Islamic Salvation

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    1,817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Islamic Salvation last won the day on August 20 2014

Islamic Salvation had the most liked content!

About Islamic Salvation

  • Rank
    الدودومي

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private
  1. 2.27. - 2.29. al-Ash`ath, Jarir and Simak https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/al-ashath-jarir-and-simak [1/138] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن عمرو بن عثمان، عن محمد بن عذافر، عن أبي حمزة أو عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن بالكوفة مساجد ملعونة و مساجد مباركة ... فأما المساجد الملعونة فمسجد ثقيف ومسجد الاشعث ومسجد جرير ومسجد سماك ومسجد بالخمراء بني على قبر فرعون من الفراعنة [1/138] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Amr b. Uthman from Muhammad b. Udhafir from Abi Hamza and Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام who said: In Kufa there are accursed mosques and blessed mosques … among the accursed mosques include the mosque of Thaqif, the mosque of al-Ash`ath, the mosque of Jarir, the mosque of Simak and the mosque in al-Khamra which was built on the grave of one Pharaoh among the Pharaohs. NOTES: The accursed mosques are those that were tainted by their connection to either (i) hostile personalities (mainly partisans of Uthman and Mua`wiya) or (ii) unfriendly tribes (to the Shia and Ali). A similar narration in al-Kafi has the following five: عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه نهى بالكوفة عن الصلاة في خمسة مساجد: مسجد الاشعث بن قيس ومسجد جرير بن عبدالله البجلي ومسجد سماك بن مخرمة ومسجد شبث بن ربعي ومسجد التيم Abi Abdillah عليه السلام said: The commander of the faithful صلوات الله عليه prohibited praying in five mosques in Kufa: Masjid al-Ash`ath b. Qays, Masjid Jarir b. Abdallah al-Bajali, Masjid Simak b. Makhrama, Masjid Shabath b. Rib`i and Masjid al-Taym. Note that a Masjid Shabath b. Rib`i (someone who supported Ali at first but turned Khariji) and a Masjid Taym (to whom belonged Abu Bakr) are added in this narration. عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: جددت أربعة مساجد بالكوفة فرحا لقتل الحسين عليه السلام: مسجد الاشعث ومسجد جرير ومسجد سماك ومسجد شبث بن ربعي It seems that one of the main reasons why these mosques were cursed is because they were renovated just to celebrate the killing of al-Husayn! (this shows their Nasibi influence). Who are the individuals mentioned in the narration? al-Ash‘ath b. Qays (d. 40/661) fought with ‘Alı in the Battle of Siffın before pressuring him to accept arbitration and appoint Abu Musa al-Ash‘arı as one of the arbiters. This made Ali remind him that he was the same person who participated in the ridda (apostasy) revolts after the death of the Prophet, and was eventually pardoned when he payed a humbling price making use of his Ashrafi connections. What the daughter Jo`da bt. al-Ash`ath did in poisoning al-Hasan and his son’s involvement in the incident of the arrest of Muslim b. Aqil show that the rotten fruits did not fall far from the tree. Jarır b. ‘Abdallah b. Jabir al-Bajalı (d. 51-6/671-6) was entrusted by ‘Alı to carry a letter to Mu’awiya (to call upon him to submit) but he secretly pledged loyalty to the Umayyads, and began wasting time in Syria, his prevarication worked to sap the energy of Ali’s forces. He finally abdicated at which point Ali ordered his house in Kufa to be destroyed. Simak b. Makhrama b. Humayn al-Asadı (d. mid- to late 1st/7th century) lived in an area of Kufa known for the pro-‘Uthman beliefs of its inhabitants (as late as the 4th/10th century), where he built a mosque in which ‘Alı famously refused to offer prayers. Masjid Khamra (or Hamra in al-Tahdhib of al-Tusi) is built on the grave of “one of the Pharaohs”. It is not clear whom this is referring to. A similar dynamic characterized Masjid Thaqıif given the tribe’s adversarial relationship with ‘Alı and his partisans. Note that Mughira b. Shu`ba the famous Munafiq was from Thaqif and he was critical in perpetuating Umayyad rule as a governor in Kufa.
  2. Some Glimpes of Ismail b. Ja`far in Twelver Sources When dealing with a historical figure, that is to say, with an individual who lived ages ago, and in a socio-cultural milieu quite different from us, we must acknowledge the difficulties of trying to answer such questions about them as - who were they? what motivated them? etc. Who can trace the subtle changes that unfailingly occur over a life time while penetrating the barrier of inner thought? This is compounded when we have access to only a limited number of textual sources to work with. Despite admitting the challenges facing any such reconstruction, there is no reason why such attempts not be made, with one caveat: the mind is always looking to make patterns out of disparate dots, sometimes a whole emerges that is consistent and self-sustaining. If the prism through which a single piece of data is seen enables it to better explain other totally independent pieces of data, then the whole reconstruction is on safer grounds and the pieces of data more likely to be historical. Other times, one can skew the different pieces of evidence in trying to fit a pre-configured narrative, introduce bias, over-reach and form a conclusions that is far-removed from reality. In any case, what follows below is a collection of different Ahadith that involve Ismail in Twlever sources. It is felt that the incidental nature of some of them, where the details of his life are mentioned secondarily, consequently not tinged with polemical considerations, will yield the most qualitative results. This is purposely so because Ismail was a controversial figure. He was at the center of a polemical debate about the succession to al-Sadiq. There was no lack of people who would wish to besmirch his name with a “black legend” so as to justify his disqualification to the Imama. Similarly, and on the other side of the spectrum, there would be sectarians working to “white-wash” him having imbued theological meaning to his person. Introduction Ismail b. Ja`far b. Muhammad was the eldest son of al-Sadiq and was born in Madina in 100 AH. He died circa 138 AH before his father [this last piece seems to be the most strongly anchored piece of info. about him because even his supporters had to explain it away]. His mother was Fatima bt. al-Husyan b. al-Hasan b. Ali. His full brother was Abdallah al-Aftah who also claimed the Imama after their father for brief period of time. Did the Imam praise him? عبدالله بن محمد، عن الحسن بن علي الوشاء، عن أحمد بن عائذ، عن أبي خديجة الجمال قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: إني سألت الله في إسماعيل أن يبقيه بعدي فأبى ولكنه قد أعطاني فيه منزلة أخرى إنه يكون أول منشور في عشرة من أصحابه ومنهم عبدالله بن شريك وهو صاحب لوائه [al-Kashshi] Abdallah b. Muhammad from al-Hasan b. Ali al-Washsha from Ahmad b. A`idh from Abi Khadija the Cameleer who said: I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying: I asked Allah about Ismail - that he should preserve him to remain after me - but He refused, however He has given me another position for him, he (Ismail) will be the first one to be resurrected with ten of his companions, among them Abdallah b. Sharik, and he (Abdallah) will be the man who carries his banner. Abu Khadija in the chain is Salim b. Mukram about whom al-Najashi says <<Thiqa Thiqa>> and Ibn Fadhal says <<Salih>>. However, he has a pre-history which is significant to our study. وكان سالم من أصحاب أبي الخطاب، وكان في المسجد يوم بعث عيسى بن موسى بن علي بن عبد الله بن العباس وكان عامل المنصور على الكوفة إلى أبي الخطاب لما بلغه أنهم أظهروا الإباحات ودعوا الناس إلى نبوة أبي الخطاب وأنهم يجتمعون في المسجد، ولزموا الأساطين يرون الناس أنهم قد لزموها للعبادة، وبعث إليهم رجلا فقتلهم جميعا لم يفلت منهم إلا رجل واحد أصابته جراحات فسقط بين القتلى يعد فيهم فلما جنه الليل خرج من بينهم فتخلص وهو أبو سلمة سالم بن مكرم الجمال الملقب بأبي خديجة فذكر بعد ذلك أنه تاب وكان ممن يروي الحديث Salim’s original Kunniya was Aba Khadija but the Imam changed it to Aba Salama. He was someone who owned camels and rented them out for others to travel with. Salim was at one point in time among the followers of Abu al-Khattab. They were accused of libertinism (making the Haram to be Halal) and proclaiming Abu al-Khattab to be a prophet. They then rose in revolt and barricaded themselves in the mosque of Kufa. He was the sole individual who escaped the massacre in the mosque that followed and lived to tell the tale. This is because the Abbasid forces thought him to have died in the assault, so when it was the night he stood up and fled. Abdallah b. Sharik mentioned in the narration is considered a lying Mukhtari in proto-Sunni sources. He participated in Mukhtar’s revolt which indicates his militant bent. He then attaches himself to Ismail as can be seen here. The Hadith seems to be implying some status for Ismail in the Raj`a [eschatological return] and making this Abdallah b. Sharik al-Amiri as his chief liutenant. It is my thesis that Ismail himself is someone who was courted by Abu al-Khattab and associated with the Khattabiyya in some manner. Thus, we have a prior Khattabi [who could be narrating before his conversion] narrating praise of Ismail and his associate the former Mukhtari Abdallah b. Sharik. This is enough to raise skepticism. The Disapproval of the Imam الحسن بن احمد بن إدريس، عن أبيه، عن محمد بن احمد الاشعري، عن ابن يزيد والبرقي، عن احمد بن محمد بن ابي نصر البزنطي، عن حماد، عن عبيد بن زرارة قال: ذكرت إسماعيل عند أبي عبد الله عليه السلام فقال: لا والله لا يشبهني ولا يشبه أحدا من آبائي [Kamal al-Diin] al-Hasan b. Ahmad b. Idris from his father from Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Ash`ari from Ya`qub b. Yazid and al-Barqi from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr al-Bazanti from Hammad from Ubayd b. Zurara who said: I mentioned Ismail to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام so he said: no by Allah - he does not resemble me or any one of my forefathers. والجواب أنّه سأل الامام عليه السلام عن إسماعيل من جهة لياقته للامامة، على ماهو المرتكز في أذهان العامة من الشيعة، فأجابه الامام عليه السلام بأنّه لايشبهه، ولايشبه آباءه في العصمة، فانّه تصدر منه المعصية غير مرّة، وهذا لا ينافي جلالته، فإنّ العادل التقي أيضاً قد تصدر منه المعصية، ولو كانت صغيرة، لكنه يتذكّر فيتوب al-Khoei claims that Ismail not resembling the `Aimma is just as far as the question of Isma (infallibility) is concerned i.e. he is not an Imam like them. However, there is a variant which has an addition that seems to indicate that this extended to his personal habits which were not deemed upright. ك: ابن المتوكل، عن محمد العطار، عن الاشعري، عن ابن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن الحسن بن راشد قال: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن إسماعيل فقال: عاص عاص لا يشبهني ولا يشبه أحدا من آبائي [Kamal al-Diin] Muhammad b. Musa b. al-Mutawakkil from Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar from Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya b. Imran al-Ash`ari from Ya`qub b. Yazid from Muhammad b. Abi Umayr from al-Hasan b. Rashid who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about Ismail, he said: disobedient! disobedient! he does not resemble me nor any one of my forefathers. Why would the Imam call him عاص if it was just about indicating that he is not infallible? Connections with the Ghulat Abu al-Khattab and Mufadhal Ismail was thought to be be his father’s successor even in the latter’s lifetime. There were some shady figures who coalesced around him like Abu al-Khattab [and the Khatabiyya incl. Mufadhal] who were spreading that rumour. Abu al-Khattab himself had a totally Gnostic and anti-nomian understanding of Islam underpinned by his Batini Ta`wil. He considered the recognition of the Imam to make Shari`a practices redundant. Abu al-Khattab led a rebellion in Kufa and was killed with seventy of his followers by the order of the governor Isa b. Musa (the nephew of the first two Abbasid Caliphs al-Saffah and al-Mansur) when they barricaded themselves in the mosque. [The incident alluded to above] al-Mufadhal was initially connected to Abu al-Khattab and the Khatabiyya before later dis-associating from them and renouncing his former position. It is clear that the later Ismailiyya, despite the various off-shoots and splinter sects that arose [and the picture is further complicated by activities to mystify their origins and problems of lack of primary documents] can be traced back to the Khattabi movement. Whether Ismail is directly implicated or was just a figure-head around whom they built their theology remains to be seen. حدثني حمدويه بن نصير، قال حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن الحكم وحماد بن عثمان، عن إسماعيل بن جابر قال: قال أبو عبد الله: ايت المفضل قل له يا كافر يا مشرك ما تريد إلى ابني تريد أن تقتله [al-Kashshi] Hamduwayh bin Nusayr who said: narrated to us Ya’qub bin Yazid from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham bin al-Hakam AND Hammad bin Uthman from Ismail bin Jabir who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: go to Mufadhal and say to him - O Kafir, O Mushrik, what do you want for my son Ismail (i.e. al-Sadiq's son)!? Do you want to kill him!? جبرئيل بن أحمد قال: حدّثني محمّد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن حماد بن عثمان قال: سمعت أبا عبداللّه عليه السلام يقول للمفضّل بن عمر الجعفي: يا كافر يا مشرك مالك ولابني، يعني إسماعيل بن جعفر، وكان منقطعا إليه، يقول فيه مع الخطابية، ثم رجع بعده [al-Kashshi] Jibrail b. Ahmad who said: Muhammad b. Isa narrated to me from Yunus from Hamma b. Uthman who said: I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying to al-Mufadhal b. Umar al-Ju`fi: O Kafir, O Muhsrik, what do you have to with me son - meaning Ismail b. Ja`far? - and he [Mufadhal] was loyal to him [Ismail], believing about him [that he is the Imam and much more] together with the Khatabiyya, then he returned after him [Ismail’s death]. حدّثني حمدويه قال: حدّثني محمد بن عيسى، عن إبن أبي عمير، عن حمّاد بن عثمان، عن إسماعيل ابن عامر (جابر) قال: دخلت على أبي عبد اللّه عليه السلام، فوصفت إليه الائمة، حتى انتهيت إليه، فقلت: إسماعيل من بعدك؟ فقال عليه السلام: أم‏ا ذا فلا، فقال حمّاد: فقلت لاسماعيل: ومادعاك إلى أن تقول: وإسماعيل من بعدك؟ قال: أمرني المفضّل بن عمر [al-Kashshi] Hamduwayh narrated to me saying: Muhammad b. Isa narrated to me from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hammad b. Uthman from Ismail b. Amir (should be Jabir) who said: I entered upon Abi Abdillah عليه السلام and named for him the `Aimma, until I reached him, then I said: Ismail after you? he said: as for that one then No, Hammad said: so I [Hammad] said to Ismail: what made you to say: ‘Ismail after you’, he said: Mufadhal b. Umar made me do it. ويذكر لويس « إن الكنية ( أبو إسماعيل ) التي يضيفها الكشي على أبي الخطاب إنما تشير إلى إسماعيل بن جعفر وأن أبا الخطاب كان المتبني لإسماعيل والأب الروحاني له Bernard Lewis quotes from his teacher the famous orientalist Louis Massignon the enigmatic claim that even the Kuniyya Abu Ismail, which al-Kashshi uses for Abi al-Khattab, actually refers to Ismail b. Ja`far. It originated from the fact that Aba al-Khattab considered himself a spiritual father to Ismail grooming him to assume leadership [see his: The Origins of Isma`ilism]. Nabidh Drinking حمدويه قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى ومحمد بن مسعود قال: حدثنا محمد بن نصير قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى، قال: حدثنا صفوان، عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام قال صفوان: أدخلت على إبراهيم وإسماعيل ابنا أبي سمال ... ما كانوا مجتمعين عليه، كيف يكونون مجتمعين عليه وكان مشيختكم وكبراؤكم يقولون في إسماعيل وهم يرونه يشرب كذا وكذا، فيقولون هذا أجود ... [al-Kashshi] Hamduwayh who said: Muhammad b. Isa narrated to me; and Muhammad b. Masud who said: Muhammad b. Nusayr narrated to us saying: Muhammad b. Isa narrated to me saying: Safwan narrated to us from Abi al-Hasan (i.e. al-Ridha) عليه السلام, Safwan said: I arranged for Ibrahim and Ismail - the two sons of Abi Sammal (prominent Waqifis) to enter upon him (i.e. al-Ridha عليه السلام) … [the Imam said]: they were not united upon him (i.e. al-Kadhim), how could they be united upon him while your elders and leaders used to say about Ismail - even though they used to see him drink ‘so and so’ - they would still say - this is one is better … What is this ‘so and so’? It is Nabidh (intoxicating drink) [the narrator censors and obfuscates it because of sensitivity - but it is clear what is meant for those who are researchers in this field]. It was to explain this away that a Hadith like the one below was transmitted. ابن الوليد، عن سعد، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن الحسين بن المختار، عن الوليد بن صبيح قال: جاء ني رجل فقال لي: تعال حتى اريك أبن الرجل قال: فذهبت معه قال: فجاء ني إلى قوم يشربون فيهم إسماعيل بن جعفر فخرجت مغموما، فجئت إلى الحجر فاذا إسماعيل بن جعفر متعلق بالبيت يبكي، قد بل أستار الكعبة بدموعه، فرجعت أشتد فاذا إسماعيل جالس مع القوم، فرجعت فاذا هو آخذ بأستار الكعبة قدبلها بدموعه قال: فذكرت ذلك لابي عبدالله عليه السلام فقال: لقد ابتلي ابني بشيطان يتمثل في صورته [Kamal al-Diin] Ibn al-Walid from Sa`d from Muhammad b. Abd al-Jabbar from Ibn Abi Najran from al-Husayn b. al-Mukhtar from al-Walid b. Subayh who said: a man came to me and said: come with me so that I show you the son of the man, he [Walid] said: so I went with him until he brought me to a group who were drinking and among them was Ismail b. Ja`far, so I came out of there saddened, then I went o the Hajar [at the Ka`ba] and found Ismail b. Ja`far clinging to the House crying, until the cloth [covering the Ka`ba] was drenched because of his tears, so I returned quicly to the gathering and found Ismail seated with the group, then I returned and found him clinging to the cloth of the Ka`ba which had wettened because of his tears, he [Walid] said: so I mentioned this to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he said: my son is afflicted with a devil who assumes his form. This narration is also found in al-Imama wa al-Tabsira min al-Hayra of Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babawayh [al-Saduq’s father]. There the chain is Ahmad b. Idris and Muhammad b. Yahya > Muhammad b. Abd al-Jabbar > Ibn Abi Najran > al-Husayn b. al-Mukhtar > al-Walid b. Subayh. The Hadith has been put to use to nullify the claim of Ismail’s to the Imam. As al-Saduq comments: وقد روي أن الشيطان لا يتمثل في صورة نبي ولا في صورة وصي نبي، فكيف يجوز أن ينص عليه بالإمامة مع صحة هذا القول منه فيه And it has been narrated that the Shaytan does not assume the form of a prophet or the successor to the prophet, so how is it possible that he [Ja`far] would designate him [Ismail] for the Imama while he [Ja`far] is the same one who authentically stated this about him. However, it may have originally been circulated to explain Ismail’s Nabidh drinking in an apologetic manner.
  3. Yes, the first narration is about the Sahabi Jabir b. Abdallah al-Ansari, the second and third are about Jabir b. Yazid al-Ju`fi, the companion of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq.
  4. 3.25. - 3.26. The two Jabirs https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/jabir-b-abdallah-al-ansari-and-jabir-b-yazid-al-jufi [1/135] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: حدثني جابر عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ولم يكذب جابر ... [1/135] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Najran from A`sim b. Humayd from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام who said: Jabir [b. Abdallah] narrated to me from the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله - and Jabir did not lie - … NOTES: For the Imam to be narrating from a companion is nothing of the extraordinary, provided the words of the companion are true. It may also be done to show the status of the companion. There is a weak-chained apologetic narration trying to explain away this phenomenon by noting that al-Baqir used to visit Jabir not to take Ilm from him but to honour him. ... جابر يأتيه طرفي النهار فكان أهل المدينة يقولون وا عجباه لجابر يأتي هذا الغلام طرفي النهار و هو آخر من بقي من أصحاب رسول الله، فلم يلبث أن مضى علي بن الحسين (عليهما السلام) فكان محمد بن علي يأتيه على وجه الكرامة لصحبته برسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) قال، فجلس فحدثهم عن أبيه فقال أهل المدينة ما رأينا أحدا قط أجرا من ذا قال : فلما رأى ما يقولون حدثهم عن رسول الله، قال أهل المدينة ما رأينا أحدا قط أكذب من هذا يحدث عمن لم يره، قال فلما رأى ما يقولون حدثهم عن جابر بن عبد الله فصدقوه، و كان جابر و الله يأتيه يتعلم منه It adds that when al-Baqir used to narrate from his father, the people of Madina used to say - we have not seen someone bolder than him [acting as though the words of his father are a final authority], when the Imam heard what they said he began to narrate directly from the messenger of Allah so the people of Madina said - we have not seen someone more lying than him for he narrates from someone he has not met, when the Imam heard that he decided to narrate to them on the authority of Jabir and they considered him truthful, while in fact it was Jabir who used to gain knowledge from al-Baqir. [2/136] رجال الكشي: حمدويه و إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن زياد بن أبي الحلال قال: اختلف أصحابنا في أحاديث جابر الجعفي، فقلت لهم: أسأل أبا عبد الله عليه السلام، فلما دخلت ابتدأني فقال: رحم الله جابر الجعفي كان يصدق علينا، لعن الله المغيرة بن سعيد كان يكذب علينا [2/136] Rijal al-Kashshi: Hamduwayh and Ibrahim from Muhammad b. Isa from Ali b. al-Hakam from Ziyad b. Abi al-Hilal who said: our companions differed about accepting the narrations of Jabir al-Ju`fi, I said to them: I will ask Aba Abdillah عليه السلام, so when I entered upon him, he عليه السلام began saying [without me asking]: may Allah have mercy on Jabin al-Ju`fi - he used to tell the truth about us, may Allah curse al-Mughira bin Sa`id, he used to lie about us. NOTES: This narration is used to confirm Jabir’s truthfulness. Despite this, it cannot be overlooked that Jabir was seen as a controversial figure from very early on, indeed, this is why the Imam is asked about him in the first place. روى عنه جماعة غمز فيهم و ضعّفوا ... و كان في نفسه مختلطا. و كان شيخنا أبو عبد اللّه محمّد بن محمّد بن النعمان رحمه اللّه ينشد أشعارا كثيرة في معناه يدلّ على الاختلاط، ليس هذا موضعا لذكرها. و قلّما يورد عنه شي‏ء في الحلال و الحرام al-Najashi points out that a number of weak and censured individuals narrate from him. They include some prominent Ghalis. He goes further and accuses Jabir himself of having corrupt “syncretist i.e. mixed with esoteric elements” beliefs. He cites a large number of poems [of Jabir] that were recited to him by al-Mufid which evidence him having such beliefs. He also accuses him of not concerning himself with the narrations of Halal and Haram [i.e. Fiqh] [which may be alluding to the fact that the Ghulat saw themselves as the elite above outward ritual]. This tallies with Jabir’s claims to have secret intitiatic knowledge that should be hidden from the “masses”. و يضاف إليه رسالة أبي جعفر إلى أهل البصرة و غيرها من الأحاديث و الكتب، و ذلك موضوع، و اللّه أعلم al-Najashi concludes by stating that a number of fabricated books and narrations are attributed to him including a supposed letter from Abi Ja`far al-Baqir to the people of Basra. ثقة في نفسه، و لكن جلّ من روى عنه ضعيف فممّن أكثر عنه من الضعفاء: عمرو بن شمر الجعفي، و مفضّل بن صالح السكوني، و منخل بن جميل الأسدي و أرى الترك لما روى هؤلاء عنه و الوقف في الباقي، إلّا ما خرج شاهدا Ibn al-Ghadhairi on the other hand sums him up by considering him Thiqa in of himself. This would rule him out of being personally responsible for disseminating esoterically corrupt material. He concedes, however, that weak narrators made use of his name to spread spurious material [he was almost the go-to person to attribute material to as anyone who studies the Jabirean corpus will tell you - which brings up the question, if he was so un-involved with these circles why did they consider him one of their pillars?] In any case, Jabir is a complex character who is also known to Sunni Rijal scholars and a full study on him is needed [perhaps a monograph that treats him in-depth will be forthcoming]. [3/137] رجال الكشي: حمدويه و إبراهيم ابنا نصير، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن ابن بكير، عن زرارة قال: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن أحاديث جابر فقال: ما رأيته عند أبي قط إلا مرة واحدة و ما دخل علي قط [3/137] Rijal al-Kashshi: Hamduwayh and Ibrahim the two sons of Nusayr from Muhammad b. Isa from Ali b. al-Hakam from Ibn Bukayr from Zurara who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about the narrations of Jabir, he said: I never saw him with my father - ever - except for one time, and he never entered upon me [to take Hadith] ever. NOTES: This narration would seem to conflict with the one above it, and open up the possibility of mass deception on the part of Jabir! وأما قول الصادق عليه السلام، في موثقة زرارة (بابن بكير): ما رأيته عند أبي إلا مرة واحدة، وما دخل علي قط، فلابد من حمله على نحو من التورية، إذ لو كان جابر لم يكن يدخل عليه سلام الله عليه، وكان هو بمرأى من الناس ، لكان هذا كافيا في تكذيبه وعدم تصديقه، فكيف اختلفوا في أحاديثه، حتى احتاج زياد، إلى سؤال الإمام عليه السلام عن أحاديثه على أن عدم دخوله على الإمام عليه السلام لا ينافي صدقه في أحاديثه، لاحتمال أنه كان يلاقي الإمام عليه السلام في غير داره: فيأخذ منه العلوم والاحكام، ويرويها، إذن لا تكون الموثقة معارضة للصحبة الدالة على صدقه في الأحاديث المؤيدة بما تقدم من الروايات الدالة على جلالته ومدحه، وأنه كان عنده من أسرار أهل البيت سلام الله عليهم al-Khoei tries to explain it away by claiming that it could be Tawriya [a form of dissimulation] from the Imam. He reconciles it with Ziyad’s narration by noting that Jabir could be meeting the Imam and taking knowledge from him in other than his house [since the Imam said: ‘and he never entered upon me ever i.e. in my house’]. While this is indeed possible, it does not answer the question why the Imam would need to do this with Zurara, a student with whom he was freer than others.
  5. Who is greater Salman, Miqdad or Abu Dhar? https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/salman-al-farsi [24] علي بن الحكم، عن سيف بن عميرة عن أبي بكر الحضرمي قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة نفر سلمان و أبو ذر و المقداد قال: قلت: فعمار؟ قال: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع، ثم قال: إن أردت الذي لم يشك و لم يدخله شي‏ء فالمقداد، فأما سلمان فإنه عرض في قلبه عارض أن عند أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام اسم الله الأعظم لو تكلم به لأخذتهم الأرض و هو هكذا فلبب و وجئت عنقه حتى تركت كالسلقة فمر به أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فقال له: يا أبا عبد الله هذا من ذاك بايع فبايع و أما أبو ذر فأمره أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بالسكوت و لم يكن يأخذه في الله لومة لائم فأبى إلا أن يتكلم فمر به عثمان فأمر به، ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الأنصاري و أبو عمرة و شتيرة و كانوا سبعة، فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلا هؤلاء السبعة [24] Ali b. al-Hakam from Sayf b. Umayra from Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami who said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth], if you want the one who did not waver and nothing of doubt entered him then it was al-Miqdad, as for Salman then it came to his heart a thought that the commander of the faithful عليه السلام knew the greatest name of God which if he were to intone - the earth would swallow them, and it is so, so he was pulled by the scruff of his neck and it was stricken until it left a swollen lump [cyst], the commander of the faithful عليه السلام passed by him and said: O Aba Abdillah this is from that [i.e. Taqiyya] so give the pledge of allegiance, as for Abu Dhar then the commander of the faithful عليه السلام had ordered him to remain silent, but he was not one to be affected by the blame of the blamer in regards his duty to Allah, he did not desist until he talked, so Uthman b. Affan passed by him and ordered that he be deposed of [and he was banished], then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven. NOTES: This is a Muallaq narration, the intermediaries between al-Kashshi and Ali b. al-Hakam has not been given. However, Ali b. al-Hakam is a famous narrator and al-Kashshi probably has reliable path to his works. al-Miqdad obeyed the order of accepting Ali's decision to give the Bay`a unquestioningly, Salman harbored the thought that Ali should use the Greatest Name of God to overpower his enemies once and for all [without being patient about the divine decree], while Abu Dhar was too scrupulous about the truth to remain quiet and had to publicly condemn the usurpers.
  6. The Ghali is someone who exaggerates the status of the `Aimma and considers them to be beyond what they really are. The Tali is the one who falls short in recognizing the true status of the `Aimma [i.e. their Wilaya]. They are juxtaposed again in the report below except that the Tali here is labelled Muqassir. و عنه، قال أخبرنا الحسين بن عبيد الله، قال أخبرنا أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار، قال حدثنا أبي، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن العباس بن معروف، عن عبد الرحمن بن مسلم، عن فضيل بن يسار، قال قال الصادق عليه السلام احذروا على شبابكم الغلاة لا يفسدونهم، فإن الغلاة شر خلق الله، يصغرون عظمة الله، و يدعون الربوبية لعباد الله، و الله إن الغلاة شر من اليهود و النصارى و المجوس و الذين أشركوا. ثم قال عليه السلام إلينا يرجع الغالي فلا نقبله، و بنا يلحق المقصر فنقبله. فقيل له كيف ذلك، يا ابن رسول الله قال لأن الغالي قد اعتاد ترك الصلاة و الزكاة و الصيام و الحج، فلا يقدر على ترك عادته، و على الرجوع إلى طاعة الله عز و جل أبدا، و إن المقصر إذا عرف عمل و أطاع And from him [al-Tusi in his Amali] who said: reported to us al-Husayn b. Ubaydullah who said: reported to us Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar who said: narrated to us my father from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from al-Abbas b. Ma'ruf from Abd al-Rahman b. Muslim from Fudhayl b. Yasar who said: al-Sadiq عليه السلام said: be cautious with your children so that the Ghulat do not corrupt them, for the Ghulat are the worst creatures of Allah, they belittle the greatness of Allah, and ascribe lordship to the slaves of Allah, by Allah! the Ghulat are more worse than the Jews and the Christians and the Magians and those who polythize, then he عليه السلام said: the Ghali returns to us (i.e. from his heighty beliefs) but we do not accept him, while the Muqassir catches up to us (i.e. our real station) so we accept him, so it was said to him: how is that O son of the messenger of Allah? he عليه السلام said: because the Ghali gets used to forsaking the Salat and the Zakat and the Siyam and the Hajj, so he is not able to leave this habit of his and return to the obedience of Allah عز و جل - ever, as for the Muqassir - if he recognizes (i.e. the true status of the Aimmah) he acts upon it and obeys.
  7. This is how al-Fadhl explains the point you raise. [77] و سئل الفضل بن شاذان عن أبي أيوب خالد بن زيد الأنصاري و قتاله مع معاوية المشركين فقال: كان ذلك منه قلة فقه و غفلة، ظن أنه أنما يعمل عملا لنفسه يقوى به الإسلام و يوهي به الشرك و ليس عليه من معاوية شي‏ء كان معه أو لم يكن [77] al-Fadhl b. Shadhan was asked about Abi Ayyub Khalid b. Zayd al-Ansari and his fighting together with Mua`wiya against the polytheists - he said: that was a lapse of understanding from him and an oversight, he thought that he was performing an act for its own sake, by which he would strengthen Islam and efface polytheism, and that he would suffer no consequences by way of Mua`wiya - whether he was there [present with him] or not [since it had nothing to do with him]. https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/abu-ayyub-al-ansari
  8. Indeed. [78] و سئل عن ابن مسعود و حذيفة فقال: لم يكن حذيفة مثل ابن مسعود لأن حذيفة كان ركنا و ابن مسعود خلط و والى القوم و مال معهم و قال بهم [78] And he [Ibn Fadhal] was asked about Ibn Mas`ud and Hudhayfa - so he said: Hudhayfa was not like [of the same status as] Ibn Mas`ud because Hudhayfa was a pillar [of support to Ali and rejecting the Khulafa] while Ibn Mas`ud became confused and accepted the group’s authority and inclined with them and professed them [as superior]. و قال أيضا: إن من السابقين الذين رجعوا إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: أبو الهيثم بن التيهان و أبو أيوب و خزيمة بن ثابت و جابر بن عبد الله و زيد بن أرقم و أبو سعيد الخدري و سهل بن حنيف و البراء بن مالك و عثمان بن حنيف و عبادة بن الصامت ثم ممن دونهم قيس بن سعد بن عبادة و عدي بن حاتم و عمرو بن الحمق و عمران بن الحصين و بريدة الأسلمي و بشر كثير He [al-Fadhl] also said: from among the fore-runners who returned back to the commander of the faithful عليه السلام were: Abu al-Haytham b. Tahiyyan, Abu Ayyub (al-Ansari), Khuzayma b. Thabit, Jabir b. Abdallah, Zayd b. Arqam, Abu Said al-Khudri, Sahl b. Hunayf, al-Bara` b. Malik, Uthman b. Hunayf and Ubada b. al-Samit - then those who were lesser than them - Qays b. Sa'd b. Ubada, Adi b. Hatim, Amr b. al-Hamiq, Imran b. al-Hussayn, Burayda al-Aslami and a large number of men besides. https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/hudhayfa-and-abdallah-b-masud
  9. 3.21. - 3.24. Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Amra https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/abu-sasan-ammar-shatira-and-abu-amra [1/134] رجال الكشي: محمد بن مسعود، عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال، عن العباس بن عامر و جعفر بن محمد بن حكيم، عن أبان بن عثمان، عن الحارث بن المغيرة النصري قال: سمعت عبد الملك بن أعين يسأل أبا عبد الله عليه السلام فلم يزل يسأله حتى قال له: فهلك الناس إذا فقال: إي و الله يا ابن أعين هلك الناس أجمعون قلت: من في الشرق و من في الغرب قال: فقال: إنها فتحت على الضلال إي و الله هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق أبو ساسان و عمار و شتيرة و أبو عمرة فصاروا سبعة [1/134] Rijal al-Kashshi: Muhammad b. Masud from Ali b. al-Hasan b. Fadhal from al-Abbas b. Amir and Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Hukaym from Aban b. Uthman from al-Harith b. Mughira al-Nasri who said: I heard Abd al-Malik b. A`yan asking Aba Abdillah عليه السلام - and he did not cease asking him - until he said to him: so the people were destroyed then (after the messenger of Allah)? he said: yes, by Allah, O the son of A`yan, all the people were destroyed, I (Abd al-Malik) said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance, yes, by Allah, they were all destroyed, except three, then joined Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Umra, so they became seven. NOTES: The three pillars are Miqdad, Salman and Abu Dhar as other narrations make clear. Abu Amra al-Ansari [Bashir b. Amr b. Mihsan] was a very early convert to Islam who participated in Badr, Uhud and the rest of the battles. He was a faithful follower of Ali in his Khilafa and fought with him in Jamal and was killed in Sifffin. Ammar b. Yasir needs no introduction. Most scholars have identified Abu Sasan as al-Hudhayn b. al-Mundhir al-Raqqashi, a companion of Ali and the man who carried his banner in the Siffin war [See: al-Tusi in al-Rijal]. The problem with this identification is that there are reports that he was quite young at this time, indeed the Sunni scholars have place him in the Tabaqa of the Tabi`in and he lived on to the Marwanid era. This being the case - how could he have been among the foremost to return back to Ali at the time of the prophet’s death? This point raises doubt about this identification and over-rules it. al-Tustari proposes that it could be Abu Sinan (أبو سنان) al-Ansari instead of Abu Sasan (أبو ساسان), their names are quite close to each other in the Arabic script. al-Tusi includes Abi Sinan al-Ansari among the companions of Ali and al-Barqi considers him to be among the select (Asfiya) of his companions. The problem again is that he has not been listed among the companions of the prophet by any scholar, and we do not even know his personal name. At the same time, it is possible that it is Abu Sinan which is a corruption of Abu Sasan. Shatira (Shatir) is most probably Shatira b. Shakal al-Absi al-Kufi. Al-Barqi enumerated him among the close (Khawas) companions of Ali from Mudhar. Ibn Athir says that he witnessed the time of Jahiliyya, though he did not narrate from the prophet directly, but from his father and other companions. Nothing more is known about him. Despite all the above, there is an enigmatic narration in al-Ikhtisas as follows: و روى الاختصاص باسناده، عن عليّ بن إسماعيل بن عيسى، عن حمّاد بن عيسى، عن الحسين بن مختار القلانسي، عن الحارث بن المغيرة النضري، قال: قال لي أبو عبد اللّه عليه السّلام: أيّ شي‏ء تقولون أنتم؟ فقال: نقول هلك الناس إلّا ثلاثة، فقال أبو عبد اللّه عليه السّلام: فأين ابن ليلى و شتير؟ فسألت حمّاد بن عيسى عنهما، قال: كانا موليين أسودين لعليّ بن أبي طالب Al-Ikhtisas: pseudo-al-Mufid by his chain to Ali b. Ismail b. Isa from Hammad b. Isa from al-Husayn b. Mukhtar al-Qulanasi from al-Harith b. al-Mughira al-Nadhri who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السّلام said to me: what do you (pl.) say? I said: we say that the people were destroyed except for three, so Abu Abdillah عليه السّلام said: so where is Ibn Abi Layla and Shatir? So I (Ali b. Ismail) asked Hammad b. Isa about them, he said: they were two black slaves of Ali b. Abi Talib. Assuming this is authentic, then it is possible that Abu Sasan (= Ibn Abi Layla) and Shatir are two obscure slaves of Ali who got such an eminent position as to become among the seven because of their loyalty to him.
  10. [79] أبو عبد الله محمد بن إبراهيم، قال حدثني علي بن محمد بن يزيد القمي، قال حدثني عبد الله بن محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال : كان بلال عبدا صالحا و كان صهيب عبد سوء يبكي على عمر [79] Abu Abdallah Muhammad b. Ibrahim said: narrated to me Ali b. Muhammad b. Yazid al-Qummi saying: narrated to me Abdallah b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: Bilal was a righteous slave while Suhayb was an evil slave - crying over Umar (i.e. after the latter was assassinated). https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/bilal-and-suhayb ختص: كان بلال مؤذن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لزم بيته ولم يؤذن لاحد من الخلفاء وقال فيه أبوعبدالله جعفر بن محمد عليه السلام: رحم الله بلالا فإنه كان يحبنا أهل البيت، ولعن الله صهيبا فإنه كان يعادينا al-Ikhtisas: Bilal was the Mua`dhin of the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, so when the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله died, he [Bilal] remained in his house, and he did not give the Adhan for any one of the Khulafa, Abu Abdillah Ja`far b. Muhammad عليه السلام said about him: may Allah have mercy on Bilal, for he used to love us the Ahl al-Bayt, may Allah curse Suhayb for he used to have enmity with us. يه: عن أبي بصير عن أحدهما عليهما السلام أنه قال : إن بلالا كان عبدا صالحا، فقال: لا اؤذن لاحد بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، فترك يومئذ حي على خير العمل al-Faqih: From Abi Basir from one of them عليهما السلام that he said: Bilal was a righteous slave, he said: I will not give the Adhan for anyone after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله so 'Hayya ala Khayril Amal' was abandoned from that day. يب: محمد بن علي بن محبوب، عن معاوية بن حكيم، عن سليمان بن جعفر، عن أبيه قال : دخل رجل من أهل الشام على أبي عبدالله عليه السلام فقال له: إن أول من سبق إلى الجنة بلال، قال: ولم؟ قال : لانه أول من أذن Tahdhib al-Ahkam: Muhammad b. Ali b. Mahbub from Mu`awiya b. Hukaym from Sulayman b. Ja`far from his father who said: a man from the people of Sham entered to meet Abi Abdillah عليه السلام so he said to him: the first one to proceed to Janna will be Bilal, he said: why is that? he said: because he was the first to give the Adhan. NOTE: al-Majlisi says that it could be the Imam who says this about Bilal, as is more likely, but there is an option that it is the Shami who said this, and the Imam responded - 'why do you say that?' [as a form of objecting to it] and the Shami answered, and the Imam remained silent because of Taqiyya. Also, Bilal being the first to proceed to Janna is not absolute, but could be relative to other Mu`adhins, or his class of the Sahaba who are not Ahl al-Bayt.
  11. [1/135] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: حدثني جابر عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ولم يكذب جابر ... [1/135] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Najran from A`sim b. Humayd from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام who said: Jabir [b. Abdallah] narrated to me from the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله - and Jabir did not lie - … https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/jabir-b-abdallah-al-ansari-and-jabir-b-yazid-al-jufi These are some of the narrations about Jabir in our books. https://sites.google.com/site/rijalalkashi/vol1/jabir-b-abdallah-al-ansari I will post more about the others as their entries come up in Mu`jam or al-Kashshi. Correct. Furthermore, the protagonists differ relative to their role in the fiasco. Some were quite unaware of the whole thing and lacked full knowledge of the Haqq of Ali and his Ma`rifa, this could be because they were blind to the order of the prophet (total ignorance); had some doubts; did not have the ability to influence the outcome because of some constraints [swept away by the wave of events]; or because they showed cowardice and faltered in coming to Ali’s aid. Others later acknowledged their mistake and made up for it in the following years. All these in their different categories can be said to be the majority. Their fate in the next world of “realities” is left to Allah.
  12. I have not found a Hadith on Malik. Will post if come across something on him. It is enough honour for Umm Salama that al-Husayn left the relics of Imama with her when he left for Iraq, and ordered her to hand them over to his eldest son i.e. Ali when the time comes. This shows that she was trustworthy. She is considered the best wife after Khadija.
  13. One way of putting it is that Iman is Naqis [deficient]. The other is that one is Kafir in Akhera. Both have been used by scholars who adopt this position. We are to treat them as Muslims on the apparent in our dealings with them. Other scholars did not see this nuance, someone like Yusuf al-Bahrani says: إنك قد عرفت أن المخالف كافر لاحظ له في الاسلام بوجه من الوجوه You have known that the Mukhalif is a Kafir, he has nothing to do with Islam [he has no portion in Islam], in any way whatsoever. See his: Shihab al-Thaqib fi Ma`na al-Nasib. This is an extreme position that we reject for many reasons.
  14. هلك الناس أجمعون قلت: من في الشرق و من في الغرب؟ قال: فقال: إنها فتحت على الضلال All the people were destroyed. I said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق أبو ساسان و عمار و شتيرة و أبو عمرة فصاروا سبعة All were destroyed except three - then they were joined by Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Amra, so they became seven [Ja`far al-Sadiq] Did the Sahaba Apostatize? There are narrations which indicate that all the companions were destroyed except three, these were then joined by four others, so they became seven who were saved. However, most of the scholars have understood this Halak [destruction] to be that of Dhalal [misguidance] i.e. perished in Salvific terms, not Kufr [disbelief] - which is the opposite of Islam. Who are the three? They are the pillars of the Madhhab. They are explicitly named in some of the narrations below: أبي بصير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة: أبو ذر، و سلمان، و المقداد؟ قال: فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: فأين أبو ساسان، و أبو عمرة الأنصاري؟ [al-Kashshi] Abi Basir said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: all the people turned back except for three - Abu Dhar, Salman and Miqdad? Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: so where is Abu Sasan and Abu Amra al-Ansari?! أبي بكر الحضرمى قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلاثلاثة نفر سلمان وأبو ذر والمقداد. قال: قلت: فعمّار؟ قال عليه السلام: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع ... ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الانصاري وأبوعمرة وشتيرة وكانوا سبعة فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلاّ هؤلاء السبعة [al-Kashshi] Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven. 'then the people repented after that, so the first ones ...' This shows that it was not just these seven, rather, these were the foremost of them. علي بن أبي طالب عليهم السلام قال: خلقت الارض لبسبعة بهم ترزقون وبهم تنصرون وبهم تمطرون منهم سلمان الفارسي والمقداد وأبو ذر وعّمار وحذيفة رحمة اللّه عليهم. وكان علي عليه السلام يقول: وأنا إمامهم وهم الذين صلوا على فاطمة صلوات الله عليها [al-Ikhtisas] Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام said: the earth was created for seven, because of them you are given sustenance, and because of them you are assisted, and because of them is rain made to fall on you, among them are Salman al-Farsi and al-Miqdad and Abu Dhar and Ammar and Hudhayfa - may Allah have mercy on them. Ali عليه السلام used to say: and I am their Imam, and they are the ones who prayed [Salat al-Mayyit] upon Fatima صلوات الله عليها The Three had a higher status than the Four حمران قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام: ما أقلنا لو اجتمعنا على شاة ما أفنيناها قال: فقال: ألا أخبرك بأعجب من ذلك قال: فقلت: بلى قال: المهاجرون و الأنصار ذهبوا إلا (و أشار بيده) ثلاثة [al-Kashshi] Humran said: I said to Abi Ja’far عليه السلام - how few we (the Shias) are! if we gather to eat a sheep we will not be able to finish it, he (Humran) said: so he عليه السلام said: should I not inform you of something even more bewildering? he (Humran) said: I said: yes (do so), he said: the Muhajirun and the Ansar all diverted (i.e. went astray) except for - and he gestured with his hand - three. In al-Kulayni’s variant the narration continues: قال حمران: فقلت: جعلت فداك ما حال عمار؟ قال: رحم الله عمارا أبا اليقظان بايع وقتل شهيدا، فقلت في نفسي: ما شئ أفضل من الشهادة فنظر إلي فقال: لعلك ترى أنه مثل الثلاثة أيهات أيهات Humran said: may I be made your ransom - what is the status of Ammar? He said: may Allah have mercy on Ammar Aba al-Yaqdhan, he pledged allegiance and died a martyr, I said in my heart: what thing is better than martyrdom, so he [the Imam] looked at me and said: perhaps you think that he [Ammar] is like the three [in status], how far! how far! [from truth that opinion is]. Does this mean all others became apostates? The crux is the meaning of Ridda (ردّة) in these narrations. Whether it is to be understood in a linguistic sense or the technical sense of apostasy. If the latter is taken then it means all the Sahaba became Kafir [out of Islam] for not sticking to Ali. Irtidad in the linguistic sense refers to ‘turning back from something’. It has been used with this meaning in a number of verses such as: فَلَمَّا أَن جَاء الْبَشِيرُ أَلْقَاهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ فَارْتَدَّ بَصِيرًا قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مِنَ اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (i) So when the caravan herald [fore-runner] came he threw it on his face so he returned to seeing, he said: did I not say to you that I know from Allah what ye do not (12:96) قَالَ الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ (ii) The one who had knowledge of a part of the Book said: I will bring it to you before your glance returns back to you [i.e. you blink and open your eyes again] (27:40) مُهْطِعِينَ مُقْنِعِي رُءُوسِهِمْ لاَ يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ وَأَفْئِدَتُهُمْ هَوَاء (iii) Racing ahead, their heads bowed down, their glances not returning back to them [i.e. unblinking] and their hearts void (14:43) Whenever Irtidad from the Diin - ‘turning back’ from the Diin i.e. apostasy in the technical sense is meant, the Qur`an qualifies it by explicitly mentioning Diin. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ (i) O you who believe, whoever turns back from his Diin from among you then Allah will bring about a people whom He loves and they love Him (5:54) وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ (ii) And whoever among you turns back on his Diin and dies whilst being a Kafir then those are they whose deeds have been nullified in the world and the hereafter (2:217) It is clear that the narrations about the Irtidad of the Sahaba are not qualified by Diin. To understand that meaning from it would require further proof. The Chosen Interpretation The Irtidad in the narrations should be understood [in light of other narrations] as people turning away, after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, from what they had made incumbent on themselves in his صلى الله عليه وآله lifetime, when they gave the Bay`a to Ali b. Abi Talib as the leader of the believers i.e. Irtidad from Wilaya not apostasy from Islam. Instead, they decided to give the Bay`a to someone else because of expediency and other reasons. This was a betrayal of epic proportions that opened up the door of misguidance and innovation in the Diin, however, they had not exited the apparent Islam, nor were all on the same level of liability for this. This interpretation is aided by the following texts: أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة. فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الأسود، وأبو ذر الغفاري، وسلمان الفارسي، رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم، ثم عرَف أناسٌ بعدَ يسير. وقال: هؤلاء الذين دارت عليهم الرحا وأبوا أن يبايعوا، حتى جاؤوا بأمير المؤمنين مكرَهاً فبايع، وذلك قوله تعالى: وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (i) [al-Kafi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people were the people of Ridda after the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except three. I said: who are the three? He said: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Abu Dhar al-Ghiffari and Salman al-Farsi, may Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon them, then the people came to know after a while [the truth], these [three] are those around whom the banner revolved and they refused to give Bay`a [to Abu Bakr], until when they brought the commander of the faithful عليه السلام by coercion and he gave the pledge of allegiance, and that is His words the Elevated - “Muhammad is not but a messenger, messengers have come and gone before him, if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels, and whoever turns back on his heels then he will not harm Allah a thing and Allah will recompense those who are grateful” (3:144). The narration indicates that the uniqueness of the three was that they did not give the Bay`a to the usurper because of knowing the true status of Ali, it was only when Ali was forced to give the Bay`a, and he did [for the Masliha which Allah willed], that the three also agreed to do it. The meaning of 'then the people came to know after a while ...' is that some people recognized their fault, and acknowledged that the commander of the faithful was the most rightful person to assume leadership. That all the others apart from the three were paralyzed by fear is shown in the narration below: أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: جاء المهاجرون والأنصار وغيرهم بعد ذلك إلى علي عليه السلام فقالوا له: أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت والله أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فوالله لنموتن قدامك! فقال علي عليه السلام: ان كنتم صادقين فاغدوا غدا علي محلقين فحلق علي عليه السلام وحلق سلمان وحلق مقداد وحلق أبو ذر ولم يحلق غيرهم؛ ثم انصرفوا فجاؤوا مرة أخرى بعد ذلك، فقالوا له أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فحلفوا فقال: إن كنتم صادقين فاغدوا علي محلقين فما حلق إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة قلت: فما كان فيهم عمار؟ فقال: لا؛ قلت: فعمار من أهل الردة؟ فقال: إنّ عمارا قد قاتل مع علي عليه السلام بعد ذلك (ii) [al-Kashshi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the Muhajirun and Ansar and others came after that [the coup at Saqifa] to Ali عليه السلام and said to him: you are by Allah the commander of the faithful, and you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, for by Allah we are going to die in front of you [in your defense], Ali said: if you are truthful then come to me tomorrow having shaved your head [which would visually identify the ‘rebels’ to the authorities], so Ali shaved, so did Salman, Miqdad and Abu Dhar, and no one else did, then they came a second time after the first and said: you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, and they swore an oath, he said: come to me tomorrow having shaved your head if you are truthful, so no one shaved except three. I said: Ammar was not among them? He said: No, I said: Ammar is from the people of Ridda? He said: Ammar fought together with Ali after that. This reaffirms that the uniqueness of the three is related to them not giving in and remaining with Ali to the end as far as his right is concerned. Note also how Ammar is not included among the Ahl al-Ridda, even in a historical sense, because of his later support for Ali. In fact, one of the reasons behind Ali accepting to give Bay`a after his show of dissent was so that the masses do not renounce the faith totally. Recall that the Islamic polity was still unstable and there were a lot of Arab tribes whose allegiance had been personally to the prophet and not the Diin per se, the Jahiliyya was not far from their psyche. أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن الناس لما صنعوا ما صنعوا إذ بايعوا أبا بكر لم يمنع أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام من أن يدعو إلى نفسه إلا نظرا للناس و تخوفا عليهم أن يرتدوا عن الاسلام فيعبدوا الاوثان ولا يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وكان الاحب إليه أن يقرهم على ما صنعوا من أن يرتدوا عن جميع الاسلام وإنما هلك الذين ركبوا ما ركبوا فأما من لم يصنع ذلك ودخل فيما دخل فيه الناس على غير علم ولا عداوة لامير المؤمنين عليه السلام فإن ذلك لا يكفره ولا يخرجه من الاسلام ولذلك كتم علي عليه السلام أمره وبايع مكرها حيث لم يجد أعوانا (iii) [al-Kafi] Abu Ja'farعليه السلام said: When the people did what they did - when they gave allegiance to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented the commander of the faithful عليه السلام from calling to himself (i.e. gather support to rival them publicly) except his fear for the people - that they would apostate from Islam, and begin worshiping the idols anew, and reject witnessing that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger; and it was more beloved to him to acquiesce to what they had done rather than them apostatizing from the whole of Islam. Verily, those who clambered upon this (opposing Ali for rulership) have been destroyed. As for the one who did not contribute anything to that (opposing Ali for rulership) and entered into what the people entered into without knowledge (about his status) nor enmity towards him then this act of his does not make him a disbeliever, and it does not remove him from Islam, and this is why Ali kept quiet about his matter (status), and gave allegiance while displeased, when he could not find any supporters. The narration makes it clear that had the Imam fought for his leadership i.e. a civil war it would cause irreparable damage, this is because of the tenuous position that Islam had, even the outward Islam (the Islam of the Shahadatyn) would have been wiped out. There were a lot of external and internal enemies waiting for this infighting to make sure that the whole foundation of Islam crumbles. Conclusion The Umma became, for the most part, misguided after their prophet. This is something that had also happened to the communities of past prophets. But this misguidance should not be understood to have taken all of them out of Islam as a whole, rather, by ignoring a central commandment of the prophet they have done a great sin which struck a blow to the pristine Islam. Furthermore, the protagonists differ relative to their role in the fiasco. Some were quite unaware of the whole thing and lacked full knowledge of the Haqq of Ali and his Ma`rifa, this could be because they were blind to the order of the prophet (total ignorance); had some doubts; did not have the ability to influence the outcome because of some constraints [swept away by the wave of events]; or because they showed cowardice and faltered in coming to Ali’s aid. Others later acknowledged their mistake and made up for it in the following years. All these in their different categories can be said to be the majority. Their fate in the next world of “realities” is left to Allah On the other hand, there were those who administered the whole thing. They had full knowledge of what the prophet had ordered them and what the divine commandment required them to do. They also knew the position of Ali. Despite this, they fought against this explicitly. These are those who should be treated as apparent Muslims in the daily life in this world [according to most scholars]. This is, after all, how Ali himself treated them, praying in their mosques, visiting them in sickness, helping them out when they faced challenges, eating with them etc. part of which is Taqiyya and safeguarding the greater principles of Islam, but they are undoubtedly people of the fire in the next world. Note that this interpretation is dependent on the position of differentiating between the Dharuriyat of the Diin and that of the Madhhab and considering the Shahdatayn alone to be enough in making someone a Muslim [unless taken out for some other reason]. Whilst this is a popular position among scholars today, it has had its detractors among the scholars of the past, one of them being someone like Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani, who considered the rejectors of the Wilaya as Kafirs with the fullest implication this has [even in this world].
  15. 3.16. - 3.20. al-Hakam, Salama, Kathir, Salim and Abu al-Miqdam https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-narrators/al-hakam-salama-kathir-salim-and-abu-al-miqdam [1/133] رجال الكشي: علي بن الحسن، عن العباس بن عامر و جعفر بن محمد، عن أبان بن عثمان، عن أبي بصير قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: إن الحكم بن عتيبة و سلمة و كثيرا و أبا المقدام و التمار يعني سالما، أضلوا كثيرا ممن ضل من هؤلاء، و إنهم ممن قال الله عز و جل وَ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَقُولُ آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَ بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَ ما هُمْ بِمُؤْمِنِينَ [1/133] Rijal al-Kashshi: Ali b. al-Hasan from al-Abbas b. A`mir and Ja`far b. Muhammad from Aban b. Uthman from Abi Basir who said: I heard Aba Ja`far عليه السلام saying: al-Hakam b. Utayba, Salama, Kathir, Aba al-Miqdam and al-Tammar - that is Salim - have misguided a lot of those who are misguided from among these [non-Imamis], and they are those about whom Allah Mighty and Majestic said: “and among people are those who say: we have believed in Allah and the last day while they are not believers” (2:8). NOTES: The chain is Mu`tabar only if the intermediary between al-Kashshi and Ali b. al-Hasan is a Thiqa narrator like Muhammad b. Masud, as is likely, looking at the Isnad statistics throughout the book. All those mentioned here can be considered of the Batriyya. This is how al-Nawbakhti describes them in his Kitab al-Firaq [undoubtedly he was inspired by this narration when putting them together under one heading]: The people of Hadith, like al-Hasan b. Salih b. Hayy (d. 168), Kathir al-Nawwa, Salim b. Abi Hafsa (d. 137), al-Hakam b. Utayba (d. 114), Salama b. Kuhayl (d. 121), Abu al-Miqdam Thabit al-Haddad, and their followers. They called for loyalty to Ali, peace be upon him, then they mixed it with loyalty to Abu Bakr and Umar. They agreed that Ali was the best and superior among the Umma. Nevertheless, they accept the judgment of Abu Bakr and Umar and allow the wiping of shoes [Mash ala al-Khuffayn in Wudhu], and permit drinking intoxicating drink [Nabidh], and eating catfish [which does not have scales]. Why were they called Batriyya? There is a difference of opinions about the origin of this term, but one possible reason is given by the narration below [though it is clearly polemical and weak in chain]. Sa`d b. Janah al-Kashshi - Ali b. Muhammad b. Yazid al-Qummi - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa - al-Husayn b. Sa`id - Fadhala b. Ayyub - al-Husayn b. Uthman al-Ruwasi - Sadiyr who said: I entered upon Abi Ja’far عليه السلام and with me were Salama b. Kuhayl, Abu al-Miqdam Thabit al-Haddad, Salim b. Abi Hafsa, Kathir al-Nawwa and a group together with them, and with Abi Ja’far عليه السلام was his brother Zayd b. Ali عليهم السلام, so they said to Abi Ja’far عليهم السلام - we consider as a guardian Ali, Hasan and Husayn, and we disassociate from their enemies, he said: yes (do that), they said: we consider Abu Bakr and Umar as guardians, and disassociate from their enemies, he (Sadiyr) said: so Zayd b. Ali turned towards them and said: do you disassociate from Fatima!? you have cut off our affair - may Allah cut you off. [And from that day on they were known as the Batriyya (those who cut off part of the thing)]. In other words they had political Tashayyu in them, in so far as they considered Ali more merituous [a concept that was further elaborated on by the Zaydiyya]. This was enough for a lot of Nasibi scholars to view as “Tashayyu”. At the same time, they accepted the Jamai conception that Abu Bakr and Umar were Just leaders and did not condemn the Sahaba wholesale. They did not have any concept of the Nass, whereby the true leader [in both temporal and spiritual terms] is one man from the Ahl al-Bayt who has been designated by a prior man from the same lineage. They respected al-Baqir and al-Sadiq and considered them authorities. This can be evidenced by the fact that they did narrate from them more than your average Hadith narrator among the Proto-Sunnis. Despite this, they did not know of a concept of Isma, nor did they restrict authority to just these Imams, thus, they could mix freely and take Ilm from others which even contradicted what the `Aimma of Ahl al-Bayt were preaching to their closest followers in Non-Taqiyya mode. What is also worthy of note is how al-Hakam was seen as much more of a key player in early Imami circles, over and beyond his status in what has become Sunnism [he is a very marginal figure]. Maybe this was because Zurara studied under him first before beginning to follow the Imams. Muhammad b. Masud - Ali bin Muhammad b. Fayruzan al-Qummi - Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya - al-Abbas b. Ma`ruf - al-Hajjal - Abi Maryam al-Ansari who said: Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said to Salama b. Kuhayl and al-Hakam b. Utayba - (go) east or west, you will not find correct knowledge except something that has originated from us - the Ahl al-Bayt.