|
We do not need to discuss the Quranic
citations or the numerous Hadiths that discuss the Mahdi or the Qa’im
without specifying the identity of the person. This is because the aim
of our study is not the total denial of the appearance of Mahdi in the
future. It is rather aimed at saying that a person called Muhammad bin
Hassan Askari has not been born and is yet to exist. Consequently, the
verses or the Hadiths would not establish the birth of such a man, or
his existence despite the possibility of discussing the import of the
glorious verses on the subject.
As for the narrations on the occultation (al-Ghaybah)
and the occult, they are not discussing any particular occult
(person). And they did not mention the name of Muhammad bin Hassan
Askari, as they did not point to his special occultation. So it cannot
stand as evidence on the occultation of the Hujjah (Mahdi), son of
Hassan, for he has not yet been born nor did he go into occultation.
These narrations are not discussing a matter before it takes place, so
that that can be seen as miraculous and evidence on the validity of
the occultation, as Sheikh Saduq has said.
There is, in such narrations nothing that
maintains what the theologians claimed. This is because it did not
contain the mention of anything before it happens, as Sheikh Tusi has
stated. There was no any predetermined anterior mention (of this) from
the Knower of the Unseen. That is because the narrations existed
before, and they mention some other people who were existing in
reality, and Mahdism was claimed for them; they disappeared in the
valleys, on mountains and in prisons, like Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah,
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan (Dhu al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah) and Imam
Musa Kadhim (peace be upon him). It so happened that during their
absence their followers became scattered and divided and confused.
Their supporters fabricated such narrations from reality and for
specific purposes, especially the Waqifite Shiites, those who strongly
believe in the Mahdism of Imam Kadhim. But when Rashid arrested him,
they claimed that he was in occultation. When the Imam died they
refused to acknowledge his death, but rather claimed that he fled from
the prison, and had gone in to his major Occultation, during which he
will not be seen They considered the period of his detention, as the
minor Occultation, the major occultation was longer than the minor
one, as it extends to infinity. The Waqifites did borrow the
traditions on the occultation from the Mahdism movements before them,
and applied them on Imam Kadhim.
If we may pause on the narration mentioned by
Nu’mani on the occultation, in which he says: “ If no other tradition
has been reported except this one, it would suffice.” We would find
that it mentions the death, murder and disappearance of a previously
well-known and existing Imam. While he (Nu’mani) needs to establish
the existence of Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari from the onset, so
that he will be able to attribute such acts to him subsequently.
The theologians (Mutakallimun) were in the
beginning (the third century of Hijrah), attempting to establish the
validity of the assumption of the existence of the twelfth Imam son of
Hassan, and were not discussing the ‘Mahdi and Mahdism’, as they were
in need of establishing first, the throne and then the one to sit on
it. But the crisis that they faced after their claim of the existence
of the ‘son of Hassan’ was: the non-appearance of the Imam to perform
the duties of Imamate. This led them to search in the old Shiite
heritage, like that of Kissanites and Waqifites, so also seeking for
anyway out of the crisis and the perplexity. They found in the old
traditions on Mahdism, the best solution for coming out of the crisis
of non-appearance, as well as new evidence on establishing the
assumption of the existence of the son of Hassan at the same time.
Due to this the theory that was concerned
with establishing the existence of the twelfth Imam developed into the
belief in Mahdism. The discussion revolved around the existence of the
Imam Mahdi, the Hujjah, son Hassan Askari’, due to the vacuum left by
the absence and non-appearance (of the Imam). The conclusion from this
is that the person assumed to be the Imam who cannot be seen, is the
Mahdi, who will go into occultation, and that the cause of his
non-appearance was the occultation!
Even if it is valid to argue on the basis of
such reports for the Mahdism of well-known earlier Imams, those who
disappeared in the prisons or in the valleys or other parts of the
world, it would not be possible to argue on the basis of it for the
validity of the assumption on the existence of the son of Hassan. That
was because the companions of Imam Hassan Askari, and who differed a
lot on the issue doubted his existence. The process of arguing on the
basis of it for the ‘Mahdism of son of Hassan’ needed first to
establish his existence and prove it, before anything is said on his
Imamate, Madism, occultation, and e.t.c.
The argument on the basis of occultation in
order to prove the existence (of the son of Hassan) without
establishing that in the beginning, resembles the argument to prove
the existence of water in a container by saying: “Water has no smell
and no color, and we cannot smell anything nor see any color in the
container, there fore, there is water inside it.”
If that is not possible except after the
establishment of some kind of fluid in the container then we cannot
say that:’ This fluid has neither color nor smell, therefore it is
water’. The process of establishing the existence of the son of Hassan
similarly, will require firstly to prove his existence, Imamate and
Mahdism, then his occultation can be established, not the other way
round i.e. when the unknown and the non-existing and occultation were
taken as evidence to prove the existence, Imamate and Mahdism of a
person still being searched for and being discussed.
Therefore, it is not, in truth, possible to
argue on the basis of the general ambiguous and weak traditions of the
occultation’ in order to establish the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin
Hassan Askari.
Some theorists on occultation have attempted
to argue on the basis of a tradition of the two occultations, the
minor and the major, to establish the validity of the ‘theory of the
existence of the son of Hassan’. The report on the two occultations
itself however is not historically proved. There is no evidence on it,
except the subject of ‘special deputation’, which was claimed by some
personalities. It has not been established from them at that time. The
Shiites that maintained the existence of the son of Hassan differ
among themselves on the validity of the claim of this person or that,
of being a special deputy, having been claimed by about twenty (20)
persons, most of them were among the extremists. From this the limit
separating the two occultations, the minor and the major was an
illusory limit, not established historically. It is to be noted that
the argument on the basis of the two occultations was started by
Nu’mani in the middle of the fourth century of Hijrah, after the
expiry of the period of ‘Special deputies). None of the preceding
writers on ‘occultation’ point to it. They only pointed to one
occultation.
Sayyid Murtada Alam al-Huda and Sheikh Tusi
did admit, while discussing the causes of occultation, that it is
necessary to first investigate the subject of the existence and
Imamate of’ the son of Hassan Askari’ before discussing the
occultation and its causes. (1)
They said: “ For anyone who doubts the
Imamate of the son of Hassan, it is necessary to discuss with him the
text on his Imamate, and to exert efforts in establishing it. It is
not possible to discuss the cause of the occultation if doubts remain
regarding it (the Imamate). This is because it is not right to discuss
the branch (secondary issue) until after perfectly establishing the
(primary) principles.” (2)
THE EVIDENCE OF THE
TWELVER-IMAM SHIITES
This late evidence the theologians started
employing after more than half a century of confusion and perplexity,
i.e. in the fourth century of Hijrah. There was no trace of it in the
third century among the Imamate Shiites, as Sheikh Ali bin Babawaih
Saduq did not mention it in his book: ‘Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah min
al-Hayrah’, just as Nubakhti did not point to it in ‘Firaq al-Shi’ah’,
nor did Sa’ad bin Abdullah Ash’ari al-Qummi in his ‘al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq’.
That is because the Twelver-Imam theory came to the doctrine of the
Imamate in the fourth century, after it has been extended to the end
to time, without any limit regarding the number, similar to the case
with the Isma’ilites and Zaydites, because of its being parallel to
the theory of Shura and an alternative to it. So as long as there are
Muslims who need a state and an Imam, it was forbidden for them to
resort to Shura and elections as the Imamate theory maintains. It is
inevitable that Allah appoints for them an infallible Imam through
traditions and texts. Then why should the number be limited to twelve
only?
For this reason, the Imamate Shiites did not
mention any specific number of Imams, and even those who believe in
the existence of Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, did not maintain
that he was the seal (last) of the Imams. We see Nubakhti saying in
his book-‘Firaq al-Shi’ah’: “The Imamate will continue in the progeny
of the twelfth Imam till the day of Resurrection.” (See the reference:
The sect that believe in the existence of a son for Askari).
Many reports mentioned by Saffar in ‘Basair
al-Darajat’ Kulayni in ‘Al-Kafi’, Himyari in ‘Qurb al-Isnad’, Iyashi
in his Tafsir, Mufid in ‘Al-Irshad’ and Hur al-Amili in ‘Ithbat al-Huda’
and so on and so forth, pointed that, since the time of the Prophet
(peace be upon him), the Imams did not know of any predetermined list
of Imams, nor did they know of their Imamate or the Imamate of the
succeeding Imams after them except just before their death, talkless
of the Shiites or the Imamate Shiites themselves, who used to get
confused and differ among themselves after the death of any Imam. They
used to seek from every Imam to appoint the succeeding Imam after him,
and to name him in clear terms, so as not to die without knowing the
new Imam.
Saffar reports in ‘Basa’ir al-Darajat’ (3) in
the chapter on, ‘The Imams know the ones to whom they give their will
(of the Imamate) before their death through what Allah bestowed on
them (of knowledge)’, a tradition from Imam Sadiq in which he says:
“No scholar dies until Allah shows him the one to whom he will give
the will”. Kulayni in ‘Al-Kafi’ reported it also. (4) He also reports
from him (peace be upon him): “The Imam will not die till he knows the
one after him and then he offers him his will.” This shows that the
Imams themselves have no knowledge of the names of those to succeed
them or the existence of a predetermined list with their names. Saffar,
Saduq and Kulayni have gone beyond this and they reported from Abu
Abdullah who said: “ The succeeding Imam knows of his Imamate and
takes over in the last minute of the life of the last Imam.”(5)
As a result of that many questions are raised
regarding the life of Ahl al-Bayt, namely: ‘How does the Imam know of
his Imamate, if his father died away from him in another city?’ ‘How
can he know that he is the Imam if he gave his will to a group, or if
he did not give a will at all?’ ‘How can the people know the Imam,
especially if brothers claim the Imamate, and each one of them claim
to have received the will, as it has happened to a number of Imams
historically?’
Kulayni reported a tradition from one of the
Alawites, namely ‘Isa bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali bin
Abi Talib, who said I said to Abu Abdullah:
v
“If something-may Allah not show that
to me---happened (death) to you, whom should I emulate?” He said: He
pointed to his son Musa. I said:
v
“ If something happened to Musa, whom
should I emulate? He said:
v
“ His son”. I then said:
v
“If something happened to his son,
and left an elder brother and a small son, whom should I emulate?” He
replied:
v
“His son’ He then added, “ In this
manner perpetually.” I said:
v
“If I did not know him nor do I know
his place?” He said:
v
“You will say: ‘O Allah I give my
loyalty to any of your evidences (Imams) remaining from the children
of the past Imam’, that will suffice you, Allah willing.” (6)
This tradition shows that there was no any
predetermined list of names of the Imams, and the lack of knowledge of
the Alawite and Imamate Shiite like ‘Isa bin Abdullah’ of that (list),
and the possibility of his being perplexed and ignorant further
confirms this. If the list exists before, the Imam would have pointed
to it.
Due to the ambiguity of the identity of the
subsequent Imams in the sight of the majority Shiites and Imamate
among them, they used to always ask the Imams on the necessary steps
to be taken when one of the Imams dies. Kulayni and Ibn Babawaih and
Iyashi transmit a tradition from Yaqub bin Shu’aib from Abu Abdullah,
who said: ‘I said to him:
v
“ If something happen to the Imam,
what should the people do?” He said:
v
“They will be like the saying of
Allah: “Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that
they (who are left behind) may get instructions in religion, and that
they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may
beware (of evil). I said:
v
“What is their position?” He said:
v
“They will be excused as long as they
were searching. Those who were waiting for them will be excused, till
the return of their people.” (7)
There is yet another similar narration from Zurarah
bin A’yun who experienced this problem, and he died just before the
death of Imam Sadiq, he was not aware of the new Imam. So he placed
the Quran on his chest and said: “O Allah, I testify that I affirm
whom this Book states to be the Imam”. (8)
Zurarah was one of the greatest students of the two
Imams Baqir and Sadiq, but he did not know the one to succeed Imam
Sadiq. He therefore sent his son ‘Ubaidullah to Madinah, so as to find
out the new Imam. He (Zurarah) died before the return of his son to
him, without his knowing who was going to be the Imam! (9)
A number of reports mentioned by Kulayni in
‘Al-Kafi’ (10), Mufid in ‘Al-Irshad’ (11) and Tusi, in ‘Al-Ghaybah’
(12) state that: “Imam Hadi gave his will in the beginning to his son
Sayyid Muhammad, but he died during the lifetime of his father. So the
Imam gave his will to Imam Hassan and said to him: “Allah has changed
His will (bada) regarding Muhammad as He changed His will regarding
Isma’il. O my son, thank Allah as He has decreed on you a matter, or a
favor.”
If the reports on a previously prepared list of the
names of twelve Imams were sound and existed before, why didn’t the
Imamate Shiites, who differed and were confused by the death of Imam
Hassan Askari (without an issue), know of it? The Imamate scholars of
Hadith and historians also did not point to it in the third century of
Hijrah?
The Twelver-Imam Theory was never stable in the
Imamate Shiites minds till the middle of the fourth century of Hijrah
…. when Sheikh Muhammad bin Ali Saduq expressed his doubt on limiting
the Imams to only twelve (12). He said: “We are only bound religiously
to confess the existence of twelve Imams, and also to believe what the
twelfth will say after him.” (13)
Al-Kaf’ami in ‘Al-Misbah’ has reported from Imam
Rida (peace be upon him) the following dua (supplication) on the Sahib
al-Zaman: “O Allah bless the rulers of his time and the Imams after
him.” (14)
Saduq has reported a number of traditions on the
likelihood of the extension of the Imamate beyond twelve and not
limiting it to that. Among such narrations was a report from Imam Amir
Al- Muminin (peace be upon him) on the confusion of the situation
after the Qa'im and that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)
has taken a covenant from him: ‘Not to tell anyone of that except
Hassan and Hussain, and that he said: "Do not ask me of what will
happen after that, as my beloved has taken a covenant from me, that I
will not tell anyone except my family.” (15)
Tusi has reported in Al-Ghaybah that the Messenger
of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Ali: “O Ali there would be twelve
Imams after me, and after them, there will be twelve Mahdis. You are O
Ali the first of the twelve Imams…. Then there will come after him,
twelve Mahdis.” (16)
When the idea of limiting the number of Imams
evolved, after the claim on the existence and occultation of Muhammad
bin Hassan Askari, the Imamate Shiites were about to differ among
themselves on limiting their number to either twelve or thirteen, as
some reports emerged at that time saying: The number of the Imams is
thirteen. Kulayni has reported it in ‘Al-Kafi’. (17) If was found in
the book that appeared at that time, which was attributed to Salim bin
Qays al-Hilali. One of these reports says that: ‘The Prophet has said
to Amir al-Muminin (Ali)’: “You and twelve of you children are Imams
of the truth.” This is what made Hibatullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Katib,
the grandson of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari, who was
involved in theology (Kalam), to write a book on the Imamate, and
mention in it that the Imams are thirteen and add to the well known
list the name of Zayd bin Ali, as Al-Najashi said in his ‘Rijal’.
The Shiite historian, Mas'udi (d. 345 A.H) has
mentioned in his ‘Al-Tanbih wa al-Ishraf’: “ The origin of the
statement limiting the number of the Imams to twelve, was what Salim
bin Qays al-Hilali mentioned in his book.” (18)
The book of Salim has appeared in the beginning of
the fourth century of Hijrah, and it contained the list of names of
the twelve Imams, on which he said: “It was known since the time of
the Messenger of Allah, and that he was the one who announced it
before. The emergence of this book has led to the inception of the
sect of Twelver-Imam in the fourth century of Hijrah. The reporters
then started fabricating reports bit by bit. Kulayni did not mention
in ‘Al-Kafi’ except 17 reports. Saduq then came fifty years after him,
to increase it to little over thirty reports. Then came his student,
Khazzaz to make it 200 reports.
MUFID CONSIDERED THE
BOOK OF SALIM AS WEAK
Kulayni, Nu'mani and Saduq depended in their
statement on the Twelver-Imam theory, on the book of Salim, which was
described by Nu'mani as one of the essential sources referred to and
relied upon by the Shiites. The common populace among the Shiites at
that time, however, were doubting the fabrication and concoction of
the book of Salim, and that was due to its being reported through
‘Muhammad bin Ali al-Sirafi Abu Saminah’, the well known liar and
‘Ahmad bin Hilal al-‘Ibrata’i’ the cursed extremist. Abu al-Ghada’iri
has said: “Our people used to say: ‘Salim is an unknown person, not
mentioned (by scholars). The book was fabricated, there is no doubt
about that, and there are signs to confirm what we said.” (19)
Sheikh Mufid considered the book of Salim as weak
and said: “It is not reliable, and acting on most part of it, is not
permissible. I t contained (a lot of) concoctions and deception. It is
better for a religious person to keep away from acting on all that is
in it. The most of it is unreliable, and its reports should not be
emulated. One should go to the scholars, regarding the traditions
contained in it, so as to be cleared on the right therein, and the
wrong.” (Mufid: ‘Awa’il al – Maqalat’, and ‘Sharh’ I’tiqadat al-Saduq’).
(20)
Mufid criticized Saduq for transmitting the book
and dependence on it, and attributed that to the method of Saduq in
reporting. He said of him: “He is treading the path of the scholars of
Hadith, who act on the apparent meanings of words and avoid other
considerations. This opinion harms its owner in his religion, and
standing by it prevents him from having insight in religion.” (21)
Hence the Zaydites opposed the Imamate Shiites,
saying: “The report that indicate that the Imams are twelve is a
statement initiated by the Imamate Shiites lately, and they produced
in that regard many false traditions.” They supported their view by
the divisions among the Shiites, after the death of every Imam, which
resulted in a number of sects; and their lack of knowledge of the
(next) Imam after the (present) Imam; and the occurrence of ‘bada’
(change of will) in the case of Isma’il and Muhammad bin Ali; and the
claim of Abdullah Aftah on the Imamate and the response of the Shiites
to that; and their subsequent perplexity after his tribulation; their
lack of knowledge on Kadhim till the time he called them to himself;
the death of the jurist Zurarah bin A’yun without the knowledge of the
Imam. (22)
Saduq has transmitted their allegations against the
Imamate Shiism, in inventing the Twelver-Imam theory of late. However,
he did not deny the allegation, nor refute it. He only justified that
by saying: “The Imamate Shiites did not say that: “The entire Shiites
including Zurarah, knew the twelve Imams.” When he became aware of the
position of Zurarah and the impossibility of his not knowing any
tradition of this sort, being the greatest of the disciples of the two
Imams, Baqir and Sadiq, he changed his mind on what he said. He
therefore, saw the likelihood of Zurarah’s knowledge of the tradition
and his hiding it, due to Taqiyyah. He later abandoned this
probability and said, ‘Kadhim has sought from his Lord to bestow him
(knowledge) due to his ignorance of the Imam, because anyone who
doubts him (the Imam) is not in the fold of Allah’s religion.” (23)
This contradicts the claim of Khazzaz in ‘Kifayat
al-Athar’and Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ on the popularity of the traditions
on twelve Imams, related through the Shiites, and establishes that it
is not in any way authentic in the earlier generation, especially in
the eras of the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) as it was
not having any impact or influence. Moreso that Tusi did not mention
the classical Shiite books, which he claimed to have discussed the
‘twelve Imam’ theory. Khazzaz had tried to avoid discussing the later
allegation of fabrication. He attempted to deny the allegation of
fabrication on the part of the companions and their followers and the
Ahl al-Bayt (24). The allegation was not made against the companions
and the Ahl al-bayt, but only against some later reporters, who
fabricated the book of Salim in the period of confusion and
perplexity, like ‘Abu Saminah’ ‘Al-Ibrata’i’ and ‘Ali bin Ibrahim al-Qummi’.
WHERE IS THE IMPORT (OF
THE EVIDENCE)?
That is it. The majority of the traditions that
limit the number of Imams to twelve, so also all the traditions
reported in the Sunni sources in particular did not mention the names
of the Imams or Caliphs or Princes in details. The Sunni traditions
did not limit them to twelve, it only pointed to the occurrence of ‘Haraj’-killings
after the twelfth Caliph, as was in the report of Tusi from Jabir bin
Samrah. (25) It also discussed the triumph of religion or of the
followers of the religion, till the advent of twelve Caliphs. (26)
If we accept the theory ofFathite Imamate Shiites,
who did not put as a condition, vertical inheritance of the Imamate,
Imam Hassan Askari will be the twelfth Imam after admitting the
Imamate of Abdullah Aftah bin Sadiq,and after accepting the Imamate of
Zayd bin Ali believed to be the Imam by a section of Imamate Shiites.
Therefore arguing on the basis of the traditions of
Twelver-Imam Shiites which are general, vague and weak traditions,
without the existence of any intellectual evidence on the birth of
Muhammad bin Hassan Askari is a kind of assumption, conjecture and
guess, devoid of any precise intellectual argument.
THERE MUST BE A LIVING
IMAM WHO IS
WELLKNOWN AND MANIFEST!
As for the traditional evidence, which asserts the
necessity of the existence of Imam in every era, and the
nonpermissibility of the world being devoid of evidence (Imam), it is
the evidence that invalidates itself by itself, otherwise what is the
meaning of Imam and evidence? (Hujjah)? What is the benefit of both?
Is it not for the guidance of mankind and for administering the
society and the implementation of Shariah injunctions? How is it
possible for the occult Imam--on the assumption that he exists-- to
perform all that? … If the occult Imam performs the duty of Imamate
and Hujjah why did the jurists feel the need for the Imam and Hujjah
in the period of occultation?
If the objective of his existence were the running
of the affairs of the Universe as some of the extremists would say,
Allah has a lot of angels to do that.
Imam Ali bin Musa Rida (peace be upon him) has
refuted the Waqifites, who believed in the occultation of his father
(Imam Kadhim) that: ‘ There must be a living and manifest Imam well
known and refered to by the people!’He said: “No evidence from Allah
will be established on the creation, except by a living and known
Imam.” So also: “Anyone who dies without an Imam, has died a Jahili
(ignorance) death. ….A living known Imam”. The Messenger of Allah
(peace be upon him) has said: “Anyone who died without (allegiance to
an) Imam, whom he listens to and obey, has died a Jahili death.”
Imam Rida said to one of the Waqifites: “Anyone who
dies without a manifest living Imam, has died a Jahili death.”He asked
him seeking elucidation, and emphasizing on the word ‘a living Imam’.
He confirmed to him again, ‘a living Imam’.
The origin of this idea is the first intellectual
premise for the Imamate theory, the import of which is: ‘The necessity
of the existence of a general Imam (Leader) in the world, and the
impossibility of the society remaining without a government, any kind
of government and any Imam……If it has developed to the necessity of an
infallible Imam appointed by Allah, insisting on the issue and the
concluding from it: ‘The existence of ‘Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’ and
the continuation of his life to this day’,this is also another kind of
assumption, conjecture and guess. Where is the Imam the teacher and
the guide, who implements the injunctions of Allah, who preserves the
Shari’ah against any addition or deletion or distortion?
Even if such traditions are sound, the Imam can be
another person….. If what is meant is not a general sense of Imam
(leader) or a general sense of Hujjah (evidence), the one learned in
the injunctions of religion.
REFERENCES
1.
Tusi: Talkhis al-Shafi of Murtada , vol.
4,p.213
2.
ibid. p. 214
3.
p. 473
4.
vol. 1. p. 227
5.
Al-Basair p. 478, al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah
min al-Hayrah ,chapter 19, p. 84, Al-Kafi, vol. 1p. 275
6.
Al-Kafi, vol.1,p. 309
7.
Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah, p. 77, Al-Kafi,
vol. 1,p.378, Tafsir al-Iyashi, vol. 2
8.
Saduq: Ikmal al-Din,p,74
9.
ibid. p. 76
10.
Al-Kafi,vol. 1, p. 326, 328
11.
Al-Irshad,. Pp. 336-37
12.
Al-Ghaybah. P. 120,122
13.
Ikmal al-Din, p. 77
14.
Al-Qumi: Mafatih al-Jinan.p. 542
15.
Ikmal al-Din. P. 78
16.
ibid. p. 97
17.
Al-Kafi, vol. 1.p.534
18.
ibid. p. 198,Al-Amin: Al-Ghadir, vol. 1, p.
195
19.
Al-Hilli: Al-Khulasah, p. 83
20.
ibid. p. 247
21.
ibid. p. 242
22.
Saduq : Ikmal al-Din. Pp. 75-76
23.
ibid. p. 76
24.
p. 293
25.
Al-Ghaybah, p. 88
26.
Al-Ghaybah. P. 89, Ikmal al-Din, p. 274
27.
Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vo. 1p. 177, Himyari: Qurb
al-Isnad. P. 203
28.
ibid.
|