An hadis músik, “a strong tradition,” is that, in the description of whose narrators the words sikah âdil have been used by the historians, but some or all of the narrators of which are not Imámís, “followers of Ali.”
An hadis sâíf, “a weak tradition,” is that in which none of these three conditions are found; viz.: 1st, the inference from the commendation of sikah âdil; 2nd, a praise other than these two words; and 3rd, the qualification sikah âdil, with erroneous belief on the part of the narrator.
A tradition is either in regular succession, or not in regular succession. A tradition is in regular succession, when a great multitude on the authority of a great multitude make the same narration, until it reaches to the mâsúm, in such a manner, that the number of each multitude, in each particular age, shall have been so great as to exclude the idea of their having combined in telling a lie. A tradition is without a regular succession, when the number of narrators does not, in all or several stages, reach to that multitude, as before said, and this kind of tradition is called, in the peculiar idiom of the masters of history, the information of one. Among the Akhbarians, there is no such arrangement and classification of evidence, and God knows the truth.
The author of this book writes what he has learned of the religion of the Akhbáríns from the Amíns of this doctrine, one of whom was Muhammed Razái Kazvíní. They call themselves Akhbárín, “dogmatic Traditionists,” because they place the centre of their belief in the prophetic book,[581] and employ no reasoning. Mulla Muhammed Amín, after having acquired the requisite theoretical and practical knowledge and that of the law, went to Mecca and to the revered places, and he declared openly, that controversial dialectics belong not to the rule of the ancient Shiâhs. The author of this book writes what he has heard from pious persons, the confidents of secrets of this sect; whoever desires to know more of it, may have recourse to the book Faváid Almadíniy, which is the composition of the last mentioned writer.
The following passage is said to be found in the sacred writings:
“God take compassion on the man of whom I know whence he comes, where he is, and whither he goes.”
My desire is God himself, and as an indication of it is my perception of him, the scope of which is the return to him. Afterwards we ought to have the knowledge of three perceptions. The Imánah conform themselves to the religion of the community which is composed of the people of the temple; but it is required that we acquire in Medina the knowledge of what the prophet is, and that we enter through the doors (chapters) of sciences, in which twelve Imáms are to be praised; whatever further is behind this religion will belong to that of the heretics. Of the two other religions, the one is that of the people of pious austerity; and this again is divided into two sects: the one comprehends the ancient Ashrákíán, who did not follow the prophet; and the second consists of the Matákherîn, “the moderns,” who, known under the name of “Sufis,” believe the prophet, and in theory and practice conform themselves to him and to the Imáms. They say, the prophet showed the way of righteousness and revealed the hidden; and the Imáms also taught purity, which from them was conveyed to us; the Imáms, by their pious austerity, promoted the purity of manners, and practised abstinence from food and sleep; the lord of the prophetic protection committed this religion to Alí; and Alí was the delegate of this pious austerity, the chief master, the Amir of the true believers; Hassan Baśri[582] was one of the devoted followers of the Amír, and Báyazîd was the disciple of the Imám Jâfr sadek;[583] Mârúf Kœrkhí, “the celebrated of Karkh,”[584] gave the hand of devotedness to the Imám Reza.[585] Similar to them is the sect shigref, “the venerable,” who think themselves the vice-regents of the Imáms, and lieutenants of the prophet (the peace of God be upon him):[583] their sayings deserve no attention, as in our religion there never was a lieutenant, whatever from a spirit of vanity they may assume. These men are professedly monks, and these are numbered among heretics.
The second sect is that of the Istidlal, “the arguers,” and of old[586] they were called Masháyín, “the walkers, peripatetics;” they did not follow the prophet, and the moderns call them Matkalemín, “scholastics.” These sectaries are said to mix the principles of the true faith with the belief of the peripatetics, and are also reckoned heretics:[587] because the true religion is that which the lord professed, and this is the religion of the Akhbárins.
Mulla Muhammed Amîn[588] addressed a crowd of mujtahids,[589] “casuists,” who make a profession of ratiocination (discussion), in the following terms:—“You agree and acknowledge, that the ancient believers and the religion of old knew of no contentious arguing; and that the ancient way and the old religion which prevailed in the time of Muhammed and of the Imáms (the peace of God be upon them!) is the way of the Akhbarîns. Further, we have likewise a satisfactory proof, that our way is the constant religion; but try to combine a demonstration in the way of reasoning, and show to us by whose direction from among the possessors of holiness you adopted your creed, whilst after Muhammed (the peace of God be upon him!) no other prophet is to appear and to bring another religion? In like manner it has not been stated, in the book of the prophet and in the sacred sayings of the Apostles and of the Imáms, that the relators should, in practice act at discretion, and after the disappearing of the Imám, make a profession of ratiocination. Moreover, it is positively understood that you have mixed your principles with the principles of the Sonnites and Jamáat, and your creed has taken the nature of oxymel, which is neither honey nor vinegar; and you are neither Sonnites nor Shiâhs; and this is the manner in which the moderns exercise reasoning as a profession, that, in the time of religious zeal, they went and helped themselves to the acquisition of knowledge from the books of the adversaries (schismatics), and a similar desire has taken hold of your hearts. Afterwards they threw out of their books what appeared reprovable, but nevertheless mixed something of it with their own faith.”
It should be known that some things proceed from the exigencies of the faith: thus the dissentient as well as the consentient use the same prayers, and even the unbelievers admit, that in these Muhammed is necessarily honoured. Several things are among the exigencies of the faith, as for instance the office of an Imám, as the dissentient and consentient know that, in point of faith, acknowledging the Imáms is indispensable for strength, firmness, and unimpairable stability. It should be known that, whatever is established from the verses of the Koran renders the conforming of the action to it indispensable; but what is expressed in an allegorical or ambiguous sense, we have not the capacity of understanding; it is then evident that this is particular to the prophet and to the Imáms, and we should not meddle with it; further, we ought to conform our actions to the tradition of the prophet and of the Imáms. As many traditions are opposed to each other, and the distinction therein is arduous; on that account, if two traditions present themselves to our view, such as to be contrary to each other, then the Imám affords the believers a firm rule, which proves to the understanding a protection from error. The truth is, that when two traditions happen to contradict each other, good Theologians refer them to the incontrovertible authority of the Koran; the tradition which is conformable to a verse of the Koran, is that to which they refer the action, and ascribe to religious zeal[590] the other tradition, and if this does not coincide with the incontrovertible authority, as it exceeds your power to decide the dubious question; fix then your eyes upon the creed of the opposers, and observe by what rule they are actuated.[591] Whatever is contrary to them, this tradition they should reckon to be truth; and whatever agrees with the opposers, they should acknowledge as belonging to religious zeal; and if both these traditions in the creed of the opposers were laudable, they should consider, that a thing which according to them deserves pre-eminence, is the contrary of that which they ought to take. And if one says: “You have many opposers, and there are seventy-and-two sects whose opinions are conflicting with each other;” I answer: “The Imám declared that they ought to proceed upon a road contrary to that upon which the victorious, the rulers, and the learned among the opposers, walk; and if, nevertheless, it may appear to all that they find themselves upon the same road; there are then two laws: according to whichever of the traditions they act, it does not matter in that tradition in which way it comes from the mâsúm,[592] provided, without doubt, it comes from the Imám; and the Imám is a person to whom obedience is obligatory. Moreover, by whichever authority they act, they must conform their action to the direction of the Imám. Another thing is to be said: “Have patience until the time of the happy meeting with the Imâm.” If any body says: “We have no option to act or not to act; how long shall we wait? the coming of the Imám is not determined?” This is the reply: Having already acted, why should it be said: “Have patience?” This has reference to the precept: “If thou art in business, act peaceably; and if devoted to religion, follow the rites of the most comprehensive religion.” Should any one say: “To conform my actions to this rule is also subject to discussion,” we answer to that: “This is the rule the Imám has established; if there be discussion, it is therefore the Imám’s, not our’s.” To weigh a religious doctrine is the same as to compare two traditions contrary to each other: we found, for instance, that “as to purity of wine, there are two colors.”[593] The wine is in the traditions; we then made reference to the incontrovertible authority of the Koran; we found no verse decisive about it; and in the allegories we saw, that wine is called uncleanness, and how many meanings are attached to uncleanness; and as we had the power of understanding the truth, the ambiguity disappeared. We made reference to the creed of the opposers to the right faith: they acknowledge wine to be impure. Then we took the contrary of it, and reckoned the wine to be pure, as the traditions announce the purity of wine. Further, the tradition which denotes the impurity of wine, we ascribed to religious caution. And it is to be known that the Mujtahíd ought to conform his actions to his opinion; but opinion is shabhah, “doubt,” and is so called (very like shabah, “an image”), because it is vain, and “truth-like.”