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

An observer into the Imami narrative legacy will notice clear deficiencies in the Fiqhi legislations and derivation of rulings, despite the texts’ existence for a lengthy period of time and its continuation beyond the Imams of the four Mazhabs (Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 180 AH), Imam Malik (d. 179 AH), Imam Shafi’i (d. 204 AH), and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH)) for nearly 90 years.

The termination of the texts—according to Imamiyyah—coincides with the major disappearance of the Twelfth Imam (Muhammad ibn al Hassan al ‘Askari), after the death of his last deputy (‘Ali ibn Muhammad al Samarri) in 329 AH.

Despite all this, the school suffers from lack of Fiqhi rulings and scarcity of its regulations and principles, stipulated by the Twelve Imams. If all the narrations that have been transmitted from al Baqir and al Sadiq be it authentic, weak, fabricated or forged, had to be gathered, it will never meet the requirement.

This is what Ayatollah al Sheikh Muhammad Asif Muhsini noticed during the course of his observance of the School’s narrations and his investigation into the Fiqhi principles and regulations, as he expresses his amazement in this regard by saying:

لا خفاء على الخبراء بأمر الأحاديث في أنها غير وافية بفروع الأصول الاعتقادية والمعارف الإسلامية وبمسائل الحلال والحرام أي الأحكام التكليفية والوضعية حتى بعد جمعها في الجوامع الحديثية فضلا عن زمان انتشارها عند آحاد الرواة

ويظهر للناظر أن في كثير من الروايات كان السؤال من الناس فسِيق الجواب حسب فروضهم ولم يبين الأئمة الأحكام ابتداء على نحو القاعدة الكلية والضابطة الجامعية وترى روايات كثيرة في أمور جزئية في حين أن الأمور المهمة لا خبر واحد فيها وأصعب من الكل تعارض الأخبار وتناقضها كل ذلك واضح لا يحتاج إلى ذكر شاهد ومن جانب آخر لا إشكال في أهمية الدين وعبادة الله تعالى من كل شيء فإن الله خلق الجن والإنس ليعبدون فيقع السؤال المهم عن عدم بيان كامل للدين أصولا وفروعا حتي لم تقع الاختلافات فيهما بين فقهاء الإمامية بالخصوص في جميع أبواب الفقه وانجرار الأمر إلى أقوال وفتاوى عجيبة فضلا عن الاختلافات الشاسعة بين علماء سائر المذاهب الإسلامية والأمر في اتساعٍ بعدُ

It is no secret to the experts of Hadith that they are inadequate in deducing principles of beliefs, Islamic knowledge, and rulings regarding Halal and Haram (lawful and forbidden), i.e., Taklifi [1]and Wad’i [2] rulings, even after they were gathered in Hadith compilations, let alone at the time of the expansion through solitary narrators.

An observer will notice that in many of the narrations, the question was asked by the people. Thus, the answer was given based on their assumptions. The Imam did not explain the rulings from inception as a general rule and an academic principle. One would find plenty narrations in subsidiary matters, whereas there would not be a single narration in fundamental matters. The most difficult aspect is the contradiction and the inconsistency of the narrations. All this is clear which requires no evidence. On the other hand, there is no objection pertaining to the importance of din and the worship of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created man and Jinn to worship.[3] Therefore, the important question arises about the lack of complete explanation of the din’s fundamentals and subsidiaries, so that differences do not occur among the Imami jurist, specifically in all aspects of fiqh, and it does not lead to strange views and fatwas, let alone vast differences amongst the scholars of all the Islamic Mazhabs. The matter is still expanding.[4]

With full awareness of its reality and realizing its dimensions on the narrative and Fiqhi level, Sheikh Muhammad al Baqir al Bahbudi sees that one of the signs that exposes the falsity of the Hadith Asl, which the narrator claims to be narrating from al Baqir and al Sadiq—who are the ones most narrated from in the School—is that the copy of this narrator is large and filled with rulings related to Fiqh and beliefs, a matter that is neither consistent with the circumstances which the Imamiyyah relate about the situation of the Imams regarding Kitman, Taqiyyah, and scarcity of hadith, nor is it consistent with pattern of narration in the School. He states:

إذا كان الراوي أظهرنسخة كبيرة ذات نطاق واسع في أبواب الفقه والمعارف فادعي أنها مسند الإمام أبي جعفر الباقر أو مسند الإمام أبي عبد الله الصادق مثلا فنعلم عند ذلك بتاتا أنها مكذوبة على الإمام فإنهم كانوا في تقية عن العامة ولا يحدثونهم ولا يفتون لهم إلا عند الضرورة ولم نر في التاريخ الصحيح أن أحدا منهم كان يجلس في مسند المشايخ ويقول حدثنا فلان حدثنا فلان

If a narrator appears with a large copy, with vast scope in the chapters of fiqh, and claims that it is a musnad of Abu Jafar al Baqir or Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq for example, we know for sure that it is fabricated from the Imam, as they were practicing Taqiyyah from the masses and did not narrate and issue fatwa except when necessary. We have not seen, in authentic history, that anyone of them would sit on the seat of teachers and, “So and so narrated to us, so and so narrated to us.”[5]

As a natural result of the deficiency in the Fiqhi narrative structure from establishing an integrated Fiqhi school—despite the expansion of the text period to a later period compared to the Ahlus Sunnah—the Imami jurists, during the inception period,[6] were forced to open the Sunni Fiqhi Mazhab and borrow Fiqhi and fundamental regulations and the methods of derivation from them, while making some necessary adjustments to adapt it to the nature of their School.

What may be called an ‘environment’ for rules, principles and many Sunni subsidiary rulings made its way into the structure of Fiqh and belief body of the Imamiyyah.

Imam Muhammad ibn Idris al Shafi’i al Muttalibi (d 204 AH)[7] is considered to be the first to write on the science of principles. Before al Shafi’i, people used to discuss rulings of Usul al Fiqh, infer evidences and objections. However, they did not have any general rule which they could refer to, in order to understand the evidence of Shari’ah and the manner of opposing and giving preference in it. Al Shafi’i devised the science of Usul al Fiqh and established a comprehensive rule for mankind, which could be referred to in understanding the levels of Shar’i evidence.[8]

The precedence of Imam al Shafi’i in compiling the science of Usul al Fiqh is not confined to the book al Risalah only, rather, other writings can also be added to it like Ahkam, Ikhtilaf al Hadith, Ibtal al Istihsan, Jima’ al ‘Ilm, and al Qiyas.[9]

It is said that the Judge Abu Yusuf—student of Abu Hanifah—was the first to write a book in Usul al Fiqh in accordance to the Mazhab of Abu Hanifah.[10]

Al Nadim[11] has mentioned in al Fihrist that Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Shaybani (d. 189 AH) wrote several books regarding principles.[12]

It appears to me that the matter is related to terminology. The biographers of these two scholars did not intend the conventional meaning of Usul al Fiqh; rather, they meant Fiqh itself. In the conclusion of al Nadim’s statement, he states:

ولمحمد‏ من الكتب في الأصول كتاب الصلاة كتاب الزكاة كتاب المناسك كتاب نوادر الصلاة كتاب النكاح كتاب الطلاق كتاب العتاق وأمهات الأولاد

And Muhammad authored books on principles such as the book on Salah, book on Zakat, book on Hajj rituals, book on rare narrations on Salah, book on marriage, book on divorce, book on emancipation (of slaves), book on Ummahat al Awlad (slaves who give birth to master’s children).[13]

The Imamiyyah claim that they were the first to write a book on Usul al Fiqh, forgetting what has been consecutively narrated to them from Jafar al Sadiq about the prohibition of practicing Qiyas, that considering Ijtihad in that which does not contain anything from the Qur’an and Sunnah as lying to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala[14] and issuing fatwa based on opinion as opposing Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.[15]

They mention[16] that the first among the Imamiyyah to write about Usul al Fiqh is Hisham ibn al Hakam (d. 199 AH). They say that he wrote the book al Alfaz.[17]

The amusing aspect is that the contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sheikh Jafar al Subhani, who cited this book for the precedence of the Imamiyyah in Usul al Fiqh, himself states in the footnote when commenting on this book:

وهو مردد بين كونه كتاب لغة أو أدب أو كونه باحثا عن الألفاظ التي يستخدمها الفقيه في استنباط الأحكام لكون الأمر للوجوب والمرة والتكرار أو الفورية والتأخير إلى غير ذلك

It is wavering between being a language book or a literature book or a book that discusses the words used by a jurist in deducing rulings, (such as) a command is used for obligation, for once and multiple times or is it used for immediate and delay etc.[18]

Is it possible for one to deduce from something whose contents are unknown, except for mere accumulation and claim?

It is clear that this inference cannot be relied upon in intellectual and historical research and because of it; well-known and clear transmitted writings would be left out.

Then they mention[19] that the person that followed him in writing about Usul is Yunus ibn ‘Abdur Rahman (d. 208 AH)—freed slave of the Yaqtin family—and that he wrote a book named Ikhtilaf al Hadith wa Masa’ilihi ‘an Abi al Hassan Musa ibn Jafar.[20]

It is apparent from the title of the book that the intention is to mention contradictory narrations from Imam Musa al Kazim, which in the field of Hadith[21] is known as the science of Mukhtalaf al Hadith[22] (differences in Hadith). Thus, the book is more associated to the science of Hadith, even though its subject overlaps, in some of its aspects, with the subject of contradiction in Usul al Fiqh, as sciences sometime overlap.

However, the claim that this book is from amongst the books of Usul al Fiqh has no evidence to support it. You are aware that Imam al Shafi’i is the originator of the science of Usul and similarly he was the first to write in the field of Mukhtalaf al Hadith. So, ponder!

Then they mention[23] that the person to follow him in writing in the field of Usul is Ismail ibn ‘Ali ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Sahl ibn Nawbakht (d. 311 AH). Al Nadim mentions in al Fihrist that from amongst his writings are the books Naqd Risalat al Shafi’i, Ibtal al Qiyas, and Naqd Ijtihad al Ra’y ‘ala Ibn al Rawandi.

These books were written in refutation of Usul al Fiqh, starting with refutation of the al Risalah of Imam al Shafi’i till refuting Qiyas and rebuttal of Ijtihad. Then what remains?

The Imamiyyah, even though they have declared war on opinion and Qiyas, their stance against practicing on intellectual Istihsan (applying discretion in rulings) and conjecture is apparent. Their insistence upon adhering to text and confining Fiqhi Ijtihad to understanding it, is too evident to be inferred. However, this rigidness on texts could not withstand the Sunni Ijtihadi movement, which was at its prime and most radiant at that time, which prompted some of their scholars like Ibn Abi ‘Aqil al ‘Umani[24] (d. 369 AH) and Ibn al Junaid al Iskafi (d. 385 AH)[25] to practice Qiyas, and they based it on what the Imamiyyah narrate from al Sadiq and al Rida that they said:

علينا إلقاء الأصول وعليكم بالتفريع

Upon us is laying down the principles and upon you is deducing (rulings from it).[26]

In another narration:[27]

إنما علينا أن نلقي إليكم الأصول وعليكم أن تفرعوا

Our responsibility is to lay down principles and your responsibility is to deduce rulings from them.[28]

These two luminaries aroused the resentment of some of the Imami scholars such as Muhammad Baqir al Khuwanasari (d. 1313 AH), who wrote the biography of Ibn al Junaid in Rawdat wherein he states:

كان هذا الشيخ أول من أبدع أساس الاجتهاد في أحكام الشريعة وأحسن الظن بأصول فقه المخالفين من علماء الشيعة وتبع في ذلك ظاهرا الحسن بن أبي عقيل العماني المتقذم ذكره السَّنِيُّ والمعاصر لشيخنا الكليني إذ قلما تقع المخالفة في الفتاوى والأحكام بين ذينك الفقيهين ومن هذه الجهة يجمع بينهما في الذكر في كلمات فقهائنا بلفظ القديمين إلا أن صاحب الترجمة أفرط في متابعة هذه الآراء الفاسدة وتعدى وزاد في الطنبور نغمة أخرى فعمل صريحا بالقياسات الحنفية واعتمد صبيحا علي الاستنباطات الظنية بحيث قد غمز في حقه من هذه الجهة كثير من أهل الحق ولم يعتنوا بخلافاته التي إليها تطرق

This sheikh was the first to invent the foundation of Ijtihad in the rulings of Shari’ah and had good thought of the opposing Shia scholars. Al Hassan ibn Abi ‘Aqil al ‘Umani apparently followed him in that, whose lofty mention passed and is the contemporary of our Sheikh al Kulayni. Very seldom would any differences occur between these two jurists in fatwa and rulings. From this point of view, they are collectively mentioned, in the speech of our jurists, as al Qadimayn (the two former scholars). However, the biographee exaggerated in following these corrupt opinions, went overboard and added another tune to the tambourine. Thus, he clearly practiced on the Hanafi Qiyas and gracefully relied on speculative deductions to such an extent that many of the people of truth winked at him from this point of view and did not pay attention to the differences he embarked upon.[29]

As for Sheikh al Mufid (d. 413 AH), he wrote a book in response to him which he titled al Naqd ‘ala Ibn al Junaid fi Ijtihad al Ra’y. He wrote in al Masa’il al Sururiyyah:

فأما كتب أبي علي بن الجنيد فقد حشاها بأحكام عمل فيها على الظن واستعمل فيها مذهب المخالفين من القياس الرذل فخلط بين المنقول عن الأئمة وبين من قاله برآيه

As for Abu ‘Ali ibn al Junaid’s books, he filled them with rulings wherein he adopted conjecture and used therein despicable Qiyas from the school of the opposition. Thus, he mingled that which is transmitted from the Imams and that which he said according to his opinion.[30]

Al Mufid’s student, al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 AH), who underestimated the importance of Ibn al Junaid’s academic opinions, followed him. During the course of his response to the opinion of Sheikh Ibn al Junaid, about the impermissibility for a judge to pass any judgement relating to any right or punishment through his knowledge, he states:

وإنما عول ابن الجنيد فيها على ضرب من الرأي والاجتهاد وخطؤه ظاهر

Ibn al Junaid relied on a type of opinion and Ijtihad. His error is obvious.[31]

He established in his book al Dhari’ah that Ijtihad is invalid and that according to the Imamiyyah it is not permissible to practice on conjecture, opinion, or Ijtihad.[32]

Thereafter Sheikh al Ta’ifah Abu Jafar al Tusi came—who is the student of both of these scholars—to establish the same principle in ‘Uddat al Usul wherein he states:

وأما القياس والاجتهاد فعندنا أنهما ليسا بدليلين بل محظور استعمالهما

As for Qiyas and Ijtihad, they are not evidence according to us; rather, their usage is prohibited.[33]

Al Tusi acquired fiqh from the Shafi’is in Baghdad and knew their views and methods in capturing Usul al Fiqh and deducing from them,[34] just as he acquired the knowledge of theology and the school from his two teachers, al Mufid, and al Murtada. It seems that the awe of his two teachers and their leadership during their time prevented him from opposing them.

This is noticeable in his stance pertaining to practicing on al Khabr al Wahid, where he differed with his two teachers, al Mufid, and al Murtada. Al Mufid had declared in his book al Tadhkirah bi Usul al Fiqh that al Khabr al Wahid does neither necessitate knowledge nor practice.[35] Similarly al Murtada, as he states in Jawabat al Masa’il al Tabaniyat:

إنا نعلم علما ضروريا لا يدخل في مثله ريب ولا شك أن علماء الشيعة الإمامية يذهبون إلى أن أخبار الآحاد لا يجوز العمل بها في الشريعة ولا التعويل عليها وأنها ليست بحجة ولا دلالة

We have the necessary knowledge, wherein there can be no suspicion or doubt that the Imami Shia scholars hold the view that it is not permissible in Shari’ah to either practice on al Khabr al Wahid, nor rely on it and that it is neither evidence nor proof.[36]

This is a matter that obliged al Murtada to pay great attention to Ijma’ (consensus) to such a degree that one would seldom find a Shar’i ruling which is not inferred by Ijma’.[37]

The Imamiyyah state, that the establishment of the first Shia scholarly seminar in history,[38] was completed on the hands of Sheikh al Ta’ifah Abu Jafar al Tusi, after his alignment far away from the scholarly capital (Baghdad) to a small city, Najaf. They mention that his relocation was after the burning of his library in Baghdad in 447 AH, and in Najaf he, al Tusi, wrote the last of his books, al Mabsut[39], which represented a qualitative shift in the Imami fiqh that was not known in the first Fiqhi period, which did not go beyond mentioning narrations without deducing or mentioning rulings outside these narrations.

However, they are ignorant of the fact that this shift occurred after the death of the two seniors of the school at that time, al Mufid, and al Murtada. Thus, he gained leadership without any rival, to a degree that he was given the title of Sheikh al Ta’ifah (leader of the sect), after his estrangement from one of his companions, whom he did not mention in his book, sufficing by calling him ‘esteemed sheikh’.[40] This sheikh had position and authority which prevented al Tusi from exposing what he possessed.

When al Tusi relocated to Najaf, he began exhibiting a new role for the Imami fiqh, emulating the Sunni fiqh, which had its own characteristics. That is why he mentions in the forward of his book al Mabsut:

أما بعد فإني لا أزال أسمع معاشر مخالفينا من المتفقهة والمنتسبين إلى علم الفروع يستحقرون فقه أصحابنا الإمامية ويستنزرونه وينسبونهم إلى قلة الفروع وقلة المسائل ويقولون إنهم أهل حشو ومناقضة وإن من ينفي القياس والاجتهاد لا طريق له إلى كثرة المسائل ولا التفريع على الأصول لأن جل ذلك وجمهوره مأخوذ من هذين الطريقين وهذا جهل منهم بمذاهبنا وقلة تأمل لأصولنا ولو نظروا في أخبارنا وفقهنا لعلموا أن جل ما ذكروه من المسائل موجود في أخبارنا ومنصوص عليه تلويحا عن أئمتنا الذين قولهم في الحجة يجري مجرى قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إما خصوصا أو عموما أو تصريحا أو تلويحا وأما ما كثّروا به كتبهم من مسائل الفروع فلا فرع من ذلك إلا وله مدخل في أصولنا ومخرج على مذاهبنا لا على وجه القياس بل على طريقة توجب علما يجب العمل عليها ويسوغ الوصول إليها من البناء على الأصل وبراءة الذمة وغير ذلك

Thereafter, I continuously hear groups of our opposition, the jurists, and those associated to the science of inference, despising, belittling, and attributing scarcity of subsidiaries and rulings to the fiqh of our companions and saying that they are people of tautology and contradiction. The say that whoever denies Qiyas and Ijtihad has no way to the abundance of rulings and deducing rulings from principles, because the bulk and majority of that is taken through these two ways. This is ignorance of our School and lack of scrutiny in our principles. If they look into our transmissions and fiqh, they would realise that most of the rulings they mention are present in our transmissions and clearly referenced from our Imams, whose sayings are equivalent to the sayings of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in evidence, either specifically, generally, clearly, and by indication. As for the subsidiary rulings which they have filled their books with, there is no ruling from that except that it has a presence in our principles and an origin in our School; not in the form of Qiyas but in a manner that necessitates knowledge which is obligatory to practice, is accessible by building on the principle and absolves one’s responsibility etc.

Then he mentions about his method in his book al Nihayah which he wrote according to the Imami way. Thereafter, he states about this book:

فعدلت إلى عمل كتاب يشتمل على عدد جميع كتب الفقه التي فصلوها الفقهاء وهي نحو من ثلاثين كتابا أذكر كل كتاب منه علي غاية ما يمكن تلخيصه من الألفاظ واقتصرت علىٰ مجرد الفقه دون الأدعية والآداب وأعقد فيه الأبواب وأقسم فيه المسائل وأجمع بين النظائر وأستوفيه غاية الاستيفاء وأذكر أكثر الفروع التي ذكرها المخالفون

So, I deflected to compiling a book which comprises of all the books (chapters) of fiqh, in number, which the jurists divided, which are around 30 chapters. I mention each book to the maximum extent that can be summarised in words. I sufficed on fiqh only without any supplications or etiquettes. I created chapters and distributed the rulings in it. I reconciled between the counterpart rulings and I fulfilled it to the best possible manner. I mentioned most of the subsidiary rulings which the opposition mention.[41]

Al Tusi has acknowledged in this forward that the Imamiyyah never used to deduce subsidiary rulings from principles till his era and they would suffice on the texts that reached them from the former scholars of Hadith.

That he was compelled to write his book, al Mabsut, in this Fiqhi manner, to repel the opposition’s taunting of the Imamiyyah for their School’s Fiqhi shortcomings with regards to their inability to deduce Fiqhi rulings or reconciling subsidiaries to the principles in a disciplined and explicit manner.

Sayed Mundhir al Hakim indicated to that by saying:

وقد اعتقد بعض كبار فقهاء الإمامية بأن الفقه الشيعي ناظر في إنجازاته العلمية إلى الفقه السني ولا يمكن تحقق فهم الفقه الشيعي بشكل تام إلا لمن يفهم الفقه السني بشكل تام

Some senior Imami jurists believe that the Shia fiqh looked into Sunni Fiqh for its scholarly accomplishments, and understanding the Shia fiqh in a complete way, cannot be possible except for those who understand the Sunni fiqh in a complete manner.[42]

That is so because the features of quotation do not extend to the principles and the method of Fiqhi deduction, rather, it goes beyond that to quoting the method of Fiqhi categorization, as ‘Allamah ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadli (d. 1434 AH) stated that the introduction of the ancient Fiqhi categorization in the field of Imami writings only came through the influence of the Sunni Fiqhi writings.[43]

Some have tried to justify the influence of Sunni fiqh and adopting it—on a fundamental and subsidiary level—by claiming that the Sunni fiqh was the fiqh of the state. However, the reality of the matter belies that, at least during the period of the emergence of deductive Imami fiqh.

Al Tusi and his two teachers, al Mufid and al Murtada lived in the shadow of the Shia Buyid state, wherein the Imamis had a great opportunity to spread their writings, in fact, to violate majority of the Sunni and provoke their feelings through sectarian practices which were carried out on them with the aid of some of the Bani Buwayh leaders, which extended to their Masjids and homes.[44] Similarly the celebration of the ruling authority with al Tusi , at that time, reached such a point that the Khalifah of the time, al Qa’im bi Amr Allah appointed him to the ‘post of speech and information’. This post had an indescribable greatness and power at that time.[45] Similarly, Abu Nasr Sabur ibn Ardashir—minister of Baha’ al Dawlah al Buwayhi—had endowed a treasure of books (great library) to the sect in their district in Karkh, Baghdad. He deposited valuable books of the sect and reliable origins in it. There was no library in the world with better books than this one.[46]

Hence, Hussain ibn Shihab al Din al Karaki al ‘Amili (d. 1072 AH) states in Hidayat al Abrar, discussing the sect’s history with regards to the science of principles:

ولم يكن للشيعة في أصول الفقه تأليف لعدم احتياجهم إليه لوجود كل ما لا بد لهم منه من ضروريات الدين ونظرياته في الأصول المنقولة عن أئمة الهدى إلى أن جاء ابن الجنيد فنظر في أصول العامة وفروعهم وألف الكتب على ذلك المنوال حتى إنه عمل بالقياس فلذلك أعرض القدماء عن كتبه ولما وصلت النوبة إلي الشيخ المفيد والسيد المرتضى والشيخ أكثروا البحث مع العامة واستدلوا على إثبات بعض أصول المذهب وفروعه بالأدلة العقلية الجدلية الموافقة لطريق العامة

The Shia did not possess any books in the field of Usul al Fiqh as there was no need for it because of the existence of all the necessities of din and its theory in the principles transmitted from the Imams of guidance, until the emergence of Ibn al Junaid. He observed the principles and the subsidiary rulings of the masses and wrote books along those lines, to a point that he practiced Qiyas. Therefore, the former scholars avoided his books. When it was the turn of Sheikh al Mufid, Sayed al Murtada, and the Sheikh[47], they intensified their discussions with the masses and to establish some of the principles and its subsidiaries, they inferred through dialectic intellectual evidences which conformed to the method of the masses.[48]

He further states:

اعلم أنه لا خلاف بين الإمامية قاطبة في وجوب التمسك بكلام أئمة الهدى والعمل به في أمور الدين وأن كل اجتهاد خالفه خطأ وأنه ليس عند أحد دلالة قطعية عقلية ولا نقلية على جواز التمسك بغيرهم في شيء من أمور الدين وأن العقل والنقل مطابقان على أن كل طريق يؤدي للاختلاف الموجب للفساد والفتن يحرم ارتكابه وأن التحليل والتحريم خاص بمن لا ينطق عن الهوى ومن تأمل فيما نذكره من الأحاديث في هذا الباب يجزم بأن استنباط أحكامه تعالي بالاجتهاد والرأي بلا نص صريح طريق ابتدعه العامة وأن العمل بالظن المستند إلى البراءة والقواعد الظنية الدلالة في إثبات نفس أحكامه تعالى من مخترعاتهم … وأما القدماء من الإمامية فلم يخرجوا عن النص وكانوا إذا سألوا عما ليس عندهم فيه شيء أمسكوا وإن اضطروا إلي العمل بشيء من ذلك احتاطوا لأن الأئمة أمروهم بذلك ولم يكن لهم رغبة في البحث عما لم يقع ولم يرد فيه نص كما تشهد به مؤلفاتهم في الفتاوى نحو الرسالة لعلي بن بابويه والمقنع لولده الصدوق والمصباح للمرتضى والنهاية للشي والمراسم لسلار فإنهم لم يخرجوا عن النص وإن وقع فيها اختلاف فهو لاختلاف الحديث

وأما المبسوط فإن الشيخ ألفه لسبب ذكره في أوله وهو أن بعض العامة شنّع على الشيعة بانه ليس لهم تأليف جامع في الفروع وأنهم إنما اقتصروا على العمل بالاخبار لعجزهم عن استباط الفروع من أصولها فاجابه الشيخ بأن كل ما نحتاج إليه موجود في أخبارنا وكل فرع يفرض يمكننا رده إلى الأحاديث ومعرفة حكمه ومنطوقها أو مفهومها أو غير ذلك وألف الكتاب علي ذلك النمط وربما استدل في مسائله أحيانا بما يوافق العامة وإن لم يكن معتقدا لصحتها

واعتماده في ذلك باطنا على ما ظهر له من الأحاديث الشريفة بمقتضي ما وصل إليه فهمه وأداه إليه نظره واقتضاه الحال باعتقاده والأفهام متفاوتة فربما تكلف في إرجاع الفرع الغريب إلى الحديث بوجه بعيد فأوهم ذلك عمله بالرأي والاجتهاد وحكي عنه ابن إدريس ونقله العلامة في المختلف وأشار إليه الشهيد الثاني في شرح الشرائع أنه جمع كتب الشافعية ولخّص منه المبسوط وذكر فيه الأقوال والأدلة على اختلافها ورجّح ما اختاره ولهذا اضطرب كلامه أحيانا حتي توهم المتأخرون أنه منهم ولو أنه ترك ذلك التكلف ولزم طريق من تقدمه من الأخباريين وأعرض عن البحث عما لا حاجة إليه كما فعله في النهاية لكان خيرا له وأصلح… إلي أن قال ثم لما تمادى الزمان وكان لا بد لمن أراد التبحر في العلوم من مخالطة العامة وقراءة كتبهم ورأوا ما فيها من المباحث المبنية على الأنظار العقلية فمالت إليها طباعهم وغفلوا عن طريق القدماء وأكد ذلك ما رأوه في كلام السيد المرتضى والشيخ من الأدلة الموافقة لطريق العامة للإلزام وما أحدثه ابن إدريس من رد الأحاديث وحكمه بأنها كلها أو أكثرها آحاد لا تفيد العلم ولا العمل بمجردها فزادت الغفلة

Know well that there are no differences among the Imamiyyah at all, regarding the obligation of adhering to the words of the Imams of guidance and practicing upon them in the matters of din, that any Ijtihad that contradicts them is wrong, that no one has any definitive intellectual or transmitted evidence on the permissibility of adhering to anyone besides them in the matters of din, that intellect and transmission agree that it is forbidden to adopt any path that leads to differences which cause discord and mischief and that declaring something Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) is stipulated only for those who do not speak out of desire. Whoever reflects into the narrations that we have been mentioned in this chapter, will ascertain that to infer the commands of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala through Ijtihad and opinion, without any explicit text, is a way which is invented by the masses and that practicing on conjecture based on acquittal and presumptive rules which indicate to the establishment of Allah’s commandments itself, are among their innovations. As for the former Imamis, they did not deviate from the texts and if they were questioned about something which they had no knowledge of, they would refrain. If they were compelled to practice on any of that, they would be cautious because the Imams instructed them to do that. They had no desire to discuss that which did not occur and regarding which no text was transmitted, as their writings in fatwas are testament to that such as al Risalah of ‘Ali ibn Babawayh, al Muqni’ of his son al Saduq, al Misbah of al Murtada, al Nihayah of the Sheikh (al Tusi), and al Marasim of Sallar. They did not deviate from the text and if there were any differences, it was due to the differences in the narrations.

As for al Mabsut, the Sheikh wrote it for the reason he mentioned in the beginning, which is that some of the masses slandered the Shia that they do not possess any comprehensive book in subsidiary rulings and that they sufficed on practicing on transmissions due to their inability in extracting subsidiary rulings from principles. The Sheikh responded to that by saying that whatever we need is present in our narrations and that we are able to refer every subsidiary ruling to the narrations, know its ruling, and the implication and meaning of the narrations etc. He wrote the book on that style. At times he inferred in some rulings through that which conforms to the masses ever though he did not believe in its validity. His reliance in that, inwardly, was upon the narrations that appeared to him, in accordance to where his understanding reached, what his consideration led him to, and what he believed the situation demanded. Understandings are different. At times he exerted in referring strange rulings to narrations in a far-fetched manner, which created a perception that he practiced on opinion and Ijtihad. Ibn Idris narrated from him which al ‘Allamah quoted in al Mukhtalaf.[49] Al Shahid al Thani alluded to that in Sharh al Shara’i’[50] that he gathered the books of the Shafi’is and summarised al Mabsut from them, mentioned views and evidences in it, despite the differences and gave preference to what he chose. Hence, at times his speech is confusing, to the point that the latter scholars perceived him to be from amongst them. If he had refrained from that exertion, held onto the path of the previous transmitters and abstained from discussing unnecessary matters, as he did in al Nihayah[51], it would have been better for him…

Then as time passed and it was necessary for those who wanted to delve in knowledge, to mingle with the masses and read their books and they noticed, in them, discussions based on intellectual theories, their feelings inclined toward it and the forgot the way of the predecessors. That is confirmed by the evidences they observed in the speech of Sayed al Murtada and al Sheikh, which conforms to the way of the masses, for argument’s sake; and by the denial of narrations which Ibn Idris introduced by ruling them to be al Khabr al Wahid which do not necessitate knowledge nor practice on their own. Thus, the ignorance increased.[52]

Al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 AH) endorses this theory in al Fawa’id al Tusiyyah by saying:

وقد‏ صرح الشيخ في العدة والمرتضى في الذريعة وغيرها بأنه لم يصنف أحد من أصحابنا في الأصول شيئا إلا الشيخ المفيد فإنه ألف رسالة غير وافية بما يحتاج إليه لاختصارها وذكروا أن التصنيف في هذا الفن قبل زمان الشيخ إنما كان من العامة والله أعلم

Al Sheikh has declared in al ‘Uddah and al Murtada in al Dhari’ah etc., that none from our companions wrote anything regarding principles except al Sheikh. He wrote a booklet which was insufficient for the need, due to its conciseness. They mention that before the era of al Sheikh, writings in this field were only from the masses.[53]Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best.

After research, one would come to know that al Sheikh and Sayed al Murtada wrote in refutation of principles and not to establish it, as they have clearly declared the invalidity of Ijtihad, practicing on conjecture, and the invalidation of presumptive inference, except in rare cases where they overlooked opposing it due to the Imams’ narrations… till he says that some researches state that the first person to establish Usul al Fiqh is Abu Hanifah. He extracted 100 rules to infer conjecture. From the Imamiyyah, only al Mufid wrote a booklet that al Sheikh mentioned in al ‘Uddah, which we have seen. Thereafter, al Sheikh wrote al ‘Uddah, which in reality is a refutation of the laws of principles. Some of our latter scholars state that the reason behind the Imami scholars lack of writing in the field of Usul al Fiqh; from the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam till the beginning of the era of the major disappearance, a period that extends to more than 350 years and they only wrote after a long time after the disappearance; is that they believed in the authority of the presumptive perceptions that the scholars of the masses (the Sunnis) laid down and they did not transgress the concepts except when there were lots of evidences indicating to it or they were supported by other texts. They only relied on the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the clear apparent implications from it.[54]

From here on, differences intensified among the Imami jurists to such a degree that al Muhaqqiq al Hilli (d. 676 AH) said regarding it:

إنا نجد الفرقة المحقة مختلفة في الأحكام الشرعية اختلافا شديدا حتى يفتي الواحد منهم بالشيء ويرجع عنه إلى غيره فلو لم يرتفع الإثم لعمّهم الفسق وشملهم الإثم

We find that the truthful sect differed intensely in Shar’i rulings, to a point that one would issue a fatwa regarding something and then retract to something else. Thus, if sin had not been removed, lewdness and sin would have engulfed them.[55]

An example of that is what ‘Allamah Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli did when he compiled the controversies of the Imami jurists in Fiqhi rulings, from (the chapter of) purity to (the chapter of) blood money, from the beginning of the emergence of Imami fiqh till the time he wrote the book in 708 AH[56] which he titled Mukhtalaf al Shia.

An observer into the book will notice that the Imami jurists did not spare any chapter of fiqh except that they differed in it, as situations in some rulings prompted some of them to issue fatwa of its permissibility whilst others issued fatwa of its impermissibility.

Al Hilli states in the forward of his book:

أما بعد فإني لما وقفت على كتب أصحابنا المتقدمين ومقالات علمائنا السابقين في علم الفقه وجدت بينهم خلافا في مسائل كثيرة متعددة ومطالب عظيمة متبددة فأحببت إيراد تلك المسائل في دستور يحتوي على ما وصل إلينا من اختلافهم في الأحكام الشرعية والمسائل الفقهية دون ما اتفقوا عليه

Thereafter, when I observed the books of our former companions and the articles of our previous scholars, I found differences amongst them in many different rulings and many scattered demands. I intend presenting those rulings in a constitution that encompasses their differences that has reached us, in Shar’i laws and Fiqhi rulings, not what they agreed upon.[57]

What is unique about the matter is that the number of parts of this book has reached nine large volumes,[58] despite the short period of time that al Hilli wrote about, and his sufficing on a small number of Imami mujtahids and jurists, in comparison to their number from his time until today.

If it was destined for anyone to take this approach today, and write a book detailing the differences of the Imami scholars, from the beginning of the emergence of Imami Fiqh till today, he will need hundreds of volumes, because dissenting from the schools of the former jurists and the present one’s contradiction with their formers, is continuous without interruption.

Sheikh Jafar al Shakhuri alluded to this by saying:

لو قارنا بين رسالة منهاج الصالحين مثلا وبين رسالة الشيخ الصدوق المقنع أو رسالة الشيخ المفيد المقنعة لوجدنا الفرق شاسعا في الفتاوى

If we compare, for example, between the treatise Minhaj al Salihin[59] and the treatise of Sheikh al Saduq, al Muqni’ or the treatise of Sheikh al Mufid, al Muqni’ah, we would find a vast difference in the fatwas.[60]

He further states:

إن المتأخرين يمرون على بعض الفتاوى التي صدرت من كبار الأعاظم من القدماء وهم يبتسمون إشفاقا عليها

The latter scholars pass by some of the fatwas issued by the former senior greats, smiling, out of pity for them.[61]

Look at this. The discussion is about comparison between one of the former Mujtahids and one of the contemporaries. So, what will be the condition if the comparison is made with a group or all the Mujtahids?

It cannot be assumed that differences occurred between two different periods of time, between the former and the latter, or between the former and contemporary, or between Usulis and Akhbaris only, rather, it occurred between a teacher and his student and between a teacher and his teacher.

From amongst this is what Sayed Ibn Tawus (d. 664 AH) mentioned in Kashf al Mahajjah that Sa’id ibn Hibat Allah al Rawandi (d. 573 AH)—who is one of the foremost commentators Nahj al Balaghah—had written a book[62] pertaining to the differences that occurred between Sheikh al Mufid and al Murtada. They were the greats of their time, particularly al Mufid. In this booklet, he mentioned about ninety-five rulings wherein the differences between them occurred due to the science of Usul. In the end he states:

لو استوفيت ما اختلفا فيه لطال الكتاب

If I have to encompass what they differed on, the book would become too lengthy.[63]

Al Fayd al Kashani (d. 1091 AH) has commented on this text by saying:

ومما يزيد ذلك تأكيدا التعليقات التي كتبها الشيخ المفيد على اعتقادات الصدوق أبي جعفر بن بابويه فإنه خالفه فيها في كثير من العقائد الدينية وطعن فيه لأجلها وبالغ في ذلك

What confirms this even more, are the comments which Sheikh al Mufid wrote regarding the beliefs of al Saduq Abu Jafar ibn Babawayh. He differed with him in many of the religious beliefs and criticised him exaggeratedly.[64]

When you are aware that Sheikh al Mufid is the teacher of Sheikh al Murtada and that differences occurred between them in principles to this extent; and you are also aware that Abu Jafar ibn Babawayh al Qummi is the teacher of al Mufid and that he also was not safe from criticism on the level of beliefs, let alone fiqh, then what will be the expected image of the differences among those Imami jurists who do not have the teacher-student connection?

It becomes clear from research that contradictions are not the products of the era of the Imami Fiqh’s emergence—after the disappearance of the awaited Mahdi—rather, they are deep contradictions which are continuing from the era of the Twelve Imams till present day, as Sheikh Jafar al Shakhuri expressed it by saying:

ومن مسائل الفقه إلى تفاصيل العقيدة نجد أن جذور الخلاف بين أعاظم علمائنا من عمق عصور الأئمة إلى الوقت المعاصر …

From Fiqhi rulings to details of beliefs, we find that the root of contradictions among most of our scholars, from the depths of the Imams’ year till present day….[65]

Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i alluded to this in his book al Ijtihad wa al Tabligh where he states that the differences among the companions of the Imams in fatwas—let alone others—were plenty, rather, it is the prevailing issue. Despite this, they are all considered—in his opinion—as evidence, as long as the people do not know of the differences among them.[66]

Thus, every Imami Mujtahid is an established school on his own, who has followers who are not permitted to follow any other Mujtahid besides him.

This is what the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah (d. 1431 AH) acknowledged to by saying:

إن المشكلة التي نواجهها في تعدد المرجعيات هي المشكلة التي نواجهها في تعدد المذاهب الفقهية لأن المرجعيات هي مذاهب فقهية متعددة من خلال طبيعة تنوع الفتاوى وتنوع النظريات في هذا المجال

The problem we face in multiple religious authorities is the same problem we face in multiple Fiqhi schools because the religious authorities are multiple Fiqhi schools through the nature of diverse fatwas and theories in this field.[67]

The reality of Imami fiqh or what is known presently as al Mazhab al Jafari (Jafari School), is no more than views and fatwas of jurists and Mujtahids. In reality, the fiqh which is known as the Jafari fiqh is not views or fatwas of Jafar al Sadiq or any of the Twelve Imams of the Ahlul Bayt, to whom this fiqh is firmly attributed to.

Thus, a jurist does not transmit the view of an Imam. Every jurist has an academic treatise and fatwas which represent his opinion and his Ijtihad, not the Imam’s opinion or view. Every jurist has a group of followers who are not permitted to follow anyone else.

If the views of the jurists represented the view of the Imam, or if it were the Imam’s actual view, there would be unity. Then they would neither differ and nor forbid their follower from following anyone other than their mentor.

You would hardly browse through any practical treatise of any of the sect’s religious authorities and you would be confronted in it; through amazing phrases in another issue from the book of Ijtihad and Taqlid, in almost the same sequence as all the jurists; with the statement of the religious authority:

عمل العامي بلا تقليد ولا احتياط باطل

The practice of any layman without Taqlid and caution is invalid.[68]

A Shia layman, no matter how great he is, has no choice but to follow a religious authority, or else his actions will be void and will not be accepted by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. This ruling is established in all the practical treatises which the religious authorities wrote for their followers.

Worst than this, is that they grant the same sanctity to the fatwas of the Mujtahids as the views of the infallible Imams—according to their belief—because it is forbidden to refute a jurist just as it is forbidden to refute an Imam.

The verbal slogan hurled in the Shia arena is:

إن الراد على المجتهد راد علي الإمام والراد علي الإمام راد علي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والراد علي رسول الله راد علي الله تعالي

Indeed, anyone who refutes a Mujtahid, refutes an Imam, one who refutes an Imam, refutes the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and one who refutes the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam refutes Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.

Hence, Sheikh Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar states:

وعقيدتنا في المجتهد الجامع للشرائط أنه نائب للإمام في حال غيبته وهو الحاكم والرئيس المطلق له ما للإمام في الفصل في القضايا والحكومة بين الناس والراد عليه راد على الإمام والراد على الإمام راد على الله تعالي وهو على حد الشرك بالله كما جاء في الحديث عن صادق آل البيت

Our belief in a Mujtahid who fulfils all the conditions is that he is the representative of the Imam in his absence. He is the ruler and the absolute leader. He has the same rights to judge in cases and leadership among the people as the Imam. One, who refutes him, refutes the Imam; and one who refutes the Imam, refutes Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, and he is on the verge of polytheism, as reported in a narration from a truthful person from the Ahlul Bayt…[69]

This is what the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Muhammad Sa’id al Hakim confirms in his practical treatise, Minhaj al Salihin, by saying:

الحاكم الشرعي هو المجتهد العادل فإنه هو المنصوب من قبل أئمة أهل البيت للحكم والقضاء فيجب الترافع إليه عند النزاع والتخاصم وينفذ حكمه في فصل الخصومة ولا يجوز رد حكمه بل الراد عليه كالراد على الأئمة الذي هو كالراد على الله تعالي وهو على حد الشرك بالله كما في الحديث الشريف

The Shar’i ruler is the just Mujtahid, as he is appointed by the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt for rule and judgement. Thus, it is necessary to raise all disputes and arguments to him. His ruling will be implemented in judging disputes. It is not permissible to refute his ruling. In fact, refuting him is like refuting the Imams which is like refuting Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and that is on the verge of polytheism, as reported in a Hadith.[70]

However, these jurists (authorities of Taqlid) differ greatly amongst themselves and their practical treatises[71] clearly attest to that.

The differences amongst their followers reached to such point that they do not perform salah behind those who follow another religious authority and the religious authorities differ amongst themselves to such an extent that each one claims to be the most learned and that it is not permissible to follow anyone besides him, if that person’s superiority in knowledge is proven to the follower.

This is contrary to the unsatisfactory competition among the authorities of Taqlid regarding religious or political leadership sometimes. That is why crossfire and accusations of deviation, misguidance, collaborating with regimes and usurping the wealth of Khums corruptly became common amongst them.[72]

If these jurists were following the school of Jafar al Sadiq in reality, they would not have differed amongst themselves in one Fiqhi ruling, because the views of the infallible do not multiply or contradict, let alone differing in this astonishing way.

Yes, it is possible to differ in new Fiqhi issues[73] and developments; however, in essence, our discussion does not entail this. Our discussion is with regards to many Fiqhi rulings wherein it is assumed that the view is that of the infallible Imam.

Perhaps the clearest evidence that the Imamis do not follow the school of Jafar al Sadiq, rather, they follow the schools of their jurists and Mujtahids, is that it is prohibited, according to them,[74] for a layman to follow a deceased jurist from inception, unless he had followers during his life time.[75] If the school and fiqh of this deceased jurist was in actual fact the fiqh and school of Jafar al Sadiq, it would not have been prohibited to follow him after his death because the fiqh and knowledge of an infallible Imam does not die off or change due to his death. Either the fiqh which they left behind, corresponds to the school of Jafar al Sadiq, in that case, what was left behind after the death of the jurist, is the school of Jafar al Sadiq or it is not like that, then in this case they were not on his school from the beginning. Both the matters confirm that Imami fiqh is in one valley and fiqh of Jafar al Sadiq is in another valley.

NEXT⇒ 7. Problems in applying rules of hadith and narrators on the Shia School’s narrations

[1] Defining laws

[2] Declaratory laws.

[3] He is indicating to the verse:

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنْسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوْن

I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me. (Surah al Dhariyat: 56)

The correct way would be to say, ‘so they worship Him.’

[4] Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 1/93.

[5] Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 131.

[6] Period after the disappearance of the awaited Mahdi.

[7] Imam Ahmed, as mentioned in al Bahr al Muhit, 1/18, states:

لم نكن نعرف الخصوص والعموم حتى ورد الشافعي

We had no knowledge of ‘Umum (generality) and Khusus (specific) until the arrival of al Shafi’i.

Fakhr al Din al Razi states in Manaqib al Shafi’i, pg. 56:

اعلم أن نسبة الشافعي إلي أصول الفقه كنسبة أرسطو إلي علم المنطق وكنسبة الخليل بن احمد إلي علم العروض

Know well that the association of al Shafi’i to Usul al Fiqh (principles of Fiqh) is like the association of mythology to the science of logic and the association of al Khalil ibn Ahmed to the science of prosody.

Abu Hamid al Ghazali states in al Mankhul, pg. 610:

ولا خلل في أصول مذهب الشافعي وقد كان أعرف الناس بعلم الأصول وهو أول من صنف في هذا العلم

There is no issue regarding the principles of the Shafi’i Mazhab. He was the most knowledgeable regarding the science of principles. He was the first to write in this field.

[8] Al Fakhr al Razi: Manaqib al Imam al Shafi’i, pg. 57.

[9] Al Zarkashi: al Bahr al Muhit, 1/18.

[10] Ibn Khallikan has quoted in Wafayat al A’yan, 6/382, from the historian Talhah ibn Muhammad ibn Jafar al Baghdadi in the biography of the judge Abu Yusuf in Akhbar al Qudat, this statement:

أبو يوسف مشهور الأمر ظاهر الفضل هو صاحب أبي حنيفة وأفقه أهل عصره ولم يتقدمه أحد في زمانه وكان النهاية في العلم والحكم والرياسة والقدر وأول من وضع الكتب في اصول الفقه على مذهب أبي حنيفة وأملي المسائل ونشرها وبث على أبي حنيفة في أقطار الأرض

Abu Yusuf is famous whose virtue is obvious. He is the companion of Abu Hanifah and the most learned (in fiqh) of his era. No one surpassed him in his era. He was the pinnacle of knowledge, wisdom, leadership, and virtue. He was the first to write a book on Usul al Hadith according to the Mazhab of Abu Hanifah

[11] He has been popularly called ‘Ibn al Nadim’, which is a common mistake. The correct view is ‘al Nadim’ which requires that it is an attribute of the biographee. Thus, he is Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Nadim as Yaqut al Hamawi (d. 626 AH) wrote about him in Mujam al Udaba’, 1/86, Ibn Khallikan (d. 681 AH) in Wafayat al A’yan, 4/292, al Hafiz al Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) in Tarikh al Islam, 5/40, al Safdi (d. 764 AH) in al Wafi bi al Wafayat, 4/209 and al Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) in Lisan al Mizan, 6/557. Al Maqrizi has written, with his hands, in the manuscript of al Fihrist:

مؤلف هذا الكتاب أبو الفرج محمد بن أبي يعقوب إسحاق بن محمد بن إسحاق الوراق المعروف بالنديم … ذكر ذلك رضا تجدد في مقدمة تحقيقه للفهرست

The author of this book is Abu al Faraj Muhammad ibn Abi Yaqub Ishaq ibn Muhammad, the scribe, popularly known as al Nadim… Rida Tajaddud mentioned it in the forward of his research on al Fihrist.

‘Allamah ‘Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah (d. 1427 AH) states after Ibn Hajar’s statement in Lisan al Mizan, 6/557-558, that he is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Nadim, the scribe and the author of al Fihrist al ‘Ulama’:

هكذا في ص ل بدون (ابن) وهو يقتضي أن النديم صفة لصاحب الترجمة وهو الصحيح إن شاء الله تعالي ويؤيد هذا أن المصنف أي الحافظ ابن حجر جرى في جميع المواضع التي ذكر فيها صاحب الفهرست على تسميته النديم والعجيب أن في ط في جميع هذه المواضع ابن النديم ولا شك انه من تصرف النساخ ويدل على ذلك أن المصنف ذكره في الألقاب في آخر الكتاب فقال النديم صاحب الفهرست‏ محمد بن إسحاق

This is how it appears in Musnad Khasa’is ‘Ali and Masa’il al Imam Ahmed, without ‘ibn’. This means that al Nadim is an attribute of the biographee, which is the correct view, if Allah wills. This is supported by the fact that the author—Ibn Hajar—whenever he mentions the author of al Fihrist, he names him as al Nadim. It is strange that in all the places in Musnad al Tayalisi it is stated as ‘Ibn al Nadim’. Without doubt, this is an error by the scribes. Testament to this is that the author mentioned him at the end of the book under ‘titles’ stating, “al Nadim, the author of al Fihrist, Muhammad ibn Ishaq.”

[12] Al Fihrist, pg. 253.

[13] Al Fihrist, pg. 253.

[14]It is reported in al Kafi, 1/56, Hadith 11; and Wasa’il al Shia, 27/41, from Abu Basir who states:

قلت لأبي عبد الله جعفر الصادق ترد علينا اشياء ليس نعرفها في كتاب الله ولا سنة فننظر فيها فقال لا أما إنك إن أصبت لم تؤجر وإن اخطأت كذبت على الله

I said to Abu ‘Abdullah (Jafar al Sadiq), “Some things are narrated to us which we do not find in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. Should we look into it?”

He replied, “No, because if you are correct, you will not be rewarded and if you err, you will be attributing lies to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.”

[15] It has been reported in Qurb al Isnad, pg.12; al Kafi, 1/8 and Wasa’il al Shia, 27/41 from Mas’adah ibn Sadaqah who states:

قال لي جعفر بن محمد من أفتي الناس برأيه فقد دان بما لا يعلم ومن دان بما لا يعلم فقد ضاد الله حيث أحل وحرم فيما لا يعلم

Jafar ibn Muhammad said to me, “Whoever issues rulings to the people based on his opinion, has adopted that which he does not know and whoever adopts that which he does not know, has opposed Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala as he permitted and forbade that which he does not know.”

Even Sayed Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili—who is from the fundamentalists—declared this in Khalafiyyat Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/100, during the course of his criticism of the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl al Allah. He states:

ومن الواضح أن وجرد الاجتهاد بالرأي في زمن الرسول لا يعني أن الرسول قد أمضاه وقبل به … بل هو والأئمة من أهل بيته الطاهرين ما زالوا يقبحون العمل بالرأي وينهون عنه ويعلنون رفضهم له ويخبرون الناس بأن دين الله لا يصاب بالعقول ويعلمونهم بالعقوبات القاسية التي أعدها الله لمن يفعل ذلك

It is clear that the existence of Ijtihad through opinion during the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam does not mean that he supported and accepted it. In fact, he and the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt continuously denounced practicing on opinion and forbade from it. They announced to their sect and informed the people that the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not understood through intellect and informed them of the harsh punishments that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has prepared for those who do that.

[16] Refer to the following:

The late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Hassan al Sadr (d. 1354 AH): Ta’sis al Shia li ‘Ulum al Islam, pg. 310. The contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sayed Jafar al Subhani: Adwa’ ‘ala ‘Aqa’id al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 279. Sayed ‘Ali Naqi al Haydari: Usul al Istinbat fi Usul al Fiqh wa Tarikhihi bi Uslub Jadid, pg. 42.

[17] Rijal al Najashi, pg. 433.

[18] Contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sayed Jafar al Subhani: Adwa’ ‘ala ‘Aqa’id al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 279.

[19] Adwa’ ‘ala ‘Aqa’id al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 279.

[20] Al Tusi: al Fihrist, pg. 266.

[21] The first to write a book in this field is Imam Muhammad ibn Idris al Shafi’i (d. 204 AH). His book Ikhtilaf al Hadith is well known and popular. No one surpassed him in writing in this field. Thereafter, Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari (d. 276 AH) wrote a book titled Ta’wil Mukhtalaf al Hadith, then Zakariyya ibn Yahya al Saji (d. 307 AH), then Imam Ibn Jarir al Tabari (d. 310 AH), then Abu Jafar al Tahawi (d. 321 AH) in his book Sharh Mushkil al Athar. Thereafter writings continued in this great science.

[22] Sayed al Sadr (d. 1351 AH) has introduced this science in Nihayat al Dirayah, pg. 28 by saying:

وهو العلم الذي ييحث عن الأحاديث المتعارضة أي التي يقع التنافي بين مدلوليها وعن كيفية علاج هذا التعارض ورفعه لأن التعارض بين الأحاديث تارة يكون مستقرا لا تجدي معه قواعد الجمع العرفي المتعبة لعلاج التعارض غير المستقر فيتعذر الجمع يينهما ولا يمكن الأخذ بهما معا ولا ترجيح أحدهما على الآخر وتارة يكون التعارض غير مستقر فتطبق عليه قواعد الجمع العرفي لرفع هذا التعارض إما بالتقبيد أو التخصيص أو الحكومة

It is a science that discusses contradictory narrations, i.e., those narrations where contradiction is found in its meanings; and the manner of remedying and removing the contradiction; because contradiction between the narrations can sometimes be constant and the customary strenuous rules of reconciliation are not useful for treating unstable contradictions. Thus, it is impossible to reconcile between them, or to adopt both of them together, nor preferring one over the other. Sometimes the contradiction is not constant. Then the customary rules of reconciliation are applied to remove the contradiction, either by restriction, specification, or judgement.

[23] Adwa’ ‘ala ‘Aqa’id al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 279.

[24] They mention that he is the first person to introduce Ijtihad, in its known form, to academic discussions and the first to record Fiqhi rulings, furnish evidence for it, and deduce subsidiary rulings from it, after the major disappearance.

[25] He was compelled to write a book called Kashf al Tamwih wa al Ilbas ‘ala Aghmar al Shia fi Amr al Qiyas.

[26] Wasa’il al Shia, 27/62.

[27] Wasa’il al Shia, 27/61.

[28] The amusing aspect here is that al Hurr al ‘Amili (d. 1104 AH) reported these two narrations and commented on them saying:

هذان الخبران تضمنا جواز التفريع على المسموعة منهم والقواعد الكلية المأخوذة عنهم لا على غيرها وهذا موافق لما ذكرنا مع انه يحتمل الحمل على التقية

These two narrations contain the permissibility of deducing from what is heard from them and general rules taken from them only, no one else. This conforms to what we mentioned, even though it is possible to regard it as Taqiyyah.

i.e. taking into consideration that they conform to the Sunni understanding of Ijtihad.

It is sufficient to direct any narration to the weapon of Taqiyyah to nullify its effect, particularly narrations of this type which are thought to be reported as Taqiyyah, due to their conformance to the Ahlus Sunnah.

Al Hurr al ‘Amili has embarked on responding to these two narrations in al Fawa’id al Tusiyyah, pg. 463-464. He has mentioned twelve possibilities. Refer to it if you wish.

Before him, al Fayd al Kashani (d. 1091 AH) responded to some Usulis for using these texts as evidence for the permissibility of Ijtihad in al Haq al Mubin fi Tahqiq Kayfiyyat al Tafaqquh fi al Din, pg. 7-10, by saying:

أولا انهم قالوا علينا أن نلقي إليكم الأصول ولم يقولوا عليكم أن تضعوا أصولا بل فيه تنبيه علي النهي عن ذلك كما يشعر به تقديم الظرف فلا يجوز لنا التفريع إلا على أصولهم

وثانيا أن المراد بالحديثين أن نعمد إلي ما ألقوا إلينا من الأحكام الكلية التي تكون مواردها متحدة فنستخرج منها أحكاما جزئية بالبرهان اليقيني الموافق لأحد الأشكال الأربعة المنطقية لا التي اختلفت مواردها ويحتاج إلى استنباط أحكامها بالظن والتخمين وشتان ما بين الأمرين وبالجملة قد أذنوا في الأخذ بالأخبار والكتب بالتسليم والانقياد ولم يأذنوا في الأخذ بالآراء والاجتهاد بل نهوا عنه فليس لنا إلا الاتباع والاقتصار على السماع من دون ابتغاء الدليل

Firstly, they said that it is our responsibility to lay down principles for you and they did not say that you should lay down principles. In fact, it contains a warning to prohibit that, as the precedence of the adverb indicates to that. Thus, it is not permissible to deduce except through their principles.

Secondly, the meaning of the two narrations is that we should rely on those general rules which they laid down for us, whose sources are united, then extract subsidiary rulings from it through certain evidences which conform to one of the four logical forms, not those whose sources are different and in need of deducing rulings through conjecture and speculation. There is a great difference between the two. In brief, they have permitted adopting transmissions and books through acceptance and subjugation and not through adopting opinion and Ijtihad. Rather, they forbade us from that. Thus, we have no choice but to follow and confine ourselves to hearing without seeking evidence.

[29] Rawdat al Jannat, 6/136.

[30] Al Sheikh al Mufid: al Masa’il al Sururiyyah, pg. 73.

[31] Al Intisar, pg. 488.

[32] Al Dhari’ah, 2/636-637; Muhammad Baqir al Sadr: al Ma’alim al Jadidah li al Usul, pg 25.

[33] Al ‘Uddah fi Usul al Fiqh, 1/8.

[34] Hence, al Subki, mentioned him in Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah al Kubra, 4/126, despite him being one of the senior Imami scholars. So be informed.

[35] Al Tadhkirah bi Usul al Fiqh, pg. 38. He states in the booklet, al Mash ‘ala al Rijlayn, in response to Abu Jafar al Nasafi al Hanafi:

أنا أسلّم لك العمل بأخبار الآحاد تسليم نظر وإن كنت لا اعتقد ذلك استظهارا في الحجة

I accept your practicing on al Khabr al Wahid, reluctantly, even though I do not believe in that, preserving the argument.

[36] Rasa’il al Sharif al Murtada, 1/24.

[37] Refer to his books al Intisar and al Nasiriyyat, you will find his excessive reliance on Ijma’ and drawing upon it as evidence.

[38] Some people try to attribute the characteristics of the seminary educational system to the era of Jafar al Sadiq or Imam al ‘Askari or what existed during the era of the Buyids. However, it is clear that the existence of the Imami Fiqhi incubator was only completed after that. So, the attribution of the establishment of the scholarly seminar on the hands of al Tusi at that time, specifically in the land of the Shia, is closer to reason and logic, even though its establishment was completed later.

[39] Ibn Idris al Hilli, while mentioning his choice with which he judges as being the same as Abu Jafar al Tusi, states in al Sara’ir, 2/232:

وما سطرناه واخترناه مذهب شيخنا أبي جعفر الطوسي واختياره في مبسوطه وهذا الكتاب اللهم آخر ما صنفه في الفقه فإنه بعد النهاية، والتهذيب والاستبصار والجمل والعقود ومسائل الخلاف

What we have written and selected is the school of our teacher Abu Jafar al Tusi and his selection in al Mabsut. This is the last book which he wrote in fiqh, after al Nihayah, al Tahdhib, al Istibsar, al Jamal, al ‘Uqud and Masa’il al Khilaf.

[40] Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Bahbudi states in Ma’rifat al Hadith, pg. 89:

كان شيخنا أبو جعفر الطوسي وهو ببغداد لا يصدر إلا عن رأي صديقه الفاضل الذي لا يسميه لنا في كتبه وأظنه من زعماء النوبختين السائسين في كرخ بغداد يومذاك

Our Sheikh, Abu Jafar al Tusi, while he was in Baghdad, would only issue rulings according to the view of his honourable friend, who he did not name in his books. I think he is one of the Nawbakhti leaders who were ruling Karkh, Baghdad at that time.

[41] Al Mabsut, 1/2-3.

[42] Al Sayed Mundhir al Hakim: Marahil Tatawwur al Ijtihad fi al Fiqh al Imami, research published in Majallat Fiqh Ahlul Bayt, 13^th edition, 4^th year, 1420 AH, 1999 CE.

[43]Al Mazahib al Islamiyyah al Khamsah – Tarikh wa Tawthiq, pg. 184.

[44] Sheikh al Baha’i al ‘Amili (d. 1031 AH), in the biography of Mu’iz al Dawlah al Daylami in Tawdih al Maqasid, pg. 11, states:

وكان شديد التصلب في التشيع حتى أمر أن يكتب عل أبواب الدور في بغداد لعن الله معاوية بن أبي سفيان لعن الله من غصب فاطمة فدكا لعن الله من اخرج العباس من الشورى لعن الله من نفي أبا ذر من المدينة إلى الربذة لعن الله من منع دفن الحسن عند جده

He was extreme in Shi’ism to such an extent that he instructed the following to be written on the doors of the houses in Baghdad: May the curse of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala be on Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, may the curse of Allah be on the one who usurped Fadak from Fatimah, may the curse of Allah be on the one who removed al ‘Abbas from the Shura (consultative committee), may the curse of Allah be on the one who expelled Abu Dharr from Madinah to Rabadhah, and may the curse of Allah be on the one who prevented Hassan from being buried next to his grandfather.

Hafiz Ibn Kathir has mentioned the incident in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/274:

ثم دخلت سنة إحدى وخمسين وثلاثمائة … وفيها كتبت العامة من الروافض علي أبواب المساجد لعنة معاوية بن أبي سفيان وكتبوا أيضا ولعن الله من غصب فاطمة حقها وكانوا يلعنون أبا بكر ومن أخرج العباس من الشوري يعنون عمر ومن نفي أبا ذر يعنون عثمان رضي الله عن الصحابة وعلى من لعنهم لعنة الله ولعنوا من منع من دفن الحسن عند جده يعنون مروان بن الحكم ولما بلغ ذلك جميعه معز الدولة لم ينكره ولم يغيره ثم بلغه أن اهل السنة محوا ذلك وكتبوا عوضه لعن الله الظالمين لآل محمد من الأولين والآخرين والتصريح باسم معاوية في اللعن فأمر بكتب ذلك

Then came the year 351 AH… the masses from the Rawafid wrote on the doors of the Masjids, may the curse of Allah be on Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. They also wrote: May the curse of Allah be on the one who usurped the right of Fatimah, they were cursing Abu Bakr; the one who removed al ‘Abbas from the Shura, intending ‘Umar; the one who expelled Abu Dharr, intending ‘Uthman—may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala be pleased with the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and curse those who curse them. They cursed those who prevented al Hassan from being buried next to his grandfather, intending Marwan ibn al Hakam. When all this reached Mu’iz al Dawlah, he neither despised it nor changed it. Then the news reached him that the Ahlus Sunnah wiped that out and replaced it with: May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala curse those who oppressed the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the former and the latter ones, leaving the name of Muawiyah, after which he instructed this to be written.

[45] Tatawwur Harakat al Ijtihad ‘ind al Shia al Imamiyyah, pg. 271.

[46]Al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia, 8/173.

[47]Referring to Sheikh al Ta’ifah al Tusi.

[48] Hidayat al Abrar, pg. 233.

[49] Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli in Mukhtalaf al Shia.

[50] Zayn al Din al ‘Amili in Masalik al Afham ila Tanqih Shara’i’ al Islam, which is a commentary of Shara’i’ al Islam of al Muhaqqiq al Hilli.

[51] Al Nihayah fi Mujarrad al Fiqh wa l-Fatawa of al Tusi. He wrote it before his two books, al Mabsut and al Khilaf. Regarding it, he states in al Mabsut, 1/2:

وكنت عملت على قديم الوقت كتاب النهاية وذكرت جميع ما رواه أصحابنا في مصنفاتهم وأصولها من المسائل وفرقوه في كتبهم ورتبته ترتيب الفقه وجمع من النظائر ورتبت فيه الكتب على ما رتبت للعلة التي بينتها هناك ولم أتعرض للتفريع عل المسائل ولا لتعقيد الأبواب وترتيب المسائل وتعليقها والجمع بين نظائرها بل أوردت جميع ذلك أو أكثره بالألفاظ المنقولة حتى لا يستوحشوا من ذلك

Some time ago, I wrote the book al Nihayah and I mentioned all the rulings that our companions narrated in their books and their origins, and scattered it in their books. I arranged it according fiqhi sequence and combined the corresponding ones. I arranged the books in the way as I did, due to the reasons which I have mentioned there. I did not go into deducing rulings, setting up chapters, arranging rulings, commenting on them, and combining the corresponding rulings. Rather, I reported all or most of it in transmitted words so that they do not object to it.

[52] Hidayat al Abrar, pg. 134-136.

[53] The Ahlus Sunnah.

[54] Al Fawa’id al Tusiyyah, pg. 236, benefit 54.

[55] Ma’arij al Qabul, pg.181. Refer to al Fayd al Kashani: al Usul al Asliyyah, pg. 115; al Astarabadi: al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah, pg. 319.

[56] Agha Buzurg al Tahrani sough assistance, in al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia, from several copies of al Mukhtalaf. He mentions at the end of one of its parts, the date of al Hilli’s completion of the book; that the period for the writing of al Mukhtalaf is about ten years, as he began before 699 AH and the completion was around 708 AH, i.e. 18 years before his death.

[57] Mukhtalaf al Shia, 1/173.

[58] This number is according to the print of Markaz al Nashr al Tabi’ li al I’lam al Islami, Qum, excluding the contents in the tenth volume.

[59] Authored by the late Shia scholar of reference, Abu al Qasim al Khu’i.

[60] Forward of Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah wa Harakiyyat al ‘Aql al Ijtihadi, pg. 13.

[61] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah wa Harakiyyat al ‘Aql al Ijtihadi, pg. 21.

[62] Agha Buzurg al Tahrani mentions in al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia, 1/361-362, that its name is al Ikhtilafat.

[63] Kashf al Mahajjah li Thamarat al Muhjah, pg.20.

[64] Tashil al Sabil bi al Hujjah, Pg. 25, researched by Hamid al Khaffaf, Mu’assasah Al al Bayt li Ihya’ al Turath, Beirut, first print, 1413 AH – 1993 CE.

[65] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah wa Harakiyyat al ‘Aql al Ijtihadi, pg. 181.

[66] Al Khu’i: al Ijtihad wa al Tabligh, pg. 137.

[67] Al Ma’alim al Jadidah li al Marja’iyyah al Shi’iyyah, pg. 117.

[68]Al Khu’i: Minhaj al Salihin, 1/5; al Sistani: Minhaj al Salihin, 1/9; al Ruhani: Minhaj al Salihin, 1/7; al Fayyad: Minhaj al Salihin, 1/7.

[69]‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah, pg.34.

[70] Minhaj al Salihin, 1/9.

[71] Al Risalah al ‘Amaliyyah (practical treatise) refers to that book which contains both type of Shar’i rulings (act of worship and dealings), issued by the religious authority of the sect (authority of Taqlid) to his followers to practice upon, in their religious and worldly affairs. These treatises are generally given a specific name through which they are recognised such as Minhaj al Salihin or Wasilat al Najat or Ajwibat al Istifta’at etc.

[72] Some examples of that are:

Issuance of a collection by some professors of the academic seminary in Qum, who are: Hussain al Shahrudi, Ahmed al Mudi, Mustafa al Harandi, ‘Ali Rida al Hadiri, Muhammad Hadi Al Radi, Hussain al Najati, Baqir al Irawani, Hassan al Jawahiri, clearly denouncing in it the views of the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, which they described to be contradictory to accepted essentials of the Imami sect. They asked the believers to be aware and alert and abstain from established necessary aspects of the sect which they are required to and stay away from what they called suspicions and doubts.

Ayatollah al Muhaqqiq al Sayed Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili has compiled, in his book Khalafiyyat Ma’sat al Zahra’, in five volumes, what he considers as fatal historical, Fiqhi and belief errors of Fadl Allah with regards to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, the prophets ‘alayh al Salam, Imams of the Ahlul Bayt, Fatimah al Zahra’, the Shia etc. So, ponder!

The late Shia scholar of reference al Mirza Jawad al Tabrizi and the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sheikh Hassan Wahid al Khurasani have described Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, in their vast lessons in the great Masjid in the city of Qum, as deviated and misguided. They warned the people from falling into his doubts and deviations. Al Tabrizi prohibited following him, reading his books and promoting them.

The contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Kazim al Hara’iri issued a fatwa regarding Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, negating his knowledge and that following him does not absolve one of his responsibility. Then after his demise, he moved away from criticising him and permitted anyone following him to remain on that. He said in a statement mourning him:

قد شكل رضوان الله عليه ظاهرة بين أقرانه في الدفاع عن الإسلام ورفد الوعي المتنامي في أوساط مفكري الأمة ومثقفيها فأدى مسؤولياته

He (may Allah be pleased with him) became a phenomenon among his peers in defending Islam and supporting its growing awareness among thinkers and intellectuals. Thus, he fulfilled his responsibilities.

The late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Muhammad ibn Mahdi al Hussaini al Shirazi (d. 1422 AH), during his leadership of the religious authority of al Shiraziyyah, was subjected to a campaign of questioning his eligibility for the rank of Ijtihad and eventually the eligibility of religious authority. I have come across some answers to referendums issued by some Shia of Kuwait about al Shirazi’s stability, wherein the late Shia scholar of reference Sheikh Murtada Al Yasin al Kazimi (d. 1398 AH) and the late Shia scholar of reference Abu al Qasim al Khu’i have declared his ineligibility for Ijtihad, let alone him ascending to the rank of religious authority.

As for Iran (the republic ruled by the system of Guardianship of the Jurist), the Shirazis report in their articles and forums that al Shirazi, after announcing ‘the Shura of the Jurists’, was subjected to a lot of harassment in his life like surveillance and house arrest. In fact, they say that his son Sayed Murtada—before he was smuggled from Iran to Kuwait—was arrested for spreading his father’s theory (Shura of the jurists) and his criticism of the Guardianship of the Jurist. He was sentenced to more than one year in prison with his brother Mahdi al Shirazi and his body and neck was burnt with nitric acid. The Shirazis claim that their religious authority, al Shirazi was killed by the intelligence services in Kulbayilkan hospital, through an injection which was administered to him whilst he was in coma. He was forcefully buried in Qum, in the shrine of Fatimah bint Musa al Kazim—known by the sect as the sanctuary of the infallible lady—against his will that he should be buried temporarily in his house until it is possible to bury him in Karbala’.

Continuing on the oppression that befell him, the authorities of the Iranian regime buried his body in one of the corridors of the noble sanctuary so he could be trampled and covered it with a carpet so that no one would notice it. Thereafter, this corridor was attached to the women prayer area so that no men could visit it.

The assault was completed on the ‘Alawi women from al Shirazi’s family through severe beating, arrest and imprisonment, if they visited their father’s grave.

Then the authorities poisoned his son, the jurist Ayatollah al Sayed Muhammad Rida al Shirazi, hoping to cut off the continuity of the Shirazi authority.

Ayatollah al Sayed Mujtaba Mahdi al Shirazi, in video footage, declared infidelity for the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei and considered him to be a Nasibi who hated the Ahlul Bayt.

If it were not for the fear of prolongation and digression into what is outside the discussion, I would have reviewed the great dispute raging among the following:

- Between the late Shia scholar of reference Ruh Allah Khomeini (d. 1410 AH) and the late Shia scholar of reference Muhammad Tahir al Khaqani (d. 1406 AH).
- Between Khomeini and the late Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Muhammad Kazim Shari’atmadari (d. 1406 AH).
- Between the contemporary Shia scholar of reference Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei and the late Shia scholar of reference, Sheikh Hussain ‘Ali al Muntaziri (d. 1431 AH).
- Between the late Shia scholar of reference, Muhammad ibn Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr (d. 1419 AH) and the contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sayed ‘Ali al Sistani and all the mutual accusations in this regard.
- Between al Sistani also and the contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Sayed Ahmed al Hussaini al Baghdadi.
- Between al Sistani also and his student, the contemporary Shia scholar of reference, Muhammad Musa al Yaqubi, in addition to the stance of the religious authorities regarding ‘Sheikhism’ and the authority of the late Shia scholar of reference, al Mirza Hassan al Ha’iri (d. 1421 AH) and his son ‘Abdur Rasul (d. 1424 AH). Discussions in this regard are lengthy.

[73] New Fiqhi issues here can be defined as: Rulings that were deduced by later jurists when they were asked about them, and they did not find any narration from the Twelve infallible Imams or any transmission from the companions of the Imams and those after them, whether in word or in action.

[74] Referring to the Usulis who represent the greatest and dominant movement on the Imami scene, to whom all the known Shia religious authorities are attributed to.

[75] In other words, there is a difference between following a deceased jurist from inception and between following him during his lifetime, thereafter continuing to follow him after his death.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents