Section Two General Comments regarding the Eight Collections
Section Two:
General Comments regarding the Eight Collections
1_ Any Person who reads the narrations of these collections and their other sources of transmission will find a very big difference between the narrations which are narrated through the Ahlus Sunnah and are called ‘Hadith’, and the narrations which are transmitted through the Shia and are dubbed ‘Hadith’ as well. For in the six books of the Ahlus Sunnah when a hadith is narrated it is attributed to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and, thus, all the narrations found therein are his statements. As for the hadith books of the Shia, they cite narrations from one of their Twelve Imams and believe, as has passed, that there is no difference between what they narrate from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and that which they narrate from one of their Imams.
2_ He will also find that very few narrations are attributed to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He will find that most of the narrations of al Kafi end at Jafar al Sadiq, some extend to his father Muhammad al Baqir, fewer than them extend to Amir al Muʾminin and a very rare batch of them reach Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
3_ Some of these collections are concerning jurisprudence and rulings. But we should probe whether there are credible jurists amongst the Rawafid or not. The answer is that all the jurisprudential rulings which are found in the books of the Shia are plagiarized from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah related to jurisprudence. Had it not been for this plagiarism they would not have succeeded in writing a booklet on jurisprudence consisting of more than sixty pages. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions:
وإذا صنف واحد منهم كتابًا في الخلاف وأصول الفقه كالموسوي وغيره؛ فإن كانت المسألة فيها نزاع بين العلماء أخذوا حجة من يوافقهم واحتجوا بما احتج به أولئك، وأجابوا عما يعارضهم بما أجاب به أولئك، فيظن الجاهل أن هذا قد صنف كتابًا عظيمًا في الخلاف والفقه والأصول، ولا يدري الجاهل أن عامته استعارة من كلام علماء أهل السنة الذين يكفرهم ويعاديهم.وما انفردوا به فلا يساوي مداده، فإن المداد ينفع ولا يضر، وهذا يضر ولا ينفع
And when one of them authors a book regarding the differences of scholars and the principles of jurisprudence, like al Musawi and others, then if there is a dispute amongst the scholars, they will adopt the view of those who agree with them and they will draw evidence from their evidence; they will likewise answer the opposing narrations with their answers. So, an ignoramus falsely assumes that this person has authored a great book regarding the differences of scholars, jurisprudence and its principles. But he fails to realize that most of it is plagiarized from the statements of the Ahlus Sunnah whom he excommunicates and opposes. As for what they have exclusively written, it does not even equate their ink, for ink benefits and does not harm, whereas this harms and does not benefit.[1]
In fact, not even one tenth of the tenth of the Shia Imami jurisprudence legacy is backed by a Sahih narration, for even that which is deemed Sahih suffers from many discrepancies in its chains, wordings, and purports. Al Bahbahani says:
إذ لا شبهة في أن عشر معشار الفقه لم يرد فيه حديث صحيح ، والقدر الذي ورد فيه الصحيح لا يخلو ذلك الصحيح من اختلالات كثيرة بحسب السند ، وبحسب المتن ، وبحسب الدلالة
For there is no doubt that not even one tenth of the tenth of the Shia Imami jurisprudence legacy is backed by a Sahih narration, and the amount wherein a Sahih narration has occurred is not free from discrepancies in terms of its chain of transmission, wording, and purport.[2]
4_ Furthermore, a person who studies their four later collections will find that they were written in the eleventh century or thereafter. The last of them is the book of al Nuri al Tabarsi who died in 1320 A.H. He was one of the contemporaries of Muhammad ‘Abduh. In his book, he gathered 23000 narrations which were unknown before from the Imams. Which is to say that these narrations came to the fore hundreds of years after the Imams. So, if these people gathered all the other narrations with chains and by way of transmission, then how can an intelligent person rely upon narrations which were not recorded for a period of eleven centuries or thirteen centuries. Likewise, if they were documented in books then why were these books only discovered in the later centuries, and why did not their early scholars collate them, and why were not those books mentioned or enlisted in their ancient collections? How didn’t al Kulayni record them whereas he was in the presence of the four ambassadors of the Mahdi? Especially notwithstanding that the Mahdi dubbed his book al Kafi due to it sufficing for the Shia after it was presented to him by way of the ambassadors. He said:
كاف لشيعتنا
This is sufficient for our Shia.[3]
In fact, even al Tusi claimed that he collated in his book Tahdhib al Ahkam all the narrations related to jurisprudence from the narrations of their scholars, their books, and their principal sources, and that only a very rare few had missed his work.[4]
So, were these books forged in the later times during the Safavid dynasty and thereafter attributed to their early scholars? This is not a far-fetched possibility.
5_ They treat the narrations of these Imams like that of the narrations of the Infallible Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, i.e. as though they are revelations revealed to them and as if they do not speak out of desire but through flawless revelation which is revealed to them. This together with-it being disbelief and tantamount to claiming prophethood for someone other than Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is especially strange for other reasons as well. One being, most of the later Imams were not of a stature in knowledge which would qualify them to issue verdicts, let alone them enjoying infallibility, especially those who followed after Jafar al Sadiq. Ibn Hazm says:
وأما من بعد جعفر بن محمد فما عرفنا لهم علماً أصلاً، لا من رواية ولا من فتيا على قرب عهدهم منا، ولو كان عندهم من ذلك شيء لعرف كما عرف عن محمد بن علي وابنه جعفر وعن غيره منهم ممن حدث الناس عنه
As for those after Jafar ibn Muhammad, we do not know them to have knowledge at all, not in terms of narrations nor in terms of legal verdicts despite their times being close to us. Had they had any of that it would have been known just as it is known about Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, his son Jafar, and others from whom people narrated.[5]
He also says:
بعض أئمتهم المذكورين مات أبوه وهو ابن ثلاث سنوات، فنسألهم: من أين علم هذا الصغير جميع علوم الشريعة وقد عدم توقيف أبيه له عليها لصغره؟ فلم يبق إلا أن يدعوا له الوحي، فهذه نبوة وكفر صريح… أو يدعوا له الإلهام فما يعجز أحد عن هذه الدعوى
One of their mentioned Imams, his father passed away when he was three years of age. So, we ask them: How did this small child come to know all the sciences of the Shari’ah when the dispensation of them by his father to him was missing due to his small age? The only thing that remains is that they claim for him revelation, which is prophethood and ultimately blatant disbelief… Or they claim for him divine inspiration, and that is a claim that no one is unable to make.[6]
And Ibn Taymiyyah says:
وأما من بعد موسى فلم يؤخذ عنهم من العلم… وليس لهم رواية في الكتب الأمهات من كتب الحديث، ولا فتاوى في الكتب المعروفة التي نقل فيها فتاوى السلف، ولا لهم في التفسير وغيره أقوال معروفة، ولكن لهم من الفضائل والمحاسن ما هم له أهل رضي الله عنهم
As for after Musa (ibn Jafar al Sadiq) no knowledge was assimilated from them… And no narrations are narrated from them in the mother books of Hadith, likewise no legal verdicts have been related from them in the legal verdicts of the pious predecessors. They also do not have popular views in exegesis. However, they do enjoy merits and virtues of which they are deserving.[7]
Sadly, I say that these people do not take heed, for al Majlisi mentions in his book Bihar al Anwar that Imam al Jawwad was an Imam at the age of five.[8] Is not al Majlisi ashamed of making such a claim? A five-year-old child is not responsible of performing Salah, let alone being an Imam or even an infallible for that matter. If only they sufficed upon that, but these people do not have minds. Do you not see that they draw evidence from the narrations of the hidden awaited Imam which he uttered whilst he was in his cradle? The author of Usul Mazhab al Shia has cited narrations which suggest that the Shia draw evidence from the narrations of the awaited Imam which he uttered when he was still only a night old.[9]
6_ The narrations of the four early collections are not categorical in nature. This is acknowledged by their scholars. Abu al Qasim al Khuʾi mentions that in his Mujam under the title: ‘The narrations of the books are not categorical’:
ذهب جماعة من المحدثين إلى أن روايات الكتب الأربعة قطعية الصدور. وهذا القول باطل من أصله؟ إذ كيف يمكن دعوى القطع بصدور رواية رواها واحد عن واحد. ولا سيما أن في رواة الكتب الأربعة من هو معروف بالكذب والوضع، على ما ستقف عليه قريبا وفي موارده إن شاء الله تعالى.ودعوى القطع بصدقهم في خصوص روايات الكتب الأربعة – لقرائن دلت على ذلك – لا أساس لها، فإنها بلا بينة وبرهان، فإن ما ذكروه في المقام – وادعوا أنها قرائن تدلنا على صدور هذا الروايات من المعصوم – عليه السلام – لا يرجع شئ منها إلى محصل.وأحسن ما قيل في ذلك هو: أن اهتمام أصحاب الأئمة عليهم السلام وأرباب الأصول والكتب بأمر الحديث إلى زمان المحمدين الثلاثة – قدس الله أسرارهم – يدلنا على أن الروايات التي أثبتوها في كتبهم قد صدرت عن المعصومين عليهم السلام، فإن الاهتمام المزبور يوجب – في العادة – العلم بصحة ما أودعوه في كتبهم، وصدوره من المعصومين عليهم السلام.ولكن هذه الدعوى فارغة من وجوه: أولا: إن أصحاب الأئمة عليهم السلام وإن بذلوا غاية جهدهم واهتمامهم في أمر الحديث وحفظه من الضياع والاندراس حسبما أمرهم به الأئمة عليهم السلام، إلا أنهم عاشوا في دور التقية، ولم يتمكنوا من نشر الأحاديث علنا، فكيف بلغت هذه الأحاديث حد التواتر أو قريبا منه! وهذا ابن أبي عمير حبس أيام الرشيد، وطلب منه أن يدل على مواضع الشيعة وأصحاب موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام، وأن أخته دفنت كتبه عندما كان في الحبس فهلكت، أو تركها في غرفته، فسال عليها المطر فهلكت. وهكذا حال سائر أصحاب الأئمة عليهم السلام، فإن شدتهم في ما كانوا عليه، وعدم تمكنهم من نشر الأحاديث علنا مما لا شك فيه ذو مسكة. ومع ذلك كيف يمكن دعوى: أنها قطعية الصدور؟ ثانيا: إن الاهتمام المزبور لو سلمنا أنه يورث العلم، فغاية الامر أنه يورث العلم بصدور هذه الأصول والكتب عن أربابها، فنسلم أنها متواترة، ولكنه مع ذلك لا يحصل لنا العلم بصدور رواياتها عن المعصومين عليهم السلام، وذلك فإن أرباب الأصول والكتب لم يكونوا كلهم ثقات وعدولا، فيحتمل فيهم الكذب. وإذا كان صاحب الأصل ممن لا يحتمل الكذب في حقه، فيحتمل فيه السهو والاشتباه
A group of hadith experts have opined that the narrations of the four books are categorical in nature. This view is invalid from its very basis. For how is the claim of categoricity possible when they have been narrated from one person to one person, especially when in the narrators of the four books there are those who are known for lying and forging, as you will come to learn in various places, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala willing. The claim of categoricity regarding the narrations of the four books (owing to indicators suggesting that) has no basis, for it is without evidence and proof. Whatever they have mentioned in this regard, and the claim that they have made of indicators which suggest the origination of these narrations from the infallible ‘alayh al Salam do not result in anything worthwhile. The best that has been proposed is that the importance lent by the companions of the Imams and the authors of the principal sources to hadith till the era of the three Muhammads suggest to us that the narrations which they have documented in their books emerged from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam. For this type of recorded importance usually necessitates the validity of what they have placed in their books and the validity of that emerging from the Imams. However, this claim is empty for the various reasons:
Firstly: The companions of the Imams even though they exerted themselves and lent much importance to the matter of hadith and its preservation from loss and obliteration as they were ordered by the Imams; however, they lived during the era of Taqiyyah and were, thus, unable to propagate the narrations openly. So how did they reach the extent of categoricity by way of mass transmission? Here we have Abu ‘Umair who was imprisoned in the era of Rashid and was asked to reveal the places of the Shia and the companions of Musa ibn Jafar ‘alayh al Salam. His sister, thus, buried his books whilst he was in prison and they got destroyed, or she left them in his room and the rain flowed over them and they got destroyed. Likewise, was the case of the rest of the companions of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam; the severe conditions that they were in and their inability to openly propagate the narrations cannot be doubted by a person of basic understanding. So, despite that is it still possible to claim their categoricity?
Secondly: Even if we agree that the recorded importance necessitates categoricity, most that can be said is that it necessitates it only regarding these principal sources emerging from their authors. We, thus, accept that they are categorical in nature. But in spite of that we cannot obtain definitive knowledge of the narrations contained in them emerging from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam. This is because not all the authors of these principal sources and books were reliable and people of integrity, and even if an author was a person regarding whom the possibility of lying cannot be entertained, there still exists the possibility of error and confusion.[10]
He also says:
وأما طرقه إلى أرباب الكتب فهي مجهولة عندنا، ولا ندري أن أيا منها كان صحيحا، وأيا منها غير صحيح، ومع ذلك كيف يمكن دعوى العلم بصدور جميع هذه الروايات من المعصومين عليهم السلام. وعلى الجملة: إن دعوى القطع بصدور جميع روايات الكتب الأربعة من المعصومين عليهم السلام واضحة البطلان، ويؤكد ذلك أن أرباب هذه الكتب بأنفسهم لم يكونوا يعتقدون ذلك
As for its transmissions to the authors of the books, they are unknown to us. We do not know which of them is correct and which is incorrect. In the presence of that, how is it possible to claim categoricity of these narrations emerging from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam. So, in brief: the claim of these narrations definitively emerging from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam is obviously invalid. What emphasizes this is that the authors of these compilations themselves did not believe this (about their own works).[11]
And then he also says:
ومما يؤكد أيضا بطلان دعوى القطع بصدور أخبار الكتب الأربعة عن المعصومين عليهم السلام، اختلاف هذه الكتب في السند والمتن
Another point that emphasizes the invalidity of the claim that the narrations of the four books emerged from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam with certainty is the disparities of these books in their chains of transmission and wordings.[12]
But now see what al Khuʾi says regarding the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. He says:
والعجب أن هؤلاء المتقدمين بل من تأخر عنهم كالمحقق والعلامة، والشهيدين، وغيرهم: إذا نقل واحد منهم قولا عن أبي حنيفة، أو غيره من علماء العامة، أو الخاصة، أو نقل كلاما من كتاب معين، ورجعنا إلى وجداننا نرى أنه قد حصل لنا العلم بصدق دعواه وصحة نقله، لا الظن، وذلك علم عادي – كما نعلم أن الجبل لم ينقلب ذهبا، والبحر لم ينقلب دما – فكيف يحصل العلم من نقله عن غير المعصوم، ولا يحصل من نقله عن المعصوم غير الظن؟ مع أنه لا يتسامح ولا يتساهل من له أدنى ورع وصلاح في القسم الثاني، وربما يتساهل في الأول؟ أقول : ليت شعري كيف خفي على مثل الشيخ الحر : الفارق بين الامرين ، والمائز بين الموردين ؟ فإن المحقق والعلامة والشهيدين وأمثالهم إذا نقلوا شيئا من أبي حنيفة ، فإنما ينقلونه عن حس ، لمشاهدة ذلك في كتاب جامع لآرائه ، وأما إذا نقلوا أمرا من معصوم ، فإنما ينقلونه عنه حسبما أدت إليه آراؤهم وأنظارهم ، وكيف يقاس الثانى بالاول
It is astonishing indeed that when these early scholars, in fact even the later ones like al Muhaqqiq, the Shahidan (the two martyrs), and others, transmit a statement of Abu Hanifah or anyone else from the scholars of the commonality or the elite, or he narrates a verdict from a particular book, thereafter when we return to our conscience, we find that we have obtained certainty regarding the truth of his claim and the accuracy of his transmission, not just probability. This certainty comes naturally, just as we know with certainty that the mountain did not turn into gold and the ocean did not turn into blood. So how is it possible that certainty is obtained from his transmission from others besides the infallible but nothing except probability is obtained from his transmission from the infallible? Whereas any person with basic piety and virtue will not slacken or be relaxed in the latter, even though he probably might exercise relaxation in the former. I say: How was the difference between the two matters and the differentiating factor between the two sources unclear to the like of al Sheikh al Hurr? (The difference is that) Al Muhaqqiq and the Shahidan and their likes, when they cite something from Abu Hanifah, they cite it based on perception, due to them witnessing that in a book which comprises of his views. But when they cite a matter from the infallible, they only cite from him based on the conclusion of their opinions and views. And how can the second be considered as equal to the first?[13]
Jafar al Subhani says:
ذهبت الاخبارية إلى القول بقطعيّة روايات الكتب الأربعة وأنَّ أحاديثها مقطوعة الصّدور عن المعصومين ( عليهم السلام ) وعلى ذلك فالبحث عن حال الرّاوي من حيث الوثاقة وعدمها ، لأجل طلب الاطمئنان بالصدور ، والمفروض أنَّها مقطوعة الصُّدور. ولكن هذه دعوى بلا دليل ، إذ كيف يمكن ادّعاء القطعيّة لأخبارها ، مع أنَّ مؤلّفيها لم يدَّعوا ذلك ، وأقصى ما يمكن أن ينسب اليهم أنَّهم ادَّعوا صحة الأخبار المودعة فيها ، وهي غير كونها متواترة أو قطعيّة ، والمراد من الصحّة اقترانها بقرائن تفيد الاطمئنان بصدورها عن الأئمة ( عليهم السلام ). وهل يكفي الحكم بالصحّة في جواز العمل بأخبارها بلا تفحّص أو لا ، سنعقد فصلا خاصّاً للبحث في ذلك المجال ، فتربّص حتّى حين أضف إلى ذلك أنَّ أدلّة الأحكام الشرعيَّة لا تختصّ بالكتب الأربعة ، ولأجل ذلك لا مناص عن الاستفسار عن أحوال الرواة. وقد نقل في الوسائل عن سبعين كتاباً ، أحاديث غير موجودة في الكتب الأربعة وقد وقف المتأخّرون على أُصول وكتب لم تصل إليها يد صاحب الوسائل أيضاً ، فلأجل ذلك قام المحدّث النوري بتأليف كتاب أسماه مستدرك الوسائل وفيه من الأحاديث ما لا غنى عنها للمستنبط
The Akhbaris hold the opinion of the categoricity of the narrations of the four books and that the emergence of their narrations from the Infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam is incontrovertible. Hence, investigating the condition of the narrator to determine reliability or the lack thereof is merely for the satisfaction of the hearts due to their emergence being categorical in nature (from the infallibles). However, this is a claim without evidence. For how is it possible to claim categoricity of their narrations when the authors themselves have not claimed that. The most that can be attributed to them is that they claimed the authenticity of the narrations included therein, which is other than them being categorical due to mass transmission. And what is intended by authenticity is the narrations being coupled with indicators which yield confidence that they emerged from the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam. But is authenticity enough to warrant the permissibility of practicing upon their narrations without prior investigation or not? We will establish a specific chapter for this discussion so wait till then. Added to this is the fact that the evidences of the legal rulings are not confined to these four books, and thus there is no escape from investigating the conditions of the narrators. In al Wasaʾil itself its author has quoted narrations from seventy books which are not found in the four books. Likewise, the later scholars have discovered principal sources and books which not even the author of al Wasaʾil had access to. Therefore, the hadith scholar al Nuri authored the book Mustadrak al Wasaʾil which contains narrations a Mujtahid cannot dispense with.[14]
7_ The appalling contradiction of these eight books. The contradiction is not in understanding or the extraction of laws, but in the narrations themselves, and the reports themselves, and the texts themselves. This is the greatest evidence of their forging and lying against their Imams, to the extent that even the pure Ahlul Bayt complained of the lies and forgeries which were attributed to them. Thus, Imam Jafar al Sadiq said the following when one of them complained to him of the excessive differences of those who enter upon him:
إن الناس قد أولعوا بالكذب علينا… إنهم لا يطلبون بحديثنا وبحبنا ما عند الله، وإنما يطلبون الدنيا، وكل يحب أن يدعى رأسا
People have become obsessed with lying upon us…They do not seek through our narrations and our love what is by Allah, they only seek the world and each one of them loves to be called a leader.[15]
And Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid relates that he said to Sharik:
ان أقواما يزعمون أن جعفر بن محمد ضعيف في الحديث، فقال أخبرك القصة: كان جعفر بن محمد رجلا صالحا (4) ورعا فاكتنفه قوم جهال يدخلون عليه ويخرجون من عنده ويقولون: حدثنا جعفر ابن محمد ويحدثون بأحاديث كلها منكرات كذب موضوعة على جعفر، يستأكلون الناس بذلك، ويأيخذو منهم الدراهم، فكانوا يأتون من ذلك بكل منكر
People claim that Jafar ibn Muhammad is weak in hadith.
He said, “Let me tell you the story. Jafar ibn Muhammad was a pious person and was surrounded by ignorant people who would enter upon him and thereafter go out and say, “Muhammad ibn Jafar narrated to us.” They would narrate narrations which were all lies and forgeries forged against Jafar. Thereby they would eat from the wealth of the people and take from them wealth. Hence, they would forge every type of reprehensible report.[16]
Likewise, their scholar Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi expressed his pain about the texts of these books in the following words:
وقع فيها من الاختلاف والتباين والمنافاة والتضاد حتى لا يكاد يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابلة ما ينافيه حتى جعل مخالفونا ذلك من اعظم الطعون على مذهبنا، وتطرقوا بذلك إلى إبطال معتقدنا، وذكروا أنه لم يزل شيوخكم السلف والخلف يطعنون على مخالفيهم بالاختلاف الذي يدينون الله تعالى به، ويشنعون عليهم بافتراق كلمتهم في الفروع، ويذكرون أن هذا مما لا يجوز أن يتعبد به الحكيم، ولا يبيح العمل به العليم، وقد وجدناكم أشد اختلافا من مخالفيكم، وأكثر تباينا من مباينيكم، ووجود هذا الاختلاف منكم مع اعتقادكم بطلان ذلك دليل على فساد الأصل
Such disparity, difference, contradiction, and conflict has occurred in them that there is hardly a narration except that it is contradicted by another. Not a single hadith is sound except that there is another opposing it. To the extent that our opponents have deemed this to be the greatest of flaws in our dogma and thereby have tried to nullify our beliefs. They state that your early and later scholars continuously criticize their opponents of differences which they worship Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala with, and condemn them because of their disunity in secondary issues. They state that this is something which a wise person cannot be devoted to, nor can a knowledgeable person consider practicing upon such permissible; (they say) we have found you to differ more than your opponents, and more disparate than your detractors, and this type of differing, coupled with your belief of it being invalid, is evidence of the actual creed being false.
He has also admitted that this has led to some of the Shia abandoning the dogma when the issue of contradiction and disparity became clear to him.[17]
Al Tusi thereafter made a meaningless attempt to remedy this disparity and navigate this contradiction. For he did not succeed and all he did was exacerbate the problem. For in many instances of contradiction in the narrations he proposed Taqiyyah as the reason, but without any evidence other than the narration agreeing with the Ahlus Sunnah.
The reality is that by way of his doings he has closed upon his sect many of the paths of guidance. And his attempt was only in the narrations of legal rulings, as for the remaining issues and subjects, he did not attempt to reconcile them at all.
Furthermore, the physical evidence that he did not succeed is the lingering of their abundant differences. Hence, one of their scholars al Fayd al Kashani, the author of al Wafi which is one of their eight canonical works, has complained of this phenomenon saying:
تراهم يختلفون في المسألة الواحدة على عشرين قولا، أو ثلاثين قولا، أو أزيد، بل لو شئت أقول لم تبق مسألة فرعية لم يختلفوا فيها، أو في بعض معلقاتها
You see them differing in one issue resulting in twenty views, or thirty views, or even more. In fact, if I want, I can say that there is no secondary issue wherein they have not differed, or in the related things of which they have not differed.[18]
What is also noteworthy is that their differences are in the narrations and the texts themselves, and not in the extraction of laws therefrom. And there is no doubt that contradiction smacks off the invalidity of a creed and the falsity of its narrations and of them not being from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.[19]
And what is even more appalling is that the narrations which are meant to deal with this contradiction are in themselves contradictory. Mahmud al Hashimi al Shaharudi says the following in his book Ta’arud al Adillah al Shar’iyyah under the title ‘The narrations of remedy’:
وهي الأحاديث الواردة عن المعصومين عليهم السلام لعلاج حالات التعارض والاختلاف الواقع بين الروايات، والطريف أن هذه الأخبار قد ابتلت نفسها بالتعارض فيما بينها
They are the narrations which have come from the infallibles to deal with the instances of contradiction and disparity between the narrations. Interestingly, these narrations themselves are victims of contradiction between themselves…
As for the content of these narrations and their purport, a person will surely consider some of them fabrications by merely studying their wording. This is due to them conflicting the principles of Islam and its categorical tenets and that which is known through mass transmission and that upon which the Muslims concur, together with opposing clear reason.[20]
This is acknowledged by one of the scholars of the Rawafid who comments with the following upon one of the narrations:
ولو تغاضينا عن سنده ففي متنه أكثر من شاهد على أنه من موضوعات الغلاة أو الزنادقة الذي دسوا آلاف الأحاديث في أخبار جعفر بن محمد الصادق لتشويه وجه التشيع
Even if we ignore its chain of transmission, there is in its wording enough evidence to prove that it is from the forgeries of the extremists or the heretics who have shoved thousands of narrations into the actual narrations of Jafar ibn Muhammad al Sadiq in order to distort the true face of Shi’ism.[21]
Ibn al Jawzi says:
وكل حديث رأيته يخالف المعقول، أو يناقض الأصول، فاعلم أنه موضوع، فلا تتكلف اعتباره
And every hadith which you find to go against reason, or contradict the principles, then know that it is a fabrication and do not try hard to accept it.[22]
Astonishingly there appears in their reports that which discards this principle, i.e. the principle of scrutinizing the wording, owing to indicators which indicate to that. The following appears in Bihar al Anwar from Sufyan ibn al Simt:
قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: جعلت فداك إن الرجل ليأتينا من قبلك فيخبرنا عنك بالعظيم من الأمر فيضيق بذلك صدورنا حتى نكذبه، قال: فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام:أليس عني يحدثكم؟ قال: قلت: بلى. قال: فيقول لليل: إنه نهار، وللنهار: إنه ليل؟ قال: فقلت له: لا. قال: فقال: رده إلينا فإنك إن كذبت فإنما تكذبنا
I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, “May I be sacrificed for thee. A man comes to us from you with a very grave matter owing to which our hearts are constrained and we eventually belie.”
Abu ‘Abdullah said, “Is it not that he is narrating to you from me?”
I replied, “Definitely.”
He said, “Does he say about the night that it is day, or about the day that it is night?”
I said, “No.”
He replied, “Refer the matter to us, for if you belie (him) you have belied us.”[23]
And in another narration, it appears:
إن حديثنا تشمئز منه القلوب، فمن عرف فزيدوهم، ومن أنكر فذروهم
Our narrations are abhorred by the hearts. Hence, whoever knows (or is comfortable hearing them) narrate more to him, and whoever denies leave them.[24]
Al Majlisi has in this regard cited 116 narrations in this chapter with the title: ‘Their narrations ‘alayhim al Salam are difficult and considered difficult, and their speech entertains many interpretations, and the merit of contemplating their narrations ‘alayhim al Salam and the prohibition of refuting their narrations’.[25]
Mirza Abu al Qasim al Qummi (d. 1231 A.H.) says the following:
وبالجملة انحصر أمرنا في هذا الزمان في الرجوع إلى كتب الأحاديث الموجودة بيننا ولا ريب أن المتعارضات فيها في غاية الكثرة بل لا يوجد فيها خبر بلا معارض إلا في غاية الندرة فكيف يقاس هذا بخبر ينقله الثقة عن إمامه عليه السلام بلا واسطة إلى أهله أو إلى بلد آخر مع عدم علم المستمع بمعارض له و لا أظن بذلك مع اتحاد أن الاصطلاح وقلة أسباب الاختلال وإنما عرض الاختلالات بسبب طول الزمان وكثرة تداولها بالأيدي سيما أيدي الكذابة وأهل الريبة والمعاندين للأئمة عليهم السلام فأدرجوا فيها ما ليس منهم فنحن في الاخبار التي وصلت إلينا في وجوه من الاختلال من جهة العلم بالصدور عنهم وعدمه ومن جهة جواز العمل بخبر الواحد الظني وعدمه وكذلك في اشتراط العدالة وتحقيق معنى العدالة ومعرفة حصولها في الراوي وكيفية الحصول من تزكية عدل أو عدلين ومن جهة لاختلال في المتن من جهة النقل بالمعنى مرة أو مرارا مختلفة واحتمال السقط والتحريف والتبديل و حصول التقطيع فيها الموجبة لتفاوت الحال من جهة السند والدلالة ومن جهة الاختلال في الدلالة بسبب تفاوت العرف والاصطلاح وخفاء القرائن وحصول المعارضات اليقينية والاشكال في جهة العلاج من جهة اختلاف النصوص الواردة في التعارض
In conclusion, out matter in this era has become limited to referring to the books of hadith which we have at our disposal. And there is no doubt that the conflicting reports in them are many, in fact there is not a single narration which is without another contradicting it except very rarely. So how can this be paralleled with a narration which a reliable person transmits directly from the Imam to his people, or to the people of another town, coupled with the receiver not knowing of a contradicting report. I do not think that would be possible (i.e. the receiver knowing of a conflicting report) with the uniformity of the terminology and the scarcity of the causes of discrepancies; all the discrepancies have come about because of the protraction of time, and excessive exchange into various hands, especially the hands of liars, suspicious individuals, and the opposers of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam who inserted into them what was not from them. Hence, we are faced with various issues in the narrations that have reached us, in terms of achieving categoricity of them emerging from the Imams or not, and in terms of permissibility of practicing upon a probable narration of a lone narrator or otherwise; likewise in terms of deeming integrity to be a requisite, clarifying the meaning thereof, ascertaining whether it is found in a narrator, and the manner in which it can be achieved, like the approbation of one or two reliable individuals; also in terms of discrepancies in the wording due to transmission of the overall purport (not the exact wording) once, or at several different occasions, the possibility of omission, distortion, change, and the occurrence of breaks which necessitate variance of condition in the chain and in the purport; likewise, discrepancies in meaning as well due to the differences of conventions and nomenclature, the obscurity of contextual indicators, the occurrence of contradiction of a definitive nature, and the difficulty in dealing with differing texts with contradiction.[26]
Now if you juxtapose this against what the Ahlus Sunnah emphasise it will come forth to you as their greatest triumph, and by way of opposites do things become clear.
The Sunni scholars of hadith have paid due attention to the wording just as they have to the transmission. Hence, they have founded indicators to identify a fabricated narration, even without studying the chain of transmission. Therefore, most works of the science of hadith have dealt with this issue.
Ibn Daqiq al ‘Id says:
وأهل الحديث كثيرا ما يحكمون بالوضع باعتبار أمور ترجع إلى المروي وألفاظ الحديث
And many a times the scholars of hadith pass the ruling of fabrication due to considering factors related to the narrated and the wording of the hadith.[27]
And al Rabi’ ibn Khuthaym (d. 61/63 A.H.):
إن من الحديث حديث له ضوء كضوء النهار نعرفه، وإن من الحديث حديثا له ظلمة كظلمة الليل ننكره
From the hadith are hadith that we know due to them having light like the light of day. And from the hadith are hadith which we apprehend due to them containing darkness like the darkness of the night.[28]
And Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn ‘Urwah al Hanbali (d. 837 A.H.) says:
القلب إذا كان نقيا نظيفا زاكيا كان له تمييز بين الحق والباطل، والصدق والكذب، والهدى والضلال، ولا سيما إذا كان قد حصل له إضاءة وذوق من النور النبوي، فإنه حينئذ تظهر له خبايا الأمور ودسائس الأشياء والصحيح من السقيم، ولو ركب على متن ألفاظ موضوعة على الرسول إسناد صحيح أو على متن صحيح إسناد ضعيف، لميز ذلك وعرفه وذاق طعمه، وميز بين غثه وسمينه، وصحيحه وسقيمه، فإن ألفاظ الرسول لا تخفى على عاقل ذاقها
When the heart is clean and pure it possesses the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and truth and lies, and guidance and deviance, especially when it has acquired illumination and a particular taste from the light of Nubuwwah. For then the hidden aspects, the foreign things, and the authentic from the weak become clear to a person. Hence, if an authentic chain of transmission is mounted onto wording which is forged against Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, or a weak chain is mounted onto an authentic narration he will be able to differentiate between them. He will know that, taste its taste, and separate between the lean and the strong, and the authentic and the unauthentic. For the words of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are not unclear to a person who has tasted them.[29]
And Ibn al Salah has stated that sometimes they would identify a forgery from an indication within the narrated text. For lengthy narrations, as he suggests, were forged and the poor quality of their language and their purport testify to them being forgeries.[30]
Likewise, Ibn al Qayyim has authored a book exclusive to this topic after the following question was posed to him: “Is it possible to identify a forged narration by way of a rule other than looking into its chain of transmission?” Hence, he enlisted 44 rules pertaining to this matter and presented 273 narrations as examples; he mentioned the reasons for them being forgeries only through his analyses of their wording. This is in his book al Manar al Munif fi al Sahih wa al Da’if.
For further details, refer to our treatise al Tashih wa al Tad’if ‘ind al Rawafid, a book wherein refutation is made of Jafar al Subhani, the supreme contemporary scholar of the Rawafid.
Nonetheless, the predominant principle of scrutinizing the wording according to the Rawafid is that it will not be practiced if the hadith agrees with the Ahlus Sunnah, whom they dub the commonality. Because opposing the commonality, as their narrations suggest, ensures guidance.[31] But this has only increased them in their deviance.
Also, some of the Imams are reported to have said, as appears in the books of the Shia themselves:
لا تقبلوا علينا خلاف كتاب ربنا
Do not accept from us that which opposes the Book of our Lord.[32]
However, the Shia scholars did not implement this principle, rather the principle to which the Imams ordered them to refer to, i.e. the Qurʾan, has been implicated by their many narrations which attack it.[33]
[1] Minhaj al Sunnah, 6/381.
[2] Al Fawaʾid al Haʾiriyyah, p. 488.
[3] Introduction of al Kafi of Hussain ‘Ali Mahfuz, p. 25. He has attributed it to Rawdat al Jannat of al Khuwanasari, 553. Al Sayed al Murtada al ‘Askari says, “As for the claim that the Mahdi ‘alayh al Salam said, “Al Kafi is sufficient for our Shia,” its narrator is unknown and no one has given his name.” Ma’alim al Madrasatayn, 3/283.
[4] Al Istibsar, 1/2.
[5] Al Fisal fi al Milal wa al Nihal, 4/87.
[6] Ibid., 4/85.
[7] Minhaj al Sunnah, 4/57.
[8] Bihar al Anwar, 25/103.
[9] Usul Mazhab al Shia, 1/481.
[10] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 1/22, 23.
[11] Ibid., 1/25.
[12] Ibid., 1/34.
[13] Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 1/34.
[14] Kulliyyat fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, p. 35, 36.
[15] Rijal al Kashshi, 1/347.
[16] Ibid., 2/616.
[17] Tahdhib al Ahkam, 1/2.
[18] The introduction of al Wafi.
[19] Surah al Nisaʾ: 82.
[20] See, by way of example, what will come ahead under our discussion regarding the condition of the narrations of al Kafi.
[21] Al Mawdu’at fi al Athar wa al Akhbar, p. 193 of Hashim Ma’roof al Hussaini.
[22] Al Mawdu’at, 1/106.
[23] Bihar al Anwar, 2/186.
[24] Ibid., 2/193.
[25] Ibid., 2/182.
[26] Qawanin al Usul, p. 274, 275.
[27] Al Iqtirah, p. 231.
[28] Al Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al Riwayah, p. 431.
[29] Qawa’id al Tahdith min Funun Mustalah al Hadith, p. 137.
[30] Muqaddimah Ibn al Salah, p. 58.
[31] Usul al Kafi, 1/68; Wasaʾil al Shia, 27/107.
[32] Ibid. 1/69,71. Therein there a few narrations to this extent.
[33] Usul Mazhab al Shia, 1/355, onwards.