5. Destruction of Hadith sources that were compiled during the era of the Imams

The Imamiyyah believe that there existed books compiled by the Imam’s companions that were directly dictated by them or directly by their students’ students. They named it al Usul al Arba’ami’ah (the Four Hundred Sources) and mention that these are the foremost compilations for the narrations of the Ahlul Bayt. They are distinguished due to the fact that they were compiled during the era of the infallible Imams, in fact some were written in the actual gathering of the Imam.[1] They regard the rejection of its attribution to the Imams as ‘rejecting mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his miracles, and the biography of those who followed after him.’ Thus, rejecting it is pure arrogance and biasness.[2]

Despite this, they differ regarding these Usul. Thus, it is said that they were taken from Jafar al Sadiq or from him and his father, al Baqir.[3]

Meanwhile Sheikh al Mufid (d. 413 AH) mentions that they were compilations of the Imams’ narrations from the time of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu till the era of al ‘Askari.

Ibn Shahr Ashub (d. 588 AH) has quoted his statement in his book Ma’alim:

إن الإمامية صنفوا من عهد أمير المؤمنين إلى زمان العسكري أربعمائة كتاب يسمي الأصول

The Imamiyyah have written four hundred books from the time of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu till the era of al ‘Askari which they call the Usul.[4]

The abovementioned statement is rejected by what Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi (d. 460 AH) mentioned in the beginning of al Fihrist, that it is impossible to capture the origins of the Imami narrators as they were scattered in the cities and various parts of the world.[5]

Hence, Agha Buzurg al Tahrani (d. 1389 AH) states:

لم يتعين في كتبنا الرجالية تاريخ تأليف هذه الأصول بعينه ولا تواريخ وفيات أصحابها تعيينا وإن كنا نعلم بها على الإجمال والتقريب كما يأتي نعم الذي نعلمه قطما أنه لم يؤلف شيء من هذه الأصول قبل أيام أمير المؤمنين ولا بعد عصر العسكري إذ مقتضى صيرورتها أصولا كون تأليفها في أعصار الأئمة المعصومين وكونها مأخوذة عنهم أو عمن سمع عنهم من أصحابهم وحينئذ فلنا أن نخبر بأن تأليف هذه الأصول كان في عصر الأئمة من أيام أمير المؤمنين إلى عصر العسكري

Neither the specific dates of the Usul’s compilation, nor the dates of their authors’ deaths have been specified in the books of narrators, although we are aware of them briefly and approximately as it will come in due course. Yes, we know with certainty that nothing of the Usul was compiled before the era of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu or after the era of al ‘Askari, because the requirement of it being an Usul is that it must be compiled during the era of the infallible Imams and that it must be sourced from them or some of their companions who heard from them. Hence, it is incumbent upon us to inform that the compilation of these Usul was during the era of the Imams, from the time of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the era of al ‘Askari.[6]

So, its correct number is not known, nor when it was written! Similarly, the numbers, names, dates of deaths and reliability or unreliability of the authors of the Usul are unknown.

Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi (d. 1070 AH) states:

فإنك إذا تتبعت كتب الرجال وجدت أكثر أصحاب الأصول الأربعمائة غير مذكور في شأنهم تعديل ولا جرح

If you research the books on narrators, you will find that there is no approval or disapproval regarding most of the authors of the four hundred Usul.[7]

Al Majlisi justifies that by saying:

إما لأنه يكفي في مدحهم وتوثيقهم أنهم أصحاب الأصول … وإما لبعد العهد بين أرباب الرجال وبين أصحاب الأصول وغيرهم من أصحاب الكتب التي تزيد على ثمانين ألف كتاب كما يظهر من التتبع

Either because of them being the authors of the Usul is sufficient for their praise and reliability or because of the distance of time between the authors of the books of narrators and the authors of the Usul and other books that are more than 80 000, as it becomes clear through research.[8]

However, Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi declares in al Fihrist that:

بأن كثيرا من مصنفي أصحابنا وأصحاب الأصول ينتحلون المذاهب الفاسدة وإن كانت كتبهم معتمدة

Many of the authors from our companions and the authors of the Usul ascribed to corrupt schools even though their books are reliable.[9]

Muhaddith ‘Abd ‘Ali ibn Ahmed Al ‘Usfur al Bahrani (d. 1127 AH)[10]—while criticising the claim of the possibility of adopting rulings from the infallible Imams with certainty—states:

وجوابه أنه إن أراد بالعلماء المصنفين مباشري الأئمة الطاهرين فمع تسليم كون جمعهم وتصنيفهم لأجل الهداية وتمكنهم من استعلام حالها فهو غير نافي إذ قد نبهناك في البحث الأول على أن كتبهم لم تبق بأعيانها بل تلف كثير منها وما بقي على قلته لم يصل إلينا إلا بنقل من فطحي أو واقفي أو كذاب وضاع للحديث و مع ذلك فهو مختلف باختلاف ناقله

The answer for it is that if scholarly authors refer to the direct companions of the pure Imams, then while accepting that their compilations and writings were for the sake of guidance and to enable them to get information of the narrations’ condition, this is not negated, as we have alerted you in the first discussion that their books did not remain in their original form, rather, many of them were destroyed. Whatever little remained of it, reached us only through transmission by a Fathi,[11] a Waqifi,[12] a liar or fabricator of hadith. Hence, it differs according to different transmitters.[13]

He also states:

يظهر مما سلف وتوجيهه أن يقال بأن كتابة أربعمائة مصنف من كلام إمام واحد لا ريب فيه ولا مرية تعتريه لأنهم أعلام الأعلام وخلفاء الملك العلام فلا غرو لو كتب من أحدهم ما يمنع حصره عددا قُل لَّوْ كَانَ الْبَحْرُ مِدَادًا لِّكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّيْ لَنَفِدَ الْبَحْرُ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَنْفَدَ كَلِمَاتُ رَبِّيْ وَلَوْ جِئْنَا بِمِثْلِهِ مَدَدًا (الكهف: ‎١٠٩‏) لكنه لا يدل علي صحة ما تضمنه ولا يقتضيه والكلام إنما هو فيه كيف وبعض نقلتها مشكوك في صدقه بل مقطوع بكذبه وفسقه وبعضهم معروف بسوء حفظه وفهمه ومعلوم بفساد مذهبه وسقمه كما أوضحناه لك سابقا من كلام الأئمة الأطهار وصحابتهم الأخيار ومع تسليم صحة ما تضمنته تلك الأصول فهي لم تبق بأعيانها إلى وقت المشائخ الثلاثة الفحول بل قد عرفت تلف كثير منها وما بقي لم يصل إليهم إلا من مخالف أو فاسق أو اختلف رواية فيه كما هو المنقول وحينئذ يظهر لك بطلان ما فرعه عليك من الدعاوي الواهية والالتزامات المتواهية فإنا لا نعلم كثرة الصحيح في اخبارنا ولا وجود الأصول الصحيحة فضلا عن كثرتها وإجماعهم علي صحتها وإنما الموجود أخبار مختلفة المتون متناقضة المضمون أكثر رواتها فسقة لا يتحرجون من الكذب ومع ذلك اختلفوا في صحتها فكل يصحح ما في يده ويطعن فيما بيد الآخر

It appears from what has passed that it can be said, that writing four hundred [Usul] books from the speech of one Imam is beyond doubt and undisputable because they were greatest luminaries and the vicegerents of Allah. There is no surprise that so much is written from one of them that is impossible to enumerate.

Say, O Prophet, “If the ocean were ink for writing the Words of my Lord, it would certainly run out before the Words of my Lord were finished, even if We refilled it with its equal.”[14]

However, this does not indicate to the authenticity of what it contains and what it requires, and the discussion is regarding this aspect. How is it possible (that what is contained is authentic) when some of the narrators are questionable in their reliability, their lies and sins are proven, some are known for poor memorisation and understanding and are known for corrupt and deviant beliefs, as we have explained previously through the statements of the pure Imams and their choicest companions. Even by accepting the authenticity of what is contained in the Usul, they did not remain in their original form till the three distinguished Sheikhs.[15] Rather, many of them were destroyed. Whatever remained, reached them only through an opposition, sinner, or those who differed in narrating, as is reported. Then the invalidity of the flimsy claims and complex obligations, which they derive, will become clear, for we do not know the abundance of authentic narrations in our transmissions, nor the existence of the authentic Usul, let alone its abundance or consensus on its authenticity. All that is found are transmissions with various texts and contradictory contents, mostly narrated by sinners who are not embarrassed to speak lies.[16]

Agha Buzurg al Tahrani (d. 1389 AH) states:

يؤسفنا جدا أنه لم يتعين لنا عدة أصحاب الأصول المؤلفين لها تحقيقا ولا تقريبا قال الشيخ الطوسي في أول الفهرست (وإني لا أضمن الاستيفاء لأن تصانيف أصحابنا وأصولهم لا تكاد تنضبط لكثرة انتشار أصحابنا في البلدان) فإذا كان مثل شيخ الطائفة ذلك البحاثة الشهير يعترف بالعجز عن الاستيفاء فنحن أحرى بالعجز لأنه مع قرب عهده إلى أصحاب الأصول كان متمكنا من الوصول إلى تلك الأصول بعينها وهي في مكتبة سابور التي أسست للشيعة بكرخ بغداد وكان الشيخ مقدمهم ولم تكن في الدنيا مكتبة أحسن كتبا من تلك المكتبة كانت كلها بخطوط الأئمة المعتبرة وأصولهم المحررة كما ذكر جميع ذلك في معجم البلدان في حرف الباء في مادة بين السورين هذا مع تمكنه من خزانة كتب أستاذه الشريف المرتضي المشتملة على ثمانين ألف كتاب سوى ما أهدي منها إلى الرؤساء كما صرح به كل من ترجمه وقد أشرنا إلى العجز عن تعيين عدة أصحاب الأصول في المقدمة نعم إن الشهرة المحققة تدلنا علي أنهم لم يكونوا أقل من أربعمئة رجل

It pains us greatly that the numbers of authors of the Usul are not specified at all. Sheikh al Tusi states in the beginning of al Fihrist, “I cannot guarantee complete research because our companion’s books and sources are hardly regulated, due to our companions being dispersed in the cities.”

When a person like Sheikh al Ta’ifah—the famous researcher—acknowledges to the inability of complete research, we are more likely to be incapable. This is so because with the closeness of his era to the authors of the Usul, he was able to access them specifically as they were in Sabur Library, which was founded for the Shia in Karkh, Baghdad. He was their leader and there was no other library in the world that had better books than that library. They were all in reliable scripts and edited originals of the Imams, as is mentioned in Mujam al Buldan, under the letter Ba, in the chapter of Bayn al Surayn. This is besides the availability of the treasure of books belonging to his teacher, al Sharif al Murtada, which consisted of 80 000 books, besides those books which were gifted to the leaders, as declared by all those that wrote his biography. We have indicated to the inability of stipulating the number of the authors of the Usul, in the foreword. However, the established popularity indicates that they were not less than four hundred people.[17]

The question remains; where are these Usul? Is there anything remaining of it?

Most of it has been destroyed as expressed by Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 965 AH):

وكان استقر أمر المتقدمين على أربعمائة مُصنف لأربعمائة مصنف سموها الأصول وكان عليها اعتمادهم ثم تداعت الحال إلى ذهاب معظم تلك الأصول ولخصها جماعة في كتب خاصة تقريبا على المتناول

The matter of the former scholars had settled on four hundred books of four hundred authors which they called the Usul. They relied on it. Then conditions deteriorated to the extent that most of them were destroyed. A group summarised them in specific books which were almost within reach.[18]

‘Allamah ‘Ali ibn Musa al Tabrizi states:

غير خفي أن الأصول المذكورة قد ضاع أكثرها لقلة الاهتمام بها ونقصان الدواعي إلى حفظها وضبطها والذي يوجد منها في عصرنا هذا أو كان موجودا عند العلامة المجلسي عدة كتب وعبر العلامة المذكور عما كان عنده بالكتاب

It is no secret that most of the abovementioned Usul were destroyed due to the lack of interest and lack of reasons for its preservation and regulation. What is found in our time or was found by ‘Allamah al Majlisi are few books which he called al Kitab.[19]

Nothing from these Usul remains except some transmissions found in various books and if found, they would require investigation, scrutiny, verification and ratification. How can it be possible when they are lost and non-existent?

The contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sheikh Jafar al Subhani, while apologising for its loss, states:

ولما لم يكن للأصول ترتيب خاص إذ أن جلها إملاءات المجالس وأجوبة المسائل النازلة المختلفة عمد أصحاب الجوامع إلى نقل رواياتها مرتبة مبوبة منقحة تسهيلا للتناول والانتفاع فما كان في هذه الأصول انتقل إلى الجوامع الحديثية لا سيما الكتب الأربعة ولكن بترتيب خاص وباشتهارها قلت الرغبات في استنساخ الأصول والصيانة على أعيانها

Since the Usul did not have any specific sequence, as most of it were dictated in gatherings and were answers to various contemporary rulings, the authors of compilations intended to transmit their narrations in an arranged, classified, and revised manner to facilitate access and benefit. Thus, whatever was found in these Usul were transferred to the Hadith compilations, particularly the four books, but in a specific sequence. With the popularity of these compilations, the desire to reproduce and protect the original Usul diminished.[20]

He further states:

وقام تلامذة أئمة أهل البيت بتأليف أصول أربعمائة ما بين عصر الإمام الصادق إلى نهاية عصر الإمام الرضا وهذه الأصول هي المعروفة بالأصول الأربعمائة فلها من الاعتبار والمكانة ما ليس لغيرها

The student of the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt undertook the task of writing four hundred Usul from the time of Imam al Sadiq till the time of Imam al Rida. These are the origins that are called al Usul al Arba’ami’ah. They hold respect and status like no other.[21]

The reality is that these books that ‘hold respect and status like no other’, are equal to non-existence because they only exist in claim.

Immediately after the aforementioned statement, al Subhani states:

قال السيد رضي الدين علي بن طاووس (٦٦٤ﻫ )حدثني أبي قال كان جماعة من أصحاب أبي الحسن من أهل بيته وشيعته يحضرون مجلسه ومعهم في أكمامهم ألواح آبنوس لطاف وأميال فإذا نطق أبو الحسن بكلمة أو أفتي بنازلة أثبت القوم ما سمعوه منه في ذلك

Sayed Rida al Din ‘Ali ibn Tawus (d. 664 AH) says that my father narrated to me thus, “Some companions of Abu al Hassan, from his household and sect, would attend his council with ebony slates of Lataf and Mil[22] in their sleeves. Whenever Abu al Hassan uttered anything or issued a fatwa regarding any contemporary issue, they would record that from him in it.[23]

Anyone who delves into the dates of death, would find that between Sa’d al Din Musa ibn Jafar ibn Tawus—father of Sayed ‘Ali, who he claims to narrate from—and Abu al Hassan, there is more than four centuries. Where is the continuity in the chain? If the matter was regarding some ordinary news or a Fiqhi ruling, the problem would be lesser; however, it is related to a claim of the existence of four hundred books that were written and nothing remains of it. If you ask, “Where are they? Are there any signs indicating to them?”

The answer would be, “So and so said such and such.”

The reality is that between so and so and the origin of the transmission, there is a time difference of several centuries.

From amongst the things that al Subhani used, to prove its existence, is the statement of Baha’ al Din al ‘Amili (d. 1031 AH) in Mashriq al Shamsayn wherein he states:

إنه قد بلغنا من مشايخنا أنه كان من دأب أصحاب الأصول أنهم إذا سمعوا عن أحد من الأئمة حديثا بادروا إلى إثباته في أصولهم لثلا يعرض لهم نسيان لبعضه أو كله بتمادي الأيام وبمثله قال السيد الداماد في رواشحه

It has reached us from our teachers that whenever the authors of al Usul heard any narration from one of the Imams, they would hasten to record it in their Usul, so they do not forget any part or all of it as the days passed. This is mentioned by al Sayed al Damad in his book Rawashih also.[24]

Then he corroborated it with the statements of al Muhaqqiq al Hilli (d. 676 AH), al Fadl ibn al Hassan al Tabrasi (d. 548 AH) and Zayn al Din al ‘Amili (d. 965 AH). All of these people did not see a single line from the Usul, and between them and the Imams there is a difference of centuries.

The main aspect which he relied upon is his statement:

وقد كان قسم من تلك الأصول باقيا إلى عهد ابن إدريس (٥٤٣-٥٩٨ﻫ)‏ حيث قام بنقل جملة منها في كتابه السرائر وأطلق عليها المستطرفات كما نقل جملة منها عنه السيد رضي الدين بن طاووس كما ذكرها في كشف المحجة وقد وقف أستاذنا السيد محمد الحجة الكوه كمري (١٣٠١-١٣٧٢ﻫ)‏ على ستة عشر من تلك الأصول وقام بطبعها

Some parts of the Usul remained till the era Ibn Idris (543–598 AH) as he transmitted some of it in his book al Sara’ir and called it al Mustatrafat. Similarly, Sayed Rida al Din ibn Tawus transmitted some of it from him, as mentioned in Kashf al Mahajjah. Our teacher Sayed Muhammad al Hujjah al Kuh Kamari (1302-1372 AH) came across sixteen of the Usul and undertook the task of publishing it.[25]

Assuming we accept that the attribution of what was discovered, which al Kuh Kamari considered to be the remains of the four hundred Usul, is correct, the ratio of what was discovered to what was lost and destroyed is 4% only.

The matter—after all—is nothing but claim upon claim.

I have come across the abovementioned book named, al Usul al Sittah ‘Ashar min al Usul al Awwaliyyah, which was researched by Diya’ al Din al Mahmudi and others. The researchers, apparently, made a great effort in tracking its various manuscripts and printed copies.

It is the same book that Muhammad ‘Ali Ahmedyan al Najaf Abadi al Gharawi (d. 1417 AH) alluded to by saying:

من الأسف أن أكثر هذه الأصول التي بلغت عددها إلى أربعمئة عند المشهور قدضاعت على مر العصور تدريجا ولم يبق منها إلا مجموعة تسمى بالأصول الستة عشر ونماذج قليلة أخرى نحوها وأما الأصل يقال لنسخة أو كتاب يحتوي على عدة روايات من راو خاص والأصول الستة عشر مجموعة مشهورة تحتوي على ستة عشر أصلا قديما مرويا عن أقدم الرواة والمحدثين من اصحاب الأئمة وهي مجموعة نقل العلامة المجلسي عنها كثيرا في كتابه الشريف (بحار الأنوار) معتمدا على نسخ قديمة عنده

Unfortunately, most of these Usul, which amount to four hundred according to the popular view, have been gradually destroyed by the passing of time. Nothing of it remained except a collection called al Usul al Sittah ‘Ashar and a few other examples like them. Al Asl (original) refers to a copy or a book which encompasses various narrations of a specific narrator, and al Usul al Sittah ‘Ashar (the sixteen originals) is a famous collection that comprises of sixteen ancient originals that are transmitted by the oldest narrators and scholars of Hadith from the companions of the Imams. It is the collection wherefrom ‘Allamah al Majlisi quoted extensively in his noble book Bihar al Anwar, relying on old prints which he possessed.[26]

The book al Usul al Sittah ‘Ashar comprises of sixteen Usul. They are:

Usul of Zaid ibn al Zarrad: It contains 34 narrations.
Usul of Abu Sa’id ‘Abbad al ‘Usfuri: It contains 19 narrations.
Usul of ‘Asim ibn Humaid al Hannat: It contains 100 narrations.
Usul of Zaid al Narsi: It contains 51 narrations.
Usul of Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Shurayh al Hadrami: It contains 123 narrations.
Usul of Muhammad ibn al Muthanna al Hadrami: It contains 60 narrations in addition to the 2 narrations from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’id.
Two narrations from Harun ibn Musa al Tal’ukbari.
Usul of Durust ibn Abi Mansur al Wasiti: It contains 62 narrations.
Usul of ‘Abdul Malik ibn Hakim: It contains 6 narrations.
Usul of Muthanna ibn al Walid al Hannat: It contains 23 narrations.
Usul of Khallad al Sindi (al Suddi): It contains 8 narrations.
Usul of Hussain ibn ‘Uthman Sharik: It contains 44 narrations.
Usul of ‘Abdullah ibn Yahya al Kahili: It contains 13 narrations.
Usul of Sallam ibn Abi ‘Amrah: It contains 10 narrations.
Nawadir of ‘Ali ibn Asbat[27]: It contains 30 narrations in addition to the narration known as al Malahim (massacres).
Usul of ‘Ala’ ibn Razin: It contains 59 narrations.

If we take the original of Zaid al Narsi, from the sixteen Usul, to view some of the narrations of Jafar al Sadiq, we will notice the existence of such heinous narrations that will make a believer’s skin shiver. Some of them are:

Statement of Jafar al Sadiq:

إن الله ليخاصر العبد المؤمن يوم القيامة والمؤمن يخاصر ربه يذكره ذنوبه قلت: وما يخاصر؟ قال: فوضع يده على خاصرتي، فقال: هكذا كما يناجي الرجل منا أخاه في الأمر يسره إليه

Verily, on the Day of Qiyamah, Allah will put his hands around the waist of a believing servant and the believer will put his hands around his Lord, reminding him of his sins.

I said, “What is meant by He will put his hand around the waist?”

He put his hands on my waist and said, “Like this, just as a person converses with his brother in a matter that pleases him.”[28]

Statement of Jafar al Sadiq:

إن الله ينزل في يوم عرفة في أول الزوال إلى الأرض على جمل أفرق يصال بفخذيه أهل عرفات يمينا وشمالا ولا يزال كذلك حتى إذا كان عند المغرب ونفر الناس وكل الله ملكين بجبال المازمين يناديان عند المضيق الذي رايت: يا رب سلم سلم والرب يصعد إلى السماء ويقول- جل جلاله-: آمين آمين رب العالمين فلذلك لا تكاد ترى صريما ولا كسيرا

On the day of ‘Arafah, at the beginning of Zawwal (zenith), Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala descends to the earth on a wide spread camel, whose thighs touches the people of ‘Arafat, to the right and left. He remains like this till the sun sets and when the people go away, He appoints two angels at the valleys of the mountains, calling out in the straits that you saw, “O Lord[29], protect them, protect them.”

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala while ascending to the heavens replies, “Amin, Amin O Lord of the worlds.”

That is why you hardly find any dead or injured person.[30]

This is what led some of the contemporary Imami luminaries to doubt the Asl of Zaid al Narsi. Among them is the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Muhammad Baqir al Sadr (d. 1400 AH) who states:

ومجرد أن الروايات المنقولة في الكتب عن زيد موجودة في هذه النسخة لا يوجب الإطمئنان بعدم وقوع التحريف على الأقل بزيادة أو نقيصة خصوصا مع اشتمال النسخة على روايات غريبة ومعان مستنكرة من قبيل رؤية الله تعالى ومخاصرة المؤمن له يوم القيامة وقال هكذا يخاصره تعالى الله عن ذلك علوا كبيرا وهذا يوجب احتمال أن هذه النسخة هي التي زورها محمد بن موسى ولعلها غير النسخة التي كان للنجاشي طريق صحيح لها إلى محمد بن أبي عمير ونستخلص من كل ذلك عدم تمامية الرواية

The mere existence of narrations reported in various books from Zaid, in this copy does not necessitate reassurance that distortion has not taken place; at least some addition and omissions, particularly when this copy contains strange narrations and objectionable meanings, such as seeing Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and a believer putting his hands around Him on the Day of Qiyamah, as he said, “This is how he will put his hands around him.”

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is much more exalted than that.

This necessitates the possibility that this is the copy which Muhammad ibn Musa forged. Perhaps it is not the copy which al Najashi reported through an authentic chain from Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Umair. We conclude from all of this that the narration is incomplete.[31]

These are all assumptions. Perhaps, distortion through addition or omission took place due to the lack of assurance regarding these narrations’ issuance from the Imams. Perhaps it is not the copy which was transmitted from Ibn Abi ‘Umair (the reliable) through an authentic chain.

It will not be strange to say that the Asl of al Narsi contains narrations of this type that are steeped in Tashbih (anthropomorphism) and Tajsim (attributing physicality to Allah), as this is consistent to what is known of the former Imamiyyah regarding their extremism in anthropomorphism, as indicated—from the Imamiyyah—by al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 AH) in his Rasa’il[32] and others like al Jahiz (d. 255 AH) in al Rasa’il,[33]al Fakhr al Razi (d. 606 AH) in al I’tiqadat,[34] and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) in al Minhaj.[35]

The trusted sources of the Imamiyyah are not far from beliefs similar to this, as it becomes clear to those who research, study and ponder.

Ibn Quluwayh (d. 367 AH) has narrated in Kamil al Ziyarat, through his chain from Ibn Abi Ya’fur, who narrates from Jafar al Sadiq that he said:

بينما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في منزل فاطمة والحسين في ججره إذ بكى وخر ساجدا ثم قال يا فاطمة يا بنت محمد إن العلي الأعلي ترائي لي في بيتك هذا في ساعتي هذه في أحسن صورة وأهيا هيئة وقال لي: يا محمد أتحب الحسين فقلت نعم قرة عيني وريحانتي وثمرة فؤادي وجلدة ما بينعيني … الحديث

Whilst the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was in the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with Hussain in his lap, he suddenly fell prostrate. Thereafter he said, “O Fatimah, O daughter of Muhammad, the Most High appeared to me in this house of yours, at this very hour, in the most beautiful form and the best manner and said to me, “O Muhammad, do you love Hussain?”

I replied, “Yes, he is the coolness of my eye, my flower, the fruit of my heart and the skin between my eyes…..” till the end of the narration.[36]

Abu Qasim al Khu’i’s approval of the narrators of the book Kamil al Ziyarat based on Muhaddith Ibn Quluwayh’s approval[37] is not hidden.

Yes, some[38] have tried to cast doubt in the Asl of al Narsi and to disapprove what it contains on the pretext that there is no clear declaration of al Narsi’s reliability and that the original founder of this Asl is Muhammad ibn Musa al Samman. The late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Mahdi Bahr al ‘Ulum (d. 1212 AH) has embarked on responding to these implications in Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, which is sufficient. Refer to it if you wish.

He states in the biography of Zaid al Narsi:

زيد النرسي أحد أصحاب الأصول كوفي صحيح المذهب منسوب إلي نرس… وعد النرسي من أصحاب الأصول وتسمية كتابه أصلا مما يشهد بحسن حاله واعتبار كتابه فإن الأصل في اصطلاح المحدثين من أصحابنا بمعني الكتاب المعتمد الذي لم ينتزع من كتاب آخر وليس بمعنى مطلق الكتاب فإنه قد يجعل مقابلا له فيقال له كتاب وله أصل‏ ثم قال وأما الطعن علي هذا الأصل والقدح فيه بما ذكر فإنما الأصل فيه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد القمي وتبعه علي ذلك ابن بابويه على ما هو دأبه في الجرح والتعديل والتضعيف والتصحيح ولا موافق لهما فيما أعلم وفي الاعتماد على تضعيف القميين وقدحهم في الأصول والرجال كلام معروف فإن طريقتهم في الانتقاد تخالف ما عليه جماهير النقاد وتسرعهم إلى الطعن بلا سبب ظاهر مما يريب اللبيب الماهر ولم يلتفت أحد من أئمة الحديث والرجال إلى ما قاله الشيخان المذكوران في هذا المجال بل المستفاد من تصريحاتهم وتلويحاتهم تخطئتهما في ذلك المقال

Zaid al Narsi: One of the authors of the Usul, from Kufah, of the correct school and attributed to Nars… Al Narsi is regarded as one of the authors of al Usul. Calling his book an Asl is testament to his good condition and value of his book; because an Asl—according to the terminology of the Muhaddithin from our companions—is that trusted book which not extracted from any other book. It is not a general book; in fact, sometimes it is used as a comparison to that. Hence, they say, “He has a book and an Asl.” Thereafter he states, “As for the criticism on this Asl and the reproach of its contents, it originated from Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn al Walid al Qummi. Thereafter Ibn Babawayh followed him as is his norm with regards to approval, disapproval, and declaring someone weak or authentic. No one conforms to them as far as I know. Reliance on the Qummiyin’s declaration of someone being weak and their criticism of the Usul and narrators is a well-known discussion. Their manner of criticism differs from majority of the critics. Their rashness in criticising without any apparent reason is something that would make an intelligent expert suspicious. None of the other Imams of hadith and narrators paid any attention to what the two abovementioned scholars said in this regard. Rather, their statements and hints indicate to these two scholars’ mistake in this statement.[39]

Therefore, there is no escape from doubting the authenticity of what these alleged Usul contain and that they were written—or claimed to be written—during the time of the Imams, in addition to what was said regarding that period about the existence of Taqiyyah, Kitman, infiltration from the extremist and the well-known contradictions, differences, and hideous transmissions.[40]

Hence, ‘Allamah Sayid Nur al Din al Musawi al ‘Amili (d. 1062 AH), while responding to ‘Allamah Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi (d. 1033 AH)— the leader of the Akhbaris in his time—states:

ومما يدل على خلاف ما ادعاه وما ألزمه أن الأصول المذكورة لو كانت موجودة في زمن الأئمة الثلاثة وإن كان كلها صحيحة كيف جاز الاختلاف بينها والتضاة حتى قال الشيخ في أول التهذيب إنه لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا بإزائه ما يضادَه ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابلته ما ينافيه حتى جعل مخالفونا ذلك من أعظم الطعون على مذهبنا وقال بعد ذلك حتى دخل علي جماعة ممن ليس لهم قوة في العلم ولا بصيرة بوجوه النظر ومعاني الألفاظ شبهة وكثير منهم رجع عن اعتقاد الحقي وذكر عن شيخه أن أبا الحسن الهاروني العلوي كان يعتقد الحق ويدين بالإمامة فرجع عنها لما التبس عليه الأمر في اختلاف الأحاديث وترك المذهب فبعد هذا الكلام والكليني ذكر قريبا من ذلك كيف يلتبس على عاقل أن يكون أحاديث كتابيه مأخوذة من الأصول الصحيحة الثابتة عنهم وكيف تكون تلك الأصول الصحيحة موجودة ولا يجوز الاختلاف فيها علي الوجه الذي ذكره الشيخ لأن كلام الأئمة الصحيح عنهم منزه عن مثل ذلك فأي أصول حصل فيها هذا الاختلاف غير تلك‏ الأصول التي أوجب هذا الفساد العظيم من ارتداد الهاروني وغيره عن المذهب وهلا اطلع الهاروني وغيره على الأصول الصحيحة وعرف انها هي مذهب أهل البيت وأن غيرها مما فيه الاختلاف معلوم أنها مكذوبة عن أهل البيت وما رأينا الشيخ إلا سلم هذا الاختلاف أو عرف به فلا أقل انه كان بنية أن هذا الاختلاف لا عبرة به ولا توجب الشبهة لأن عندنا أصولا عديدة كثيرة ثابتة النقل عن أهل البيت لا يحتمل الاختلاف ولا التضاة وتعويلنا في المذاهب عليها لا على غيرها فما ظهر من كلامه إلا الاعتراف بوجود ذلك في الأحاديث التي كانت موجودة ذلك الزمان واختلاف الأحاديث المنقولة في الكتب الأربعة حتى قال الشيخ إنها في الاستبصار بما يزيد علي خمسة آلاف مؤكد لما أشرنا إليه وناف لوجود الأصول التي اعتقدها المصنف المقطوع بصحتها كلها في وهمه بكل وجه ولا يلزم الشيخ وغيره ما ألزمهم به بعد أن دونوا طريقا يعلم منه الصحيح من غيره وأجهدوا أنفسهم في تحقيق ذلك

What indicates to the contrary of what he claims and alleges is that if the aforementioned al Usul were existent during the era of the three Imams[41]and if they were all authentic, then how is it possible to find differences and contradictions among them to such an extent that Sheikh[42] states in the beginning of his book al Tahdhib, “One would hardly find a transmission except that there would be another one opposing it and one would not present any narration except that against it would be another narration contradicting it, to an extent that our opposition made that one of the greatest criticism against our school.”

He further states, “To such an extent that a group of those who do not possess strength in knowledge, insight in points of view and the meanings of words (semantics), fell into doubt. Many retracted from the beliefs in the truth.”

He reports from his teacher that Abu al Hussain al Haruni al ‘Alawi used to believe in the truth and in Imamah. He retracted from it after getting confused with regards to the differences in narrations and left the School.

After this statement—al Kulayni mentions similar statement also—how could it be confusing for any intelligent person that the narrations in their books are taken from the authentic Usul which are established from the Imams?

How can these authentic Usul exist when differences regarding them are not permissible in the manner mentioned by the Sheikh, because the authentic speeches of the Imams are beyond something like that?

Thus, in which Usul did these differences take place besides those Usul which led to this great corruption like the apostasy of al Haruni and others from the school?

Were al Haruni and the others not aware of the authentic Usul and realize that it is the School of the Ahlul Bayt and that others wherein there are differences are known to be fabricated from the Ahlul Bayt?

We do not see the Sheikh except that he has accepted these differences or knew about it, at least with the intention that there is no consideration in them and they do not lead to doubt, because we have many principles which are proven to be transmitted from the Ahlul Bayt, wherein differences and contradiction is not possible. Our reliance in the School is upon them and nothing else. All that appears from his statement is acknowledgement of the existence of this in the narrations that were found in that time and the differences in the narrations transmitted in the four books, to such an extent that Sheikh said, “There are more than five thousand narrations in al Istibsar that confirm what we alluded to and reject the existence of the Usul that the author believed to be certainly authentic according to him, in every way. The Sheikh and others were not obliged to what they were obliged to, after they compiled a way to ascertain the authentic from the unauthentic and they exerted themselves in achieving that.[43]

He further states:

لو كانت كتب الأصول الصحيحة الثابتة موجودة والأخذ منها والإطلاع عليها ممكن ورجالها كلهم ثقات عدول أو متون تلك الأصول معلوما أنها كلام الأئمة لما كان لكتب الرجال احتياج فالاهتمام بها وتدوينها يفهم أن من ذلك الوقت حصل في الأحاديث الاشتباه والالتباس وأنهم احتاجوا إلى التمييز بينهما بوضع كتب الرجال

ولو كانت الأحاديث في ذلك الوقت من زمن الأئمة إلى من بعدهم يمكن معرفة الصحيح منها أو التوصل إلى الأئمة أو يكون هناك أصول معلوم للأئمة صحتها ويمكن التوصل إليها لم يأمروا أصحابهم عند الإختلاف بالعرض علي كتاب الله وفي حديث الفيض بن المختار المتقدم لم يرجع الصادق معرفة الصحيح عند ما سأله عن الاختلاف الواقع بين الأحاديث إلى تلك الأصول التي كتبت في زمانه ولم يجر لها ذكر عند الأئمة حين يسألهم أصحابهم عند الإختلاف والإشتباه بأن يرجع إليها لأنها موجودة ثابتة عندهم وما خالفها كاذب بل أرجعهم الإمام إلى كتاب الله أو الأخذ بما خالف العامة لأن الظاهر من الموافق للعامة أن يكون غير صحيح وربما كان ذلك في مواضع كثيرة أولى من الحمل على التقية فعلم من ذلك أن تلك الأصول لو كانت موجودة كان يحتمل فيها ما يحتمل في غيرها إلا ما نص الأئمة عليه بعينه وهو قليل منها ولم يعلم التمكن من الوصول إليها في زمن الكليني وغيره ولهذا صرح الشيخ بأن اختلاف القدماء ما كان سببه إلا اختلاف الأحاديث وهو كذلك لأنها لو كانت كلها صحيحة لما جاز الاختلاف والتضاة فيها وما احتاجوا إلى وضع كتب الرجال إلا لأجل الاختلاف الواقع ليتميز الصحيح من الضعيف وبعد اطلاع الكليني ومن تأخر عنه على حال الأحاديث وشكواهم من مزيد الاختلاف والتضاة فيها وتنبيههم على ذلك وعلمهم بأنه قد وضع المتقدمون طريقا لاستعلام الصحيح منها من غيره لم يحسن منهم في ذلك الوقت أن يميزوا ما صح عندهم من غيره ويدونوه ويتركوا الباقي للزوم ذلك ترك أكثر الأحاديث ولاحتمال ظنهم بضعف راو وثبت غيرهم فيما بعد صحته فدونوا منها ما حسن ظنهم به وأحالوا معرفة صحيحها من غيره إلى ما يعلم من كتب الرجال وليس في ذلك تدليس ولا تلفيق ولا عدم تنبيه كما يدعيه المصنف بل ربما أنه ما كان عندهم ظن بأن عاقلا يتوهم بالأحاديث كلها صحيحة وأن الأصول الثابتة بالقطع عنهم موجودة في زمانهم بعد طول الزمان وأن الأخذ كله منها هذا مع تحقق الاختلاف الذي وقع في زمن الأئمة وبعدهم بين العلماء في فتواهم

If those authentic Usul existed, and adopting and reviewing it was possible and their narrators were all authentic and trustworthy or the text of those Usul were known to be that of the Imams, there would be no need for books of narrators. Paying attention to it and compiling it, indicates that from that time, there was uncertainty and confusion in the narrations and they were in need of differentiating between them by compiling books on narrators.

If it was possible to recognise the authentic narrations from the time of the Imams till those after them, or trace them to the Imams, or if there were Usul of the Imams whose authenticity was known and possible to trace, they would not have instructed their companions, when there were differences, to refer to the Qur’an. In the narration of al Fayd ibn al Mukhtar—which has passed—to recognise the authentic narrations, Jafar al Sadiq did not refer him—when asked about differences among the narrations—to the Usul that were compiled during his era. There is no mention by the Imams, when their companions asked them about differences and uncertainty, that they should refer to them as they are existing and established by them and whatever opposes them is lies. Rather, the Imam referred them to the Qur’an and to adopt that which contradicts the masses, because it is clear that whatever conform to the masses is not authentic. Perhaps that, in many cases, is better than regarding them as Taqiyyah.

From this, it is clear that if these Usul existed, all that which is possible in other narrations would have been possible in them, except that which the Imam specifically stated, which is very little indeed. The ability to acquire them, during the era of al Kulayni and others is not known. Hence, al Sheikh declared that the only reason for the differences among the former scholars was the differences in the narrations, and this is so, because if they were all authentic, there would be no differences and contradictions among them. There was no need to compile books on narrators except for the sake of the existing difference, so as to distinguish the authentic from the weak. After al Kulayni and those that came after him, became aware of the state of the narrations, their complaints of further differences and contradictions in them, their cautioning on that and the knowledge that the former scholars had established ways to enquire the authentic narrations from the unauthentic; they did not deem it correct—at that time—to distinguish what is authentic according to them and what is not, then compile them and leave the rest, as this would necessitate leaving out majority of the narrations and the possibility that they would regard a narrator to be weak and later someone else would establish his authenticity. Thus, they compiled what they thought to be good and referred the knowledge of its authenticity to what is known from the books on narrators. There is no deception, misrepresentation, and lack of caution in this, as the author claims. In fact, perhaps they thought that an intelligent person would never imagine all the narrations to be authentic, that the Usul which are proven to be from the Imams with certainty still exist despite the lengthy period of time and everything is taken from them. This is in addition to the existence of differences that occurred during the time of the Imams and after them, among the fatawa of the scholars.[44]

He further states with more detail:

لو كانت تلك الأصول كما يزعم المصنف أنها كتبت بأمر الأئمة وبين أيديهم لم يجز فيها الاختلاف والتضاة ولا تدوين أحاديث التقية فيها لأن غاية حفظها وكتابتها لأجل عدم وقوع الشيعة في الخطا وارتكاب غير الحق كما فعله المخالفون خصوصا وهم يعلمون أن الشيعة في حال الغيبة ليس لهم سبيل إلى علم الصحيح والموافق للمذهب مع الاختلاف فكيف يجرزون لأصحابهم كتابة ما فيه الاختلاف والتقية من دون تنبيه على الموافق بالمذهب منه وأي فائدة وضرورة لتدوين أحاديث التقية في كل تلك الأصول وهلا كانت تلك الأصول التي كتبت بين أيديهم منزهة عن الاختلاف وأحاديث التقية لأن الغرض منها الهداية وليس المقصود بها الاشتهار للمخالف والمؤالف لأنها محفوظة مصونة مكتومة عن غير أربابها فما الضرورة التي أوجبت هذا الاختلاف والتقية وتدوين كل ذلك في تلك الأصول التي ليست مكشوفة للإطلاع عليها للبعيد والقريب وحكمها حكم الآثار والدعوات المنقولة عنهم ليس فيها من الاختلاف والتقية ما في الأحاديث مع أن تجريد الحديث عما يوجب الشبهة والحيرة أتم من تجريد الدعوات والآثار الواردة عنهم في غير التكاليف الواجبة فلو كانت تلك الأصول كلها صحيحة لم يجوّز العقل فيها وقوع هذا الاختلاف هذا مع أن النقل والاعتبار يقضي بأنه لا موجب للتقية في تدوين أحاديثها في تلك الأصول بوجه من الوجوه لأنه ما من حديث للتقية إلا وبإزائه حديث أو أحاديث مخالفة له واردة علي الصحيح من مذهب الشيعة فكيف يجامع ذلك إرادة التقية بتدوينها في الأصول التي غايتها والمقصود بها هداية الشيعة وحفظ أحكام مذهب الحق وخصوصا مع دعوى المصنف بأن أكثرها بأمر الأئمة وأنها كتبت بين أيديهم ولم ينبهوا علي الموافق منها والمخالف وما السبب في إدخال أحكام العامة الباطلة فيها الموجبة للحيرة والاشتباه بغير ضرورة ولا فائدة في كل ذلك دليل على أن أغلب هذه الأحاديث المخالفة للمذهب إما مدخولة في الحديث من أهل الشقاق كما نقل من صريح كلام بعضهم ذلك وإما أن الراوي سمع الحديث ولم يعلم ما يخالفه من الموافق للمذهب فأثبته كما سمعه واختلطت الأحاديث ولم يتيسر لها في زمانهم من تميزها بسواء لهم ولا أصحاب الأصول التقوا إلى ذلك إن صح أنها مدونة في أصولهم وذلك بعيد عنهم لجلالتهم عن ذلك خصوصا مع كون بعضها في زمن الأئمة وإمكان استعلام الحال فيها وكأن المصنف لم يكن في حال اليقظة لما نظر إلى كتاب الاستبصار

وهذا الاختلاف الواقع بين الأحاديث والأكثر موافق لمذاهب العامة وليس للجمع بين أغلبها سبيل إلا إن كان بنهاية البعد وعدم المناسبة وبعضها لم يكن فيه إلا الرد والقطع من الشيخ بعدم صحته فما كان اهتمام الأئمة إلا بالمخالفين حتي أمروا أصحابهم بتدوين مذاهبهم في الأصول المراد منها هداية الشيعة على ان العقل والضرورة تقضي بأن تلك الأصول لو كانت كلها كلام الأئمة وصحيحة عنهم ما جاز فيها اختلاف حديث ولا تقية لأنه ورد عنهم إن‏ كلام الابن هو بعينه كلام الأب وعلى هذا إلى جبرئيل ولا ضرورة إلى تدوين ما فيه التقية مع عدم التنبيه عليه لو احتمله العقل في أصل من تلك الأصول خصوصا مع حكم المصنف بعدم جواز الاجتهاد فإن غير المجتهد من أين يعرف حديث التقية من غير التقية لو جوّز بأحواله التمييز في تلك الأصول بين الأحاديث إلى الشيعة المحتاجين إلى العمل بها بعد تدوينها ونقلها

وأيضا كيف جاز خفاء هذا الأمر الذي يدعي المصنف أنه من الضروريات وتواترت به الأخبار عن القدماء أصحاب المتون مثل ابن الجنيد وابن أبي عقيل والمفيد والسيد المرتضى ومن في عصرهم ومن تقدم عليهم ومن تأخر حتي أن القدماء أتعبوا أنفسهم في تحقيق رجال سند تلك الأحاديث الثابتة في الأصول بالقطع من غير احتياج إلى اعتبار السند بوجه لأي غرض لهم في ذلك إذا كان الحديث معلوم الصحة بدون ذلك

والتبرك يحصل باتصال السند من غير حاجة إلى ذكر ما يوهم غير العارف كذب الحديث وإدخال الشبهة عليه فلولا أن الاشتباه والضعف والكذب كان محتملا فيها كما وقع التصريح من الأئمة بالكذب عنهم وعن الرسول صلى الله عليه وعليهم لما أتعب القدماء والمتأخرون أنفسهم في تأليف كتب الرجال لتمييز الصحيح من غيره ولما حصل الاختلاف بين العلماء الذي وصل في الكثرة إلى حد قال الشيخ إنه ربما يزيد عن الاختلافات بين الأئمة الأربعة للمخالفين وصرح بأن سبب هذا الاختلاف اختلاف الحديث وعدم ظهور الصحيح منها بالقطع والجزم

وأما الثانية فإنا رأينا الصدوق أفتى بخلاف ما في الكافي في بعض المسائل بل أفتى بخلاف ما في من لا يحضره الفقيه في بعض مؤلفاته غيره وأورد في نافلة شهر رمضان حديثا وذهب إلى خلافه وصرح بأنه لم يعتقد مضمونه وإنما أورده ليفهم منه الجواز وكيف جاز له عدم اعتقاد مضمونه وهو يعلم أنه من كلام الأئمة ولم يحمله على التقية؟ فعلم أنه حاكم بضعفه من غير وجه التقية لو ناسب حمله عليها

والكليني حكم في مولد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بأنه اليوم الثاني عشر من شهر ربيع الأول والشيخ أورد من الأحاديث ما يقتضي أنه السابع عشر والمعروف من كل الأصحاب مخالفة الكليني في ذلك فكيف جاز هذا التخالف في كل الأحاديث في الكتب الأربعة الصحيحة المقطوع بها وإذا علم أصحاب الكتب ذلك كيف جاز لهم هذا الاختلاف الذي لا يمكن الجمع بينه إلا بحمل التقية وأي ضرورة للكليني في فتواه وتدوينها في كتابه أن يخالف الحق من مذهب الشيعة ولا يجوز في كتب الفتوى للشيعة ذلك بوجه من الوجوه بل كيف جاز للكليني مع اختلاف الأحاديث أن يعوّل علي الموافق لمذهب العامة والمأمور به عند الاختلاف من الأئمة العمل بما يخالف مذهبهم

والشيخ في جواز نقص شهر رمضان وتمامه أورد جملة أحاديث وحكم بعدم صحتها وقطع بذلك مع أنه دونها وأثبتها كغيره في كتابه وله مواضع عديدة من أمثال ذلك

ولم يتعرض أحد من الأئمة الثلاثة رحمهم الله إلى التصريح بما يدعيه المصنف وإنما المفهوم من كلامهم أنهم أخذتهم غيرة الدين على جمع هذه الأحاديث خوفا من ضياعها كما ضاعت أكثر أصولها أيضا في زمانهم وما بعده واكتفوا في نقلها بما حسن ظنهم به وبإمكان صحته وأحالوا العلم بالتمييز بينها علي ما عرّفوه ودونوه من كتب الرجال ولهذا التزموا إلى ذكر جميع أسانيدها ولم يهملوها اكتفاء بأخذها من الأصول لعلمهم بأن فيها ما لا يقطع بصحته ولا بكذبه

والظاهر منهم ومن عدم اعتمادهم على كل ما نقلوه ذلك فإلزام المصنف لهم بالاعتراف بما يدّعيه لهم وهم ينفونه أعجب العجائب

If these Usul—as the author[45] claims—were written on the instruction and in the presence of the Imams, there would be no possibility of differences and contradictions among them, nor compiling the narrations of Taqiyyah in them, as the object of its preservation and compilation was to prevent the Shia from falling into suspicion and perpetrating falsehood as the opposition did. Particularly when they are aware that, in their absence, the Shia has no way of knowing which is the correct and in conformance to the school amidst these differences. How do they permit their companions to compile that which contains differences and Taqiyyah without alerting them to what is in conformance with the School? What benefit and necessity is there in compiling the narrations of Taqiyyah in these Usul? Why is it that these Usul which were compiled in their presence are not free of differences and narrations of Taqiyyah? Because the objective is guidance and not popularity of the opposition and the accomplice, as it is preserved, protected, and written by other than its authors. What was the need that necessitated these differences and Taqiyyah, and compiling them in the Usul that are not exposed for any close or far person to notice. Its ruling is the same as transmissions and supplications transmitted from the Imams wherein there are no differences and Taqiyyah as the ones in the narrations, although abstracting narrations from that which causes suspicion and confusion is more complete than abstracting transmissions and supplications which are transmitted from them in non-obligatory injunctions. If those Usul were all authentic, the intellect would not allow this difference to occur. This is despite the fact that transmission and credibility stipulate that there is no need for the narrations of Taqiyyah to be compiled in these Usul in any way, because there is no narration of Taqiyyah except that there is another narration or many narrations which are transmitted in an authentic way from the Shia School, that contradict it. How does this combine with the intention of Taqiyyah by compiling it in the Usul, the objective of which is the guidance of the Shia and the preservation of the true school? Particularly when the author claims that most of it was compiled by the instruction of the Imams and that they were written in their presence and they did not alert them to what is in conformity of the School and what is not. What is the reason for inserting general corrupt rulings in it that cause confusion and suspicion, without any necessity and benefit? It is evident from all of this that most of these narrations that are contradicting the School were either inserted by the fanatics—as is reported clearly in some of their statements—or a narrator heard a narration, without knowing what is in conformity with the school and what is not, and recorded it as he heard it. Thus, the narrations got mingled and there was no one who was able to distinguish them like the Imams nor did the authors of the Usul pay attention to it, if it is correct that they are compiled in the Usul. This is far-fetched, due to their high status, particularly when some of the narrations were during the time of the Imams and they had the ability to inform them of its situation.

It looks like the author was not awake when he viewed the book al Istibsar.

These differences that occurred among the narrations, majority of which conforms to the masses, there is no possible way of reconciling them except in a far-fetched and inappropriate way. Some of which were merely rejected and dismissed with certainty as being unauthentic, by the Sheikh. The Imams concern was only with the opposition, so much so that they instructed their companions to compile their School in the Usul, which was intended to be for the guidance of the Shia. However, intelligence and necessity requires that if all the Usul were statements of the Imams and authentically narrated from them, there would be no differences in the narrations, nor Taqiyyah, as it has been transmitted from them that ‘the speech of the son is precisely the speech of the father.’ This sequence continues till Jibril ‘alayh al Salam. There is no need to compile the narrations of Taqiyyah without warning about it, even though it is intellectually possible in one of the Usul, particularly when the author ruled on the impermissibility of Ijtihad. How is it possible for a non-Mujtahid to differentiate between the narrations of Taqiyyah from those which are not, if it was permissible to distinguish the conditions of the narrations in those Usul, for those Shia who needed to practice upon it after compiling and transmitting it.

Furthermore; how is it permissible to conceal this matter which the author regards to be from the essentials and transmissions have been consecutively narrated from the former authors of texts such as Ibn al Junaid, Ibn Abi ‘Aqil, al Mufid, Sayed al Murtada, other cotemporaries, those who preceded and succeeded them, to such an extent that the former scholars exhausted themselves in researching the narrators in the chains of those narrations that were proven to be in the Usul with certainty, without any need to consider the chain. What was the objective of this if the narration was known to be authentic without it?

Blessing is attained through the continuity of the chain, without the need to mention anything that would mislead an unknowing person to believe that the narration is false and creating suspicion in him. Were it not for the possibility of confusion, weakness and lies in the narrations—as clearly stated by the Imams about lies attributes to them and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—the former and the latter scholars would not have exhausted themselves in writing books on narrators to distinguish the authentic from the unauthentic, and the differences among the scholars would have not reached to such a level that Sheikh declared that at times the differences surpass the differences of the opposition’s four Imams. He declared that the reason for these differences is the differences in the narrations and the failure to distinguish the authentic ones with certainty and convictions.

As for the second (claim), we see that Al Saduq[46] issued rulings contrary to what is in al Kafi in some rulings. In fact, he issued contrary to what is in Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih, in some of his other writings. He reported a narration regarding optional fast in the month of Ramadan but adopted a view contrary to that, declaring that he did not believe in its contents. He reported it merely to show its permissibility. How is it permissible for him not to believe in its contents, while knowing that it is from the speech of the Imams and did not base it on Taqiyyah? From this, it is apparent that he ruled this narration to be weak without Taqiyyah, if it suitable to regard it as Taqiyyah.

Al Kulayni ruled that the birth of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was on the 12^th of Rabi’ al Awwal whereas al Sheikh[47] reported narrations that indicate that it was on the 17^th. Al Kulayni’s opposition in this is well-known from all the companions. How is this opposition possible in all the narrations of the four certain authentic books? When the authors knew this, how did they allow this difference, which cannot be reconciled except by regarding it as Taqiyyah? What was the need for al Kulayni, in his ruling and compiling it in his book, to contradict the truth of the Shia School? This is not permitted according to the Shia Fatawa books at all. In fact, how is it permissible for al Kulayni, with his difference in the narrations, to rely on that which conforms to the masses whereas the instruction from the Imams, in the case of differences, is to practice contrary to the masses?

Al Sheikh reported several narrations pertaining to the permissibility of shortening the month of Ramadan and completing (30 days) it, and ruled with certainty that they are not authentic. Despite this, he compiled and recorded them in his book like others. There are several examples of this.

None of the three Imams considered declaring what the author claims. What is understood from their statements is that the passion for their din led them to compile these narrations, for the fear of them getting destroyed, just as most of the Usul got destroyed during their time and thereafter. They sufficed in transmitting what they thought was good and possibly authentic and referred the knowledge of distinguishing between them to what they knew and compiled in the books of narrators. Therefore, they committed themselves to mentioning all the chains of these narrations and did not overlook it by sufficing on it being taken from the Usul because they knew that it contains such narrations whose authenticity or falsehood cannot be certain.

This is what is apparent from them and their lack of reliance on what they transmitted. Thus, the author’s allegation of them acknowledging to his claims, whereas they are denying it, is very astonishing indeed.[48]

NEXT⇒ 6. Deficiency of the structure of the Imami fiqh’s legacy and the scarcity of its tools

[1] Sayed ‘Ali al Hussaini al Sadr: al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, pg. 28, second benefit.

[2] Dhikra al Shia, 1/9.

[3] Tahdhib al Maqal, 1/89; Miqbas al Hidayah, 2/27.

[4] Ma’alim al ‘Ulama’, pg. 3.

[5] Al Fihrist, pg. 33.

[6] Al Dhari’ah, 2/130.

[7] Rawdat al Muttaqin, 1/197.

[8] Rawdat al Muttaqin, 1/197.

[9] Al Fihrist, pg. 32.

[10] Sayed Muhsin al Amin states in A’yan al Shia, 8/31:

عالم فاضل فقيه من آل عصفور أخو يوسف صاحب الحدائق توفي في كربلاء في رجب سنة ١١٢٧ﻫ ‏ودفن في الرواق الشريف

He was a virtuous scholar and jurist from the family of ‘Usfur. Brother of Yusuf, the author of al Hada’iq. Passed away in Karbala’ in Rajab 1127 AH and he is buried in al Ruwaq al Sharif (the Noble Hall).

Sheikh ‘Ali al Bahrani states in Anwar al Badrayn, pg. 203:

كان هذا الشيخ عالما عاملا محدثا كاملا وقد ذكره السيد في الروضات مجملا، والمحدث النيسابوري والسيد الأمجد السيد أحمد البحراني في تتمة الأمل وبالغ في إطرائه ومدحه بالفضل والعلم والعمل توفي في كربلاء المشرفة ودفن في الصحن الشريف الحسيني سلام الله على من شرفه في شهر رجب سنة ١١٢٢ﻫ

The sheikh was a practicing scholar and a complete Muhaddith. Al Sayed has mentioned him briefly in al Rawdat. Muhaddith al Naysaburi and Sayed al Amjad al Sayed Ahmed al Bahrani have mentioned him in Tatimmat al Amal and exaggerated in praising his virtue, knowledge, and practice. He died in Karbala’ in Rajab 1122 AH and is buried in the Hussaini Hall.

[11] The Fathiyyah or Aftahiyyah believe that Imamah (i.e. the role of being the Imam) transferred from al Sadiq to his son, ‘Abdullah al Aftah, the true brother of Ismail, after the death of al Sadiq.

[12] The Waqifah or the Waqifiyyah is a sect of the Shia who deny the death of Imam al Kazim Musa ibn Jafar. With that, they (also) deny the Imamah of his son al Rida.

[13] Muqaddamah Ihya’ Ma’alim al Shia bi Akhbar al Shari’ah, 1/75-76.

[14] Surah al Kahf: 109.

[15] Referring to Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, al Kulayni, and al Tusi.

[16] Muqaddamah Ihya’ Ma’alim al Shia bi Akhbar al Shari’ah, 1/75-76.

[17] Al Dhari’ah, 2/129.

[18] Al Ri’ayah fi ‘Ilm al Riwayah, pg. 72.

[19] Mir’at al Kutub, 4/18.

[20] Adwar al Fiqh al Imami, pg. 35.

[21]Ibid., pg. 34.

[22] Mixture used to write on slates.

[23] Adwar al Fiqh al Imami, pg. 35.

[24] Adwar al Fiqh al Imami, pg. 35.

[25] Ibid., 36.

[26] Forward of the book Ahwal Rijal al Usul al Sittah ‘Ashar.

[27] This is despite the fact that some Imami scholars dispute the inclusion of Nawadir books in those Usul, as is the view of al Mamaqani in Tanqih al Maqal, 1/121, second benefit. He states:

ويقرب في نظري أن الأصل هو الكتاب الذي جمع فيه مصنفه الأحاديث التي رواها عن المعصوم أو عن الراوي.. وأما النوادر فالظاهر انه ما اجتمع فيه أحاديث لا تضبط في باب لقلته بان يكون واحدا أو متعددا لكن يكون قليلا جدا ومن هذا قولهم في الكتب المتداولة: نوادر الصلاة نوادر الزكاة وأمثال ذلك

It comes to my mind that al Asl is a book wherein the author compiled narrations which is transmitted from the infallible Imams or a narrator. As for al Nawadir, the apparent is that it is that book wherein the author collected narrations that cannot fit in any chapter due to it being rare, either being a single narration or several but very few. Hence, we find their statements in the circulated books, Nawadir al Salah (rare narrations of Salah), Nawadir al Zakat (rare narrations of Zakat) etc.

[28] Asl Zaid al Narsi, hadith 30.

[29] Researchers state that the word ‘O Lord’ does not appear in the Indian print, nor in the print of Sayed Nasr Allah al Ha’iri.

[30] Asl Zaid al Narasi, hadith 31.

[31] Buhuth fi Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, 3/426 – 427, Dar al Ta’arud, first print, 1408 CE.

[32] He states in his Rasa’il:

إن معظم الفقه وجمهوره لا يخلو مستنده ممن يذهب مذهب الواقفة إما أن يكون أصلا في الخبر أو فرعا راويا عن غيره ومرويا عنه وإلى غلاة وخطابية ومخمسة وأصحاب حلول كفلان وفلان ومن لا حصى أيضا كثرة وإلي قمي مشبه مجبر وإن القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق به فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال أو قمي مشبه مجبر والاختبار بيننا ويينهم الفتيش

Most of the fiqh is such that their narrators are not devoid of those who adhere to the school of the Waqifah; either as the source of the narration or a subsidiary, narrating from others or narrated from him; and to extremist, Khattabis, Mukhammisah (those who believe that Allah handed over the affairs of the world to five people) and the people of Hulul (those who believe ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be Allah incarnate) like so and so and other countless people; and adhere to the Mushabbih (anthropomorphist), Mujabbir (those who believe that man has no free will) Qummis. All the Qummiyin, without exception, besides Abu Jafar ibn Babawayh, were previously Mushabbihs and Mujabbirs. Their books and literature bear witness and expose that. If only I knew of any narration whose source or subsidiary is free and safe from a Waqifi, extremist, or a Mushabbih Mujabbir Qummi. The test between us and them is in research.

[33] He states in al Rasa’il, 2/18:

وتكلمت هذه الرافضة فثبتث له جسما وجعلت له صورة وحدا وأكفرت من قال بالرؤية على غير الكيفية

These Rawafid discussed Allah and established a form and boundary for Him. They declared disbelief for those who hold the view of seeing Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala without form.

[34] He states in I’tiqadat Farq al Muslimin wa al Mushrikin, pg. 63:

وكان بدو ظهور التثبيه في الإسلام من الروافض مثل بيان بن سمعان الذي كان يثبت لله تعال الأعضاء والجوارح وهشام بن الحكم وهشام بن سالم الجواليقي ويونس بن عبد الرحمن القمي وأبو جعفر الأحول الذي كان يدعى شيطان الطاق وهؤلاء رؤساء علماء الروافض

The emergence of Tashbih began from the Rawafid like Bayan ibn Sam’an who use to establish body parts for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, Hisham ibn al Hakam, Hisham ibn Salim al Jawaliqi, Yunus ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Qummi, and Abu Jafar al Ahwal, known as the Shaitan al Taq. These are the leaders of the Rawafid scholars.

[35] He states in al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 3/462, regarding the Imamiyyah:

فإنهم في توحيدهم موافقون للمعتزلة وقدماؤهم كانوا مجسمة

They would conform to the Mu’tazilah in their beliefs. Their former scholars were Mujassimah (those who attribute physicality to Allah).

He also states in 1/72:

ولهذا تجد المصنفين في المقالات كالاشعري لا يذكرون عن أحد من الشيعة أنه وافق المعتزلة في توحيدهم وعدلهم إلا عن بعض متأخريهم وإنما يذكرون عن بعض قدمائهم التجسيم

Hence, you will find that authors of article like al Ash’ari, do not mention that they conformed to the Mu’tazilah in their belief of oneness (of Allah) and approval except from some latter scholars. From the former scholars, they only mention Tajsim.

[36] Kamil al Ziyarat, pg. 142.

[37] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 1/64. He states:

فإنك ترى أن هذه العبارة واضحة الدلالة على أنه لا يروي في كتابه رواية عن المعصوم إلا وقد وصلت إليه من جهة الثقات من أصحابنا

One can see that these excerpts clearly indicate that he does not narrate, in his book, from the infallible Imam except that which reached him through reliable narrators from our companions.

[38] From amongst them is Sayed Muhammad Baqir al Sadr whose statement has passed.

[39]Al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, 2/360 – 367.

[40] Irrespective of whether these narrations are despised by the present day Imamiyyah like the transmissions about Jabr, Tashbih, distortion of the Qur’an; or others despise by them like declaring disbelief and deviation to the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, declaring disbelief and deviation to the opposition, extremism regarding their Imams and granting them virtue over the prophets etc.

[41] Referring to Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, al Kulayni, and al Tusi.

[42] Referring to Sheikh al Ta’ifah Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi.

[43] Al Shawahid al Makkiyyah, pg. 131-132.

[44]Al Shawahid al Makkiyyah, pg. 176.

[45] Referring to Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi, the leader of the Akhbaris in his era.

[46] Referring to Ibn Babawayh al Qummi.

[47] i.e. Sheikh al Ta’ifah Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi.

[48]Al Shawahid al Makkiyyah, pg. 308–311.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents