BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Their authentications and the weakening of narrators lack established and solid criterion that can be relied upon when judging narrators and distinguishing trustworthy ones from weak ones. The former Imamis and their latter ones did not agree on the ceiling of exaggeration and its meaning. Therefore, what some see as exaggeration and infidelity is, according to other scholars of the sect, evidence of honour and signs of faith.
Muhammad Baqir al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH), the leader of the Usuli movement, says in his book Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah:
واعلم أن الظاهر أن كثيرا من القدماء سيما القميين منهم وابن الغضائري كانوا يعتقدون للأئمة منزلة خاصة من الرفعة والجلالة ومرتبة معينة من العصمة والكمال بحسب اجتهادهم ورأيهم وما كانوا يجوزون التعدي عنها وكانوا يعدون التعدي عنها ارتفاعا وغلوا علي حسب معتقدهم حتي أنهم جعلوا مثل نفي السهو عنهم غلوا بل ربما جعلوا مطلق التفويض أو التفويض الذي اختلف فيه أو المبالغة في معجزاتهم ونقل خوارق العادة عنهم أو الإغراق في شأنهم وإجلالهم وتنزيههم عن كثير من النقائص وإظهار كثير قدرة لهم وذكر علمهم بمكنونات السماوات والأرض ارتفاعا أو مورثا للتهمة سيما بجهة أن الغلاة كانوا مختفين في الشيعة مخلوطين بهم مدلسين وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية أيضا فربما كان شيء عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا أو تفويضا أو جبرا أو تشبيها أو غير ذلك وكان عند آخر مما يجب اعتقاده أو لا هذا أو ذاك
Know well that it is apparent that many of the formers—especially the Qummis and Ibn al Ghada’iri—believed that the Imams had a special status of honour and majesty and a specific level of infallibility and perfection in accordance to their Ijtihad and opinion. They would not allow transgression from it. They considered transgressing from it to be extremism and exaggeration according to their belief, to such an extent that they regarded something like denying error from them, as exaggeration. In fact, they regarded absolute delegation, or the delegation in which there was differences, or exaggerating about their miracles and transmitting supernatural acts from them, or exaggerating about them, glorifying them, and clearing them of many shortcomings, and showing their great ability and mentioning their knowledge of the components of the heavens and the earth , as extremism, or a source of accusation, especially in the sense that the extremists were hidden among the Shia, mixing with them as fraudsters. In brief, it is apparent that the formers differed on fundamental rulings as well. Sometimes, something would be corrupt, disbelief, exaggeration, delegation, coercion, comparison, etc., and for others it would be something that necessary to believe in or neither this nor that.[1]
After reflecting on this statement properly and reading it again and again, we will come to know one of the most important problems of authenticating and weakening narrations in the school.
Rulings pertaining to beliefs which some Imami scholars consider to be exaggeration and disbelief are, according to another group, monotheism and faith, virtues and miracles, from which the fragrance of faith can be detected.
Therefore, what will be the outcome when the extreme trend that accepts extremism, delegation, and disbelief overpowers the other trend and the denounced beliefs become, overnight, the beliefs of the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and their followers until the Day of Judgment?
Mirza Muhammad bin ‘Ali al Mamaqani (d. 1028 AH) states:
إن القدماء كانوا يعدون ما نعده اليوم من ضروريات مذهب الثيعة غلرا وارتفاعا وكانوا يرمون بذلك أوثق الرجال كما لا يخفي على من أحاط خبرا بكلماتهم
The former scholars[2] considered what we consider today to be the necessities of the Shia School, to be extremism and exaggeration. They would use it to accuse the most trustworthy narrators of this, as is obvious to those who have encompassing knowledge of their words.[3]
This is how the former scholars were. As for those who came after them, the later and contemporary ones, they followed the school of al Mamaqani in authenticating the extremists and their narrations, because what was discarded has become one of the necessities of the school today.
This is why it is not surprising that Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH) said in his response to the weakening of al Hassan ibn al ‘Abbas ibn al Huraysh:
لكن يظهر من كتب الرجال أنه لم يكن لتضعيفه سبب إلا رواية هذه الأخبار العالية الغامضة التي لا يصل إليها عقول أكثر الخلق والكتاب كان مشهورا عند المحدثين وأحمد بن محمد روى هذا الكتاب مع أنه أخرج البرقي عن قم بسبب أنه كان يروي عن الضعفاء فلو لم يكن هذا الكتاب معتبرا عنده لما تصدى لروايته والشواهد علي صحته عندي كثيرة
However, it appears from the books of narrators that there was no reason for his weakening other than the narration of these lofty and mysterious narrations, which the minds of most people could not comprehend. The book was famous among the scholars of Hadith. Ahmed ibn Muhammad narrated this book even though he expelled al Barqi from Qum because he used to narrate from weak narrators. Thus, if this book was not reliable according to him, he would not embark on narrating it. I have many evidences of its authenticity.[4]
It is also not surprising that Sheikh Ahmed bin ‘Abdul Hassan al Mahuzi[5] states in response to the weakening of Sahl ibn Ziyad:
أما شهادة أحمد بن محمد بن عيسي الأشعري علي سهل بالغلو والكذب فهو في الواقع مدح وليس بذم بتقريب ما قاله الوحيد البهبهاني خريت هذا الفن الظاهر أن كثيرا من القدماء سيما القميين منهم وابن الغضائري كانوا يعتقدون للأئمة منزلة خاصة من الرفعة …
As for the testimony of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa al Ash’ari against Sahl regarding his exaggeration and lies, it is, in fact, praise and not criticism, close to what al Wahid al Bahbahani—the most skilled in this field—said, that it is clear that many of the former scholars—particularly the Qummis and Ibn al Ghada’iri—believed in the Imams’ special status of exaltation…[6]
It is astonishing how the concepts have changed to this degree. How can the accusation of exaggeration and lying to the Ahlul Bayt become evidence of praise for its perpetrator?
Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH), the leader of the Usuli movement, discusses the overwhelming chaos surrounding the authenticating of the Shia School’s narrators among the former scholars as well as the later ones, by saying:
مع أنهم يوثقون الإمامي بمثل ما يوثقون غيره حتي إنهم يوثقون الغالي وامثاله كتوثيق الإمامي وكثيرا ما لا يتعرّضون لرداءة مذهب الرواة اتكالا علي الظهور أو غيره بل هذه طريقتهم في الغالب مع أنه قلما يسلم جليل عن قدح أو خبر يدل على ذمه فلا بد من الترجيح أو الجمع ولا يتأتيان إلا بظنون المجتهد وكذا الحال في تعيين المشترك إلى غير ذلك مثل أنه ربما يقع في الطريق سقط أو تبديل أو تصحيف وأمثال ذلك والعلاج غالبا بالظنون بل ربما كانت ضعيفة كما لا يخفي على المطّلع بل لا نسبة بين هذه الظنون وبين ما هو مثل الشهرة بين الأصحاب
Although they authenticate the Imamis in the same way they authenticate others, to such a degree that they authenticate an extremist and others like him, just as they authenticate an Imami. Many a times they do not expose the mediocrity of the narrators’ school, relying on the appearances or other things. Rather, this is their method in most cases; even though it is rare that a noble is safe from slander or transmission that indicates his criticism. Therefore, it is necessary to give preference or combine, and this cannot be possible except by the opinion of a Mujtahid. Similar is the case in specifying the combined etc. For example, sometimes there is deficiency, or change, or misrepresentation in the chain, and the remedy is mostly through conjecture and sometimes they may even be weak, as is not hidden from the informed person. In fact, there is no relationship between these conjectures and that which is famous amongst the companions.[7]
The Muhaddith, Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi (d. 1033 AH) indicates in al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah to the contradiction into which some of the luminaries fell in practicing on the narrations of the weak and liars. He states:
إن رئيس الطائفة كثيرا ما في كتابي الأخبار يتمسّك بأحاديث ضعيفة بزعم المتأخرين بل بروايات الكذابين المشهورين مع تمكنه من أحاديث أخرى صحيحة مذكورة في كتابه بل كثيرا ما يعمل بالأحاديث الضعيفة عند المتأخرين ويترك ما يضادها من الأحاديث الصحيحة عندهم فعلم من ذلك أن تلك الأحاديث مأخوذة من الأصول المجمع على صحتها كما صرح به في كتاب العدة وكتاب الاستبصار والفهرست وغيرها
Ra’is al Ta’ifah (leader of the sect) often holds on to weak narrations in both the books of narrations,[8] as claimed by the latter ones; in fact, even to the narrations of famous liars, even though he had access to other authentic narrations mentioned in his book. In fact, he often practices on the weak narrations according to the latter scholars and leaves out the authentic narrations that contradict them, according to them. Thus, it is known from this that those narrations are taken from the origins, whose authenticity is agreed upon, as stated in the books al ‘Uddah, al Istibsar, al Fihrist, etc.[9]
But the matter has gone beyond this insurmountable obstacle, heading towards a bigger problem and more dangerous turn, and that is when the incriminating evidences in the narrator are considered to be the same evidence of his honesty and high ability.
The Shia scholar of reference Sayed ‘Ali al Fani al Isfahani (d. 1409 AH), in endorsing this, states:
وأيضا فقد يكون الذم تارة أحد قرائن صدق الرجل وعلو مقامه وشموخ شأنه مع ملاحظة سائر ظروفه وما قيل فيه فهذا زرارة بن أعين مثلا ممن ورد فيه اللعن والذم والتشهير مع أنه من أجل الأصحاب وأبرزهم والذي ورد فيه أنه من أحب الناس إلى المعصوم وان الجنة تشتاق له وأن الشريعة كادت تندرس لولاه فإنه بالنظر إلي جميع ما ورد فيه وبتأمله يظهر وجه القدح فيه خصوصا في تلك الظروف التي يؤخذ فيها الرجل على الظن والتهمة ولمجرد احتمال ارتباطه بالأئمة الطاهرين صلوات الله عليهم أجمعين فإنه ليس إلا لأجل حفظهم ودرء المخاطر عنهم نظرا لجلالة أمرهم وأهميتهم العليا بالنسبة لأمور المذهب بحيث أريد من إبراز المذمة والقدح إيهام السلطة الحاكمة بعدم ارتباطه بالأئمة بينما لو أريد أن يُتعامل مع هذه النصوص معاملة قانونية لأمكن دعوى وقوع التعارض بين هذه الروايات والتوقف في العمل بروايات عظيمة من قبيل زرارة بن أعين
Also, criticism may sometimes be one of the evidences of a man’s truthfulness, high position, and status, taking into account all of his circumstances and what was said about him. This is Zurarah ibn A’yan, for example, who is among those about whom curse, criticism, and defamation were reported, despite the fact that he was one of the greatest companions, the most prominent of them, regarding whom it is reported that he was one of the most beloved people to the infallible Imam and that Paradise longed for him, and that the Shari’ah would have almost been extinct had it not been for him. By looking at all that was mentioned regarding him and contemplating on it, the reasons for criticism become clear regarding him, especially in those circumstances in which a man is criticised because of suspicion and accusation, and the mere possibility of his association with the pure Imams. This is only for the sake of protecting them and warding off dangers from them, taking into consideration the loftiness of their affairs and their great importance regarding matters of school. The intention for exposing criticism and slander is to make the ruling authority believe that he is not associated to the Imams. Meanwhile, if these texts were to be practiced upon in a legislative manner, it would enable the claim of contradiction between these narrations and cessation on practicing on great amount of narrations from Zurarah ibn A’yan.[10]
More heinous than this is what the late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i (d. 1413 AH) declared in Majma’ Rijal al Hadith that disbelief is not a reason to weaken narrator. Al Khu’i states in his biography of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi ‘Uthman Sajjadah:
قال أبو عمرو (الكشي): علي السجادة لعنة الله ولعنة اللاعنين والملائكة والناس أجمعين، فلقد كان من العليائية الذين يقعون في رسول الله وليس لهم في الإسلام نصيب
أقول- الكلام هنا للخوئي- الرجل وإن وثقه علي بن إبراهيم لوقوعه في إسناد تفسيره إلا أنه مع ذلك لا يمكن الاعتماد علي رواياته لشهادة النجاشي بأن الأصحاب ضعفوه وكذلك ضعفه ابن الغضائري نعم لو لم يكن في البين تضعيف لأمكننا الحكم بوثاقته مع فساد عقيدته بل مع كفره أيضا
Abu ‘Amr (al Kashshi) said, “May the curse of Allah be upon al Sajjadah and the curse of those who curse, the angels and all people. He was one of the ‘Aliya’iyyah[11] who criticise the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and have no share in Islam.”
I say—the words here are from al Khu’i—The man, even though ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim authenticated him due to his appearance in the chain of transmission of his Tafsir, nevertheless, it is not possible to rely on his narrations because on the testimony of al Najashi that the companions weakened him, and likewise Ibn al Ghada’iri declared him weak. Yes, if there had been no apparent weakening, we would have been able to rule on his trustworthiness despite the corruption of his belief, in fact with his disbelief too.[12]
NEXT⇒ 9. Problem of revealing the conditions of the senior narrators of the school
[1] Al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, pg. 38.
[2] Referring to the Qummis, Ibn al Ghada’iri and other former Imami scholars.
[3] Tanqih al Maqal, 3/23.
[4] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 2/61-62.
[5] It is mentioned in his biography that he attended the ‘external research’ phase of the seminary study for a period of up to 8 years and his apprenticeship at the hands of some of the greatest Imami scholars, such as Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Irawani, ‘Allamah al Sheikh al Ramadani, Ayatollah al Sheikh Hassan al Rumaythi, and Ayatollah al Faqih al Sheikh Muhammad Sanad.
[6] Fawa’id Rijaliyyah, pg. 157-158. (Authority of weak supported al Khabar al Wahid)
[7] Al Fawa’id al Ha’iriyyah, pg. 490.
[8] Tahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar.
[9] Tanqih al Maqal, 3/23.
[10] Buhuth fi Fiqh al Rijal, pg. 38.
[11] This is a sect who claims that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is Allah—Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is far beyond this—and that Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is his servant.
[12] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 6/78, Hadith no. 2941.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Their authentications and the weakening of narrators lack established and solid criterion that can be relied upon when judging narrators and distinguishing trustworthy ones from weak ones. The former Imamis and their latter ones did not agree on the ceiling of exaggeration and its meaning. Therefore, what some see as exaggeration and infidelity is, according to other scholars of the sect, evidence of honour and signs of faith.
Muhammad Baqir al Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH), the leader of the Usuli movement, says in his book Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah:
واعلم أن الظاهر أن كثيرا من القدماء سيما القميين منهم وابن الغضائري كانوا يعتقدون للأئمة منزلة خاصة من الرفعة والجلالة ومرتبة معينة من العصمة والكمال بحسب اجتهادهم ورأيهم وما كانوا يجوزون التعدي عنها وكانوا يعدون التعدي عنها ارتفاعا وغلوا علي حسب معتقدهم حتي أنهم جعلوا مثل نفي السهو عنهم غلوا بل ربما جعلوا مطلق التفويض أو التفويض الذي اختلف فيه أو المبالغة في معجزاتهم ونقل خوارق العادة عنهم أو الإغراق في شأنهم وإجلالهم وتنزيههم عن كثير من النقائص وإظهار كثير قدرة لهم وذكر علمهم بمكنونات السماوات والأرض ارتفاعا أو مورثا للتهمة سيما بجهة أن الغلاة كانوا مختفين في الشيعة مخلوطين بهم مدلسين وبالجملة الظاهر أن القدماء كانوا مختلفين في المسائل الأصولية أيضا فربما كان شيء عند بعضهم فاسدا أو كفرا أو غلوا أو تفويضا أو جبرا أو تشبيها أو غير ذلك وكان عند آخر مما يجب اعتقاده أو لا هذا أو ذاك
Know well that it is apparent that many of the formers—especially the Qummis and Ibn al Ghada’iri—believed that the Imams had a special status of honour and majesty and a specific level of infallibility and perfection in accordance to their Ijtihad and opinion. They would not allow transgression from it. They considered transgressing from it to be extremism and exaggeration according to their belief, to such an extent that they regarded something like denying error from them, as exaggeration. In fact, they regarded absolute delegation, or the delegation in which there was differences, or exaggerating about their miracles and transmitting supernatural acts from them, or exaggerating about them, glorifying them, and clearing them of many shortcomings, and showing their great ability and mentioning their knowledge of the components of the heavens and the earth , as extremism, or a source of accusation, especially in the sense that the extremists were hidden among the Shia, mixing with them as fraudsters. In brief, it is apparent that the formers differed on fundamental rulings as well. Sometimes, something would be corrupt, disbelief, exaggeration, delegation, coercion, comparison, etc., and for others it would be something that necessary to believe in or neither this nor that.[1]
After reflecting on this statement properly and reading it again and again, we will come to know one of the most important problems of authenticating and weakening narrations in the school.
Rulings pertaining to beliefs which some Imami scholars consider to be exaggeration and disbelief are, according to another group, monotheism and faith, virtues and miracles, from which the fragrance of faith can be detected.
Therefore, what will be the outcome when the extreme trend that accepts extremism, delegation, and disbelief overpowers the other trend and the denounced beliefs become, overnight, the beliefs of the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and their followers until the Day of Judgment?
Mirza Muhammad bin ‘Ali al Mamaqani (d. 1028 AH) states:
إن القدماء كانوا يعدون ما نعده اليوم من ضروريات مذهب الثيعة غلرا وارتفاعا وكانوا يرمون بذلك أوثق الرجال كما لا يخفي على من أحاط خبرا بكلماتهم
The former scholars[2] considered what we consider today to be the necessities of the Shia School, to be extremism and exaggeration. They would use it to accuse the most trustworthy narrators of this, as is obvious to those who have encompassing knowledge of their words.[3]
This is how the former scholars were. As for those who came after them, the later and contemporary ones, they followed the school of al Mamaqani in authenticating the extremists and their narrations, because what was discarded has become one of the necessities of the school today.
This is why it is not surprising that Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH) said in his response to the weakening of al Hassan ibn al ‘Abbas ibn al Huraysh:
لكن يظهر من كتب الرجال أنه لم يكن لتضعيفه سبب إلا رواية هذه الأخبار العالية الغامضة التي لا يصل إليها عقول أكثر الخلق والكتاب كان مشهورا عند المحدثين وأحمد بن محمد روى هذا الكتاب مع أنه أخرج البرقي عن قم بسبب أنه كان يروي عن الضعفاء فلو لم يكن هذا الكتاب معتبرا عنده لما تصدى لروايته والشواهد علي صحته عندي كثيرة
However, it appears from the books of narrators that there was no reason for his weakening other than the narration of these lofty and mysterious narrations, which the minds of most people could not comprehend. The book was famous among the scholars of Hadith. Ahmed ibn Muhammad narrated this book even though he expelled al Barqi from Qum because he used to narrate from weak narrators. Thus, if this book was not reliable according to him, he would not embark on narrating it. I have many evidences of its authenticity.[4]
It is also not surprising that Sheikh Ahmed bin ‘Abdul Hassan al Mahuzi[5] states in response to the weakening of Sahl ibn Ziyad:
أما شهادة أحمد بن محمد بن عيسي الأشعري علي سهل بالغلو والكذب فهو في الواقع مدح وليس بذم بتقريب ما قاله الوحيد البهبهاني خريت هذا الفن الظاهر أن كثيرا من القدماء سيما القميين منهم وابن الغضائري كانوا يعتقدون للأئمة منزلة خاصة من الرفعة …
As for the testimony of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa al Ash’ari against Sahl regarding his exaggeration and lies, it is, in fact, praise and not criticism, close to what al Wahid al Bahbahani—the most skilled in this field—said, that it is clear that many of the former scholars—particularly the Qummis and Ibn al Ghada’iri—believed in the Imams’ special status of exaltation…[6]
It is astonishing how the concepts have changed to this degree. How can the accusation of exaggeration and lying to the Ahlul Bayt become evidence of praise for its perpetrator?
Wahid al Bahbahani (d. 1205 AH), the leader of the Usuli movement, discusses the overwhelming chaos surrounding the authenticating of the Shia School’s narrators among the former scholars as well as the later ones, by saying:
مع أنهم يوثقون الإمامي بمثل ما يوثقون غيره حتي إنهم يوثقون الغالي وامثاله كتوثيق الإمامي وكثيرا ما لا يتعرّضون لرداءة مذهب الرواة اتكالا علي الظهور أو غيره بل هذه طريقتهم في الغالب مع أنه قلما يسلم جليل عن قدح أو خبر يدل على ذمه فلا بد من الترجيح أو الجمع ولا يتأتيان إلا بظنون المجتهد وكذا الحال في تعيين المشترك إلى غير ذلك مثل أنه ربما يقع في الطريق سقط أو تبديل أو تصحيف وأمثال ذلك والعلاج غالبا بالظنون بل ربما كانت ضعيفة كما لا يخفي على المطّلع بل لا نسبة بين هذه الظنون وبين ما هو مثل الشهرة بين الأصحاب
Although they authenticate the Imamis in the same way they authenticate others, to such a degree that they authenticate an extremist and others like him, just as they authenticate an Imami. Many a times they do not expose the mediocrity of the narrators’ school, relying on the appearances or other things. Rather, this is their method in most cases; even though it is rare that a noble is safe from slander or transmission that indicates his criticism. Therefore, it is necessary to give preference or combine, and this cannot be possible except by the opinion of a Mujtahid. Similar is the case in specifying the combined etc. For example, sometimes there is deficiency, or change, or misrepresentation in the chain, and the remedy is mostly through conjecture and sometimes they may even be weak, as is not hidden from the informed person. In fact, there is no relationship between these conjectures and that which is famous amongst the companions.[7]
The Muhaddith, Muhammad Amin al Astarabadi (d. 1033 AH) indicates in al Fawa’id al Madaniyyah to the contradiction into which some of the luminaries fell in practicing on the narrations of the weak and liars. He states:
إن رئيس الطائفة كثيرا ما في كتابي الأخبار يتمسّك بأحاديث ضعيفة بزعم المتأخرين بل بروايات الكذابين المشهورين مع تمكنه من أحاديث أخرى صحيحة مذكورة في كتابه بل كثيرا ما يعمل بالأحاديث الضعيفة عند المتأخرين ويترك ما يضادها من الأحاديث الصحيحة عندهم فعلم من ذلك أن تلك الأحاديث مأخوذة من الأصول المجمع على صحتها كما صرح به في كتاب العدة وكتاب الاستبصار والفهرست وغيرها
Ra’is al Ta’ifah (leader of the sect) often holds on to weak narrations in both the books of narrations,[8] as claimed by the latter ones; in fact, even to the narrations of famous liars, even though he had access to other authentic narrations mentioned in his book. In fact, he often practices on the weak narrations according to the latter scholars and leaves out the authentic narrations that contradict them, according to them. Thus, it is known from this that those narrations are taken from the origins, whose authenticity is agreed upon, as stated in the books al ‘Uddah, al Istibsar, al Fihrist, etc.[9]
But the matter has gone beyond this insurmountable obstacle, heading towards a bigger problem and more dangerous turn, and that is when the incriminating evidences in the narrator are considered to be the same evidence of his honesty and high ability.
The Shia scholar of reference Sayed ‘Ali al Fani al Isfahani (d. 1409 AH), in endorsing this, states:
وأيضا فقد يكون الذم تارة أحد قرائن صدق الرجل وعلو مقامه وشموخ شأنه مع ملاحظة سائر ظروفه وما قيل فيه فهذا زرارة بن أعين مثلا ممن ورد فيه اللعن والذم والتشهير مع أنه من أجل الأصحاب وأبرزهم والذي ورد فيه أنه من أحب الناس إلى المعصوم وان الجنة تشتاق له وأن الشريعة كادت تندرس لولاه فإنه بالنظر إلي جميع ما ورد فيه وبتأمله يظهر وجه القدح فيه خصوصا في تلك الظروف التي يؤخذ فيها الرجل على الظن والتهمة ولمجرد احتمال ارتباطه بالأئمة الطاهرين صلوات الله عليهم أجمعين فإنه ليس إلا لأجل حفظهم ودرء المخاطر عنهم نظرا لجلالة أمرهم وأهميتهم العليا بالنسبة لأمور المذهب بحيث أريد من إبراز المذمة والقدح إيهام السلطة الحاكمة بعدم ارتباطه بالأئمة بينما لو أريد أن يُتعامل مع هذه النصوص معاملة قانونية لأمكن دعوى وقوع التعارض بين هذه الروايات والتوقف في العمل بروايات عظيمة من قبيل زرارة بن أعين
Also, criticism may sometimes be one of the evidences of a man’s truthfulness, high position, and status, taking into account all of his circumstances and what was said about him. This is Zurarah ibn A’yan, for example, who is among those about whom curse, criticism, and defamation were reported, despite the fact that he was one of the greatest companions, the most prominent of them, regarding whom it is reported that he was one of the most beloved people to the infallible Imam and that Paradise longed for him, and that the Shari’ah would have almost been extinct had it not been for him. By looking at all that was mentioned regarding him and contemplating on it, the reasons for criticism become clear regarding him, especially in those circumstances in which a man is criticised because of suspicion and accusation, and the mere possibility of his association with the pure Imams. This is only for the sake of protecting them and warding off dangers from them, taking into consideration the loftiness of their affairs and their great importance regarding matters of school. The intention for exposing criticism and slander is to make the ruling authority believe that he is not associated to the Imams. Meanwhile, if these texts were to be practiced upon in a legislative manner, it would enable the claim of contradiction between these narrations and cessation on practicing on great amount of narrations from Zurarah ibn A’yan.[10]
More heinous than this is what the late Shia scholar of reference Sayed Abu al Qasim al Khu’i (d. 1413 AH) declared in Majma’ Rijal al Hadith that disbelief is not a reason to weaken narrator. Al Khu’i states in his biography of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi ‘Uthman Sajjadah:
قال أبو عمرو (الكشي): علي السجادة لعنة الله ولعنة اللاعنين والملائكة والناس أجمعين، فلقد كان من العليائية الذين يقعون في رسول الله وليس لهم في الإسلام نصيب
أقول- الكلام هنا للخوئي- الرجل وإن وثقه علي بن إبراهيم لوقوعه في إسناد تفسيره إلا أنه مع ذلك لا يمكن الاعتماد علي رواياته لشهادة النجاشي بأن الأصحاب ضعفوه وكذلك ضعفه ابن الغضائري نعم لو لم يكن في البين تضعيف لأمكننا الحكم بوثاقته مع فساد عقيدته بل مع كفره أيضا
Abu ‘Amr (al Kashshi) said, “May the curse of Allah be upon al Sajjadah and the curse of those who curse, the angels and all people. He was one of the ‘Aliya’iyyah[11] who criticise the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and have no share in Islam.”
I say—the words here are from al Khu’i—The man, even though ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim authenticated him due to his appearance in the chain of transmission of his Tafsir, nevertheless, it is not possible to rely on his narrations because on the testimony of al Najashi that the companions weakened him, and likewise Ibn al Ghada’iri declared him weak. Yes, if there had been no apparent weakening, we would have been able to rule on his trustworthiness despite the corruption of his belief, in fact with his disbelief too.[12]
NEXT⇒ 9. Problem of revealing the conditions of the senior narrators of the school
[1] Al Fawa’id al Rijaliyyah, pg. 38.
[2] Referring to the Qummis, Ibn al Ghada’iri and other former Imami scholars.
[3] Tanqih al Maqal, 3/23.
[4] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 2/61-62.
[5] It is mentioned in his biography that he attended the ‘external research’ phase of the seminary study for a period of up to 8 years and his apprenticeship at the hands of some of the greatest Imami scholars, such as Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Irawani, ‘Allamah al Sheikh al Ramadani, Ayatollah al Sheikh Hassan al Rumaythi, and Ayatollah al Faqih al Sheikh Muhammad Sanad.
[6] Fawa’id Rijaliyyah, pg. 157-158. (Authority of weak supported al Khabar al Wahid)
[7] Al Fawa’id al Ha’iriyyah, pg. 490.
[8] Tahdhib al Ahkam and al Istibsar.
[9] Tanqih al Maqal, 3/23.
[10] Buhuth fi Fiqh al Rijal, pg. 38.
[11] This is a sect who claims that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is Allah—Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is far beyond this—and that Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is his servant.
[12] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 6/78, Hadith no. 2941.