Thursday 24 February 2011

Does it even matter if the hadith was said under taqiya?

Continuing from the previous post regarding resolving conflicting ahadith ( How to deal with conflicting ahadith?), another point often raised by servants of "maulana sahabs", "shaikhs" etc is that if you (i.e. the layman/non cleric) commit the blasphemy of reading ahadith yourself instead of licking the boots of the infamous mullahs, then how will you distinguish if a hadith was said under taqiyya (dissimulation of faith) or not since sometimes the Imams(as) would give different rulings due to taqiyya. So do we need to kill ourselves over this?

Kafi

علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن يونس بن عبدالرحمن عن أبي جعفر الاحول، عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قال: لا يسع الناس حتى يسألوا ويتفقهوا ويعرفوا إمامهم. ويسعهم أن يأخذوا بما يقول وإن كان تقية
  
Ali b. Ibrahim, from Muhammad b. Isa b. Ubaid, from Younus b. Abdur Rahman from Abi Ja'far al Ahwal, from Abi Abdullah(as) said: The people can not do until they ask and understand and recognize their Imam(as), and they can take including (what) he(as) says though in taqiyya.

  
Source 
Kafi (by Shaikh Kulaini), vol 1, page 40, hadith number 4.

Grading
Majlisi (Miratul uqul, vol 1, page 130)
                                                   صحيح Sahih

3 comments:

  1. It's an interesting idea, one that you'd find some of the Akhbaris had stated, that 1) we can't fully be sure which were really said under taqiyya all the time and 2) it doesn't matter anyway.

    As to the first point it has to be admitted that very often (if not usually) when you read that such and such hadith may have been said under taqiyya, fact is that we really don't know and it's being offered up as a possible explanation (and perhaps not the only one) to resolve an apparent conflict in the ahadith. We know that Allah will not hold us responsible for something we are incapable of doing, so the question would be whether it's really possible for us to determine which hadiths are in fact taqiyya ones. Consider also the huge amount of disagreements that came up amongst the `Aammi schools, it can get even harder to know for sure which view is really that of the opponents as opposed to that of the saved sect.

    As to the second point, the way I understand it is that in following the instruction of the Ma`sum we are thus fulfilling our obligation of obedience to him, which is all we are obligated to do. We aren't obligated to go further than that, that is to read the intention of the Imam when he was saying something, it is only to hear and obey which in following their qawl we would be doing. Does it really make sense also that the Imam would have given instructions which if the follower obeyed it he would end up getting punished for it? So, as a grace to the Shi`a, they are allowed to follow even the instructions that may have come under taqiyya and thus take care of their taklif. One might still argue that when it comes to resolving a dispute between two Shi`a (i.e. what the maqbula of Ibn Hanzhala is really about, as opposed to how they use it (i.e. twist it) to justify their idea of taqlid) that comparison to the `Aammi view(s) would have it's place, but in terms of personal responsibility where only the individual is concerned, the above seems pretty strong to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Salam D'arcy,

    You pretty much summed up my thoughts in the 2nd point. As for the 1st point, that's pretty strong as well. Definitely with the variations in fiqh among aamis, it's very hard (if not impossible) to sometimes determine the 'offical' aami position(since they may not have a unanimous one).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sahih

    al-ubaidi is a liar

    ws

    ReplyDelete