Article By Farid
Posted by 13S2010
These are all my personal views, and most of you [Shia Members] here will disagree with my conclusions. However, I know that deep down, you will agree with some of my points.
As everyone knows, lies, in Islam, were firstly attributed to the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله). There is no doubt about this. However, with the passage of time, hadith fabricators noticed that there are others whose views have weight as well. These include, the sahaba, the scholars of the tabi’een, and yes, some of the descendants of the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله). The great thing about attributing narrations to these three groups is that there is a bigger chance of these fabrications being overlooked. This can be easily observed today, since we have collections of forged narrations like that of Ibn Al-Jawzi. These mainly revolve around the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله) and nobody else, since it is natural that the scholars will focus their efforts on cleansing the hadith of the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله) from the fabrications.
Carrying on, we do not find too much confusion in the hadiths of the early Imams. We do not find much confusion being attributed to Ali, or his two sons, or Zain Al-Abideen to the extent that we find with the latter Imams. Here, I am talking about Shia sources of hadith, of course.
Reasons for fabrications in both sects are usually similar. They include political motivations, financial (i.e. sadaqa related, fruit vendor narrations, etc), fiqhi views, personal opinions, mathhab based, etc.
There is no doubt that the majority of the contradictions that occur in Shia hadiths can be found in the narrations of Al-Baqir and Al-Sadiq. Without coming at this with any modern Shia preconceptions, it seems as though these contradictions are the cause of fabrications. You see, both Al-Sadiq and Al-Baqir were from Al-Madinah, when most of their students were from Kufa. It is not hard to imagine that the distance from the two Imams gave them the ability to freely attribute false narrations to them.
However, one day, something strange happened. A man, in Kufa, attributed something to Al-Sadiq that contradicted one of his known views. This could be anything from a view on salat, zakat, tafseer, etc. The Kufan, had nowhere to run. He was caught lying without a doubt, since the view of Al-Sadiq was a popular one that was transmitted by several students. At that point, he said, “He said this out of taqiyyah!”
From that day onwards, taqiyyah became a cop-out for the contradictions within Shiasm. Every single lying Kufan can freely attribute whatever they wish to the Imam without fearing any repercussions.
Now, to be fair, I cannot simply blame this on the Kufans. It is also very likely that many of these fabrications occurred in Qum. However, there are roots to these issues that seem to have started in an earlier time, like the narration of Zurarah oftaqiyyah in Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi.
Carrying on, with the progression of time, scholars within the Imami circles emerged, and with them, their own sub-sects. Refer to Firaq Al-Shia by Al-Nawbakhti for the details. Hisham bin Al-Hakam, Hisham bin Salim, and Yunus bin Abdulrahman each had their own sub-sect with their own views on issues regarding ideology. Ironically, each sect, with their followers, attributed false narrations to the Imams in order to hurt the other sect. See the biographies of these men in Rijal Al-Kashshi, for they are filled with praise and condemnations of each of the sub-sect leaders.
Ironically, this happen within Sunnis circles as well, which is extremely natural when different sects try to one-up each other. Perhaps the most notorious example is the Hanafi narration that says, “Upon my nation will come a man that will be more harmful than Iblees, his name is Mohammed bin Idrees (Al-Shafi’ee), and Abu Hanifa is the bright light of my nation.” However, Sunni scholars, toss these narrations in the garbage bin, and treat them as fabrications, since the narrators are not reliable in the first place.
Sadly, this is not the view that many Shias hold towards these fabrications. Instead of rejecting the questionable narrations, we find them accepting BOTH the narrations of praise AND condemnations towards the leaders of the sub-sects. This is strangely explained away by arguing that the Imams condemned these men because of their closeness towards the Imams, and they didn’t want people to be aware of their closeness to them. Takim, the academic, argues that if this was the case, then the great Mohammed bin Abi Umair should have been condemned, and he never was, which landed him in prison for several years. Therefore, it isn’t logical to argue the Imams cursed and condemned people for their own safety, since the people that needed it the most didn’t receive it.
Taqiyyah, as a whole is extremely questionable. I have recently brought this up in another thread, and I don’t see a reason to include it here as well, for the benefit of all. In many cases, the specific rulings that the Imam is using taqiyyah for is an acceptable Sunni view. One member here argued that some early Sunnis wiped their feet instead of washing. I agreed. Yet, if that was the case, then why would the Imam need taqiyyah? If Sunnis weren’t being tortured or killed for these views, then why would the Imams be treated differently for those specifics? As we all know, Ibn Abbas believed that muta’a washalal. If Ja’afar Al-Sadiq said that muta’a was halal and that he was following the fatwa of Ibn Abbas, then who could lay a finger on him? Once again, let us not forget that this is Ja’afar Al-Sadiq we are talking about, a major Sunni scholar according to the Sunnis themselves.
Now, this may seem problematic to most of the Shia brothers here, but the more knowledgeable brothers know the answer to the above. You see, the will tell you that the Imams didn’t simply give conflicting narrations when they were in fear for their lives. No, they gave conflicting narrations for the sake of confusion, so that reliance will be on the Imams themselves instead of the Shias that have received the fatwas. Please refer to hadith #5 in Baab Ikhtilaaf Al-Hadith in Al-Kafi. I would appreciate it if someone with an English translation of it includes the narration here for the benefit of all.
This is sort of confusing though and I haven’t found a reasonable explanation for this. Let us say that the Imam taught Shia X that Isma’eel is the sacrificial son of Ibrahim. Then, he thought Shia Y that Ishaaq is the sacrificial son of Ibrahim. We would have these two conflicting views, and we wouldn’t be able to rely upon Shia X or Shia Y for information, and we would have to go to the Imam. However, Shia Z, when going to the Imam, will have a 50% chance of receiving the wrong answer. So, it doesn’t make sense for one to rely on the Imam when he is giving conflicting answers.
Technically, this leads us to the next gimmick that was used by early Shias. These are hadiths in which the Imams teach, “Do not reject any hadith you hear attributed to us.” Like the taqiyyah hadiths, these seem to have been formed when particular narrators felt that their narrations were being doubted. To put an end to this, they included explanations, which were attributed to the Imams, as to why it is forbidden for narrations for be rejected. I have briefly discussed this issue in THIS thread, but I was not satisfied with the answers I received. To keep it short. It seems as though no Shi’ee can objectively accept this hadith, since Shias reject Sunni narrations attributed to the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله) and Ali, when found in Sunni sources. The only proper interpretation that can be applied to this hadith is: Do not reject any hadith (that is transmitted to you through a trustworthy source). This is a much more logical approach.
In any case, due to all the above, I find that Shiasm is a complete mess of contradictions.
However, I am not here to simply bash Shiasm. There are a few very simple methods that can be applied to fix these problems. The first is to correct one’s understanding of the hadith of: “Do not reject our hadiths,” to my suggested reasoning. The second, is to reject that every contradiction has occurred due to taqiyyah. The third, is to apply rijal to the narrations, and with that, you will actually get rid of most of the contradictions that you find in Shia hadiths. This has been applied by early Shia scholars, so there is no reason that you shouldn’t apply the same. I have discussed this thoroughly inTHIS thread.
May Allah guide us all.
(Inshallah, this will be my last thread and post. I know I have had a hard time keeping away from this place in the past, but real life has taken over unfortunately. So, I wish you all the best with everything.)