Question 807 - The Enlightening Answer Across the Ether, Vol 7

Ahmed al-Hasan Response:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, the Imams and the Mahdis, and grant them peace. Before answering, it must be noted that the Proof does not need conventional methodologies that deviate from the truth in order to establish the truth. Rather, out of mercy toward the people, he argues with some of those who have deviated by means of their own methodology, discusses it, demonstrates its weakness, distinguishes the sound statement from the unsound, and binds them by it, perhaps they may return to the truth. According to them, a narration has an authentic chain of transmission if its narrators are upright Shia or truthful. Thus, for the chain to be authentic, it is sufficient to establish that the narrators are: Shia; truthful. To establish that the narrators of the testament are Shia, it is sufficient that Shaykh al-Tusi narrated the testament among the narrations of the elite-that is, Shaykh al-Tusi regarded its narrators as being among the elite, the Shia. In al-Ghaybah, al-Tusi said: ‘As for what has been narrated by way of the elite, it is more than can be counted; nevertheless, we will mention a portion of it …’ (^[37]). Then, after citing the narrations of the elite, including the testament, he commented: ‘As for what demonstrates their authenticity, the Shia narrate them by way of tawatur, generation after generation. The method of verifying that is present in the Imami books concerning the designations of the Commander of the Believers (peace be upon him); the method is one and the same’ (^[38]). One may consult the book Intisaran lil-Wasiyyah by Shaykh Nazim-may Allah preserve him-for a detailed demonstration that the narrators of the testament are Shia. As for judging the individual narrators truthful-and truthfulness is sufficient for us-we need nothing beyond the fact that no religious proof has established that any one of them is impugned. A believer is truthful in what he says until his lying is established by religious proof. They do not say that a believer is a liar until his truthfulness is established. Whoever says this, his words mean that he declares his followers sinful and regards them as liars until every one of them establishes his truthfulness by proof! As for those among them who say that a believer’s outward condition is unknown until his truthfulness is established, they mean that his outward state-whether truthful or lying-is not known except by religious proof. Their statement contradicts the Quran and the practice of the Messenger, who listened to believers and believed believers without investigating anything beyond their faith. The Quranic verse that explains the Messenger’s practice in this matter is clear and manifest. The Most High said: ‘Among them are those who hurt the Prophet and say, “He is an ear.” Say: an ear of good for you. He believes in Allah and believes the believers, and is a mercy to those among you who believe. Those who hurt the Messenger of Allah will have a painful punishment’ [al-Tawbah 9:61]. That is, the objection of those who objected to the conduct of the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family) resembles the statement of these people concerning the believer’s unknown condition and the refusal to rely on his statement until proof establishes that he is truthful. They criticize the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family) for listening to and believing the words of any believer: ‘and they say, “He is an ear.” Say: an ear of good for you. He believes in Allah and believes the believers.’ That is, Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family) listens to every believer and believes what he says. He does not say that the believer’s condition is unknown or that he is a liar until his truthfulness is established. Rather, with the Messenger, as the verse indicates, the believer is truthful until his lying is established: ‘Say: an ear of good for you. He believes in Allah and believes the believers’ … ‘and believes the believers’ means that he regards the believers as truthful. This Quranic ruling that the believer is outwardly truthful, rather than his condition being unknown as they claim, is sufficient for us. The narrators of the testament are believing Shia, and the believer is outwardly truthful as stated in the Quran. Therefore the narrators of the testament are Shia and outwardly truthful. This establishes the authenticity of its chain for those who adhere to the issue of chains of transmission and their authentication and who depend and rely upon it. As for the believer’s inward reality-whether he is truly truthful or lying-that is a matter with which Allah has not charged the people; none knows it other than the Lord of lords, the Knower of inward realities, and whomever He wills to inform. I believe the foregoing is sufficient. For more, add that their statement that a believer is outwardly a liar until his truthfulness is established, or that his outward condition is unknown until his truthfulness is established, contradicts the leniency of the law of Islam. It would require the suspension of religious courts, adjudication, unilateral legal acts, and contracts in many cases, since one could not obtain a witness for marriage, divorce, disputes, and litigation except with great difficulty. This is so even if there were leniency in their condition for establishing uprightness and truthfulness; otherwise, no person’s uprightness would be established except before the investigator himself. According to their claim that uprightness and truthfulness are established only through investigation and scrutiny, the investigator and scrutinizer himself needs someone to testify to his uprightness and truthfulness so that his testimony about another person may be accepted by others, and so on in an infinite regress that collapses. By this method, therefore, no person’s uprightness can be established except one for whom a Proof from among Allah’s Proofs-whose authority has been established by evidence-testifies, or it can be established only for the investigator himself. A religious judge cannot personally investigate the uprightness of every person. Testimony before judges in Islam would therefore be suspended. Thus their statement that the believer’s condition is unknown makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain testimony in courts and similar matters of contracts and unilateral legal acts. Their statement is false and contradicts the practice of the Messenger Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family), the Imams (peace be upon them), Islam and its leniency, and the Quran and the ease of its rulings. Add that their statement that the believer’s condition is unknown would require not relying on the marketplace of believers, much less the marketplace of Muslims, whereas the narrations regard reliance on the marketplace of Muslims as permissible, and their jurists issue rulings to this effect. That is, narrations from the Imams (peace be upon them) regarded the Muslim as truthful in what he says concerning the lawful slaughter of fish and livestock and the like-so what of the believer?! The correct position, therefore, is that we judge the believer truthful until conclusive evidence of his lying appears. As for those who, after this explanation, insist that the believer’s condition is unknown, or that he is sinful until his uprightness or truthfulness is established, that is their affair. It is obstinacy and arbitrary assertion without evidence; indeed, the evidence establishes that the believer is truthful and is believed in what he says. Let their followers hear their statement and know that, in the eyes of the jurists of misguidance, they are sinners, nobodies of unknown condition, and untruthful-even if they establish that they are believers-because the jurists of misguidance require every individual among them to establish his uprightness, which cannot be established by their method through sound logical evidence. If they say that a person’s uprightness is established through the testimony of upright persons, or two upright persons, those upright persons themselves also need testimony, and so on in an infinite regress that collapses. Beyond all the foregoing, those who boast of their knowledge of narrators do not in the first place possess biographical material concerning impugning and accrediting narrators that covers a considerable number of the companions of Muhammad and the family of Muhammad (may Allah send prayers upon him and his family) so that they would be entitled to speak about impugning and accreditation. They fundamentally lack any considerable body of material on impugning and accreditation, since there were hundreds of thousands of companions of the Messenger and the Imams (peace be upon them), while the books of narrators by the early scholars mention only a very small number of them. Given this situation, any narration that some of them dislike or that does not accord with their desires can easily be rejected on the pretext that this narrator’s condition is unknown or that he was not mentioned in the early books of narrators, even though the majority were not mentioned. The truth of which ordinary people are unaware is that they fundamentally have no logically considerable body of accreditation material to which they can refer for judgment. Whoever wants further detail may consult what Shaykh Nazim-may Allah preserve him-has explained in detail concerning this matter. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Ahmed Alhasan