proofs—repels the authority of these narrations and ruins its credibility. Thus, with this possibility, there remains no Shar’i or intellectual evidence for these narrations, even those whose chains of narrations are authentic because the authenticity of the chain and credibility of the narrators only repels their deliberate lying, not infiltration from others into their sources and compilations, as long as they do not narrate it.[15]
Take a look the month of Ramadan and the intense differences that occurred among the senior scholars of the sect in stipulating the days of fasting and the days when one must not fast, since the second century (AH) till the fifth century (AH). The cause is the existence of Mutawatir narrations and Tawatur (consecutive narrations) indicated to convictions; however, the narrators are all of extremists.
Concerning this, Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi states:
ومن الأسف أننا نجد هذه الأحاديث التي يفطرنا يوم صومنا ويصومنا يوم فطرنا … نراها بأسانيد مختلفة وأساليب مختلفة
It is unfortunate that we find these narrations that prevents us from fasting on the days we were supposed to fast and makes us fast on the days we were not supposed to fast… we see them with different chains and in different ways.[16]
He also states:
اشتهرت هذه الأحاديث في أواخر القرن الثاني وعمل بها بعض أصحابنا حتي في القرن الخامس مغترا بتواترها حتي بعدما ألف شيخنا محمد بن مسعود العياشي (٣٢٠ﻫ( كتابا في الرد على من صام وأفطر قبل الرؤية
These narrations[17] became popular at the end of the second century and some of our companions practiced on them till the fifth century, being deceived by consecutive narrating, until our teacher Muhammad ibn Mas’ud al ‘Ayyashi (d. 320 AH) wrote a book refuting those who fast or stop fasting before the sighting (of the crescent).[18]
Due to the fact that these narrations were consecutively narrated, it was not easy to bypass them except with intense differences which extended for approximately three centuries.
The dispute amongst the Imami jurists reached such an intolerable level that we find Ibn Babawayh al Qummi—known as al Sheikh al Saduq—describing those who hold the view of the permissibility of Ramadan having less than 30 days as ‘weak Shias’ and that a Jafari believer should avoid them just as they avoid the Ahlus Sunnah.
After quoting these narrations, he states in Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih:
من خالف هذه الأخبار وذهب إلى الأخبار الموافقة للعامة في ضدها اتقي كما يتقى العامة ولا يكلم إلا بالتقية كائنا من كان إلا أن يكون مسترشدا فيرشد ويبين له فإن البدعة إنما تمات وتبطل بترك ذكرها
Whoever differs with these transmissions and adopts the transmissions which conform to the masses, in opposition to these, he should be avoided and only spoken to, using Taqiyyah, no matter who he is, except one who seeks guidance as he should be guided and explained, because innovation is destroyed and invalidated by avoiding its mention.[19]
He states in al Khisal:
مذهب خواص الشيعة وأهل الاستبصار منهم في شهر رمضان أنه لا ينقص عن ثلاثين يوما أبدا والأخبار في ذلك موافقة للكتاب مخالفة للعامة فمن ذهب من ضعفة الشيعة إلي الأخبار التي وردت للتقية في أنه ينقص ويصيبه ما يصيب الشهور من النقصان والتمام اتقي كما تتقي العامة ولم يكلم إلا بما يكلم به العامة ولا قوة إلا بالله
The school of the elite Shia and the people of foresight amongst them, pertaining to the month of Ramadan, is that it can never be less than 30 days. Transmissions pertaining to it are in conformance to the Qur’an and opposing the masses. Whoever, from the weak Shia adopts those narrations which were transmitted as Taqiyyah, that Ramadan can decrease (to less than 30 days) and that it is just like the other months which can decrease or be complete, he should be avoided just as the masses are avoided, and he should only be spoken to as the masses are. There is no power except from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.[20]
Meanwhile Sheikh al Mufid describes those who adopt the view of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi as those who:
خالفوا نص القرآن ولغة العرب وفارقوا بمذهبهم فيه كافة علماء الاسلام وباينوا أصحاب علم النجوم فلم يصيروا إلي قول المسلمين في ذلك ولا إلى قول المنجمين الذين اعتمدوا الرصد والحساب وادعوا علم الهيئة فصاروا مذبذبين لا إلى هؤلاء ولا إلى هؤلاء وأحدثوا مذهبا غير معقول ولاله أصل يستقر على الحجاج
They differed from the text of the Qur’an and the Arabic language, separated through their school, from all the scholars of Islam, and differed with the astrologers. Thus, they neither adopted the view of the Muslims nor the view of the astrologers, who depend on observation and calculation. They claimed astronomy. They became confused, neither to this side nor to that side. They invented an unreasonable school which has no principle that could be applied to the pilgrims.[21][22]
Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi discussed the differences on this issue in detail. At the end of the discussion, he made an extremely dangerous statement. He states:
وإنما أطنبنا البحث في هذا المضمار وقد كان له ذيل طويل لم نتعرض له لتتدارس معكم هجوم الغلاة في وجه واحد ومسألة واحدة من مسائل الفقه وقد خفي علي أصحابنا وأشياخنا وقع أقدامهم فعلينا أن نتعرف الجو الذي مكن الغلاة بهذه الوسعة من التزوير والدس بحيث تمكن واحد منهم بأشياعه أن يزور أربعة آلاف حديث في أبواب الحلال والحرام ويدسسها في المجاميع الحديثية ولايتفطن مشايخنا لمكيدته طيلة قرنين بل وأكثر فبذالك الدرس و التنقيب نتحقق أنه لايجوز التعويل على صحة الأسانيد فقط والإعتماد على تواتر الحديث بألفاظ متقاربة بل اللازم علينا نثقف الحقيقة بكل وجه ممكن ولانغتر بشهرة الحديث ولا بكثرة من أفتى به ولا بكثرة من رواه في موسوعته والله المستعان
We have lengthened the discussion in this field, and it had a long appendix which we did not touch, to study with you the attacks of the extremists in one manner and in one of the Fiqhi rulings—their footsteps were concealed from our companions and teachers—thus, it is necessary for us to know the atmosphere that allowed the extremists such amount of leeway in forgery and infiltration that one of them, along with his companions, was able to forge four thousand narrations in the field of Halal and Haram, and insert them in the narrative compilations and our leaders did not notice their scheme for the duration of two, rather more than two centuries. Therefore, through this study and investigation we will ascertain that it is not permissible to rely on the authenticity of the chain only and to depend on consecutively narrated transmissions with similar wordings. Rather, it is incumbent on us to set right the reality in every possible manner and neither be deceived by the popularity of the narration, nor by the abundance of rulings about it, nor by the abundance of the one who transmits it in his encyclopaedia. Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala help is sought.[23]
NEXT⇒ 4. Inability to distinguish between authentic and fabricated
[1] ‘Ulum al Qur’an, pg. 329, 321.
[2] Rijal al Kashshhi, 2/491.
[3]‘Isa ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Isa ibn Yahya ibn al Hussain ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He was a Zaidi Muhaddith and theologian. He was born in Iraq, and then relocated to al Ray, Iran where he passed away in 326 AH.
[4] Surah al Nahl: 64.
[5] Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: Kamal al Din wa Tamam al Ni’mah, pg. 109, quoting from Kitab al Ishhad of Abu Zaid al ‘Alawi.
[6] Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: Kamal al Din wa Tamam al Ni’mah, pg. 109.
[7]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 72.
[8]Al Mawdu’at fi al Athar wa al Akhbar, pg. 149-150.
[9] Majallat al Fikr al Jadid, article by Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, pg. 8.
[10]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 77-79.
[11]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 23-25.
[12]The expression goes as, ‘the people fell into Hays Bays, meaning they fell into a confusing matter wherefrom they cannot escape. (Refer to al Jawhari: al Sihah, 3/1035.)
[13]Al Khu’i states in al Bayan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, pg. 226:
إن كثرة الروايات تورث القطع بصدور بعضها عن المعصومين ولا أقل من الاطمتنان بذلك وفيها ما روي بطريق معتبر فلا حاجة بنا إلى التكلم في سند كل رواية بخصوصها
Indeed, the large number of narrations creates conviction that some of them might emanate from the infallible Imams and that is nothing less than reassuring. Some of these narrations are transmitted through reliable sources; therefore, there is no need to discuss the chain of each narration specifically.
[14] Refer to his discussion about brief Tawatur in Dirasah fi ‘Ilm al Usul – Taqrir Bahth al Sayed al Khu’i of Sayed al Shahrudi, 3/185.
[15]Tafsir al Mizan, 12/114-115.
[16] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 14. (Forward of the 2nd edition)
[17] That is profuse narrations. This refers to the narrations transmitted from Jafar al Sadiq that the month of Ramadan can never be less than 30 days and the month of Sha’ban can never be complete 30 days.
[18] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 16. (Forward of the 2nd edition)
[19]Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih, 2/171.
[20]Al Khisal, pg. 531-532.
[21]What is astonishing is the fact that al Mufid himself, for a period of his youth, adopted the view of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi. He authored his book Lamh al Burhan, as a response to those who claim the presence of a view of counting (the days of the month) and the shortage of those who hold this view. He states clearly:
ومما يدل على كذبه أن فقهاء عصرنا هذا وهو سنة ٣٦٣ﻫ ورواته وفضلائه وإن كانوا أقل عددا منهم في كل عصر مجمعون عليه ويتدينون به ويفتون بصحته وداعون إلى صوابه كسيدنا وشيخنا الشريف الزكي أبي محمد الحسيني وشيخنا الثقة أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه أيده الله وشيخنا الفقيه أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بايويه وشيخنا أبي عبد الله الحسين بن علي بن الحسين أيدهما الله وشيخنا أبي محمد هارون بن موسي التلعكبري أيده الله
And what indicates to its falsehood is that the jurists of our era, which is the year 363 AH, narrators and the eminent ones—even though they were fewer in number in every ear—are unanimous upon it, practice on it, issue rulings of its validity, and claim it to be correct like our leader and teacher al Sharif al Zakiyy Abu Muhammad al Hussaini, our trusted teacher Abu al Qasim Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Quluwayh, our teacher and jurist Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Babawayh, our teacher Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, and our teacher Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tala’akbari.
Then he retracted from this view in his book Masabih al Nur and described those Imami scholars who adopt his previous view, with the statement mentioned above.
[22] Jawabat Ahl al Mawsil fi al ‘Adad wa al Ru’yah, pg. 16-17.
[23] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 20.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Ayatollah al Sayed Muhammad Baqir al Hakim (d.1424 AH) believes, as stated in his book ‘Ulum al Qur’an:
أن من أهم المشكلات التي تعرض لها حديث أئمة أهل البيت الدس والوضع والتزوير في حديثهم وكان الأمر مبكرا منذ عهد الأئمة واستمر إلى ما بعد ذلك في العصور المتأخرة عنهم وأن ظروف الاضطهاد والمطاردة للنشطاء من أتباع الأئمة من جهة والسرية التي اتخذها هؤلاء النشطاء في العمل والحركة ساهمت بشكل مباشر في اختفاء البيانات الواقعية لحال الأئمة وأحاديثهم وفي استغلال أعداء الأئمة أو المنافقين الذين يظهرون الارتباط بهم في هذه الظروف في الدس والتزوير تحت شعار التقية
Amongst the most important problems faced by the narrations of the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt are infiltration, fabrication, and forgery in their narrations. This issue began early during the time of the Imams and continued thereafter in later times. The conditions of persecution and pursuit of the activists from the followers of the Imams on one side, and the confidentiality that these activists adopted in their work and movement, directly contributed to the disappearance of factual data about the conditions of the Imams and their narrations and in exploitation—by the Imams’ enemies or hypocrites who would outwardly show cohesion in these circumstances—in infiltration and forgery under the banner of Taqiyyah.[1]
The process of infiltration and forgery was completed in complete confidentiality and in a malicious way that the companions of the Imams were not aware of it. The Imam, himself was not aware of it, rather, it was the Imam after him that noticed it or was alerted to it, after the misfortune occurred and the process of infiltration was completed in the manner it was planned, books were spread out and the narrations were mixed up among the people.
The Imamiyyah narrate from Hisham ibn al Hakam that he heard Jafar al Sadiq narrating from his father, Muhammad al Baqir thus:
كان المغيرة بن سعيد يتعمد الكذب علي أبي ويأخذ كتب أصحابه وكان أصحابه المستترون بأصحاب أبي يأخذون الكتب من أصحاب أبي فيدفعونها إلى المغيرة فكان يدس فيها الكفر والزندقة ويسندها إلى أبي ثم يدفعها إلى أصحابه ويامرهم أن بيثوها في الشيعة فكلما كان في كتب أصحاب أبي من الغلو فذاك ما دسه المغيرة بن سعيد في كتبهم
Al Mughirah ibn Sa’id used to deliberately lie against my father and take his companion’s books. His companions, who were concealed with my father’s companions, used to take my father’s companions’ books and give it to al Mughirah. He would insert disbelief and apostasy in them and attribute them to my father. He would then give them to his companions and instruct them to spread it amongst the Shia. Whenever there is exaggeration in my father’s companions’ books, it is what al Mughirah ibn Sa’id inserted in their books.[2]
You can see that the process of infiltration took a very dangerous turn during the era of the Imams, particularly al Baqir and al Sadiq. The extremists used to insert false ahadith during the time of the Imam and in his reliable companions’ books through their intrusive companions that were concealed amongst them, in such a way that Jafar al Sadiq was certain, in this narration, that a great deal of infiltration took place in the principle hadith books which were narrated from his father, to such degree that he attributed all the extremism found in this book to Mughirah ibn Sa’id and other liars like him. However, what is the criterion of this extremism? How is it possible to differentiate between what Mughirah ibn Sa’id and others infiltrated and what they did not? Is Jafar al Sadiq spared from this infiltration?
‘Allamah Abu Zaid al ‘Alawi (d. 326 AH)[3] criticised the Imamiyyah on their differences and great confusion, towards which their twelfth Imam—since his assumed birth—did nothing. He says:
ثم لم يخل اختلافهم من أن يكون مولدا من أنفسهم أو من عند الناقلين إليهم أو من عند أئمتهم فإن كان اختلافهم من قبل أئمتهم فالإمام من جمع الكلمة لا من كان سببا للاختلاف بين الأمة لا سيما وهم أولياؤه دون أعدائه ومن لا تقية بينهم وبينه وما الفرق بين المؤتمة والأمة إذ كانوا مع أئمتهم وحجج الله عليهم في أكثر ما عابوا على الأمة التي لا إمام لها من المخالفة في الدين وإكفار بعضهم بعضا وإن يكن اختلافهم من قبل الناقلين إليهم دينهم فما يؤمنهم من أن يكون هذا سبيلهم معهم فيما ألقوا إليه من الإمامة لا سيما إذا كان المدعى له الإمامة معدوم العين غير مرئي الشخص وهو حجة عليهم فيما يدعون لإمامهم من علم الغيب إذا كان خيرته والتراجمة بينه وبين شيعته كذابين يكذبون عليه ولا علم له بهم وإن يكن اختلاف المؤتمة في دينها من قبل أنفسها دون أئمتها فما حاجة المؤتمة إلى الأئمة إذ كانوا بأنفسهم مستغنين وهو بين أظهرهم ولا ينهاهم وهو الترجمان لهم من الله والحجة عليهم هذا أيضا من أدل الدليل على عدمه وما يدعي من علم الغيب له لأنه لو كان موجودا لم يسعه ترك البيان لشيعته كما قال الله تعالى وَمَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُوْا فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ فكما بين الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لأمته وجب على الإمام مثله لشيعته
Then, their differences are either born from themselves or those who transmit to them or from the Imams. If their differences arose from their Imams, then an Imam is one who unites people and not become a cause of differences among the Ummah, particularly if they are his allies and not enemies and those with whom he does not need to practice Taqiyyah. What is the difference between the Imamiyyah and the Ummah when they are with their Imams? The evidence of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is against them regarding most of their criticism of the Ummah that has no Imam, such as differences in din and declaring disbelief against each other. If their differences arose from those who transmitted their din to them then what reassures them that this would not be their modus operandi with them when transmitting about Imamah, especially when the one for whom Imamah is alleged is a non-existent and invisible person. This is evidence against them for their claim of knowledge of the unseen for their Imam, when his choicest people and the interpreters between him and his sect are liars who lie against him and he has no knowledge of them. If the Imami differences in their din came from themselves and not their Imams, then what is the need for the Imams, because they are independent whilst he is among them and he does not prevent them, whereas he is their interpreter from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and evidence is against them? This is also a clear proof about his non-existence and what is claimed that he has knowledge of the unseen, because if he existed, it would not be permissible for him to omit explanation to his sect as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says, “We have revealed to you the Book only to clarify for them what they differed about, and as a guide and mercy for those who believe.” [4] Thus, just as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explained to his Ummah, similarly it is incumbent on the Imam to explain to his sect.[5]
Ibn Babawayh al Qummi responded to him in a way that confirms the confusion rather than removing it. He says:
إن اختلاف الإمامية إنما هو من قبل كذابين دلسوا انفسهم فيهم في الوقت بعد الوقت والزمان بعد الزمان حتي عظم البلاء وكان أسلافهم قوما يرجعون إلى ورع واجتهاد وسلامة ناحية ولم يكونوا أصحاب نظر وتميز فكانوا إذا رأوا رجلا مستورا يروي خبرا أحسنوا به الظن وقبلوه فلما كثر هذا وظهر شكوا إلى أئمتهم فامرهم الأئمة بأن يأخذوا بما يجمع عليه فلم يفعلوا وجروا على عادتهم فكانت الخيانة من قبلهم لا من قبل أئمتهم والإمام أيضا لم يقف على كل هذه التخاليط التي رويت لأنه لا يعلم الغيب وإنما هو عبد صالح يعلم الكتاب والسنة، ويعلم من أخبار شيعته ما ينهي إليه
The Imami differences stemmed from the liars who infiltrated amongst them, from time to time and from era to era, until the calamity intensified. Their predecessors were inclined to piety, ijtihad, and respectful peace. They were not people of vision and distinction. When they would see a concealed person narrating any transmission, they had good opinion of him and accepted it. When this increased and became apparent, they complained to their Imams, who instructed them to adopt only that which is agreed upon. However, they did not do that and continued on their normal habit. Therefore, the disloyalty was from the people and not the Imams. The Imam was not even aware of these mixed up narrations that were transmitted, as he is not the knower of the unseen. He is a mere pious servant who knows the Qur’an, Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and transmissions of his sect which reach him.[6]
Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi discusses the two main phases that the narrations of the Ahlul Bayt went through. They are:
The phase of Taqiyyah and concealment; which is the first phase.
The phase of infiltration from the extremists and the apostates; which is the second phase.
Both of these phases are troublesome in the narrative legacy of transmissions which we find today. He states:
وقد كان حديث أهل البيت محفوظا عن مكائد الغلاة ودسائسهم في دوره الأول حيث كان أصحاب الحديث وكلهم فقهاء مخلصين مستأنسين مترافقين لايتدارسون حديثهم إلا في خفاء كامل ولا يبثون مواريثهم إلا عند من يثقون به خوفا علي دمائهم واما في الدور الثاني فبعد ما كثر أصحاب الحديث ورواد المذهب وتوفرت الأصول والمؤلفات وتداولتها أيدي الوراقين والصحفيين تلاعبت بمواريثهم أيدي الغلاة الخونة وعملاء الزنادقة فزادوا ونقصوا وغيروا وبدلوا وأحلوا حرام الله وحرموا حلال الله عند ذلك كثر التضاد والتهافت بحيث لا يوجد في أبواب الفقه والمعارف حديث إلا وبإزائه ما يخالفه ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابله ما يناقضه ويضاده وبذلك تطرقت المضادة والاختلاف إلى العقائد والفتاوى والأحكام وكثيرا ما نرى كتب الحديث مختلفة بالزيادة والنقصان
The narrations of the Ahlul Bayt were protected from the plots of the extremists and their conspiracies, during the first phase, where the narrators of Hadith were all sincere jurists and familiar associates. They would not teach Hadith except in complete secrecy and they would not pass on their legacy except to those who they trusted, out of fear for their lives.
As for the second phase; after the narrators of Hadith and pioneers of the school increased, sources and literatures were freely available, and they were circulated among the scribes and reporters, the hands of the extremists manipulated their legacy. Thus, they added, deleted, changed, permitted what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala forbade and forbade what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala permitted, whereupon, inconsistency and contradictions increased to such a degree that one would not find a narration in the chapter of fiqh and knowledge except that there would be another one contradicting it and no narration would be accepted, except that there would be another that would oppose and contradict it. Through this, contradiction and differences crept into beliefs and legal rulings. Very often we see books of Hadith differing with increases and decreases.[7]
However, Sayed Hashim Ma’roof al Hassani (d. 1403 AH) disagrees with al Bahbudi regarding his view on the integrity of the first phase, rejecting the Hadith scholars’ and the jurists’ ability in preserving and documenting the Imams’ narrations away from infiltration and forgery, during this phase. He believes that authentic narrations from the Imams confirm the existence of infiltration, fabrication, and forgery from an early stage. He states:
وكان من أخطر الدخلاء على التشيع جماعة تظاهروا بالولاء لأهل البيت واندسوا بين الرواة وأصحاب الأئمة مدة طويلة من الزمن استطاعوا خلالها أن يتقربوا من الإمامين الباقر والصادق واطمأن إليهم جمع من الرواة فوضعوا مجموعة كبيرة من الأحاديث ودسوها بين أحاديث الأئمة وفي أصول كتب الحديث كما تشير إلى ذلك بعض الروايات…وجاء عن أبي الحسن الرضا أنه قال كان بيان يكذب على علي بن الحسين فأذاقه الله حر الحديد وكان المغيرة يكذب على أبي جعفر الباقر وكان محمد بن فرات يكذب علي أبي الحسن موسى بن جعفر وكان أبو الخطاب يكذب على أبي عبد الله الصادق
وجاء عن يحي بن عبد الحميد الحماني أن جعفر بن محمد كان رجلا صالحا مسلما ورعا فاكتنفه قومم جهال يدخلون عليه ويخرجون يقولون حدثنا جعفر بن محمد ويحدثون بأحاديث منكرة كلها كذب على الإمام جعفر بن محمد يستأكلون بها الناس كالمفضل بن عمر وبيان وعمر النبطي وغيرهم من الوضاعين ونسبوا إليه أنه قال إن معرفة الإمام تكفي عن الصلاة والصيام وإن عليا في السحاب يطير مع الريح وأن الله إله السماء والإمام إله الأرض إلى غير ذلك من المقالات
وتؤكد المرويات الصحيحة عن الإمام الصادق وغيره من الأئمة أن المغيرة بن سعيد وبيانا وصائدا الهندي وعمر النبطي والمفضل وغيرهم من المنحرفين عن التشيع والمندسين في صفوف الشيعة وضعوا بين المرويات عن الأئمة عددا كبيرا في مختلف المواضيع
وجاء عن المغيرة أنه قال وضعت في أخبار جعفر بن محمد اثني عشر ألف حديث وظل هو وأتباعه زمنا طويلا بين صفوف الشيعة يترددون معهم إلى مجلس الأئمة ولم ينكشف حالهم إلا بعد أن امتلأت أصول كتب الحديث الأولى بمروياتهم كما تشير إلى ذلك رواية يحي بن عبد الحميد السابقة
وجاء في الكشي عن الإمام الصادق أنه قال كان المغيرة بن سعيد يتعمد الكذب على أبي ويأخذ كتب أصحابه وكان أصحابه المتسترون بأصحاب أبي يأخذون كتب أصحاب أبي فيدفعونها إلى المغيرة فيدس فيها الكفر والزندقة ويسندها إلى أبي ثم يدفعها إلى أصحابه ليبثوها بين الشيعة وبلاشك كان هو واتباعه ينسبون الرواية المدسوسة إلى الموثوقين من أصحاب الأئمة حتي لا ينكشفوا على واقعهم هذا بالإضافة إلى فريق آخر من الوضاعين كانوا يضعون الأحاديث التي تنفر الناس منهم كما يرشد إلى ذلك قول الإمام الباقر لقد رووا عنا ما لم نقله ولم نفعله ليبغضونا إلى الناس
One of the most dangerous infiltrators to the Shia was a group who pretended to be loyal to Ahlul Bayt and infiltrated between the narrators and the companions of the Imams for a long period of time during which they managed to get close to the two Imams, al Baqir an al Sadiq. A group of narrators trusted them. They fabricated a large compilation of narrations and infiltrated them among the narrations of the Imams and in the sources of the books of Hadith, as some narrations indicate to that. It has been reported from Abu al Hassan al Rida that he said, “Bayan used to attribute lies to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala made him taste the heat of the iron (he was executed). Mughirah used to attribute lies to Abu Jafar al Baqir, Muhammad ibn Furat to Abu al Hassan Musa ibn Jafar and Abu al Khattab to Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq.”
It has been reported from Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid al Himmani that Jafar ibn Muhammad was a pious, peaceful, and righteous man. Some ignorant people surrounded him. They would go to him and return saying, “Jafar ibn Muhammad narrated to us such and such.”
They would narrate reprehensible narrations, all of which would be lies attributed to Jafar al Sadiq, to eat from the people; like al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, Bayan, ‘Umar al Nabati, and other fabricators. They attribute to Jafar that he said that recognition of the Imam suffices from Salah and fast, that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is in the sky, flying with the wind, that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is the deity in the sky and the Imam is the deity on earth, and other such statements.
Authentic narrations from Jafar al Sadiq and other Imams confirm that al Mughirah ibn Sa’id, Bayan, Sa’id al Hindi, ‘Umar al Nabati, al Mufaddal, and others who deviated from Shi’ism and infiltrated amongst their ranks, fabricated in large numbers, amongst the narrations from the Imams, in various topics.
It is narrated from al Mughirah that he said, “I fabricated twelve thousand narrations in transmissions from Jafar al Sadiq.”
He and his followers remained in the ranks of the Shia for a long period wherein they would frequent the gatherings of the Imams. Their condition was only exposed after the sources of the initial Hadith books were filled with their narrations, as indicated by the aforementioned narration of Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid.
It has been reported in al Kashshi from Jafar al Sadiq that he said, “Al Mughirah would deliberately lie against my father and take his companions’ books. His followers, who were concealed with my father’s companions, would take my father’s companions’ books and give it to al Mughirah, who would insert disbelief and apostasy in them and attribute it to my father. Then he would hand them over to his followers to spread them among the Shia.”
Undoubtedly, he and his followers used to attribute fabricated narrations to the trusted companions of the Imams so that their reality does not become exposed. This is in addition to another group of fabricators, who used to fabricate narrations which would repel people from them, as the statement of al Baqir points to that. He states, “They narrated from us that which we did not say so that people hate us.”[8]
Therefore, the late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah (d. 1431 AH) believes that the greatest problem in the method which the extremists and the fabricators adopted in fabricating narrations was targeting the books of the Imams’ companions whose reliability was unquestioned and were called the ‘people of consensus’, i.e. the Shia agree upon their reliability. He states:
إن هناك فوضي أحاطت بالأحاديث الواردة عن الأئمة من وضاع الحديث الذين كانوا لا يكتفون بنقل الأحاديث الموضوعة بشكل مباشر بل كانوا يدسونها في كتب أصحاب الأئمة الموثوقين كزرارة ومحمد بن مسلم وأمثالهما ليدخل الحديث الموضوع إلى الذهنية الإسلامية العامة من خلال هؤلاء الثقاة الذين لا يدخل الريب إلى ما ينقلونه عن الأئمة انطلاقا من وثاقتهم
Indeed there is chaos that has surrounded the narrations transmitted from the Imams, from the fabricators of Hadith, who did not suffice on narrating the fabricated narrations directly; rather, they used to insert them in books of the Imams’ trusted companions such as Zurarah, Muhammad ibn Muslim, and others like them; so that the fabricated narration enters the general Islamic mentality through these trusted people, regarding whom there is no doubt about what they narrate from the Imams, based on their trustworthiness. [9]
Al Bahbudi explains their method of fabrication and forgery in greater detail. He states:
تارة كانوا يأخذون أصلا معروفا أو كتابا مشهورا وينتسخون منه نسخا عديدة ويدسون في خلالها أحاديث من موضوعاتهم أو يحرفون كلماتها طبقا لأهوائهم وبعد إتمام النسخة يسجلون علي ظهرها :قرئ على فلان في الشهر الفلاني بمحضر من أصحابه ثم يفرّقون هذه النسخ المدسوس فيها في دور الوراقين أو يجعلونها في متناول الضعفاء من المحدثين وتارة كانوا يختلقون صحيفة كاملة فيها الغلو والأكاذيب ويكتبون علي ظهرها: أصل فلان كتاب فلان ثم يدسون هذه النسخ المفتعلة في كتب الوراقين أو يبيعونها بأيدي الصبيان والعجائز الأميين كأنها موروثة من أكابر المحدثين…
Sometimes they would take a well known source or a book, make multiple copies of it and insert some of their fabricated narrations in it or distort its wording in accordance to their whims. After completing the copy, they would write at the back that ‘it was read to so and so, in such and such city, in the presence of his companions.’ Then they would disperse these infiltrated copies in the cities of the scribes or make it accessible to the weak scholars of Hadith. Sometimes they would fabricate a complete journal, full of exaggerations and lies, and write at the back that ‘this is the original literature of so and so’ or ‘this is the book of so and so’. Then they would insert these fabricated copies in the books of the scribes or sell them through children and old illiterate people, as if it is inherited from senior scholars of Hadith…
Then he says:
إلى أن يقول: وتنفيذا لمكائدهم وترويجا لأكاذييهم زوروا أحاديث في جواز الأخذ عن النسخ من دون تحقيق وتبين واختلقوا روايات تجوز الرواية عن الغلاة والكذابين من دون تحرج فانخدع بهذه المكيدة -وهي أخبث المكائد- جماعة من المشايخ الساذجين والرواة المغفلين فأوردوا تلك الأكاذيب المزورة في مؤلفاتهم واجتهدوا في نشر ترهاتهم وأساطيرهم يحسبون أنهم يحسنون صنعا
To implement their schemes and promote their lies, they forged narrations about the permissibility of taking from copies without investigation and clarification. They also fabricated narrations that permit narrating from extremists and liars without any embarrassment. As a result, some naive scholars and foolish narrators got deceived by this scheme—which the worst of schemes—and reported those fabricated lies in their books and strove in spreading their nonsense and myths, thinking that they are doing good work.[10]
Then he gives examples of those methods and their infiltration into the Imami narrative group. He states:
وإن كان هذا الذي تلوناه عليكم ثقيلا صعبا فهلم معي نلمسكم غناء هذه السيرة المزعوم في الكفاح بها ونتدارس إحدى الروايات التي صرحوا بأنها صحيحة عالية مشيا علي أضوائها وهي صحيحة حماد بن عيسي الجهني في آداب الصلاة وكيفيتها كلهم زبروها في كتبهم ورسالاتهم العملية وعملوا بها واعتمدوا عليها ومنهم شيخنا وعمادنا جمال الدين أبو منصور الحسن بن زين الدين الشهيد (١٠١١ﻫ) في كتابه منتقى الجمان في الأحاديث الصحاح والحسان ج١ ص٤٥١- باب كيفية الصلاة وبيان ما بقي من أفعالها وقد رمز لها صحي يعني أن هذا الحديث صحيح عندي فإن رواته كلهم معدلون بتعديل إمامين من أئمة الرجال خلافا للمشهور فإنهم يكتفون في تصحيح الحديث بتعديل إمام واحد من أئمة الرجال فقط ثم ذكر الرواية وعلق بقوله ولكنا إذا سبرنا سند الحديث ومتنه عملا بالخطة التي خطتها الأقدمون من أصحابنا نجده مجعولا مزورا مختلقا يشهد علي جعله واختلاقه دلائل عديدة نذكر منها في هذا المجال الضيق بعضها وهي:
١- قال أبو الحسين أحمد بن العباس ابن النجاشي في فهرسته ص١٠٩ قال حماد بن عيسى سمعت من أبي عبد الله سبعين حديا فلم أزل أدخل الشك على نفسي حتي اقتصرت على هذه العشرين وهذه العشرون حديثا هي التي نراها في كتاب قرب الإسناد ص١٢-١٥ ط النجف رواها عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري عن محمد بن عيسي بن عبيد والحسن بن ظريف وعلي بن إسماعيل كلهم عن حماد بن عيسى الجهني وليس في هذه الرواية المذكورة عن حماد عن أبي عبد الله فإذا كانت رواياته عن أبي عبد الله محصورة في تلك العشرين حديثا وليس منها هذه الرواية المذكورة فلابد وأنها موضوعة عليه
٢- مات حماد بن عيسي سنة ٢٠٩ﻫ وله نيف وسبعون سنة نص علي ذلك شيخنا أبو عمرو الكشي ونقله عنه شيخنا أبو جعفر الطوسي في اختياره ص٣١٧ ونص على ذلك شيخنا ابن داود الحلي أيضا كما في رجاله ص ٥٥٦ فيكون مولد حماد حوالي سنة ١٣٥ﻫ ولم يكن له حين وفاة الصادق السنة ١٤٨ﻫ إلا ثلاث عشرة سنة أو نحوها فإذا كان لقاؤه لأبي عبد الله الصادق في صغره فكيف يقول أبو عبد الله الصادق لغلام ليس له إلا اثنتي عشرة سنة ونحوها ما أقبح بالرجل أن يأتي عليه ستون سنة أو سبعون سنة فما يقيم صلاة واحدة بحدودها تامة
٣ – حماد بن عيسي الجهني هو راوية كتاب حريز في الصلاة ولا يروي أصحابنا كتاب حريز إلا عن حماد بن عيسي الجهني هذا وبعدما قال حماد لأبي عبد الله الصادق يا سيدي أنا أحفظ كتاب حريز في الصلاة فلم يعبأ أبو عبد الله بمقاله وادعائه وقال له لا عليك قم فصل لا بد وان حمادا قامة وصلى بين يديه بأحسن الآداب التي كان قد حفظها من كتاب حريز في الصلاة ونحن راجعنا روايات حريز في الصلاة برواية حماد بن عيسي الجهني هذا فوجدناه يروي عن حريز عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر الباقر نفس هذه الآداب المذكورة في هذا الحديث بل وأحسن منها وأتم وأوفي وإذا كان حماد حفظ نفس هذه الآداب بل حفظ أتممها وأوفاها وتأدب بها في صلاته بين يدي أبي عبد الله الصادق كيف يرد عليه الإمام أبو عبد الله الصادق ويقول له يا حماد لا تحسن أن تصلي ما أقبح بالرجل أن يأتي عليه ستون سنة أو سبعون سنة فما يقيم صلاة واحدة بحدودها تامة
If, what we have mentioned is weighty and difficult, then come; let us make you taste the melody of the struggles of this alleged biography and let us study one of the narrations that they declare to be authentic and lofty, by shedding light about it. It is the authentic narration of Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani pertaining to the etiquettes of Salah and its methodology. All of them have included this narration in their practical books and treatises, practiced upon it and relied on it, among them is our teacher and pillar Jamal al Din Abu Mansur al Hassan ibn Zayn al Din al Shahid (d. 1011 AH) in his book Muntaqa al Juman fi al Ahadith al Sihah wa al Hisan, 1/451, chapter on the methodology of Salah and what remains of its actions. He categorised it as ‘Sahih’ meaning that it is authentic according to him because all the narrators are approved by two experts in the field of narrators, contrary to a ‘Mashhur’ narration wherein they suffice with the approval of one expert for its authenticity. Then he mentioned the narration and commented on it by saying, “However, if we probe the chain and text of this narration in accordance to the pattern drawn by our former companions, we find that it is made up, forged, and fabricated, with multiple evidences testifying to its forgery and fabrication, some of which we will mention in this narrow domain. They are:
1) Abu al Hassan Ahmed ibn al ‘Abbas ibn al Najashi states in his al Fihrist, pg. 109:
Hammad ibn ‘Isa said, “I heard 70 narrations from Abu ‘Abdullah. I continued to doubt myself regarding them until I confined them to these twenty narrations.”
These twenty narrations which we see in the book, Qurb al Isnad, pg. 12 -15, al Najaf, are narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar al Himyari from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubaid, al Hassan ibn Zarif, and ‘Ali ibn Ismail, all of them narrating from Hammad ibn ‘Isa. The above mentioned narration does not state ‘from Hammad from Abu ‘Abdullah’. If his narrations from Abu ‘Abdullah are confined to twenty and this above mentioned narration is not amongst them, then definitely it is fabricated upon him.
2) Hammad ibn ‘Isa died in 209 AH when he was seventy-odd years old. Our sheikh Abu ‘Amr al Kashshi specified this and Abu Jafar al Tusi quoted it from him in his book Ikhtiyar, pg. 317. Our sheikh Ibn Dawood al Hilli also specified this, as seen in his Rijal, pg. 556. Therefore, Hammad was born around 135 AH. When al Sadiq passed way in 148 AH, he was around 13 years old only. If he met al Sadiq during his youth, how is it possible for Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq to say to a boy of around 13 years old, “How disgraceful it is that a man reaches 60 or 70 years and he did not complete one Salah with all its requisites?”
3) Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani is the narrator of Hariz’s book on salah. Our companions only narrate it from this Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani. When Hammad told Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq, “O my leader, I am memorizing the book of Hariz on Salah.” Then Abu ‘Abdullah did not pay attention to his statement and claim, and instructed him, “No, you must get up and perform Salah.” Then it is obvious that Hammad got up and performed it in front of him, with the best of etiquettes which he memorized from Hariz’s book. When we reviewed the narrations of Hariz on Salah, with the narration of Hammad ibn ‘Isa al Juhani, we found that he narrates the same etiquettes mentioned in this narration from Hariz, who narrates from Zurarah, who narrates from Abu Jafar al Baqir. In fact, better than them and more complete. When Hammad memorised these same etiquettes, rather, better and more complete ones and applied them in his Salah before Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq, how is it possible for Abu ‘Abdullah to reject them and say to him, “How disgraceful it is that a man reaches 60 or 70 years and he did not complete one Salah with all its requisites?”[11]
However, the problem is much greater than that.
The extremists and the leaders of desires have inserted, in the Jafari School, whatever beliefs and concepts they want, through ‘reliable’ Shia narrations that are accepted by Imami scholars which plunged the distinguished scholars into a dilemma,[12] let alone their masses. They could neither falsify it because of the authenticity of the chain and the possibility of it being issued by an infallible Imam as a form of Taqiyyah nor could they verify it completely except by crippling the mind.
This is a great problem that the School faces which their scholars shamefully acknowledge.
Take for example the topic of the distortion of the Qur’an, which we alluded to when discussing the lies attributed to the Ahlul Bayt. We mentioned some testimonies of Imami luminaries regarding the narrations being Mutawatir (consecutively narrated), and the testimony of the late Shia scholar of reference, Abu al Qasim al Khu’i that some of its narrations are reliable[13], meaning that it is Mutawatir briefly.[14] It has been a hot topic for the Imami luminaries to solve, generation after generation, to a degree that it compelled the learned Mufassir Sayed Hussain al Tabataba’i (d. 1402 AH) to acknowledge that fabrication of narrations and adjusting authentic chains to it by attributing it to trusted narrators, was a matter that was prevalent during the period of the Imams; and that infiltration and fabrication that was prevalent in that period, is the real cause of these authentic or Mutawatir narrations with regards to the view of distortion of the Qur’an, etc. He states:
واما ما ذكرنا من شيوع الدس والوضع في الروايات فلا يرتاب فيه من راجع الروايات المنقولة في الصنع والإيجاد وقصص الأنبياء والأمم والأخبار الواردة في تفاسير الآيات والحوادث الواقعة في صدر الإسلام وأعظم ما يهم أمره لأعداء الدين ولا يألون جهدا في إطفاء نوره وإخماد ناره وإعفاء أثره هو القرآن الكريم الذي هو الكهف المنيع والركن الشديد الذي يأوي إليه ويتحصن به المعارف الدينية والسند الحي الخالد لمنشور النبوة ومواد الدعوة لعلمهم بأنه لو بطلت حجة القرآن لفسد بذلك أمر النبوة واختل نظام الدين ولم يستقر من بنيته حجر على حجر
والعجب من هؤلاء المحتجين بروايات منسوبة إلى الصحابة أو إلي أئمة أهل البيت على تحريف كتاب الله سبحانه وإبطال حجيته وببطلان حجة القرآن تذهب النبوة سدى والمعارف الدينية لغي لا آثر لها وماذا يغني قولنا إن رجلا في تاريخ كذا ادعى النبوة وأتى بالقرآن معجزة و أما هو فقد مات وأما قرآنه فقد حرف ولم يبق بايدينا مما يؤيد أمره إلا أن المؤمنين به أجمعوا علي صدقه في دعواه وإن القرآن الذي جاء به كان معجرا دالا على نبوته والاجماع حجة لأن النبي المذكور اعتبر حجيته أو لأنه يكشف مثلا عن قول أئمة أهل بيته
وبالجملة احتمال الدس وهو قريب جدا مؤيد بالشواهد والقرائن يدفع حجية هذه الروايات ويفسد اعتبارها فلا يبقي معه لها لا حجية شرعية ولا حجية عقلائية حتى ما كان منها صحيح الإسناد فإن صحة السند وعدالة رجال الطريق إنما يدفع تعمدهم الكذب دون دس غيرهم في أصولهم وجوامعهم ما لم يرووه
As for what we have mentioned about the prevalence of infiltration and fabrication in the narrations, anyone who reviews the narrations transmitted regarding creation, existence, stories of the Prophets ‘alayh al Salam and the previous nations, transmissions narrated about the commentary of Qur’anic verses, and incidents that occurred during the initial days of Islam, will have no doubt about it. What matters most to the enemies of din; for which they leave no stone unturned in extinguishing its radiance, suppressing its fire and waving its impact, is the noble Qur’an; which is the impenetrable cave, the strong pillar toward which the knowledge of din is sheltered and fortified and a living and perpetual support for the propagation of Prophethood and materials of invitation, because they know that by invalidating the evidence of the Qur’an, the issue of Prophethood would be corrupted and the system of din would be disturbed, with no foundation to stabilize its structure.
It is surprising that these people justify the distortion of the Qur’an and invalidating its authority through narrations that are attributed to the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum or the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt. By invalidating the Qur’an’s authority, Prophethood would be in vain and the knowledge of din would be wasted, having no impact. What does our saying benefit that a man claimed Prophethood on such and such date and brought the Qur’an as a miracle. He passed away and his Qur’an was distorted and there is nothing left in our hand that would support his matter except that the believers are unanimous upon the truth of his claim, that the Qur’an which he brought is a miracle that indicates to his Prophethood and consensus is a proof because the aforementioned Prophet recognised its authority or because—for example—he reveals the views of the Imams of his household?
In brief, the possibility of infiltration—which is very possible, supported by evidences, and proofs—repels the authority of these narrations and ruins its credibility. Thus, with this possibility, there remains no Shar’i or intellectual evidence for these narrations, even those whose chains of narrations are authentic because the authenticity of the chain and credibility of the narrators only repels their deliberate lying, not infiltration from others into their sources and compilations, as long as they do not narrate it.[15]
Take a look the month of Ramadan and the intense differences that occurred among the senior scholars of the sect in stipulating the days of fasting and the days when one must not fast, since the second century (AH) till the fifth century (AH). The cause is the existence of Mutawatir narrations and Tawatur (consecutive narrations) indicated to convictions; however, the narrators are all of extremists.
Concerning this, Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi states:
ومن الأسف أننا نجد هذه الأحاديث التي يفطرنا يوم صومنا ويصومنا يوم فطرنا … نراها بأسانيد مختلفة وأساليب مختلفة
It is unfortunate that we find these narrations that prevents us from fasting on the days we were supposed to fast and makes us fast on the days we were not supposed to fast… we see them with different chains and in different ways.[16]
He also states:
اشتهرت هذه الأحاديث في أواخر القرن الثاني وعمل بها بعض أصحابنا حتي في القرن الخامس مغترا بتواترها حتي بعدما ألف شيخنا محمد بن مسعود العياشي (٣٢٠ﻫ( كتابا في الرد على من صام وأفطر قبل الرؤية
These narrations[17] became popular at the end of the second century and some of our companions practiced on them till the fifth century, being deceived by consecutive narrating, until our teacher Muhammad ibn Mas’ud al ‘Ayyashi (d. 320 AH) wrote a book refuting those who fast or stop fasting before the sighting (of the crescent).[18]
Due to the fact that these narrations were consecutively narrated, it was not easy to bypass them except with intense differences which extended for approximately three centuries.
The dispute amongst the Imami jurists reached such an intolerable level that we find Ibn Babawayh al Qummi—known as al Sheikh al Saduq—describing those who hold the view of the permissibility of Ramadan having less than 30 days as ‘weak Shias’ and that a Jafari believer should avoid them just as they avoid the Ahlus Sunnah.
After quoting these narrations, he states in Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih:
من خالف هذه الأخبار وذهب إلى الأخبار الموافقة للعامة في ضدها اتقي كما يتقى العامة ولا يكلم إلا بالتقية كائنا من كان إلا أن يكون مسترشدا فيرشد ويبين له فإن البدعة إنما تمات وتبطل بترك ذكرها
Whoever differs with these transmissions and adopts the transmissions which conform to the masses, in opposition to these, he should be avoided and only spoken to, using Taqiyyah, no matter who he is, except one who seeks guidance as he should be guided and explained, because innovation is destroyed and invalidated by avoiding its mention.[19]
He states in al Khisal:
مذهب خواص الشيعة وأهل الاستبصار منهم في شهر رمضان أنه لا ينقص عن ثلاثين يوما أبدا والأخبار في ذلك موافقة للكتاب مخالفة للعامة فمن ذهب من ضعفة الشيعة إلي الأخبار التي وردت للتقية في أنه ينقص ويصيبه ما يصيب الشهور من النقصان والتمام اتقي كما تتقي العامة ولم يكلم إلا بما يكلم به العامة ولا قوة إلا بالله
The school of the elite Shia and the people of foresight amongst them, pertaining to the month of Ramadan, is that it can never be less than 30 days. Transmissions pertaining to it are in conformance to the Qur’an and opposing the masses. Whoever, from the weak Shia adopts those narrations which were transmitted as Taqiyyah, that Ramadan can decrease (to less than 30 days) and that it is just like the other months which can decrease or be complete, he should be avoided just as the masses are avoided, and he should only be spoken to as the masses are. There is no power except from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.[20]
Meanwhile Sheikh al Mufid describes those who adopt the view of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi as those who:
خالفوا نص القرآن ولغة العرب وفارقوا بمذهبهم فيه كافة علماء الاسلام وباينوا أصحاب علم النجوم فلم يصيروا إلي قول المسلمين في ذلك ولا إلى قول المنجمين الذين اعتمدوا الرصد والحساب وادعوا علم الهيئة فصاروا مذبذبين لا إلى هؤلاء ولا إلى هؤلاء وأحدثوا مذهبا غير معقول ولاله أصل يستقر على الحجاج
They differed from the text of the Qur’an and the Arabic language, separated through their school, from all the scholars of Islam, and differed with the astrologers. Thus, they neither adopted the view of the Muslims nor the view of the astrologers, who depend on observation and calculation. They claimed astronomy. They became confused, neither to this side nor to that side. They invented an unreasonable school which has no principle that could be applied to the pilgrims.[21][22]
Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi discussed the differences on this issue in detail. At the end of the discussion, he made an extremely dangerous statement. He states:
وإنما أطنبنا البحث في هذا المضمار وقد كان له ذيل طويل لم نتعرض له لتتدارس معكم هجوم الغلاة في وجه واحد ومسألة واحدة من مسائل الفقه وقد خفي علي أصحابنا وأشياخنا وقع أقدامهم فعلينا أن نتعرف الجو الذي مكن الغلاة بهذه الوسعة من التزوير والدس بحيث تمكن واحد منهم بأشياعه أن يزور أربعة آلاف حديث في أبواب الحلال والحرام ويدسسها في المجاميع الحديثية ولايتفطن مشايخنا لمكيدته طيلة قرنين بل وأكثر فبذالك الدرس و التنقيب نتحقق أنه لايجوز التعويل على صحة الأسانيد فقط والإعتماد على تواتر الحديث بألفاظ متقاربة بل اللازم علينا نثقف الحقيقة بكل وجه ممكن ولانغتر بشهرة الحديث ولا بكثرة من أفتى به ولا بكثرة من رواه في موسوعته والله المستعان
We have lengthened the discussion in this field, and it had a long appendix which we did not touch, to study with you the attacks of the extremists in one manner and in one of the Fiqhi rulings—their footsteps were concealed from our companions and teachers—thus, it is necessary for us to know the atmosphere that allowed the extremists such amount of leeway in forgery and infiltration that one of them, along with his companions, was able to forge four thousand narrations in the field of Halal and Haram, and insert them in the narrative compilations and our leaders did not notice their scheme for the duration of two, rather more than two centuries. Therefore, through this study and investigation we will ascertain that it is not permissible to rely on the authenticity of the chain only and to depend on consecutively narrated transmissions with similar wordings. Rather, it is incumbent on us to set right the reality in every possible manner and neither be deceived by the popularity of the narration, nor by the abundance of rulings about it, nor by the abundance of the one who transmits it in his encyclopaedia. Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala help is sought.[23]
NEXT⇒ 4. Inability to distinguish between authentic and fabricated
[1] ‘Ulum al Qur’an, pg. 329, 321.
[2] Rijal al Kashshhi, 2/491.
[3]‘Isa ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn ‘Isa ibn Yahya ibn al Hussain ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He was a Zaidi Muhaddith and theologian. He was born in Iraq, and then relocated to al Ray, Iran where he passed away in 326 AH.
[4] Surah al Nahl: 64.
[5] Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: Kamal al Din wa Tamam al Ni’mah, pg. 109, quoting from Kitab al Ishhad of Abu Zaid al ‘Alawi.
[6] Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: Kamal al Din wa Tamam al Ni’mah, pg. 109.
[7]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 72.
[8]Al Mawdu’at fi al Athar wa al Akhbar, pg. 149-150.
[9] Majallat al Fikr al Jadid, article by Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, pg. 8.
[10]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 77-79.
[11]Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 23-25.
[12]The expression goes as, ‘the people fell into Hays Bays, meaning they fell into a confusing matter wherefrom they cannot escape. (Refer to al Jawhari: al Sihah, 3/1035.)
[13]Al Khu’i states in al Bayan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, pg. 226:
إن كثرة الروايات تورث القطع بصدور بعضها عن المعصومين ولا أقل من الاطمتنان بذلك وفيها ما روي بطريق معتبر فلا حاجة بنا إلى التكلم في سند كل رواية بخصوصها
Indeed, the large number of narrations creates conviction that some of them might emanate from the infallible Imams and that is nothing less than reassuring. Some of these narrations are transmitted through reliable sources; therefore, there is no need to discuss the chain of each narration specifically.
[14] Refer to his discussion about brief Tawatur in Dirasah fi ‘Ilm al Usul – Taqrir Bahth al Sayed al Khu’i of Sayed al Shahrudi, 3/185.
[15]Tafsir al Mizan, 12/114-115.
[16] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 14. (Forward of the 2nd edition)
[17] That is profuse narrations. This refers to the narrations transmitted from Jafar al Sadiq that the month of Ramadan can never be less than 30 days and the month of Sha’ban can never be complete 30 days.
[18] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 16. (Forward of the 2nd edition)
[19]Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih, 2/171.
[20]Al Khisal, pg. 531-532.
[21]What is astonishing is the fact that al Mufid himself, for a period of his youth, adopted the view of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi. He authored his book Lamh al Burhan, as a response to those who claim the presence of a view of counting (the days of the month) and the shortage of those who hold this view. He states clearly:
ومما يدل على كذبه أن فقهاء عصرنا هذا وهو سنة ٣٦٣ﻫ ورواته وفضلائه وإن كانوا أقل عددا منهم في كل عصر مجمعون عليه ويتدينون به ويفتون بصحته وداعون إلى صوابه كسيدنا وشيخنا الشريف الزكي أبي محمد الحسيني وشيخنا الثقة أبي القاسم جعفر بن محمد بن قولويه أيده الله وشيخنا الفقيه أبي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بايويه وشيخنا أبي عبد الله الحسين بن علي بن الحسين أيدهما الله وشيخنا أبي محمد هارون بن موسي التلعكبري أيده الله
And what indicates to its falsehood is that the jurists of our era, which is the year 363 AH, narrators and the eminent ones—even though they were fewer in number in every ear—are unanimous upon it, practice on it, issue rulings of its validity, and claim it to be correct like our leader and teacher al Sharif al Zakiyy Abu Muhammad al Hussaini, our trusted teacher Abu al Qasim Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Quluwayh, our teacher and jurist Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Babawayh, our teacher Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, and our teacher Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tala’akbari.
Then he retracted from this view in his book Masabih al Nur and described those Imami scholars who adopt his previous view, with the statement mentioned above.
[22] Jawabat Ahl al Mawsil fi al ‘Adad wa al Ru’yah, pg. 16-17.
[23] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 20.