By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
Earlier in this book, the recordation of the Had?th has been thoroughly demonstrated from the viewpoint of the school of through compliance with the sacred texts as well as from the viewpoint of the school of Ijtih?d and Opinionism the founder of which had practically prohibited the reporting and recordation of the Had?th. Let us now present active examples on the jurisprudential methods of both the schools aiming at proving that although the disagreement among the Muslims had been about the political leadership of the Muslim community, it unfortunately moved to the jurisprudence in general. This fact sheds light on our previous supposition about the reason of the prohibition of reporting and recording the Had?th—a decision that was issued by Ab?-Bakr and `Umar, and that the consequences of this decision have been reflected on the present actuality of the Muslims. This is because disagreement in the jurisprudence was stemmed from the disagreement about the principles and narrations adopted by both the parties of the disagreement. To realize the actual history and the confusables of the Holy Sunnah is to know everything about this topic.
Hereinafter, four controversial questions from various fields of Muslim jurisprudence (namely, the laws of inheritance, food and drinks, doctrinal provisions, and blood money) will be presented for the purpose of demonstrating the discussion of this book in its best and most obvious picture and, also, in order to confirm that the decision of prohibiting the reporting and recording of the Had?th that was issued by Ab?-Bakr and `Umar left sweeping influences on the majority, if not all, of the Muslim jurisprudential fields. One of the consequences of that decision was the legality of multiplicity of the Sah?bah’s opinions appertained to the religious affairs. In other words, the prohibition of recording the Had?th opened wide the door of Ijtih?d and personal views, because people needed their general issues to be solved, especially in the new-found questions; and since Ijtih?d would meet this need, it was then practiced by the Sah?bah whether in accordance with the sacred texts or not. However, it is well-known that one of the natural features of Ijtih?d is that it does not bind the individuals to stop at a certain opinion. As a result, discrepancies occurred to the Sah?bah’s personal opinions and practices of Ijtih?d and even to the opinions of a certain Sah?biy. Because they had not agreed to depend upon the view of a certain individual among them, the T?bi`?n who came after the Sah?bah were badly influenced by such discrepancies. Moreover, as the rulers recorded the sayings of the Sah?bah alongside the Had?th of the Holy Prophet, they contributed largely in deepening such discrepancies. Although repeated, it seems appropriate to cite the following narration S?lih ibn Kays?n:
“I, once, met with al-Zuhriy for seeking religious knowledge and then we both decided to write down the traditions. We therefore wrote down whatever was reported from the Prophet. When he suggested that he would write down the traditions of the Sah?bah considering them with the Sunnah, I objected and declared the Sah?bah’s traditions having not been within the Sunnah. Hence, al-Zuhriy wrote down the traditions of the Sah?bah while I did not and thus I lost.”
Shaykh Muhammad Ab?-Zuhrah says,
“We found M?lik ibn Anas depending upon the verdicts of the Sah?bah as if they were part of the Sunnah.”
Thus, discrepancy crept into the fundaments of the Muslim jurisprudence and became untouchable law. It is also noticed that discrepancy occurred even to the opinions of the same Sah?biy; therefore, one adopts the first opinion of that Sah?biy and another adopts the second.
The aforesaid introduction has revealed the fact that the Holy Sunnah for the Sunnite Muslims passed through two stages;
(1) the prohibition of reporting and recording the Had?th, and
(2) the recordation of the Holy Sunnah. During the first stage of the prohibition, personal views were deemed legal and the Holy Sunnah was intentionally confused with the decisions of the Sah?bah. During the second stage of the recordation, these different opinions and views were written down; therefore, they have become within the Islamic laws that must be obeyed.
On the other hand, the school of the through compliance with the sacred texts has passed through one stage only, which is the taking from the Holy Prophet and the adoption of his dictations that were handwritten by Imam `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib. For this reason, no substantial disagreement can be noticed in the questions discussed by the jurisprudential method of this school. To prove it, let us present the following examples:
(1) Laws Of Inheritance
It has been narrated that Muhammad ibn Muslim reported,
Ab?-`Abdull?h (i.e. Imam Ja`far al-S?diq) opened before me a book (Sah?fah), and the first sentence that caught my eyes was that “When a legator’s heirs are his nephew and his grandfather, the inheritance is divided between them equally.” I said to him, “May Allah accept me as ransom for you! Judges are not deciding anything of an inheritance to the nephew (of a legator) when the grandfather is existent.” The answered, “Verily, this book is written with the handwriting of `Al? according to the dictation of the Messenger of Allah.”
According to another narration, Muhammad ibn Muslim is reported to have said,
I looked in the book that was read by Ab?-Ja`far (i.e. Imam Muhammad al-B?qir) and found that it was written therein, “When a legator’s heirs are his nephew and his grandfather, the inheritance is divided between them equally.” I said to him, “May Allah accept me as ransom for you! Judges are not deciding anything of an inheritance to the nephew (of a legator) when the grandfather is existent.” Imam Muhammad al-B?qir answered, “Verily, this book is written with the handwriting of `Al? according to the dictation of the Messenger of Allah; from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah to the hand of `Al?.”
These two narrations deal with one of the fields of the Muslim jurisprudence about which discrepancies and disputes have occurred; it is the question of the laws of inheritance. Muhammad ibn Muslim told that the judges in his country had not issued verdicts corresponding to the Book of `Al?; and Imam Muhammad al-B?qir agreed with that information and declared that these judges had issued judgments opposing to the judgment of the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt. To prove the accuracy of his judgment and the inaccuracy of these judges’ judgments, Imam Muhammad al-B?qir confirmed that his judgments were taken from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah to the hand of `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib and that the book on which he depended in the issuance of these judgments were written by Imam `Al? according to the dictations of the the Holy Prophet.
Imam Muhammad al-B?qir thus confirmed on the most trustworthiness of his reference and on the significance of the recordation of the Had?th in general and that record in particular. These confirmations opposed the principles of the trend of Ijtih?d and Opinionism.
A look into the Sh?`ite reference books of Had?th shows that the Im?miyyah Sh?`ite Muslims have unanimously agreed on the question that a nephew, replacing the brother, takes a half of the inheritance while the grandfather’s share is the other half.
As for the Sunnite jurisprudents, none of them has ever issued such a judgment although they knew for certain that Imam `Al? and `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s used to judge that the nephew and the grandfather share an inheritance equally. In this regard, al-Tah?wiy has recorded on the authority of Ism?`?l ibn Ab?-Kh?lid on the authority of al-Shi`biy that it was narrated to him that `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib used to judge that nephews replace their fathers in an inheritance with the existence of the grandfather. Save `Al?, none of the Sah?bah used to decide such. A similar narration has been reported by `Abd al-Razz?q on the authority of al-Shi`biy.
On the face of it, the jurisprudents who belong to the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism have not adopted the judgments of Imam `Al? and `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s because the question of the grandfather’s share of an inheritance is too dangerous from the viewpoint of the caliphs who had divergent opinions about this question. Therefore, the Sunnite jurisprudents blacked out and stopped any narration reporting the opposite of the caliphs’ personal opinions about the question to the degree that Imam `Al?, having feared lest his judgment about this question would be wasted, ordered `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s to erase what he had written to him in this respect.
Ibn Ab?-Shaybah has recorded, through an authentic series of narrators, on the authority of al-Shi`biy that `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s narrated that Imam `Al? wrote a letter to him asking him to erase his previous epistle about the matter. According to another narration, Imam `Al? wrote to Ibn `Abb?s, “Erase my epistle and keep it not.”
These narrations clearly reveal that Imam `Al? was cautious of elucidating his judgment about that jurisprudential question.
A similar matter was reported by `Abdull?h ibn Mas`?d. Ibn Hazm has recorded through his series of narrators to Shu`bah ibn al-Taw’am al-Dabbiy that when the disagreement about the share of the grandfather from an inheritance was mentioned before `Abdull?h ibn Mas`?d, he said, “We will only judge as exactly as the judgments of our im?ms (i.e. the caliphs).”
In this narration, `Abdull?h ibn Mas`?d indicated that he would not be able to express that which he had heard from the Holy Prophet or that which he believes as regards the questions after he had realized that `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b issued many different judgments. He only showed that he would accept the judgments of the caliphs. To a great extent, this reply is similar to his saying, “Discrepancy is evil,” when his opinion was sought about the question that he had followed the Holy Prophet when he offered the prayer in Min? in the shortened form (qasr) while `Uthm?n ibn `Aff?n violated such and offered the same prayer in the same place in the complete form (Tam?m).
`Umar ibn al-Khatt?b had had different sayings about the grandfather’s share from the inheritance, and some of the Sah?bah disagreed with each other on the same question—these two facts caused some of the Sunnite jurisprudents to misapprehend the question; therefore, a group of them issued that there is no fixed share for the grandfather from an inheritance when the other heirs are the legator’s brothers; rather his share is determined according to the caliph’s judgment!”
Verily, the ruling trend has aimed at nothing other than corroborating the personal opinions of the past rulers, as regards the religious laws, and persistently violating the trend of Imam `Al? and `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s.
It has been narrated that al-Hajj?j ibn Y?suf al-Thaqafiy, once, summoned al-Shi`biy to ask him for a judgment in a question one of whose affairs is the grandfather’s share of inheritance. Al-Shi`iy said, “This question is subjected to controversy. About it `Abdull?h ibn Mas`?d, `Al?, `Uthm?n, Ibn `Abb?s,… etc.”
Al-Hajj?j said, “Of course, the opinion of `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s in this question is accurate… rather you should order the judge to issue the same judgment that was decided by `Uthm?n ibn `Aff?n.”
These narrations and their likes prove that the question was quite understandable for Imam `Al? and the Ahl al-Bayt since they took it from the same source, which is the Book of Imam `Al?, while it was very ambiguous for those who prohibited the recordation of the Had?th.
(2) A Question About Game
It has been narrated on the authority of al-Halabiy that Imam Ja`far al-Said said,
“My father used to issue verdicts about hunting with trained falcons and hawks out of fear and as practice of Taqiyyah (pious dissimulation). Now, we do not fear. It is illegal to hunt with falcons and hawks unless the games are legally slaughtered. According to the Book of `Al?, Almighty Allah’s saying (in the Holy Qur’?n),
‘…and what you have taught the beasts and birds of prey, training them to hunt– you teach them of what Allah has taught you’ [Holy Qur’?n: 5:4]
is exclusively dedicated to the dogs.”
This narration means that Imam Muhammad al-B?qir, because he lived under the pressures of the Umayyad rulers’ intellectual terrorism, used to issue the legality of hunting with -trained- falcons and hawks for fear of their persecution since they were fond of hunting with trained falcons and hawks, as is well-known from Yaz?d and other Umayyad rulers. But when fear vanished in the beginning of the `Abb?sid dynasty, Imam Ja`far al-S?diq explained the actual judgment of this question, saying, “Now, we do not fear. It is illegal to hunt with falcons and hawks unless the games are legally slaughtered.”
To deeply investigate this jurisprudential issue displays that the proofs appertained to it are dedicated to the legality of eating the games that are hunted by the trained dogs, nothing else, according to the text of the holy verse. It has been narrated that Ab?-Tha`labah al-Khushaniy and `Adiy ibn H?tam al-T?’iy decided the legality of the game, especially that hunted by trained dogs.
Similarly, `Abdull?h ibn `Umar and Muj?hid are reported to have issued the judgment that hunting by means of anything other than trained dogs are illegal, because Almighty Allah says,
‘…and what you have taught the beasts and birds of prey, training them to hunt– you teach them of what Allah has taught you’ [Holy Qur’?n: 5:4]
is exclusively dedicated to the dogs. Further, Ibn Hazm has recorded that the Holy Sunnah mentioned exclusively the trained dogs and nothing else at all.
Scholars have also doubted the authenticity of the narration ascribed to `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s as having said that the trained dogs, falcons, and each and every bird that is trained for hunting are intended in the holy verse involved, because the narration was reported on the authority of `Al? ibn Ab?-Talhah who did not see `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s and who was decided as doubted by the majority of biographers. In addition, the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt are reported to have decided that only the games that are hunted by trained dogs are legal while all games that are hunted by other trained animals are illegal.
From the previous, we conclude that the ruling was very clear, but the rulers and their desires instigated some Muslim jurisprudents to decide what those rulers wanted out of fear causing the next generations to lose the genuine ruling. Thus, the majority of the Sunnite jurisprudents have violated this clear-cut ruling and decided the legality of the games hunted by trained falcons and hawks, although I could not find even a single indication from the Holy Sunnah justifying such violation. Rather the Holy Sunnah has declared the opposite of their judgments. However, they had decided such after they expanded the topic of the holy verse without any proof or point of evidence from the Holy Qur’?n or Sunnah that, as a matter of fact, have comprised texts confirming that the meat of games is decided legal only when these games are hunted by trained dogs, not any other animal. Evidently, Ibn Hazm declared this fact and, apparently, `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah did, too.
As a consequence, we conclude that liberal welfare would have covered the Muslims had they only adhered to the method of the recordation of the Had?th that was inaugurated by Imam `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib. Yet, political circumstances and confused affairs forced a certain jurisprudential issue to succumb to individual desires, not to what has been openly mentioned in the Holy Qur’?n and what was declared by the Holy Prophet.
(3) The Penalty Of Drinking Intoxicants And Wines
It has been narrated on the authority of Burayd ibn Mu`?wiyah that Imam Ja`far al-S?diq said,
“In the Book of `Al?, it is recorded that he who drinks intoxicants and he who drinks wines should be sentenced to eighty lashes each.”
This narration carries two subject; first, the provision of the drinkers of intoxicants is eighty lashes and, second, the matter of intoxicants include all intoxicated beverages, such as wines and the like.
With regard to the first, it has been authentically narrated that all the founders of the Four Schools of Sunnite jurisprudence have decided that a drunk must be whipped eighty lashes. An exception in this issue is that Muhammad ibn Idr?s al-Sh?fi`iy, the founder of the al-Sh?fi`iyyah School, in one of his two famous opinions is reported to have declared that a drunk is whipped forty lashes. The evidence on the forty lashes is that it has been also narrated that the Holy Prophet beat a drunk with two slippers, or other thing that has two edges, forty times. The evidence on the eighty lashes has been extracted from the incident that `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b sought the counsel of the Sah?bah concerning the penalty of the drunk. It has been authentically narrated that Imam `Al?, during that session of counsel, said, “One who is intoxicated will definitely rave; and when he raves, he will fabricate lies; therefore, you may apply the penalty of slanderers to the drunk.” In the same session, `Abd al-Rahm?n ibn `Awf said, “You may make it the lightest of the doctrinal provisions, which is eighty lashes.” Accordingly, the Sah?bah agreed to make it eighty lashes!
Strangely, some scholars have conjectured the untruth; they have thought the Islamic code of law having been empty of the ruling of lashing and the Holy Prophet having not decided certain penalties for certain crimes. Ibn Hazm has referred to some of these erroneous concepts.
Although it is not the proper place to mention and refute these concepts, I only intend to state that such claims necessarily mean that the Islamic code of law (Shar?`ah) has been imperfect and that the verse of the Holy Qur’?n that reads,
“We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly all things.” [Holy Qur’?n: 16/89]
is meaningless. Of course, no single Muslim accepts these two claims.
Those who issue forty lashes as the penalty of the drunk have provided as evidence the narration that the Holy Prophet beat with a thing that had two edges or with a pair of slippers forty times. Supposing this narration is authentic, its significance is very close to the judgment of the eighty-lash punishment, because customarily to beat with a pair of slippers is not considered one lash, but two. Accordingly, this can stand as evidence for those who issue eighty-lash, not forty-lash, punishment.
`Umar ibn al-Khatt?b is notably reported to have sentenced drunks to forty and sixty-lash punishment before he sought the Sah?bah’s counsel according to which he decided the eighty-lash punishment. He is also reported to have exiled the drunks and then decided not to do it ever again.
As for the followers of the School of Thorough Compliance, they undoubtedly believe that the judgment of eighty-lash punishment was not a personal view of Imam `Al?; rather it was decided by the Holy Prophet. The proof on this fact is that he had beaten with a pair of slippers those who drank intoxicants forty times. The other proof is that this judgment is mentioned in the Book of `Al? that comprises the dictations of the Holy Prophet handwritten by Imam `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib.
As a matter of fact, it is strange that al-Sarakhsiy, in his book of al-Mabs?t, has claimed that the eighty-lash judgment was a personal opinion that was deduced by Imam `Al?! He has not realized the fact that Imam `Al? had originally received this judgment from the Holy Prophet, and all that he did was introducing an example-like justification in order to make the attendants understand the question and to fix the judgment of the Holy Prophet.
The second subject in this topic is the expansion of the matter of intoxicants so as to include any amount of liquor that causes intoxication. The School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts has unanimously agreed upon the ruling that reads, “It is illegal to drink any amount of liquor the much of which intoxicates.”
The followers of the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism have largely disputed about this matter. Some of them, agreeing with the School of Compliance, decided the illegality of drinking any intoxicant, which contains any liquor that causes stupefaction including those the little amount of which does not stupefy. The Sh?fi`iyyah, M?likiyyah, and other schools of Sunnite jurisprudence can be listed under those who agreed with the School of the Ahl al-Bayt in this question. Al-Nawawiy, in his book of al-Majm?`, says,
“The Sh?fi`iyyah, the M?likiyyah, and other schools of Sunnite jurisprudence have judged the illegality of drinking any intoxicating liquor, be it juice or wine, even if the amount of such liquor does not intoxicate so long as the nature of it causes intoxication.”
Other Sunnite jurisprudential schools have decided the legality of drinking the wine the little amount of which does not cause stupefaction. Consequently, they have decided that it is not forbidden to drink much amount of such liquor. According to the apparent wording of al-Qurtubiy, among those who adopted this opinion were Ibr?h?m al-Nakha`iy, Sufy?n al-Thawriy, Ibn Ab?-Layl?, Shurayk, Ab?-Han?fah, the other jurisprudents of al-K?fah, and the majority of the jurisprudents of al-Basrah. Al-Qurtubiy then adds,
“What is deemed unlawful among the other wines is the intoxication itself, not the intoxicating liquor.”
Ibn Qud?mah says,
“Ab?-W?’il al-Nakha`iy, the majority of the jurisprudents of al-K?fah, and the Opinionists are among those who claimed that only those who become intoxicated should be sentenced to the religious punishment of consuming intoxicants.”
By saying such, these jurisprudents have specified the actuality of intoxication as a stipulation of its materialization. This is of course opposite to the abovementioned opinion of the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts and the Sunnite jurisprudential schools that complied with it in this regard, such as the Sh?fi`iyyah and the M?likiyyah who believe in the illegality of drinking any liquor that can intoxicate; and since wine has this characteristic, it is forbidden to drink any amount of it, be it much or little.
Even their enemies have confessed of the appositeness of the Sh?`ite jurisprudents in this respect since it is congruent with sound nature and reason. M?s? J?rull?h says,
“I like the belief of the Sh?`ah in the point of deeming illegal to drink any liquor the much of which causes intoxication. They thus decide that it is illegal to drink any amount of liquor the much of which stupefies. Even the compelled does not drink intoxicants in time of emergency, since it is fatal. The Sh?`ah also deem illegal to sit to a table on which wine was, is, or will be served. I also thoroughly like the School of the Im?miyyah Sh?`ah in questions of divorcement and some fundamental laws of inheritance.”
In his book of al-Muhall?, Ibn Hazm takes offense at and bears down upon those who adopted the opinion that wine is illegal only when it intoxicates. He then refers to the opinion of the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts, saying,
“These are collaborating traditions and uninterrupted authentic narrations that are reported from the Mother of Believers, Ab?-M?s? al-Ash`ariy, `Abdull?h ibn `Umar, Sa`d ibn Ab?-Waqq?s, J?bir ibn `Abdull?h, and al-Nu`m?n ibn Bash?r. All of these, unambiguously and unmistakably, have reported from the Holy Prophet the illegality of drinking intoxicants. Moreover, there are traditions confirming the illegality of drinks when they cause stupefaction and the illegality of honey, barley juice, and wheat juice when they cause intoxication, the illegality of corn juice when it causes intoxication, and the illegality of drinking any little amount of any drink the much of which causes intoxication. This is, of course, opposite to the claims of that one whom Almighty Allah may disappoint and deprive of success… Having gone beyond all limits, some people showed intolerable impudence against some of the traditions of the Holy Prophet, who says that all intoxicating liquids are forbidden to drink, and said that he only meant the last cup of wine!”
By the statement “This is, of course, opposite to the claims of that one whom Almighty Allah may disappoint and deprive of success,” Ibn Hazm meant Ab?-Han?fah and his followers because they have deemed lawful to drink the dregs of wine, yet discommendably. They have thus said, “One who drinks the dregs of wine should not be sentenced to the religious punishment of consuming intoxicants unless he becomes intoxicated. Such being the case, he should be punished.” Ibn Hazm himself, in his book of al-Muhall?, has reported this verdicts from the followers of Ab?-Han?fah.
The aforesaid statement, “he only meant the last cup of wine!” indicates the legality of drinking a little amount of intoxicants or wines because such an amount does not actually cause intoxication; rather intoxication occurs only when the last cup is drunk; therefore, one who consumes intoxicants is lashed for the last cup, not the ones preceding!
By a deep look into the incidents of the history of the Islamic legislation, one can find out that those who adopted such a claim must have betaken the deed of `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b, the second caliph, as their evidence on their claim. It has been narrated that he lashed a Bedouin because he had drunk from the caliph’s liquor. When the Bedouin expressed that he had only drunk from `Umar’s drink, the latter ordered them to bring him that drink. When the drink was brought before him, he added water to it and drank. He then said, “One who doubts his drink should add water to it!”
`Umar ibn al-Khatt?b is also reported to have said, “I am drinking this strong liquor in order to digest the meat of camels and to save our stomachs from its aches. So, one who doubts his drink should add water to it!”
He is also reported as saying, “My stomach can hardly digest the food therein; therefore, I drink this strong wine in order to help my stomach work properly.”
Evidently supporting my conclusion, it has been narrated that Ab?-Han?fah presented the conduct of `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b as his proof on deeming legal to consume a little amount of the wines the much of which causes intoxication. In this connection, it has been narrated that `Abdull?h, one of the descendants of `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b, objected to Ab?-Han?fah as regards deciding the wines as legal to drink.
Ab?-Han?fah answered, “We have learnt this verdict from your forefather.”
`Abdull?h said surprisingly, “Which one of my forefathers?”
Ab?-Han?fah answered, “It is your forefather who said, ‘One who doubts his drink should add water to it!’”
`Abdull?h then asked, “What will you do if you are ascertained of it without doubt?”
Ab?-Han?fah kept silent because he could not find an answer for that question.
In order to reach any result in this secondary jurisprudential issue, they have adhered to the weakest indications. They therefore entrapped themselves in violent disputes and reached at contradictory conclusions because they have left behind them the authentic texts that are recorded in the Book of `Al? and reported from the Ahl al-Bayt.
In my conception, the rulers, both the Umayyad and the `Abb?sid, made all possible endeavors to establish this ruling—that specifies actual intoxication as stipulation of the illegality of consuming wines—so as to save themselves from the people’s criticisms and to drink intoxicants and wines as they like without any barrier or deterrent. They also misused the legal permission of drinking the “legal” wine, in the sense that they put some dates in the brackish water in order to remove its salinity. Then, they applied this ruling to the sizzling wine and thus specified actual intoxication as stipulation of the illegality of consuming wines. In the midst of all these unacceptable acts, they knew for sure that the Holy Prophet had said,
“A group of my community will deem legal the drinking of wines under another title that they invent.”
He is also reported as saying,
“Soon shall a group of my community drink wine after they change its name.”
To apply this Prophetic prediction to the reality signifies that the major Sah?bah did not consume wines—except `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b who, having practiced his personal view, decided the legality of consuming wine which he did not give up until the last hour of his life—and the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt decided it absolutely forbidden; therefore, none remained except the Umayyad and `Abb?sid rulers who did drink wines and exceeded it to consume even the pure intoxicants.
In any event, such confusion between the principles and the concepts would not have happened if the Muslims had kept records. Again, if the rulers had left the Muslims to take the features of their religion from the books that comprised the religious knowledge and Had?th, including the Book of Imam `Al?, it would have been better and more beneficial for the Muslims and the disagreement among the Muslim scholars would not have reached such an extent in the jurisprudential questions.
(4) The Blood Money For Teeth
It has been narrated that al-Hakam ibn `Uyaynah said to Imam Muhammad al-B?qir, “Some people have thirty-two teeth while other have only twenty-eight; how is the blood money for the teeth divided?” The Imam answered,
“Naturally, a human being has twenty-eight teeth; twelve are in the front of the mouth and sixteen are in the back of it. According to this distribution, the blood money for the teeth has been divided. The blood money for each of the front teeth, when broken to vanishing, is five hundred dirhams. Thus, the blood money for all these teeth becomes six thousand dirhams. As for the back teeth, when broken to vanishing, two hundred and fifty dirhams is the blood money for each of these sixteen teeth. Thus, the blood money for all these teeth becomes four thousand dirhams. The total blood money for the front and back teeth is ten thousand dirhams. The blood money has been decided according to this division; therefore, no blood money is decided for any additional tooth or incomplete number. Thus have I found the ruling in the Book of `Al?.”
The same narration has been narrated by Shaykh al-Sad?q, rather with another series of narrators on the authority of al-Hasan ibn Mahb?b, and by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan on the authority of al-Hasan ibn Mahb?b, too.Because it has been mentioned in the Book of `Al?, all the Im?miyyah Sh?`ite jurisprudents have acted upon this ruling; therefore, they have not shown any disagreement in this division. Shaykh Muhammad Hasan al-Najafiy says,
“The blood money must be paid entirely when all the teeth are broken to vanishing. No disagreement can be found on this ruling; rather it is unanimous according to the apparent statements of al-Mabs?t and the clear-cut statements of al-Tahr?r. The blood money is divided according to the twenty-eight teeth. As is written in al-Khil?f, the Sh?`ite scholars and reporters have unanimously agreed upon this ruling… Six hundred d?n?rs is the blood money for the front teeth. Hence, the blood money of each tooth is twenty-five… This is the whole blood money…”
The Im?miyyah jurisprudents have also unanimously agreed that no blood money is paid for the additional teeth; rather it is subjected to the one-third of the blood money, or the blood money for scratches, or conciliation, or…etc. In brief, no blood money for the teeth is paid for the additional ones. This is the meaning of the narration that confirms this ruling having been taken from the Book of `Al?.
Thus, the narration mentioned from the Book of `Al? has decided a complete blood money for the teeth being broken or damaged. The blood money for the front teeth, which are sixteen in number, is six hundred d?n?rs; fifty (i.e. five hundred dirhams) for each. The blood money for the back teeth is four hundred d?n?rs; twenty-five (i.e. two hundred and fifty dirhams) for each. The total is thus one thousand d?n?rs (i.e. ten thousand dirhams), which is the blood money for the teeth altogether.
Those who did not take from or did not know about the contents of the Book of `Al? have been engaged in big dispute as regards this question; they have therefore gone on various ways according to each party’s reports and opinions. `At?’ is reported as saying, “The blood money for the front teeth and the incisors is five camels for each; and for the rest is two camels for each. This is the second narration from `Umar.” The first narration from `Umar, however, reads that the blood money for the rest of the teeth is one, not two, camel.
On the other hand, the author of al-Mughni has written down that `At?’ decided equality of the blood money for each of the teeth without differentiation is five camels. Accordingly, the blood money for all the teeth, which are twenty-eight, is one hundred and forty camels; and this means that the blood money for the teeth alone is bigger than the blood money for a human being.
`Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s and `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b are reported as having decided fifty d?n?rs as the blood money for each of the incisors, forty d?n?rs for each of the malors, and twenty-five for each of the grinders. In view of this narration, `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b had a third opinion about the issue. Still, he had a fourth opinion, recorded by the author of al-Mughni, which is that the blood money is the same for all the teeth, though this opinion has been ascribed to `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s and `At?’, too.
It is thus noticeable that `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b had four different opinions about the blood money for the teeth; and there is more than one opinion, about the question, ascribed to `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s and `At?’. This indicates the confusion in the reporting from the Sah?bah or the confusion of the reporters themselves. It goes without saying that the blood money cannot be changed daily and cannot have a certain amount in a certain time since it is Almighty Allah Who has defined that amount. Such contradiction in reporting cannot be found with the other School (of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts), because the followers of it have always depended upon the contents of the Book of `Al?, the ancient and the genuine, that comprises the dictations of the Holy Prophet. Had the followers of the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism acted upon the contents of the Book of `Al?, such odd contradiction in the reporting from a certain Sah?biy about a certain question would not have existed.
Because the reporting from Imam `Al? and the other Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt is unchangeable and authentic as regards the amount of the blood money for the teeth when broken or damaged, the followers of the other school (of the prohibition from reporting and recording the Had?th) took the authentic narrations and then interpreted their contents according to their personal opinions and views. The majority of the followers of this school—who decided equality in the blood money for all the teeth—claimed that they depend upon the narration mentioned in the book of `Amr ibn Hazm that reads, “The blood money for the tooth is five camels.” Yet, this narration does not imply equality of the teeth, because other narrations have used the expressions ‘malors’ and ‘incisors’ to express the teeth. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim generality of teeth in the aforesaid narration. Only this amount of the blood money was reported from `Amr ibn Hazm whom the Holy Prophet sent to the people of the Yemen with a book comprising the shares of inheritances, the highly recommended acts, and the amounts of the blood money. Besides, this amount is supported by the reports from the Holy Imams, as will be later on discussed. Yet, this cut-off reporting that lacks details and explanation on one hand and the insertion of personal opinions and Ijtih?d in the question on the other hand—these two matters caused the followers of Ijtih?d and Opinionism to commit this mistake upon which they have acted and issued verdicts.
Imam Ja`far al-S?diq is reported to have said,
“The blood money of teeth is five camels, for both the near and the far front teeth. This is half of one-tenth of the blood money. They can be paid as d?n?rs, dirhams, cows, sheep, and camels.”
This narration reveals that the blood money of all the front teeth, the near and the far, is five camels, which is half of one-tenth of the blood money. If it would be paid as camels, then five camels should be paid for each damaged tooth; and if it would be paid in d?n?r, then fifty d?n?rs should be paid for each damaged tooth; and if it would be paid in dirham, then five hundred dirhams should be paid for each damaged tooth. In other narrations, the details of the blood money for the other teeth have been shown. Consequently, the contents of the book of `Amr ibn Hazm correspond the narrations reported from the Ahl al-Bayt. This is one of the benefits of the recordation. However, the personal interpretation, the negligence of the points and details mentioned in the other narrations, and the inappropriate generalization—these matters caused the Ijtih?dists and Opinionists to be engaged in such mistake and disagreement about the amount of the blood money for the teeth.
Other jurisprudents have presented the following narration as their point of evidence: It has been narrated on the authority of `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s that the Holy Prophet said, “Fingers are equal in the amount of the blood money; and teeth, whether incisors or malors, are also equal in the amount of the blood money.” Even if we suppose the authenticity in reporting this narration, it still has not been recorded in a book. It is also contradictory to the aforecited discussion about the variety in the reports of the Sah?bah, T?bi`?n, and jurisprudents as regards this question.
It is worth mentioning that Ahmad ibn Hanbal—who is, as testified by all Muslims, Had?thist and narrator more than being jurisprudent—adopted an opinion opposing all the Sunnite jurisprudents and narrations and corresponding with the Ahl al-Bayt and the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts. He decided that the blood money for the front teeth is six hundred d?n?rs (i.e. six thousand dirhams) and for the back teeth is four hundred; and these two amounts are together the whole blood money of teeth. Both al-Nawawiy, in al-Majm?` 19:99, and `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah, in al-Mughni 9:613, have written down this opinion.
Through the abovementioned, yet simple, examples, the significance of the recordation and the true value of the Book of Imam `Al? have been clearly understood. It is now also obvious that those who practiced and depended upon the recordation of the religious knowledge, as well as those who follow the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts, have been always closer to the right and more trustworthy in reporting from the Holy Prophet. On the other hand, the followers of the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism, who prohibited the recording of the Had?th, were entrapped in disputes, perplexity, and variety of personal opinions; all that because they deserted the recordation and the records. Even if they received a portion of the contents of these records, they would receive it imperfect and confused with personal views and Ijtih?d. All these matters have taken the Ijtih?dists and Opinionists away from the right path and thus the Muslim jurisprudence with them has been dependent upon personal opinions. Naturally, opinions are different; therefore, they are large in number. On the contrary, the jurisprudence of those who complied with the sacred texts, those who recorded the Had?th during the age of the Holy Prophet, and those who preserved depended upon these recorded have been kept as far as possible from mistake, distortion, or imperfection. In addition, this jurisprudential method is characterized by precision in the details and connection in the reports taken from the records. As a result, those jurisprudents have deduced the same, spotless and undoubted, ruling.
I thus appeal to the gentle researchers to deeply investigate the materials of the Book of Imam `Al? in the field of Muslim jurisprudence in order to demonstrate the significance of the recordation in general and the contents of the Book in particular.
 Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: J?mi`u Bay?n al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i) 1:76-77; al-Khat?b al-Baghd?diy: Taqy?d al-`Ilm 106-107.
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 251; M?lik ibn Anas: al-Muwatta’ 290.
 In my book of ‘Wud?’ al-Nabiy’, I have investigated the features of the phenomenon of ascribing many reports to `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s.
 Shaykh al-Kulayniy: al-K?f? 7:112 H. 1; al-Hurr al-`?miliy: Was?’il al-Sh?`ah 26:159.
 Shaykh al-Kulayniy: al-K?f? 7:113 H. 5; Shaykh al-T?siy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 308 H. 1104/25; al-Hurr al-`?miliy: Was?’il al-Sh?`ah 26:16.
 Shaykh al-T?siy: al-Khil?f 4:90.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqal?niy: Fath al-B?r? f? Sharh Sah?h al-Bukh?riy 12:17.
 `Abd al-Razz?q: al-Musannaf 10:269 H. 19066.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqal?niy: Fath al-B?r? f? Sharh Sah?h al-Bukh?riy 12:17.
 Ibn Hajar al-`Asqal?niy: Fath al-B?r? f? Sharh Sah?h al-Bukh?riy 12:17.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 9:283. On 9 :285-286 of the book there is a more obvious indication.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 9:283.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 9:289.
 Shaykh al-Kulayniy: al-K?f? 6:207; Shaykh al-T?siy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 9:32; al-Istibs?r 4:72.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughniy 11:43.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughniy 11:11.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 7:472.
 Muhy? al-D?n al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 9:93.
 Muhy? al-D?n al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 9:93.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughniy 11:3.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 7:472.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 11:3.
 Shaykh al-T?siy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 10:96; al-Istibs?r 4:235.
 `Abd al-Rahm?n al-Jaz?riy: al-Fiqh `Al?’l-Madh?hib al-Arba`ah 31-32; `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 10:325.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 10:325.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 10:325.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 11:364.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 11:365.
 Al-Sarakhsiy: al-Mabs?t 24:32.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 20:120.
 Al-Qurtubiy: Bid?yat al-Mujtahid 1:493.
 Al-Qurtubiy: Bid?yat al-Mujtahid 1:493.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 10:324.
 M?s? J?rull?h: al-Wash?`ah f? Naqd `Aq?`id al-Sh?`ah 118-19, 140.
 Mother of Believers (Umm al-Mu’min?n) is a title said to the Holy Prophet’s wives and excerpted from the Holy Qur’?n that reads, “The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are (as) their mothers. 33/6” This is thus an indication to one of the Holy Prophet’s wives and, most likely, to `?’ishah, for she is famous of reporting from the Holy Prophet. (Translator)
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 7:500.
 Ibn Hazm: al-Muhall? 7:492.
 Al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Umm?l 5:514. The next narration in the book is worthy of reading.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubr? 8:299.
 Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubr? 8:306.
 `Abd al-Rahm?n al-Jaz?riy: al-Fiqh `Al?’l-Madh?hib al-Arba`ah 5:21. This narration has been recorded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn M?jah.
 `Abd al-Rahm?n al-Jaz?riy: al-Fiqh `Al?’l-Madh?hib al-Arba`ah 5:21. This narration has been recorded by Ibn M?jah.
 Al-Hurr al-`?miliy: Was?’il al-Sh?`ah 29:343; Shaykh al-T?siy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 10:254; al-Istibs?r 4:288.
 Shaykh al-Sad?q: Man-l?-Yahduruhul-Faq?h 4:104/351.
 Shaykh al-T?sy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 10:254; al-Istibs?r 4:288.
 Shaykh al-Jaw?hiriy: Jaw?hir al-Kal?m 42:229.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 19:98.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 9:612.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 9:612.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 19:98.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 9:612.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 9:613.
 Al-Nawawiy: al-Majm?` 19:98.
 Jam?l al-D?n al-Muzziy: Tahdh?b al-Kam?l 21:585.
 Al-Hurr al-`?miliy: Was?’il al-Sh?`ah 29:344; Shaykh al-T?siy: Tahdh?b al-Ahk?m 10:261; al-Istibs?r 4:289.
 `Abdull?h ibn Qud?mah: al-Mughni 9:614.
Motives Of Distortion And Deviation For Both The Trends
In the previous chapters, some of the major differences between the two trends have been cited. Having been influenced by the decision of the prohibiting of reporting and recording the Had?th, these differences saw light and expanded until they reached us to fruitful and unquestionably valid conclusions about the foundations of the two trends that represent the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism and the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts. Obviously, we have also seen the positive impact that the recordation of the Had?th has left on the jurisprudence of those who recorded the Had?th and, at the same time, the negative impact that it has left on the jurisprudence of those who prohibited it. We thus have realized the actual value of the jurisprudential stock of both the schools.
Let us now try to present our outcomes and to evaluate them with another criterion so as to recognize the scope of each trend’s conformity with the natural progression of the historical conventions and the rules of sociology and ethics and the scope of their harmony and accord with the various circumstances that encompassed the both trends. Through such presentation and evaluation, we will conclude which of the two is remote from distortion and deviation and which is in close proximity.
Imam `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib is reported to have said in one of his sermons,
“I have been informed of your saying, ‘`Al? is telling lies!’ May Allah destroy you! Against whom have I told lies? Is it against Allah? It is I who was the foremost to have faith in Him. Is it against His Prophet? It is I who was the foremost to believe him.”
This text carries the most accurate and excellent connotations of argument and viewing. In this text, the Imam introduced the aggravation of a socio-ethical epidemic that inflicted an entire society or at least a large section of it. Unfortunately, the publics accused of fabrication and poured their anger on a personality of the most elevated ranks of decency and clarity.
Refuting the baseless accusations of these peoples, Imam `Al? declared that a liar must have motives, whether internal or external, encouraging him to betake fabrication as his means for achieving his aims and goals. A liar is one of the following cases:
1) Being stricken by blind-heartedness and preoccupation in illegal matters, acts of disobedience to Almighty Allah, and rebellion against Him and, as a result, such a person will find sweet and feasible to tell lies and will not be immunized enough to stop committing any offense;
2) being one of those who look forward to gaining a pleasure or a worldly affair that he cannot reach by way of truth and thus he has to tell lies in order to attain that goal;
3) being coward, in the sense that he fears the outcome of a bad deed he had done and fears that the worldly punishment will chase him; he therefore resorts to telling lies in order get rid of that trouble; or
4) trying to save himself from an embarrassing question addressed to him but he could not find the appropriate answer; hence, he betakes lying as the cover under which he conceals his feebleness… etc.
To browse the pages of the Islamic history puts on view that the majority of those who fabricated lies against Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet had immature psychological tendencies or scandalous intellectual feebleness. In most cases, such individuals had converted to Islam out of fear of being killed or had found themselves a place among the Muslims, while they were not, such as those who had to join Islam at the Conquest of Makkah, the hypocrites, and the like.
Indisputably, all such motives and their likes are nonexistent in the personality of Imam `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib. He is the sincere Sah?biy who has enjoyed the most prominent characteristics and has had the most excellent situations. None of the Muslims would ever deny this fact. Also, he belongs to a family that is too exalted to require praising or telling lies that are said in order to meet a social imperfection caused by such matters. Imam `Al? has thus said, “Against whom have I told lies? Is it against Allah? It is I who was the foremost to have faith in Him. Is it against His Prophet? It is I who was the foremost to believe him.”
He has said the very truth, since there does not exist any motive drawing him to tell lies. It is `Al?, and none else, about whom, as well as his family, many verses from the Holy Qur’?n were revealed, such as the Verse of Purification (Tath?r), the Verse of Invoking the Curse (Mub?halah), the Verse of Love for the Relatives (al-Mawaddah f?’l-Qurb?),and the S?rah of al-Dahr (or al-Ins?n No. 76). Besides, the following holy Qur’?nic texts were revealed to express the situations of Imam `Al? or to refer to him:
“And hold fast by the Rope of Allah all together and be not disunited.” [Holy Qur’?n: 3/103]
“O you who believe: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones.” [Holy Qur’?n: 9/119]
“And (know) that this is My path, the right one; therefore, follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way.” [Holy Qur’?n: 6/153]
“O you who believe: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you.” [Holy Qur’?n: 4/59]
“So, ask the Followers of the Reminder if you do not know.” [Holy Qur’?n: 16/43]
“And whoever acts hostilely to the Messenger after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has (himself) turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil resort.” [Holy Qur’?n: 4/115]
“You are only a warner and there is a guide for every people.” [Holy Qur’?n: 13/7]
“Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow down in prayer. And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.” [Holy Qur’?n: 5/55-56]
There is then no motive or justification for Imam `Al? to fabricate lies against Almighty Allah.
To fabricate lies against the Holy Prophet is the affair of the flatterers, the keepers of caprices and coveted objects, and the enemies of Islam who deceptively found themselves places among the Muslims, annoyed the Holy Prophet, belied him so that their concealed goals would not be exposed, threw sweepings at him, put thorns in his path, … etc.
As for `Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib, he is the cousin of the Holy Prophet; and the one who defended him with his soul and heart; and the first human being who believed in his Prophethood and Messengership; and the one who replaced him in his bed so as to save him from the danger of assassination; therefore, it is quite unreasonable that a man of such situations would ever fabricate lies against the Holy Prophet. Besides, there are tens of statements of praise said by the Holy Prophet about Imam `Al?; such as,
“You are the chief (Im?m) of the pious people and the leader of the white-forheaded, handsome individuals.”
“You are the chief of the reverent ones and the slayer of the irreverent ones. He whoever supports you shall be victorious and he whoever disappoints you shall he disappointed (by Almighty Allah).”
“I am the city of knowledge and `Al? is the gate to that city; hence, one who intends to get knowledge should come to the gate first.”
“After me, you will explicate for my people the matters about which they may dispute.”
“I am the ‘warner’ and `Al? is the ‘guide’. After me, only by means of you will the guided to the right path find the right path.”
“Verily, the ummah will betray you after me. You shall keep following my religion, and you shall be killed following my tradition. Anyone who loves you will have in fact loved me; and anyone who hates you will have in fact hated me. Certainly, your beard will be dyed by the blood of your head.”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal has recorded, through an authentic series of narrators, on the authority of `Abdull?h ibn `Umar; and al-Hak?m al-N?s?p?riy that `Umar ibn al-Khatt?b said,
“`Al? ibn Ab?-T?lib has been given three peculiarities; were I given only one of these, it would be more favorable to me than having the best kind of camels… These are (1) `Al?’s having been married to F?timah, daughter of Allah’s Messenger, (2) his having been allowed to live in the Masjid with Allah’s Messenger and to do whatever he likes therein, and (3) his having been given the pennon to lead the Muslim army in the conquest of Khaybar.”
Muslim, in his book of al-Sah?h, has recorded on the authority of Sa`d ibn Waqq?s and `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s a narration similar to the abovementioned one.
Imam `Al? is reported to have said,
“One of the Holy Prophet’s predictions to me was that the ummah shall betray me after his departure.”
`Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s is reported to have said that the Messenger of Allah said to (Imam) `Al?,
“Surely, you shall face fatiguing troubles after me.” Imam `Al? asked, “Shall my religion be kept purely sound while facing these troubles?” The Holy Prophet answered, “Yes, your religion shall be kept purely sound while facing these troubles.”
It is thus quite unreasonable to even imagine that such a unique man about whom such sacred texts—and so many others—from Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet are said to fabricate lies against Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet.
This fact can be utterly realized if we take a deep look into the following text said by al-Dhahbiy—no matter it was said intentionally or unintentionally—about Imam al-Mahdi, in his book of Siyar A`l?m al-Nubal?’:
“Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Mahdi, the Awaited, is the seal of the Twelve Masters whose inerrancy (i.e. `Ismah) is claimed by the Im?miyyah sect. They further claim that Muhammad ibn al-Hasan is being the Successor (al-Khalaf: the awaited successor of the Holy Prophet and Imams), and the Argument (al-Hujjah: the Argument of Almighty Allah against His creatures), and the Patron of the Age(S?hib al-Zam?n: the one who will live for long ages and finally carry out Almighty Allah’s orders on the entire earth); and that he is alive, and he shall not die before he appears again to fill in the earth with justice and fairness after it would be filled up with injustice and discrimination. We are looking forward to this, indeed.
Our Master, `Al?, is one of the Orthodox Caliphs (al-Khulaf?’ al-R?shid?n).
And his sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, are the grandsons of Allah’s Messenger and the masters of the youth of Paradise. Had they been selected for the leadership (caliphate), they would have certainly deserved it.
And Zayn al-`?bid?n was highly regarded, and was one of the chief worshippers and scholars, and he was worthy of holding the position of leadership.
And his son, Ab?-Ja`far al-B?qir, was also sayyid (i.e. lord), master scholar, jurisprudent, and he was qualified for the leadership.
And his son, Ja`far al-S?diq, was highly regarded, and was one of the master scholars, and was worthier than Ab?-Ja`far al-Mans?r (the `Abb?sid ruler) of holding the leadership of the Muslim community.
And his son, M?s?, was also highly regarded, well-versed, and was worthier than H?r?n (al-Rash?d: the `Abb?sid ruler) of holding the leadership.
And his son, `Al? ibn M?s? al-Rid?, was highly regarded, and he enjoyed much knowledge and eloquence, and was widely loved by people, and, out of al-Rid?’s grandeur, al-Ma’m?n (the `Abb?sid ruler) appointed him as his crown prince.
And his son, Muhammad al-Jaw?d, was one of the chiefs of his people.
And his son, nicknamed al-H?d? (i.e. the Guide), was also reputable and of excellent standing.
And the same thing is said about his son, al-Hasan ibn `Al? al-`Askariy. May Allah, the Exalted, have mercy upon them all.”
Such are the Holy Imams and more! They are the matches of the Holy Qur’?n, as is in the Had?th of the Two Weighty Things (Had?th al-Thaqalayn), and they are the security of the inhabitants of this earth from drowning, as is in the Had?th of al-Saf?nah (the Ark), and they are the security of the Muslim community against divergence, as is mentioned by al-Hak?m al-N?s?p?riy, in al-Mustadrak `Al?’l-Sah?hayn 3:149.
Differences between The Two Schools
As for the Imams of the School of Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts (i.e. the Holy Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt), the proportion of distortion is nil when compared to the others. This is because they are `Al?, al-Hasan, al-Husayn… and they are the thoroughly purified ones and veracious in the words of the Holy Qur’?n and Sunnah. On many occasions, the Holy Prophet praised those who adhered to and followed the course of these Holy Imams very laudably, such as `Abdull?h ibn `Abb?s, `Abdull?h ibn Mas`?d, Ab?-Dharr, `Amm?r ibn Y?sir, and many others. These personalities have been well-known for their decency and for their steadfastness against fancies and other trends. None of them has ever been accused of telling lies or forging fabrications against the Holy Prophet. On the other hand, many of the followers of the School of Ijtih?d and Opinionism have been charged of inventing false Had?ths and spreading made-up narrations, such as Ab?-Hurayrah, Samarah ibn Jundub, Ka`b al-Ahb?r… etc. As a matter of fact, this difference between the two schools is obviously unmistakable.
It is necessarily noteworthy that those who thoroughly complied with the sacred texts insisted on reporting what they had known even if this would cause them to lose their lives. They never compromised in matters appertained to the religion. The best example on such is Imam `Al?’s situation in the meeting of the so-called Sh?r? Committee when he rejected to comply with the conducts of Ab?-Bakr and `Umar as one of the stipulations of selecting him as the ruler of the Islamic State. Of course, Imam `Al? took this situation unwaveringly because he believed that that stipulation was in violation of the Holy Prophet’s instructions (Sunnah). Among the many other examples is the situation of Imam al-Husayn against Yaz?d ibn Mu`?wiyah. Quite the reverse, the Ijtih?dists and Opinionists advised Imam `Al?, during his reign when some people mutinied against him, to give in, to cajole, and to flatter and thus would he achieve practicability and benefit for the Muslims! The same Ijtih?dists and Opinionists also advised Imam al-Husayn to swear allegiance to Yaz?d and to keep silent as the others did since, in their conception, divergence is evil and Allah’s act can be interpreted into another form… etc.
Induction and the investigation of the historical course of the Holy Qur’?n prove that all the divine doctrines grew and fruited in the labs of the poor and the oppressed people. Referring to this fact, Almighty Allah, in the Holy Qur’?n, says,
“They (i.e. the people of Prophet Noah) said: Shall we put faith in thee, when the lowest (of the people) follow thee?” [Holy Qur’?n: 26/111]
“The chieftains of his folk, who disbelieved, said: We see thee but a mortal like us, and we see not that any follow thee save the most abject among us, without reflection. We behold in you no merit above us – nay, we deem you liars.” [Holy Qur’?n: 11/27]
Relating the objections of the unbelievers to the Holy Prophet, the Holy Qur’?n further reads,
“A likely thing, that thou wouldst forsake aught of that which hath been revealed unto thee, and that thy breast should be straitened for it, because they say: Why hath not a treasure been sent down for him, or an angel come with him? Thou art but a warner, and Allah is in charge of all things.” [Holy Qur’?n: 11/12]
These holy verses bear out that it was the feeble, or ‘the lowest’, people who hurried to believe in the divine doctrines. The Prophets were also poor people; no treasure was sent down for them and they did not bring with them gold, silver, pleasures, or lusts; rather they came with simplicity, modesty, and moderation.
The unbelievers and the infidels, on the other hand, always belonged to the class of the rich, luxurious people who never went with the spirit and concepts of the divine doctrine that would restrict and deprive them of any distinctive feature or point of arrogance against the others. Of course, they would never like or accept this.
Again, the Holy Qur’?n reads,
“Beautified for mankind is love of the joys (that come) from women and offspring; and stored-up heaps of gold and silver, and horses branded (with their mark), and cattle and land.” [Holy Qur’?n: 3/14]
Objecting to the divine selection of the Prophets, the luxurious said,
“Why, then, have armlets of gold not been set upon him, or angels sent along with him?” [Holy Qur’?n: 43/53]
Having realized the reality of his community, the Holy Prophet took pride in and concerned himself with the poor. In return, those poor people who abstained from the worldly pleasures followed him, such as `Amm?r ibn Y?sir, al-Miqd?d ibn al-Aswad, Salm?n al-F?risiy (the Persian), Ab?-Dhar, Bil?l al-Habashiy (the Abyssinian), Suhayb al-R?miy (the Roman), and their likes.
As for the rich and wealthy people, such as Ab?-Lahab, Ab?-Jahl, and Ab?-Sufy?n, they harmed the Holy Prophet so terribly that they even threw thorns in his road. This is one of the undeniable facts.
If we take into consideration this Qur’?nic tradition and apply it to the two Schools, we will conclude that the overwhelming majority of the followers of the School of Thorough Compliance were the poor people. For instance, Ab?-Dhar spend his whole lifetime in poverty. He was also stranger, banished, and exiled until he departed life in his exile. Likewise, `Amm?r ibn Y?sir lived in poverty until he was martyred leaving nothing of the worldly vanities behind him. So did the rest of the major personalities of this school.
In contrast, luxury and lavish expenditure were the most distinctive features of the lives of `Uthm?n ibn `Aff?n, Marw?n ibn al-Hakam, Mu`?wiyah ibn Ab?-Sufy?n, and `Amr ibn al-`?s. Historians have mentioned the large wealth and properties that these persons left behind.
Naturally, such extravagance and lavishness would have never complemented with the religious logic and laws. The caliphs and rulers knew for sure this fact. In this respect, it has been narrated on the authority of al-`Abb?s ibn S?lim that `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Az?z, once, summoned Ab?-Sal?m al-Habashiy whom was asked to ride a saddled mule. When he was present before the caliph, he said to him, “O Commander of the Faithful: I was awfully exhausted due to riding that mule.”
“I did not intend exhaustion for you, Ab?-Sal?m,” said `Umar. “But I only summoned you because I was informed that you have memorized the Had?th reported by Thawb?n, the (manumitted) slave of the Holy Prophet, about the Divine Pool; I therefore wanted to listen to the Hadīth from your mouth directly.”
Abū-Salām narrated, “I heard Thawbān, the slave of Allah’s Messenger, saying that he had heard Allah’s Messenger, saying,
“Verily, my Pool is as spacious as the distance between Aden and Amman. Its water is whiter than pure milk and sweeter than honey. Its cups are as numerous as stars. To have a single drink from it saves from thirst forever. The first to reach at it shall be the poor.”
Then, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb asked, “Who are these, Allah’s Messenger?” and he was answered,
“These are the unkempt-haired, the dirty-clothed, who cannot marry luxurious ladies, and for whom doors are not opened.”
Commenting on the Hadīth, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz said, “Assuredly, all closed doors are opened for me, and I have married a luxurious lady, namely Fātimah daughter of `Abd al-Malik. I thus hope for nothing except the mercy of Allah. Assuredly, I will not put oil on my head until it becomes unkempt and I will not wash my dress that I put on until it becomes unclean.”
The meaning of this Hadīth is that those whose hairs are unkempt are the true strugglers for the sake of Almighty Allah and the true worshippers of Him. They have not been distracted by the pleasures of this world. In other words, owing to their engagement in jihād, acts of worship, and indifference to the worldly pleasures, these poor people are unkempt-haired and dirty-clothed.
However, `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz confessed his being excluded from such a sort of people; he therefore wanted to join them but he missed their path. He thought that dirtying the hair and the clothes would be the way to Paradise. He could not perceive that the actual meaning of being unkempt-haired and dirty-clothed is the indifference to the charms of the worldly life that take away from struggle for the sake of Almighty Allah and from worshipping Him with the sole purpose.
When Sufyān al-Thawriy objected to al-Mansūr, the `Abbāsid ruler, that he was excessively squanderer and spendthrift, the later answered him, “You just want me to be like you, do you not?”
Sufyān answered, “Do not be like me; rather be less than your current manner and higher than my manner.”
This word made the ruler dismiss Sufyān al-Thawriy.
A look into the history shows scandalously the gluttony, squandering, and extravagance in food and amusement sessions that were held by Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, Yazīd, Marwān ibn al-Hakam, `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān, al-Walīd ibn `Abd al-Mālik, al-Mansūr, al-Mahdiy, al-Rashīd, and the other Umayyad and `Abbāsid rulers who bravely distorted the Holy Qur’ān and forged lies against the Holy Sunnah. Ironically, those very rulers called for recording the Holy Sunnah, later on, and decided to cancel all the Sunnite jurisprudential schools and to adopt the Four Schools exclusively. Moreover, it was they who embraced and supported Ijtihādism and Opinionism and called the jurisprudents to act upon the so-called Maslahah (advantage). As a consequence, the proportion of distortion and deviation for such people would naturally be very big if compared to the other school whose followers were poor and satisfied with the religion of Almighty Allah and thus they were in no need for changing or distorting the religious laws and then inventing personal interpretations.
Sycophancy and currying favor with the rulers have been one of the incurable diseases of human beings. The luxurious ruling authorities have used bribes and patronage as the only means for showing favor to some individuals and provoking the hostility of others. Such matters have been the biggest reason for attracting the weak-willed who always seek the pleasure of mortals even if such would cause them to enrage the Creator. This meaning has been mentioned in the following Hadīth:
“The most vicious of the people is he who has sold his Next Life with his transitory life. Even more vicious than the previous is he who has sold his Next Life with the transitory life of others.”
This phenomenon manifested itself seriously during the age of `Uthmān ibn `Affān, after it had been limited to some extent during the ages of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. This is because `Uthmān paved the way to changing the Islamic caliphate into hereditary kingdom when he assigned his close relatives to the senior governmental offices and conferred upon them with abundant fortunes and properties to the degree that one of his relatives is reported to have left behind him such an enormous quantity of gold that required axes to break it up. It has been authentically narrated that `Uthmān donated the one-fifth of Africa and Fadak to `Abdullāh ibn Abī-Sarh and Marwān ibn al-Hakam. Similar donations are reported to have been given by `Uthmān to his relatives in order to defend him, his principles, and his opinions that resulted in the mutiny of the Muslims who then attacked and killed him.
As a matter of fact, manifestations of such tribal discrimination first appeared during the reign of Abū-Bakr when he allowed Khālid ibn al-Walīd to wear silk and put on a turban stabbed with arrows as a sign of arrogance and pride. It is worth mentioning that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb took out these arrows from Khālid’s turban, broke them, and threatened him with stoning for he had murdered Mālik ibn Nuwayrah and slept with his widow at the same night.
As for `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, he named Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān as the Khosrow (i.e. the king) of the Arabs and permitted him to dress any garb he would like because he was in the vicinity of the Romans.
To sum it up, the phenomenon of flattering the rulers has been always one of the characteristics of the weak-hearted individuals.
On the other hand, Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib always took pride in the epithet of “Abū-Turāb (father of dust)” that the Holy Prophet had said to him. About his garment, he said,
“I have patched my garment so frequently that I felt embarrassed before the patcher.”
He further used to eat dry bread with salt or laban (i.e. coagulated milk) and he never ate them together for he wanted to meet Almighty Allah while being tiny-punched.
Having holding the leadership, Imam `Alī exerted all efforts in confiscating the public assets that `Uthmān ibn `Affān had donated to his relatives and restoring them to the public treasury. He, once, heated an iron bar and put it on the hand of his brother, `Aqīl, because the latter had asked him for an amount more than his due.
As for Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān and his likes, he made use of the taletellers and those who were well-known of forging lies against the Holy Prophet. He thus paid them enormous amounts of money in order to invent lies against Imam `Alī. For instance, Mu`āwiyah gave Samarah ibn Jundub forty thousand dīnārs in order to relate that the following holy verse expressed the manner of `Alī, Allah forbid! “And among men is he whose speech about the life of this world causes you to wonder, and he calls on Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the most violent of adversaries.” [Holy Qur’ān: 2/204]
He also seduced `Amr ibn al-`Ās under promise of appointing him as the ruler of Egypt if the latter would support him in his war against Imam `Alī.
He also distorted the famous Hadīth, “O `Ammār: You shall be killed by the transgressing party.” He falsely claimed that `Alī was meant by the transgressing party because he threw `Ammār in the battle and caused him to be killed by the party of Mu`āwiyah.
The situations of Mu`āwiyah in the field of distorting the religion and forging lies against Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet are too numerous to be contained by this book.
However, we can conclude that the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism was managed by the rich, luxurious people while the School of Thorough Compliance was headed by the poor, oppressed people. Accordingly, it is unimaginable that the oppressed might distort while all the matters are in the hands of the rulers. Muhammad ibn al-Wazīr al-Yamāniy, a famous researcher, investigated the “Hadīths” narrated by Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān, `Amr ibn al-`Ās, and al-Mughīrah ibn Shu`bah and found out that all these “Hadīths” were the same.This investigation is another confirmatory proof on my conclusion that the jurisprudential method of these individuals was the same since it flew to the same river. It also substantiates that these individuals and their party were of the same trend.
In like manner, I believe that the Umayyad and `Abbāsid rulers used to betake religious judicature as their means to defaming the personalities of their dissidents and betake the jurisprudents’ verdicts for achieving their personal interests. In this connection, it has been narrated that Hārūn al-Rashīd, one night, summoned Abū-Yūsuf, the chief judge, who hurried to him with terror. When he entered the palace, he found `Īsā ibn Ja`far sitting to the right of the ruler who said to him, “Abū-Yūsuf: it seems that I have terrified you, does it not?”
“Yes, indeed. You have terrified me,” answered the chief judge.
When he restored calmness, the ruler said to him, “I have summoned you to witness that `Īsā ibn Ja`far refused to answer to my will when I asked him to donate or sell his bondmaid to me.”
`Īsā ibn Ja`far said, “I am under an oath of divorce, manumission, and giving all my possessions in alms if I will never sell or donate that bondmaid.”
Al-Rashīd thus asked the chief judge to find him a solution for this problem, and the chief judge found it, saying, “He can donate the half of her to you and sell you the other half!”
Al-Rashīd further said, “I cannot wait until she will be clean from her period of menstruation, as is decided by the religious law, since she is a chattel slave-girl. If I will not sleep with her tonight, I fear lest I will be injured.”
Abū-Yūsuf said, “It is easy, Commander of the Faithful! Manumit her and then marry her in this moment.”
By means of this trick could al-Rashīd seize that slave-girl from her master and marry her at the same night.
This afore-prepared puzzle was purposed for testing the obedience of Abū-Yūsuf to the ruler and the scope of his readiness to distort the religious laws and change the opinions for the sake of pleasing the ruler who, though would not comply with or even need such odd jurisprudential distortions, knew for sure about the invalidity of these distortions; rather he wanted to betake the jurisprudents as legal cover under which he would do whatever he liked.
Al-Mas`ūdiy has narrated that Zubaydah, al-Rashīd’s wife, wrote a message to Abū-Yūsuf, the chief judge, asking his verdict about a certain issue and telling that it would be nice for her if the judgment would be such-and-such. The chief judge therefore issued a judgment corresponding with her wish. In return, she sent him as gifts gold, silver, receipts, riding-animals, dresses, and other precious things. Those who attended the situation said to him, “The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that when a gift is sent to somebody, those who sit with him should have a share of it.”
He answered, “This is only when the gift is dates and laban!”
Thus were the connotations of the clear-cut Hadīths distorted to refer to other things.
History has kept for us innumerable examples on such distortions. A good number of Muslim authors and intellectuals, ancient and modern, have discovered that the main reason behind the extinction of the majority of the Muslim jurisprudential schools—such as the Schools of Awzā`iy, Rabī`ah al-Ra’y, and Sufyān al-Thawriy—was that the ruling authorities had not supported them for a certain reason while these authorities encouraged, supported, and embraced the founders or students of the Four Schools; therefore, they expansively spread all over the Muslim regions. Ibn Hazm says,
“Two of the Four Schools spread out by virtue of governmental offices and ruling authorities. The School of Abū-Hanīfah were widely known only when Abū-Yūsuf was appointed as the chief judge. He thus admitted for the office of judiciary none but his mates and those who belonged to the Hanafiyyah School. the second is the Mālikiyyah School…”
Al-Dahlawiy also says,
“Only a jurisprudential school whose followers were widely known, and to whom the offices of judiciary and legal authority, and whose books spread among people and could be studied openly—only would such a jurisprudential school become widespread and would keep circulation throughout ages. Conversely, a jurisprudential school whose followers were not on good terms with the ruling authorities and were not given governmental offices of judiciary and legal authority and were not liked by people—such a jurisprudential school would cease to exist.”
As has been proven in the previous pages of this book, not only did the caliphs disagree with the course of Imam `Alī but they also opposed him and resorted to the tribal disputes throughout their behaviors with him. The governmental recordation of the Hadīth appeared lately and after one century, during the reign of `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz or Hushām ibn `Abd al-Mālik. In this respect, al-Zuhriy says, “We disliked the recordation of the (Holy) Sunnah, but the rulers compelled us to do such.” In addition, the recordation of the Hadīth was done in the light of the memorized, nor recorded, items of it.
In conclusion, the distortion of the Holy Sunnah should be initially conceived to exist in the records of these rulers rather than the records of the others. This is because of these rulers’ national tendencies and because they had the power in their hands and because their recordation of the Hadīth was far away from the Holy Prophet’s time. As for the Ahl al-Bayt, it is inconceivable to distort the Hadīth due to the opposite of the aforesaid factors.
The belief of the legality of Opinionism and multi-opinionism is in reality inviting its fans to distort, in the sense that they, in order to support their masters, commit themselves to invent false Hadīths or to misinterpret Hadīths. For that reason, they have considered sectarianism one of the divisions of the invention of false Hadīths.
On the other hand, it is unnecessary for the adopters of the Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Text to invent false Hadīths, because the Hadīths that they narrate have been reported from its fundamental recordations. Thus, the Imam says, “My father’s Hadīth is the same as my Hadīth, and my Hadīth is as same my father’s.” In this way, it is unfeasible for them to distort Hadīths or invent others because their narrations have never been contradictory and because they all take from the same source and consider the Holy Qur’ān the original reference and arbiter that decides the authenticity and genuineness of any narration reported from or ascribed to them.
Unlike the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism, the jurisprudential principles of the School of Thorough Compliance are the same. This is because the Holy Imam of the Ahl al-Bayt always concentrated on the necessity of deriving the religious laws from the Holy Qur’ān and Sunnah only, whereas the trend of Ijtihād and Opinionism legalized personal opinions and views in the face of the Holy Qur’ān and Sunnah. Basically, such belief results in disagreement in the jurisprudential principles. A party of them thus depends upon analogy in the inference of religious laws, and another party warns against analogy, and a third party depends upon the so-called al-Masālih… etc.
Because each Sunnite jurisprudential school tried to prove its congruence with the actuality while the others are not, a noticeable state of additions and interpretations as a result of such disputes have clearly manifested itself. Moreover, some of them have accused others of unreal charges and have misunderstood others. In brief, the four Sunnite jurisprudential schools, as well as the other schools that ceased to exist, were engaged in reciprocal intellectual conflicts that augmented until they decided each other as infidels and miscreants. This is of course the strongest motive of distortion and deviation in an attempt to support each one’s trend and school.
Biographers belonging to the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism have widely disagreed about the trustworthiness or unreliability of narrators of Hadīth due to the multiplicity of the trends of that school. Moreover, biographers have disagreed about the trustworthiness, decency, and acceptability of certain biographers. A look into the biographies of the biographers of the both Schools proves this fact unambiguously. For instance, contradictory opinions about the trustworthiness and acceptability of results of Ibn Mu`īn, the master biographer and critic of the narrators of Hadīth, have been said, because, like all the other biographers, he must have criticized a person who belonged to a school other than his or because he disagreed with him on a certain point. Similarly, he must have deemed trustworthy a certain person because the latter belongs to the same school or trend to which Ibn Mu`īn belongs. Moreover, he criticized even Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi`iy, the founder of the Shāfi`iyyah School, and decided him as untrustworthy.
In the same way as many scholars have criticized and decided Ibn Mu`īn as untrustworthy, many others have absolutely depended upon his judgments to the degree that they have never compared his findings to any other judgments although the all belonged to the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism.
The same thing can be said about the other biographers. `Abd al-`Azīz al-Mājishūn, Ibn Abī-Hāzim, and Muhammad ibn Ishāq, as well as many others, have censured Mālik ibn Anas, the founder of the Mālikiyyah School. Al-Dārqutniy compiled a booklet containing the traditions recorded by Mālik ibn Anas, in al-Muwatta’, and other books, that were contradictory to the Holy Sunnah. This booklet is kept at al-Dhāhiriyyah Library in Damascus. Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy has mentioned the names of more than thirty-five persons who defamed Abū-Hanīfah, the founder of the Hanafiyyah School. Similarly, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbaliyyah School, was defamed by many biographers.
Besides, some biographers might have decided a certain narrator as highly trustworthy but, due to a personal, neither religious nor sectarian, disagreement, they criticized and threw him from the elevated position to which they had raised him.
If we want to accept the statements of a biographer, we should first believe in his trustworthiness and decency. Only then can we understand the disagreement in such assessment. Of course, it is illogic to depend upon the opinions of a person who is personally untrustworthy.
Under the title of “The Trustworthy in Criticism”, al-Dhahbiy has written an epistle comprising the principles of criticism, the classes of critics, and the methods of depending upon their words.
On the other hand, as regards the biographers of the School of the Ahl al-Bayt, all the scholars have unanimously agreed upon their decency and trustworthiness; therefore, one cannot find any word of dispraise said against Abu’l-`Abbās al-Najāshiy, al-Kishiy, al-Tūsiy, or any other biographer belonging to the School of the Ahl al-Bayt. This is an obvious indication to their unity in ideology and trend.
The aforesaid points have contained some of the factors of deviation and distortion at both the Schools. An investigation in this respect requires a huge volume, if not many volumes, be filled up. However, the results will be astounding if all the factors are studied thoroughly.
 Nahj al-Balāghah 1:119.
 Verse of Purification: “Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you—O Ahl al-Bayt (people of the House)—and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. 33/33”
() The holy verse of Mubāhalah (i.e. Invoking the curse of Almighty Allah) is number 61 of the holy Sūrah of al-Mā’idah No. 6. This holy verse reads, “If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: ‘Come! Let us gather together our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then let us earnestly pray and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie! 3/61” Let us now quote the story of the holy verse from al-Muwaffaq al-Khawārizmiy’s famous book entitled al-Manāqib, page 159:
(´Abdullāh) ibn ´Abbās, al-Hasan, al-Shi’bi, and al-Siddi; all these have reported the incident of Mubāhalah as follows:
As the delegation of the Christians of Najrān attended before the Prophet , the archbishop advanced and asked, “O Abu’l-Qāsim (the Prophet’s nickname), who was the father of (Prophet) Moses?” “It was ´Imrān,” answered the Prophet .
The archbishop then asked, “Who was the father of (Prophet) Joseph?”
The Prophet answered, “It was (Prophet) Jacob?”
The archbishop then asked, “Who was your father?”
The Prophet answered, “I am the son of ´Abdullāh ibn ´Abd-al-Muttalib”
The archbishop then asked, “What about (Prophet) Jesus? Who was his father?”
The Prophet kept silence waiting for the Divine Revelation. It was no longer until Archangel Gabriel descended with God’s saying (The Holy Qur´ān, Sūrah of Āl-´Imrān 3:59-60): “Surely, the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers.”
The archbishop commented, “What was revealed to us does not involve such information.”
Hence, Archangel Gabriel revealed to The Prophet God’s saying (The Holy Qur´ān, Sūrah of Āl-´Imrān 3:61):
“If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: ‘Come! Let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curseof Allah on those who lie!’”
The archbishop commented, “This is truly fair. When shall we meet to invoke God’s curse on the lying party?”
The Prophet answered, “Let it be tomorrow, God willing.”
The Christian delegation then left. They advised each other, “If he will accompany some of his companions for the meeting tomorrow, then you should compete with him, for, in such case, his claim is false. But if he will accompany some members of his family, then do not compete with him, for, in such case, he is truly a prophet, and if he will invoke God’s curse upon us, we will certainly be perished.”
Some of them however declared, “We do know that he is the very prophet we are expecting, and if he invokes God’s curse on us, we will surely be perished and will never go back to our families or fortunes.”
The other Jews and Christians asked, “What should we do, then?”
Abu’l-Harth, the bishop, suggested, “Since he is a generous man, we may visit him and ask him to accept our withdrawal for this competition of invocating God’s curse on the lying party.”
The next morning, The Prophet invited all the people of al-Madīnah and the neighboring villages to attend that meeting. All the people responded.
The Prophet went out, ´Alī was before him, al-Hasan was to his right (and he was catching his arm), al-Husayn was to his left, and Fātimah was behind them. He then said, “Let us begin. These (al-Hasan and al-Husayn) are our sons, these (´Alī and I) are ourselves, and this (Fātimah) is our women.”
As they saw this situation, the individuals from the other party attempted to hide themselves behind any pillar they could find or behind each other, because they anticipated that The Prophet would begin invocating God’s curse on them.
They therefore moved towards him, knelt down before him, and besought, “Please, accept our withdrawal from this matter.”
The Prophet accepted their withdrawal after they had had to pay him one thousand garments as recompense. (See, also, Jalāl-al-Dīn al-Suyūtiy’s al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn al-Maghāziliy’s al-Manāqib, Muhammad ibn ´Alī al-Tabariy’s Bishārat al-Mustafā, Ibn Kuthayr’s al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah, al-Ya’qūbiy’s al-Tārīkh, Ibn Shabbah al-Numayriy’s Tārīkh al-Madīnah and many others.)
 This verse reads, “Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives. 42/23”
 Refer to the many reference books of Hadīth, Islamic history, and Tafsīr all of which confirm that these sacred texts were revealed to express manners of Imam `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib and his Household. For instance, see `Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Dīn: al-Murāja`āt No. 12.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:138. Abū-Na`īm, in his book of ‘Hilyat al-Awliyā’’ has recorded this Hadīth on the authority of Anas. It is further written down in Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd’s Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:129.
 Al-Tabarāniy, in ‘al-Mu`jam al-Kabīr’ has recorded this Hadīth on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās. It is also recorded by al-Hakīm, in ‘Manāqib `Alī’, and al-Suyūtiy, in ‘al-Jāmi` al-Saghīr’.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:122.
 This is an exegesis of the verse of the Holy Qur’ān that reads, “You are only a warner and (there is) a guide for every people. 13/7”
 According to al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy’s Kanz al-`Ummāl, this Hadīth has been recorded by al-Daylamiy on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:137. In ‘al-Talkhīs’, has decided this Hadīth as authentic. A similar one has been reported by Shī`ite series of narrators and recorded in Shaykh al-Sadūq’s ‘Ikmal al-Dīn wa-Itmām al-Ni`mah’ in the following form: It has been narrated… on the authority of Ibn Samarah that the Messenger of Allah said to him, “Son of Samarah: When fancies will be various and opinions will separate, you should adhere to `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib; for he is truly the chief (Imām) of my ummah and my representative over them after my departure.”
 Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:26; Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:125; Al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā’id 9:120; Ibn Abī-Shaybah: al-Musannaf 6:372; Al-Mubārakfūriy: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhiy fī Sharh Jāmi` al-Tirmidhiy 10:136.
 Sahīh Muslim 4:1871; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:638.
 Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu`jam al-Awsat 8:212; Al-Haythamiy: Majma` al-Zawā’id 6:120; Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:111; Ibn `Abd al-Barr: al-Istī`āb 3:1090; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 1:161.
 Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:147. In ‘al-Talkhīs’, al-Dhahbiy has decided this narration as authentic.
 Al-Dhahbiy: Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā’ 13:119-121.
 The Hadīth of al-Safīnah reads, “the example of Ahl al-Bayt is Noah’s Ark; anyone who embarks on it will be certainly saved while those who abstain will certainly fall and drown.” (Al-Suyūtiy: al-Jāmi` al-Saghīr 2:533 No. 8126 and Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak ‘ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:150-1.)
 Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabariy, in ‘al-Mustarshid’ 579, has recorded the following: Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy has recorded that Mukrim ibn Ahmad al-Qādī related on the authority of Ahmad ibn `Alī al-Ābār on the authority of Ishāq ibn Sa`īd ibn Arkūn al-Dimashqiy on the authority of Khulayd ibn Di`lij Abū-`Amr al-Sadūsiy (perhaps) on the authority of Qatādah on the authority of `Attā’ that `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās said that the Holy Prophet said, “Stars are acting as security for the inhabitants of the earth from drowning. Similarly, my Household (Ahl al-Bayt) are acting as security for my ummah from divergence. When any tribe from the Arabs oppose them, it will have rejected the truth and, thus, become with the party of Iblīs (Satan).” (Al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy commented) Although this Hadīth is of authentic series of narrator, they (i.e. al-Bukhāriy and Muslim) have not recorded it.
 Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Bāghandiy: Musnad `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Azīz 116.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdad 9:152-153. See also the introduction of Tafsīr Sufyān al-Thawriy.
 Al-Hurr al-`Āmiliy: Wasā’il al-Shī`ah Chapter 71, H. 11.
 For further details, refer to the following books: Nūr al-Dīn `Itr: al-Sunnah al-Muttahharah wa’l-Tahaddiyāt; Muhammad ibn Ismā`īl al-San`āniy: Tawdīh al-Afkār 2:453-463; Muhammad ibn al-Wazīr al-Yamāniy: al-Rawd al-Bāsim 2:113-129.
 Dr. Muhammad Yūsuf: Tarikh al-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 168.
 Dr. Muhammad Yūsuf: Tarikh al-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 168.
 Ibn Khallakān: Wafiyyāt al-A`yān 6:144.
 Asad Haydar: al-Imām al-Sādiq wa’l-Madhāhib al-Arba`ah 2:11 as quoted from al-Dahlawiy: Hujjat Allāh al-Bālighah 1:151.
 Jamāl al-Dīn al-Muzziy: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, the Biography of Muhammad ibn Ishāq.
 Mahmūd Abū-Rayyah: Adwā’un `Ala’l-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah 299.
 Al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdād 13 :349, 370.
 A version of this epistle is found in Ayasofya, Istanbul, Turkey, under the number 2953.
The Effects Of The Prohibition Of Recording The Hadīth
In the previous pages of this book, the six justifications for the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth have been proven untrue, the seventh justification has been proven imperfect, and finally the actual reason has been demonstrated. After all this, we can conclude that a number of important effects were ensued from that decision, which badly influenced the Islamic legislation. The most important of these effects will be hereinafter listed:
FIRST: The Muslims separated into two ideological trends that, later on, resulted in the appearance of two independent schools each of which had its own beliefs, principles, and attitudes.
SECOND: The concepts of those who supported the prohibition of recording the Hadīth found themselves a spacious area in the Islamic culture. In addition, various justifications and a range of excuses have been invented for validating that prohibition.
THIRD: The slogans of “The Book of Allah is sufficient for us” and “The Book of Allah is the arbitrator between us” were raised as a first step in the way of covering the caliphs’ jurisprudential insufficiency of comprehending the traditions of the Holy Prophet. As a second step, they began to neglect their slogans and violate the Book of Allah. As an example, Abū-Bakr disputed with Lady Fātimah al-Zahrā’ and disregarded her proof that she had picked from the Holy Qur’ān. Similarly, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb violated the Holy Qur’ān in the questions of the three-time divorce, the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum, … etc. Finally, some biased people made use of this slogan in order to deny any issue that cannot be openly found in the Holy Qur’ān.
FOURTH: In order to meet the gap created by the decision of the prohibition of recording the Hadīth, the so-called Ijtihād was allowed to be extremely practiced, yet through a number of stages as follows:
1) Those who actually held the position of the leadership after the Holy Prophet had many times violated the Holy Prophet’s instructions, during his lifetime and in his presence, and followed their own opinions, which were the opposite of his instruction.
2) Abū-Bakr, the first caliph, practically put into effect the idea of Ijtihād.
3) `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, the second caliph, opened extremely wide the doors for giving practical effect to his personal views and opinions, as is clearly shown in the issues of the three-time divorce, the al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum, the temporary marriage… etc.
FIFTH: In an early period of the age of the official application of the prohibition of recording the Hadīth, the concepts of “This is my own opinion” and “As he tried to infer the ruling, he missed the right” came into view and caused the invention of new principles that have been, afterward, widely used in the Sunnite jurisprudence, such as analogy (Qiyās), Equitable Preference (Istihsān), and the like.
SIXTH: The decision of the prohibition and the allowance of personal views (i.e. Ijtihād) gave rise to the occurrence of serious contradictions and disputes among the verdicts and opinions of the Sahābah or even in the verdicts of a certain Sahābiy. This phenomenon resulted in the following:
1) The claim of the legality of disputes among the Muslims, the legality of Opinionism and multi-opinionism and thus the acceptability of the divergent opinions of all the Sahābah, and the conception of the ultimate decency of the Sahābah—all these concepts were the first outcomes of the contradictions and disputes among the Sahābah.
2) Scholars belonging to the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism have argued that Almighty Allah has referred the rulings in the questions about which no sacred text (from the Holy Qur’ān and Sunnah) can be found to the mujtahids and thus whatever is decided by these mujtahids should be decided as the law of Almighty Allah. This conception is called Taswīb.
3) In order to find excuses for the flaws of Abū-Bakr and `Umar, it was claimed that the Holy Prophet himself practiced Ijtihād and that he was no more than an ordinary mortal who may be right or wrong and that his sayings were influenced by his manners; that is when he is enraged, he may say things that he does not say when he is pleased!
4) The verbal traditions of the Holy Prophet were interpreted according to personal tastes and interests. The best example is the false interpretations of the famous Hadīth that reads, “The ‘Ikhtilāf’ of my ummah is mercy.”
SEVENTH: `Umar ibn al-Khattāb presented the idea of his being the most knowledgeable in the religious laws at least. Before that, he used to confess of the existence of personalities that were more knowledgeable than he was. This idea evolved to the belief of the most knowledgeability of the caliphs as regards the religious laws and their being the worthiest of issuing verdicts. In view of that, it became acceptable for the caliphs to do the following:
1) The caliph whipped anyone who declared opinions opposite to his or anyone who asked him about matters he did not like.
2) He detained the grand Sahābah because they had reported too many Hadīths.
3) He decided that the Sahābah must wait for his permission before they would issue any verdict as regards the religious laws.
EIGHTH: Innovative ideas emerged in the life of the Muslims; such as the obligation of complying with the ruler (They say, “The men in authority have said their opinion about this issue,” “Discrepancy is evil,” and “Follow the ruler even if he whips your back!”), and not specifying decency as stipulation in many issues, such as the office of judicature, and even acts of worship, and thus they have deemed lawful to follow in congregational prayers any imām, whether pious or sinful!
NINTH: The personal views of the Sahābah, or the conducts of the two Shaykhs; Abū-Bakr and `Umar, were considered a third principle and as important as the Holy Qur’ān and Sunnah in the religious legislation. The most obvious application of this principle was practiced in the meeting of the so-called Shūrā Committee.
TENTH: The attempt to restrict Ijtihād to the views of Abū-Bakr and `Umar and to dedicate the religious practices to their opinions failed, by reason of the availability of the objective circumstances and conditions of the comprehensiveness and generality of Ijtihād for the other caliphs. As a consequence, `Uthmān ibn `Affān and Mu`āwiyah ibn Abī-Sufyān expanded the practice of Ijtihād to such a notorious extents that made the Muslims became unable to stand the innovatives of `Uthmān. However, when he realized that a revolution was led against him, he subjugated Sa`īd ibn Zayd ibn Nufayl to invent the false Hadīth of “The Ten Individuals of Paradise” so as to evade, yet uselessly, the Muslims’ objections against him. In no time was that fabricated Hadīth exploited so wickedly that it influenced the beliefs and jurisprudence of the Muslims.
ELEVENTH: The records of Hadīth that were lately compiled generally comprised a great sum of the opinions of the adopters of Ijtihād and concentrated on recording the conducts of Abū-Bakr and `Umar exclusively. Therefore, the recorded opinions of these two were distinguished and preferred to the other opinions. This of course means that the attempt to restrict the Ijtihād to the two Shaykhs, though generally failed, succeeded in reflecting a halo of sanctity and priority on their conducts rather than the others.
TWELFTH: Lights were focused on the jurisprudential trend of those who stood against the recordation of the Hadīth and the Thorough Compliance with the Sacred Texts. Even the jurisprudential trend of the adopters of the other school was rejected. The standing of the Qurayshite individuals was strengthened, and the most important roles, politically and legislatively, were given to the minor Sahābah.
THIRTEENTH: Attempts to create and enlarge a gap between the publics and the recordations of the Hadīth and those who recorded it, especially the Ahl al-Bayt and their records, were continuously made. In this connection, many steps were taken:
1) The idea that prophethood and leadership must not be joined to the Hāshimites was officially adopted.
2) False Hadīths about the merits of those who prohibited the recordation of the Hadīth were largely fabricated. In the same time, fictitious flaws were invented against the adopters and practicers of the recordation and, as a second step, calls were made to follow the jurisprudential trend of those who prohibited the recordation.
3) The idea that Abū-Bakr and `Umar was preferred to all human beings was fabricated. Later on, `Uthmān was added to the list while `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib was kept in a position not different from the ordinary people’s.
4) The majority of the jurisprudential opinions that had been resulted from the prohibition of recording the Hadīth were falsely ascribed to those who practiced and adopted the recordation whom were actually reported to have adopted other authentic opinions inferred from the trend of the recordation of the Hadīth.
FOURTEENTH: As a result of the prohibition of reporting and recording the Hadīth for about a whole century, a big number of religious laws disappeared and another part of them was lost until the traditions of the Holy Prophet became out of mind or semi-forgotten. The prohibition took such a long period that when it was permitted, it was official, governmental, imperfect, confused with other material, and full of personal views and opinions.
FIFTEENTH: Justifications were sought for the late generations to add to the religious laws any article that they liked and to cancel any article that they would not like and then to issue it in an official form and impose it on the publics. This demeanor made it easy for the opportunists to adopt ways of cunning and false induction through which they would issue for the sake of the rulers any verdict they required. The results of such can be hereinafter listed:
1) Ijtihād was unrestrainedly allowed in matters about which there is no sacred text as well as matters about which there is a sacred text.
2) The alleged, not actual, advantage was practiced to block the sacred texts.
3) It became unnecessary to compare the personal opinions of the Sahābah to the Holy Qur’ān, in order to investigate their validity; rather some scholars have argued that the Sahābah’s opinions should be decided as absolute proofs and that their deeds should restrict the Holy Qur’ān!
SIXTEENTH: Owing to the divergent trends and opinions originated from the decision, the prohibition from recording the Hadīth created discrepancy about the reporting from the Holy Prophet.
SEVENTEENTH: Because the Ahl al-Bayt were purposely taken away from the Muslim community, especially in the jurisprudential and political fields, the Holy Imams insisted relentlessly on recording the Hadīth and safeguarding the scientific heritage received from their fathers since they feared lest that heritage would be wasted. For this reason, the Shī`ite heritage of the Hadīth is vastly wider than the Sunnite. It is well-known that al-Nassā’iy’s reference book of Hadīth (entitled al-Sunan) excels the other Sunnite reference books of Hadīth in the manner that it comprises Hadīths concerning the religious laws. In his message to the people of Makkah, the compiler of the book says,
“These Hadīths (comprised by the book) are totally about the religious laws. As for the other Hadīths on asceticism, merits, and other topics, I have not recorded them although they are big in number.”
Nevertheless, this collection has comprised 5274 Hadīths. The proportion will be nil if this number is compared to the Hadīths of the religious laws written in the book of Wasā’il al-Shī`ah that amount to 35850, and the Hadīths mentioned in the book of Mustadrak al-Wasā’il wa-Mustanbat al-Masā’il that amount to 23000. Experts have confirmed that the Hadīths reported by the Shī`ite narrators are two fold more than the Hadīths written in the Sunnite reference books of Hadīth.
EIGHTEENTH: The sanctity of the Holy Prophet was nonexistent in the mentalities of the Caliphs, yet to various extents. It began when they called out to him from behind the private chambers and then pulled him from his dress. They then said that he was hallucinating. They then said,
“Two issues were allowed during the age of Allah’s Messenger, but now I deem them forbidden and will punish anyone who will violate this prohibition. These are the temporary marriage and the allowable period during the Hajj.”
When he was reminded that the Holy Prophet warned against usury, Mu`āwiyah said, “But I do not see any harm in it!” Finally, Yazīd ibn Mu`āwiyah quoted the poetic verses of Ibn al-Zuba`riyand al-Walīd ibn Yazīd tore into pieces a copy of the Holy Qur’ān.
NINETEENTH: Owing to the previous, disorder in the jurisprudential and doctrinal results has been undeniably obvious in the history of the Islamic legislation. The late recordation of the Hadīth could not meet this gap; rather it made it more complicated and perplexed when the various opinions and personal views were confused with the authentically reported traditions of the Holy Prophet. For that reason, it is difficult to bring the Sunnite jurisprudential schools into agreement with each other as regards the majority of the religious laws.
TWENTIETH: The prohibition of recording the Hadīth was falsely ascribed to the Holy Prophet in order to release the actual issuers of this decision from responsibility, to cast the blame on the Messenger of Allah, and to make comparison between the narrations of the prohibition and these of the recordation of the Hadīth, although all the narrations that support the prohibition are doubtful and unconvinced, because they were fabricated later on in order to justify the decision issued by Abū-Bakr and `Umar as well as the deeds of those who followed them as regards the reporting and recordation of the Hadīth.
TWENTY-FIRST: The prohibition of recording the Hadīth has become the best means utilized by the Orientalists in order to prejudice Islam and criticize the Islamic ideology and genuine culture under the claim of the religion’s being the origin of retardation and the barrier against cultural progress.
TWENTY-SECOND: The authors and writers who supported the School of Ijtihād and Opinionism seized the opportunity to fabricate lies as they liked and to invent various justifications aimed at releasing the rulers from the consequences of the decision of the prohibition. Besides, these men of letters were not brave enough to demonstrate the rulers’ flaws and to present the facts in this regard.
 To explain it, the Arabic word ‘Ikhtilāf’ carries at least two meanings the most famous of which is ‘difference’ while the other meanings are ‘frequenting to a certain place’ and ‘separation in countries’… etc. The word ‘Ikhtilāf’ thus may carry any of these meanings. (Translator)
 Al-Bukhāriy, in his book of ‘al-Sahīh’ 7:118 Kitāb al-Dhabā’ih (Section of Slaughtered Animals), has recorded on the authority of Salīm that `Abdullāh reported that the Holy Prophet, before the beginning of his divine mission, met Zayd ibn `Umar ibn Nufayl in Baldah (a place near Makkah) and served him a meal of meat. He refused to eat, saying, “I do not eat the meat of the animals that you immolate unto idols and also I do not eat the meat of animals that you do not mention the name of Allah on it!” This narration requires deep investigation!
 It was `Umar ibn al-Khattāb who declared this decision. See al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffādh 1:366.
After the martyrdom of Imam al-Husayn, his head was cut and brought before Yazīd ibn Mu`āwiyah. As his sight fell on that sacred head, he recollected these bitter days of his father and grandfather who had led campaigns against al-Husayn’s grandfather, namely the Holy Prophet, and recollected the failure that chased them even in their own homes until they were humiliated and regarded as manumitted slaves. Yazīd showed his great rejoicing at the current situation as the family of the Holy Prophet were captives between his hands and the heads of the Holy Prophet’s grandsons were thrown before him. He then quoted poetic verses said during the Battle of Uhud by al-Zuba`riy, with suitable changes, saying:
I wish my forefathers at Badr had witnessed
How the Khazraj are by the thorns annoyed,
They would have been very much delighted,
Then they’d have said, “May your hands, O Yazid, never be paralyzed
We have killed the masters of their chiefs
And equated it with Badr, and it has been so, indeed
The Hashemites played with the dominion so indeed,
While no news from the Heaven had come, nor was there anything revealed
I will disavow the Khandaf if I will not seek revenge
From Ahmed’s children for what he did to us!
In conclusion, this thesis presented before the hands of the gentle readers has been aimed at putting forward a survey on the issue of the prohibition of recording the traditions of the Holy Prophet. It has been also intended to be analytical, deliberate study that follows up the topics, discourses, inquires about the issue, and concludes results.
The dear readers have joined us in this historical journey step by step and we certainly appreciate their broadmindedness all over this critical, necessary survey. We thus hope that they have personally touched the lineaments of the objective reality and comprehended, in the course of the study, a number of facts that will increase their acquaintance with certain matters and will help them hit upon the straightforward discernment.
We also hope that our noble scholars, teachers, and experts in the field of the Muslim jurisprudence and the Hadīth will take their time before they accept or reject our discussions and claims with an honest scientific spirit far away from partisanship or sectarianism. This is in fact the one and only way by which we all may reach at the best way and the most excellent method so as to be able to discriminate the right from the wrong and the fact from the untruth. This call is principally addressed to the master scholars at the al-Azhar University in Cairo, the Islamic University in the holy city of al-Madīnah, the Islamic World League in the holy city of Makkah, and the al-Zaytūnah Mosque in Tunis. The call is also addressed to the honorable Shaykhs and Sayyids in the holy cities of al-Najaf and Qumm, as well as the virtuous scholars of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the entire Islamic homeland including all the scientific faculties and Islamic universities. On the grounds of the Holy Prophet’s instruction that, “May Allah have mercy upon him who shows me my faults,” I hope that my brethren will confer upon me with the benefit of their judicious opinions on this study through which I will attain more accuracy and precision so long as our main purpose is to demonstrate, search for, investigate, and defend the word of truth even if this will cause us to lose every precious thing we have. This is because we are facing an issue that is related to the sources of our Islamic knowledge and, more importantly, to our situations in the Eternal Life when we shall be stopped before our Lord, the Almighty, for account.
We pray to Almighty Allah to manifest the truth before our eyes so clearly that we follow it, and to show us the wrong so clearly that we avoid it. The last of our prayer is “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.”
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani