Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english

Spirituality in Modern Philosophy: Hegel’s Spirituality

Author(s): Dr. MuhammadLegenhausen

www.alhassanain.org/english

More than any other modern philosopher, Hegel explicitly addressed what he saw as the problems of modernity, especially the challenges he saw being made to religious life. Hegel was not outwardly pious, so his defense of religion what today might be a defense of spirituality.

This text highlights the kind of spirituality that Hegel adhered to and the one he didn't like. The concept of spirituality and several intellectual movements that have contributed to it, most importantly: Romanticism, religious pluralism, and esotericism will be discussed. The book also touches on the meaning of spirituality today and how it relates to modernity.

Miscellaneous information:

Spirituality in Modern Philosophy: Hegel’s Spirituality Hajj MuhammadLegenhausen The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, Qom

Notice:

This version is published on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english

The composing errors are not corrected.

Table of Contents

Abstract 7

Introduction 8

Spirituality 9

Challenges to Religion during the Ages of the Enlightenment and Romanticism 11

The Crisis of Reason and Religion 11

Religious Toleration and Pluralism 13

Esotericism and Secret Societies 14

Hegel’s Responses to Enlightenment and Romantic Challenges to Religion 15

Hegel’s Response to the Crisis of Reason and Religion 15

Hegel’s Response to Religious Diversity 18

Hegel’s Hermeticism 20

Hegel’s Spirituality 22

Notes 24

Appendix 1: Schwetzingen 26

Note 28

Appendix 2: Hegel’s Occult Drawing 29

Notes 30

References 31

Abstract

After discussing the meaning of the term “spirituality” and its equivalents in German and Persian, three roots of spirituality in modern European culture are introduced:

(1)the emphasis on religious feelings instead of doctrines and rules;

(2)tendencies that favor various forms of religious pluralism; and

(3)popular interest in esoteric and mystical traditions.

Hegel’s positions on all three aspects of spirituality are discussed. It is concluded that the basic responses given by Hegel to these aspects of spirituality remain relevant today.

Keywords: Hegel, spirituality, esotericism,hermeticism , mysticism, religious pluralism, religious feelings, religious experience, Romanticism, the Enlightenment.

Introduction

More than any other modern philosopher, Hegel explicitly addressed what he saw as the problems of modernity, especially the challenges he saw being made to religious life. Hegel is one of the last major philosophers of his era to defend a religious worldview, albeit one that has been accused of heresy. Personally, Hegel was not outwardly pious, at least not as this was conventionally understood in his own society.1 So his defense of religion was not a defense of the bourgeois piety of his day. Instead, he defended a contemplative form of religious life, what today might be called a kind of spirituality.

Spirituality is understood in various ways today, including some that are pejorative. The suggestion that Hegel was religious without being conventionally pious invites the attribution of spirituality in some such pejorative sense. In order to get an overview of the kind of spirituality for which Hegel was an advocate and the kind to which he was opposed, we will need to examine the contemporary concept of spirituality, and several intellectual movements that have contributed to it, most importantly: Romanticism, religious pluralism, and esotericism. Before turning to these topics, however, we first need a clearer understanding of what is meant by “spirituality” today, and how the elements of this concept relate to modernity.

Spirituality

Since our concern is to explore spirituality in relation to Hegel’s thought for a mostly Iranian audience, we may begin by briefly considering the word’s used for spirituality in Persian, English, and German.

The Persian word used to translate spirituality isma‘naviyyat , which is derived from the Arabic word for meaning,ma‘nā , which in turn is derived from the root ‘anā , which means a concern. So, a meaning,ma‘nā , is literally a locus of concern, that to which concern is directed, a purport; the spiritual, is that which pertains to inner meaning, as opposed to the outward literal form; and spirituality,ma‘naviyyat , is the quality of being inwardly meaningful, or the quality of possessing a purport to which concern is directed.

Although there are interesting differences in the concepts associated with the Persian and English, the differences are mostly a matter of emphasis. For example, the Persian/Arabic word retains associations with meaning, while the English word derives from the Latin verb for breathing.2

The term “spirituality” (Spiritualität ) was not current in Hegel’s day, at least not with the meanings that it has today, which have emerged only over the course of the last sixty years or so. In Aquinas, the Latin word,spiritualitas , has both a metaphysical and a moral sense. Metaphysically, the spiritual is what is incorporeal, spiritual as opposed to material. In the moral sense, one may adopt worldly or spiritual values. Voltaire used the French equivalent in order to mock those he considered to have fanatically religious beliefs. In the nineteenth century, the term “spiritual theology” became established as the study of Christian life and prayer.

Late twentieth century discussions of what is called “spirituality” tend to focus on religious experiences, feelings, and emotions, as well as depth of character, personal piety, and morality. Some Christian theologians expand the notion to include all areas of human experience to the extent that they are connected with religious values; where these areas are separated from questions of doctrine and from the institutional aspects of religion.3 There is also a widespread tendency to use the term to include discussions of feelings of the sacred and values one treats as sacred regardless of one’s religious affiliations.

So, while it might be inappropriate to speak of the religious life of an agnostic, there is no doubt about the propriety of speaking of the spiritual life of one who rejects all organized religion and religious dogma, as long as the person has some feelings of the sacred and attention to the inner life. Some authors use spirituality to cover activities and attitudes that spring from intense moral and aesthetic aspects of life and the search for deep reflective awareness of the meaning of life and relationships to others and to nature independent of doctrinal or institutional commitments.4

The Swiss theologian and photographerHektor Leibundgut has observed that spirituality is a fashionable but overused concept that is difficult to grasp because it is used for a variety of phenomena: non-denominational religiosity, esoteric philosophies, Eastern wisdom, an ethical and devotional understanding of existence, practical, ritual activity in which meanings can be experienced intuitively and shared, and spiritual exercise, as an exercise in a form of life and existential attitude, such as meditation, prayer, yoga or the reveries of lonely walks.5

Although spirituality has become a kind of buzzword,Leibundgut observes, “much of today's spirituality is anything but new, but occurs at least since the Enlightenment, more precisely, an ever reemerging: individualization, privatization, secularization and de-Christianization, fascination with foreign religions, the esoteric.”Leibundgut uses a saying attributed to Hegel as emblematic for the turn to spirituality: “Reading the morning newspaper is a kind of realistic morning prayer. One orients one’s position toward the world with reference to God or to how the world is. Each provides the same sense of security, as if one now knows how one stands.”6

The German words for spirituality areSpiritualität andGeistigkeit , which are treated as synonyms today; likewiseGeist is the usual German translation for the Latinspiritus . The wordSpiritualität was not common in Hegel’s time, and when it was used it was not in the contemporary sense of spirituality discussed byLeibundgut . Hegel usesGeistigkeit in several of his works, but usually not in anything like the currently fashionable sense of spirituality, but rather to mean having a mind, or the status of having a mind, which is sometimes rendered into English as “mindedness”.7 An example of Hegel’s use ofGeistigkeit that seems close to the contemporary sense of spirituality is in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion:

“If we also say that feeling and devotion are essential [to religion], this is because there is a spiritual relationship or spirituality in this feeling.” 8

However, in today’s sense of spirituality, one would not need to mention that there is spirituality in religious feelings; but here, Hegel is trying to concede a place for feelings in what is essential to religion, and grants this only because these feelings have spirituality,Geistigkeit , that is, they are an essential aspect of the human life of the mind. In Hegel’s system, spirit has objective and subjective aspects; feelings pertain to subjective spirit, while normative standards pertain to objective spirit.

The fact thatma‘naviyyat ,Geistigkeit , and spirituality areintertranslatable today, does not mean that we can expect to learn much from Hegel about spirituality by examining the texts in whichGeistigkeit appears. A place must be conceded for feelings in religion and spirituality, but this spirituality, for Hegel, is only that of subjective spirit. Hegel’s sense of spirituality, orGeistigkeit , is one that is also related to the practices of reasoning through representations, the concern of objective spirit, and, ultimately, the objective and subjective are to be reconciled in absolute spirit.

In what follows, I will consider three key elements in the contemporary concept of spirituality that were important for Hegel: religious feelings and intuitions, the world religions, and esotericism. All three of these elements can be found to have been the focus of discussion by numerous thinkers in the modern period, and Hegel’s discussions of them are integral parts of his own views about modernity and religion, and what today would be called spirituality.

Challenges to Religion during the Ages of the Enlightenment and Romanticism

The Crisis of Reason and Religion

During the Enlightenment period in the 18th century, many of the structures that had previously dominated European life were rapidly being eroded by the pressures resulting from the mercantilism that took hold during the previous century. With trade and colonialism came an often distorted awareness of other ways of life that inspired many to question what had been considered absolute truths of morality, religion, law, and social life. The amassing of wealth outside the ranks of the nobility and the amassing of political power in the royal houses that came to control empires whose colonies stretched across the globe led to the marginalization of religion as a source of social cohesion and authority.

The responses to these changes by some religious leaders provoked the intellectuals of the French Enlightenment to anticlericalism and even to direct attacks on Christianity. Although the Enlightenment took different forms in French, English, and German speaking areas, common currents included reformist and revolutionary ideas in politics, questioning and rejecting the authority of tradition, and advocacy of individual reliance on reason. These currents added force to the already developing trends toward skepticism about traditional beliefs about the Bible that had been initiated by humanists since the time of Erasmus (1467-1536). Many of the intellectuals of Hegel’s generation began to suspect that religious doctrines, practices and institutions were not only incapable of directing the course of intellectual and social change, but that religion had become irrelevant to the problems of modern life.9

The philosophical challenges to religious belief (as opposed to political challenges to clerical institutions) were met by two basic responses: some rejected traditional religious claims while others sought to defend religious belief. The rejection of religion, or more specifically, of Christianity, first took the form of Deism, and later agnosticism and atheism. This was, however, the position of only a tiny minority.10

Those who sought to defend religious beliefs divide into those who gave philosophical defenses and those who abandoned philosophical accounts of religious tenets and defended their faith without any appeal to reason. Those who sought to formulate philosophical defenses of religious belief may be divided according to the strategies they employed. First, there were those who sought to defend the traditional teachings with traditional arguments to which various refinements, embellishments, and modifications were made.

Attacks on the ontological and cosmological arguments led many to seek refuge in versions of the argument from design. David Hume’s (1711-1776) attacks on the design argument made the need for another strategy acute. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)took the bold step of admitting that the existence of God could not be demonstrated through theoretical reason, nor could other key religious doctrines, particularly the immortality of the soul and free will. But Kant was neither an agnostic nor afideist , and held that pure reason could still be used to defend religious belief—not pure theoretical reason, but practical reason. Hegel saw this strategy as one that would limit the conceptof God to that of a moral judge to be feared but neither loved nor revered.11

It was the perception of the failure of natural theology to provide convincing answers to doubts that had been raised about the claims of the rationality of religious belief that led to the development of the philosophy of religion by the end of the eighteenth century.12 Kant’s abandonment of any attempt to find a theoretical justification for religious beliefs left many unsatisfied, such as F. H. Jacobi (1743-1819), who argued for the theoretical rationality of religious belief based on faith.

According to Jacobi, intuitive certainty of faith could provide sufficient epistemological foundations for both practical and theoretical reasoning to justify religious beliefs. Jacobi was not afideist in that he did not claim that religion did not require any rational justification or that a justification by faith would suffice in lieu of a philosophical justification. Jacobi held that without basing beliefs on intuitive certainty, no beliefs would be rational. Since reason permits reliance on intuitive certainties to avoid skepticism about the external world and one’s own existence, Jacobi held that certain intuitions could justify religious beliefs.

By this time Romanticism was emerging as a celebration of the emotions in reaction against the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and Jacobi’s strategy was taken up eagerly by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who took the step of defining religion in terms of feelings instead of doctrines.

Religious Toleration and Pluralism

The philosophical challenge of the Enlightenment to European Christianity, however, was not limited to the charge that the rational grounding provided by traditional proofs of doctrine fails. There were also various challenges to the philosophical justification of the authority of the dominant religious institutions. These challenges were often expressed as advocacy for religious tolerance, which was opposed by Catholic and Protestant conservatives.

Three major sources of Enlightenment calls for tolerance are to be found in the works of Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), and John Locke (1632-1704). While Locke was the most important of the three for the development of the liberal tradition, Spinoza13 and Bayle14 posed what seemed to the established churches as the greatest threats, and it was they who argued for the most sweeping forms of tolerance.15

The stress on the organic nature of social developments was a hallmark of the shift from the Enlightenment to Romanticism, although the labels are somewhat artificial and we should not imagine that the two tendencies can always be neatly divided in art or philosophy. Romanticism grew out of the Enlightenment as the critical point of view advocated in the Enlightenment was turned back on itself.

The Enlightenment criticism of Christianity was augmented by a Romantic criticism of religious skepticism. Christianity is not to be replaced by a Cult of Reason, as was briefly attempted by some in France in 1793.16 Intellectuals of the late Enlightenment tended to glamorize or romanticize alternatives to the predominant forms of Christian culture, especially ancient Greece and the Orient. This tendency was fed by the nascent fields of Orientalstudies, and by descriptions of travels by diplomats, missionaries, and others who accompanied the European mercantile and military forces that went to various corners of Africa and Asia.

As early as the sixteenth century, European art and architecture display Oriental motifs. During the Enlightenment, pagodas, sham ruins, and temples are built by European nobles to ornament their gardens. A noteworthy example is the palace ofSchwetzingen built as a summer residence for Karl Theodor, Elector of the Palatinate (1724-1799),whose garden (Schlossgarten ) included temples to the Roman gods Apollo, Minerva, a sham ruin of a temple to Mercury, and a decorative mosque, adorned with inscriptions of wise sayings in flawed Arabic and their German translations. Hegel taught that art is an expression of the spirit of a culture, and the gardens of Hegel’s own era gave expression to a fascination with the idea that wisdom was to be found in the religions and cultures of the world, in their emergence, development, and ruin.

Esotericism and Secret Societies

The interest in the Orient and the wisdom of the ancients that found expression in garden follies was also manifested in the popularity of esotericism. The Romantics were attracted to mystical and esoteric literature, in which they saw a vitality that they found lacking in the Enlightenment. In the Württemberg of the late eighteenth century, the popularSchwäbischen Magazin published alchemical and theosophical works. Among Lutherans, Pietism was very influential, and many of thePietists turned their attention to the German mystical tradition represented in the works of Meister Eckhart (1260-ca.1327) andJakob Boehme. There was also much activity in secret societies, such as the Freemasons. The Masons had various inclinations. Some groups were advocates of Enlightenment political thought, while others were more interested in esotericism; and, of course, there were combinations ofthese interests.17

Like the Masons, theRosicrucians formed another secret society whose members believed in the esoteric unity of all religions. TheRosicrucians first appeared with the publication of a series of manifestoes in the early seventeenth century, according to which a legendary figure, ChristianRosenkreuz , was supposed to have been initiated into esoteric science by Arabs in the fourteenth century.18

“TheRosicrucians believed in the possibility of unification with God, and they “held a doctrine ofprisca theologia , the position that there is one true, trans-denominational, trans- cultural theology, an account of divine being revealed by God to man in the remote past. They believed that if this ancient wisdom could be recovered it would unify the world’s religions.”19 Rosicrucian groups were soon to be found in France and Britain as well as in German lands, where some groups had links German Freemasonry, which incorporated elements of alchemy.20

The preoccupation with mysticism and political conservatism found in some of these groups led to the establishment of yet another secret society, the Illuminati, in 1776. Most members of the Illuminati came from the ranks of the Masons, but they were particularly opposed to superstition and to the influence of the Catholic Church. The Illuminati included such notables as Herder and Goethe as members. The group was eradicated at the order of Karl Theodor in 1785, although it continued in secret for a few more years outside of Bavaria.21

Hegel’s Responses to Enlightenment and Romantic Challenges to Religion

Hegel’s Response to the Crisis of Reason and Religion

Hegel’s response to the crisis of reason and religion that had taken shape involves a strategy that is different from any of those that had come before. He agrees that the traditional support for religious beliefs cannot meet the challenges of modernity. Like Jacobi, he is dissatisfied with Kant’s surrender of theoretical reason to purely secular knowledge; yet he is no less dissatisfied with basing religious belief on feelings or intuitions. His solution is a reworked logic in which practical and theoretical reason intertwine,22 and a dialectical progression in accordance with this new logic that results in a kind of demonstration of the truth of religious beliefs, not by proving the existence of God as an object distinct and separate from finite objects, but by an inward movement that Hegel calls an “elevation to God” (Erhebung zu Gott ).23

Thus, Hegel’s response to the philosophical crisis of the justification of faith in the early nineteenth century is to give a reinterpretation of the proofs, focusing on the ontological proof (but in a version much different from anything Anselm or Descartes could have imagined) as an intellectual mode of spiritual ascent. Hegel is opposed to the Enlightenment’s religious skepticism, but he does not dismiss its criticism of Christianity, and incorporates elements of this critique in his own work.24

He agrees with the Romantic assertion of the importance of religious feeling, but he rejects any theology that would content itself with emotions immune from the court of reason. Hegel, thus, accepts important elements of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism, although he also rejects key claims that came to characterize these movements.

As indicated earlier, one of the common themes among many who write about spirituality today is that the spiritual aspects of religion are to be contrasted with religions dogmas. The spiritual is taken to be non-cognitive, a matter of the heart, while doctrine and dogma are cognitive, in the head. A spiritual understanding of religion, according to this sort of approach, is one that focuses on the heart rather than the head, on ways of living instead of reasons for acting. Even if this sort of idea was not called “spirituality” in Hegel’s day, it had its advocates, among whom one of the most influential was the father of liberal theology and colleague of Hegel at the University of Berlin, the pastor and theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. The emphasis on religious feelings that is at the core of Schleiermacher’s appeal to the Romantics of his day in his On Religion was one that commanded a widespread respect.

Hegel’s reaction is to affirm the importance of feelings. According to Hegel, religion begins with consciousness of God, or spirit. One finds religion within oneself in such a basic way that it is not even recognized as religion. The second moment in the development of the concept of religion occurs with the realization of the need to form a relation to God, a realization of estrangement or separateness that needs to be overcome. The relation of a person to God in which the person understands himself to be distinct from God occurs to the person on several levels, or, as Hegel says, the relation has several determinations:

“The first of these is feeling; and certainty in general, or faith, is classed under it. The second determination is representation. The third is thought, the form of thinking….

Whenever we philosophize about religion, we are engaging in religious thinking….This thoughtful understanding will show itself to be what used to be called “proofs for the existence of God.” We will consider here the significance of this “proving.”… namely that they in fact display the process of the elevation of the human being to God.” 25

After Hegel explains that faith begins as some sort of immediate knowledge accompanied by a feeling of certainty, often based on authority and trust, he turns to feeling. Hegel is concerned in this discussion to combat what he sees as a childish view of spirituality that would limit it to the non-cognitive level. If religion is just a matter of feelings, then it does not make sense to argue about it; and it is not hard to see the attraction of the absence of conflict under the welcoming banner of a spirituality in which everyone is recognized as sharing vague feelings of a beyond. Hegel thinks that this view arises from an inadequate analysis of feeling. The kinds of feelings relevant here are not purely sensory feelings, such as pains and pleasures; rather, at issue are feelings of awe, and feelings that something is so or must be so, feelings about God, and about what is right, for example.

Hegel describes feeling as a subjective involvement witha content . The content might be fear, awe, or that such and such is right. The objective dimension of the content is vague, indeterminate, while the subjective dimension is more prominent and determinate. When we move from feeling to consciousness of something, there is a projection of the content from its subjective associations to an objective status independent of the knower. Rationality requires the determination of the content through thought, and not merely based on feelings. So, the way in which the content is in feeling is, by itself, inadequate.

Hegel presents the developmental idea of the relationship between feeling and thought with the organic metaphor often found in the writings of the Romantics: even if the seed of the concept of God, for example, is to be found in feeling, the soil in which it develops is thought. Nothing is true or legitimate simply because it is found in feeling. If feeling were any sort of a criterion, there would be no way to judge between good and evil, for feelings inspire crimes as well as heroism. The criteria for legitimacy and truth are to be found in representation and thought. The demonstration of religious truth consists in the development of the seed of faith, which is subjective feeling, to grow and develop in thought, to find reasons for the support that some of these representations can take, and reasons for pruning and rejecting others.

While Hegel rejects a spirituality that would limit religion to its non-cognitive elements, he considers those elements to be essential. The spirituality to which Hegel invites us is one that includes both heart and head, one that does not rest content with the childish certainty of feelings, but aspires to the conviction of the mature religious intellect.

Hegel’s Response to Religious Diversity

Hegel devoted a great deal of time and energy to the study of the material that was becoming available in his day about the world religions. Some of the material he read and his reading of it were biased. The texts he used included reports of missionaries and colonialists. He was convinced that the world religions could be interpreted as conforming to levels of development that would culminate with his own philosophical interpretation of Lutheran Christianity. His treatment of Islam is particularly deplorable. Nevertheless, he did not simply reject the non- Christian religions, but was prepared to find important truths in each of them.

While Hegel considered the various religions of the world to be necessary for human spiritual development, he was by no means an equality pluralist.26 Equality pluralists hold that the major religions of the world are equal in important respects, such as conveying divine truths, leading to salvation, and providing moral guidance. In contrast, Hegel advances a form of degree pluralism, according to which the various religions can be ranked on a scale of the extent of the development of spirit.

WalterJaeschke and Peter Hodgson have identified more than 240 sources, in Greek, Latin, English, French, andGerman, that Hegel used for his research on the world religions.27 Hodgson writes: “Hegel knew more about the history of world religions than most of his contemporaries…. Islam represented an obvious lacuna.”28 Even with regard to Islam, however, Hegel occasionally expresses his admiration,29 although he repeatedly finds fault with it for fanaticism.

Hegel’s work on the world religions begins with an attempt at classifying them into various types, and then seeks a logic of development that would lead from one type to another, from East to West, and from past to present. Since religions form the basis for world civilizations, the same sort of typology and progression was sought in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. He paid little attention to developments within the various religious traditions, and focused on what he considered to be their typical expressions or foundational texts.

Despite the selective omissions, Hegel is not only unable to find a place for Islam in hisframework, he also remains frustrated in his attempts to arrange his material into a convincing progression.As Hodgson comments: “Hegel’s inability to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement of the materials is indicated by the fact that his organization of Determinate Religion differed widely in each of the four lecture series [on the philosophy of religion].” 30

From the outset, Hegel is determined to delineate a history in which Christianity emerges as the consummate religion. This conviction must be a part of the difficulty that Hegel had in finding a place for Islam in his history.31 It is also one of the factors that caused his difficulties with the organization of his materials, which has led a number of his commentators to suggest modifications of the Hegelian program in a manner that would offer non-Christian religions greater recognition.

John Burbidge speculates that if we take into consideration the developments in religious thought that have taken place after the nineteenth century, including the remarkable reconciliation and forgiveness expressed by Iranian Muslims toward their former Iraqi enemies after the war between their nations ended, we cannot expect that an account of the world’s religions could be given in which Christianity comes at the end as the consummate religion. Christianity will have to share the stage of consummate religion with Islam, Judaism and Hinduism, at least, not as these religions have developed to the present age, but each of them in a more perfect form.32

The hope that Hegel’s project is to be cured through the injection of religious pluralism is also to be found in the works of Robert Wallace33 and Peter Hodgson.34

No matter whether religious pluralism is interpreted as an equality pluralism or a pluralism of incommensurability, the suggested repairs to Hegel’s outlook pose the danger of what the Roman Catholic Church condemned shortly after Hegel’s death as indifferentism.35 Although indifferentism was defined in terms of salvation, what is at issue among Hegelians is whether rational appraisal of the extent to which a religion may be taken to be an expression of spirit or to be a realization of freedom.

Clearly, it was a key part of Hegel’s philosophy of religious diversity to attempt some kind of ranking. Hegel may have been mistaken to hold that Christianity is the consummate religion to the exclusion of any others; but even if we agree with Burbidge, Wallace, and Hodgson that given what is known today about the religions of the world, there is no better reason to hold that Christianity is the consummate religion than Judaism or Islam, this should not be taken to mean that no rational evaluation of points of difference among the religions is possible.

It was essential to Hegel’s analysis of the phenomena of religious diversity that reason can examine the various aspects of religious concepts, that justifications can be given for religious beliefs, and religious practices, and that the intellect has the ability to identify flaws and merits of religious teachings and practices. Roman civic religion must continue to be seen as a flawed in so far as it subordinates religion to the ends of empire.

Even if the norms of contemporary polite intellectual society do not permit us to find fault with other people’s religious beliefs, that does not mean that religious differences do not warrant philosophical scrutiny and evaluation. During Hegel’s own time, what would soon be called indifferentism was fairly widespread in Enlightenment circles to such an extent that the Pope would give it a name and condemn it. I do not mean to suggest that Burbidge, Wallace, or Hodgson are guilty of the heresy of indifferentism; but that the pluralism they advocate needs to be more carefully elaborated in such a way as to avoid indifferentism and the very un-Hegelian notion that reason can find no grounds on which to judge among competing religious claims and practices.

Hegel’sHermeticism

The Papal encyclical against indifferentism also condemned Freemasonry and membership in some other secret societies. Freemasonry had been condemned by the Catholic Church since 1738. One of the complaints against it was that it fostered indifferentism. It is known that in Hegel’s youth and during his Jena period, he had the acquaintance of some Freemasons; and he expressed sympathy toward some of the ideals they espoused. Some of his acquaintances had also been members of the Bavarian Illuminati.

There is no evidence, however, that Hegel ever was a member of the Freemasons or of any other secret society.36 There is ample evidence, however, that in his youth, Hegel began to study such German mystics as Boehme, Eckhart, and JohannesTauler (1300-1361). His study of mysticism continued and intensified through the rest of his life. After Hegel moved to Berlin, in 1818, he cultivated a friendship with Franz vonBaader (1765-1841), the foremost interpreter of Boehme at the time and a reputed member of theRosicrucians . Magee reports:

“Baader visited Hegel in Berlin, and the two studied Meister Eckhart together.Baader reports that on reading a certain passage in Eckhart, Hegel cried ‘da haben wir es ja , waswir wollen !’ (There, indeed, we have what we want!).37 Hegel then subsequently introduced a quotation from Eckhart into his 1824 Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion: ‘The eye with which God sees me is the same eye by which I see Him, my eye and His eye are one and the same. In righteousness I am weighed in God andHe in me. If God did not exist nor would I; if I did not exist nor would he.’38

Baader was widely reputed to be a member of the mystical order of theRosicrucians , which had been revived in the late eighteenth century. TheRosicrucians of Hegel’s time had a reputation for alchemy and Hermetic interests of all kinds, as well as for political conservatism. In the Preface to the1821 Philosophy of Right, Hegel launches an attack on political idealism and states ‘To recognize reason as the rose in the cross of the present and thereby to enjoy the present, this is the rational insight which reconciles us to the actual...’”39

The use of the Rosicrucian symbol here has puzzled Hegel’s commentators.40 Magee concludes that since the allusion could not have been for personal gain, Hegel might really have been in agreement with theRosicrucians . It is somewhat more plausible to think that Hegel used the symbols of theRosicrucians and others in his works in a manner analogous to the symbolic constructions that Karl Theodor had built in hisSchlossgarten inSchwetzingen . Karl Theodore did not mean to demonstrate his acceptance of Islam or his agreement with the adherents of the cult of Minerva, but to show his open mindedness, and willingness to recognize the insights found in various religions and cults, and to do this in a playful and aesthetically pleasing way.

A careful review of the various interpretations has been given by Robert Stern, who offers a “methodological reading” according to which: “Hegel’s claim is that philosophy as a rational inquiry will avoid ‘the setting up of a world beyond,’” and that when one thinks rationally, one does so without setting up some sort of “empty utopianism.” Because philosophy refrains from otherworldliness, it is a rational practice that reconciles us to the present and leads us to “delight” in it, which does not mean accepting whatever political institutions happen to be in place.41 While Stern’s penetrating analysis enables us to see what is wrong with conservative and progressive readings of Hegel’s Preface, it does not really explain the reference to theRosicrucians , which requires an appreciation of Hegel’s interest in mysticism.

Hegel uses the symbols of theRosicrucians and alchemists as a playful sign of his willingness to find a place in his philosophy for the esoteric, such as the mystical insights he finds in Boehme and Eckhart. The difference between Hegel and Karl Theodor is that while the Elector did not devote himself to any serious study of the religious ideas of Islam or the Greek mystery cults, Hegel did study the world religions and the ideas of mystics and, perhaps, of secret societies, since he certainly was well acquainted with a number of their members.

To recognize the rose in the cross of the present, as Stern correctly argues, is not to offer a “social theodicy” as conservatives contend, nor is it to see that a new phase of social life is dawning, asAvineri suggests. Stern contends that Hegel is making a methodological observation that philosophy must begin its work under the assumption that it is the world as it actually is, not an ideal, to which reason is to be applied. The precise form of reason that Hegel recommends is speculation. Speculation rejects the dualism that separates finite and infinite. The infinite is to be found in the manner in which the finite ought to overcome its limitations: “Inthe ought [Sollen ] the transcendence of finitude, infinity, begins.The ought is that which, in the subsequent development,… will display itself as a progress to infinity.”42 This overcoming of the merely transcendent in the transcendence of the immanent is what Hegel found in the teachings of the mystics and what was suggested to him by esoteric symbols, and this is why he identifies the speculative with what used to be called “mystical”. Hegel’shermeticism is not an irrational occultism, but the recognition that within the hermetic tradition teachings are to be found that reject the dualism of transcendent and immanent without reducing either to the other.43

Much of what Hegel says about mysticism can be put in terms of spirituality. If the alchemy andhermeticism of Hegel’s age are seen as analogous to some forms of what, today, is sometimes called new age spirituality, it is clear what Hegel’s stance would be toward it. While Hegel would not endorse, let alone join, any particular new age cult, he would feel free to avail himself of the symbols they use to indicate his own interpretation of those aspects of the hermetic and mystical traditions that can be interpreted philosophically in terms of his own logic.

Chapter 32: On Ar-Ridha’’s Words on the Reasons for Various Things

32-1 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father, “I asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), ‘O son of God’s Prophet! Why did the Honorable the Exalted God create all things

‏عنبسة قالَ: حَدَّثَنا دارِم بْنِ قبيصة قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَنْ أَبيهِ عَنْ آبائِهِ عَنْ‏أَبي طالِب‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: اطلبوا الخَيْر عِنْدَ حِسان الوُجُوه فَإِنَّ فعالَهُمْ أحرى أَن تكون حسنا.

347- وَبِهذَا الإسناد قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: أَنَا خاتَم النَبِيِّين وَعَلِيِّ خاتَم الوَصِيِّين.

348- وَبِهذَا الإسناد قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: لا تفرد وَالجُمْعَةِ بصوم.

349- وَبِهذَا الإسناد قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: التائب من الذنب كَمَنْ لا ذنب لَهُ.

350- وَبِهذَا الإسناد قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: أطفئوا المصابيح بِاللَّيل لاتجرها الفويسقة فتحرق البِيْت وَما فِيهِ.

351- وَبِهذَا الإسناد قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: الكمأة من المن الَّذِي أَنْزَلَه اللَّه عَلَى بَنِي إسرائيل وَهِيَ شِفاءَ للعين وَالعَجْوَة الَّتِي فِي البرنِي من الجَنَّة وَهِيَ شِفاءَ من السُّمِّ.

352- وَبِهذَا الإسناد عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ أَبِي طالِب أَنَّهُ ورث الخنثى من مَوْضِع مبالته.

32- بابُ فِي ذكر ما جاءَ عَنِ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِنَ العِلَلِ‏

1- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الكُوفِيّ، عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضـا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قـالَ: قُلْتُ لَهُ: لِمَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ الْخَلْقَ عَلَى أَنْوَاعٍ شَتَّى

to be the same way? Why did He not create everything to be of the same kind?’ Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, ‘That was so that they do not think that He is incapable, and nothing can come to an atheist’s mind which the Honorable the Exalted God has not created. That was so that they cannot ask whether or not the Honorable the Exalted God is able to create such and such a creature, since the Blessed the Sublime has already created it. And considering all the varieties of creatures that He has created, they realize that He has power over all things.”

32-2 Ahmad ibn Ziyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamadani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father that Abdul Salam ibn Salih al-Harawi told Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “O son of God’s Prophet! Why did the Honorable the Exalted God immerse all the dry land in water at the time of Noah and drown all the innocent people and children there?” The Prophet (S) replied, “There were no children among them since the Honorable the Exalted God had made all the men and the women of the people of Noah sterile from forty years ago. Thus their generation was cut off and they were all drowned with no children among them. The Honorable the Exalted God will not punish the innocent for the sins of the sinners. However, some of Noah’s people that had remained were drowned for denying the Prophethood of Noah before God. Others were drowned because they were in agreement with the denial of the ones who denied, since if someone does not do something but agrees with it, it is like one who has actually done that.”

32-3 (The author of the book narrated) my father - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Sa’d ibn Abdullah quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa that Al-Hassan ibn Ali al-Washsha’ said that he had heard Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) say, “My father (a.s.) narrated that Abu Abdullah (a.s.) said that the Honorable the Exalted God told Noah, ‘…O Noah! He is not of thy family…’1 The reason for this was that Noah’s son was opposed to Noah. God considered those who followed Noah (a.s.) to be of his family.” Al-Washsha’ said that the Imam (a.s.) asked him, “How is this verse about Noah’s son recited?” Al-Washsha’ answered, “The people recite it in two different ways one form of which implies that he was not Noah’s son.” The Imam (a.s.) said, “No, they are liars. He was Noah’s son. However, the Honorable the Exalted God denounced him from being Noah’s son due to his opposition to Noah’s religion.”

وَلَمْ يَخْلُقْهُمْ نَوْعاً وَاحِداً. فَقَالَ: لِئَلا يَقَعَ فِي الأَوْهَامِ أَنَّهُ عَاجِزٌ فَلا تَقَعُ صُورَةٌ فِي وَهْمِ مُلْحِدٍ إِلا وَقَدْ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَيْهَا خَلْقاً وَلا يَقُولُ قَائِلٌ هَلْ يَقْدِرُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَى أَنْ يَخْلُقَ عَلَى صُورَةِ كَذَا وَكَذَا إِلا وَجَدَ ذَلِكَ فِي خَلْقِهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فَيَعْلَمُ بِالنَّظَرِ إِلَى أَنْوَاعِ خَلْقِهِ أَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ قَدِيرٌ.

2- حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ زِيادِ بْنِ جَعْفَر الْهَمَذانيّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ هاشِمٍ، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ عَبْدُ السَّلامُ بْنِ صالِح الهَرَوِيِّ، عَنِ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: قُلْتُ لَهُ: يا ابْنِ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لايِّ عِلَّةٍ أَغْرَقَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ الدُّنْيَا كُلَّهَا فِي زَمَنِ نُوحٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ وَفِيهِمُ الأَطْفَالُ وَفِيهِمْ مَنْ لا ذَنْبَ لَهُ فَقَالَ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مَا كَانَ فِيهِمُ الأَطْفَالُ لانَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَعْقَمَ أَصْلابَ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ وَأَرْحَامَ نِسَائِهِمْ أَرْبَعِينَ عَاماً فَانْقَطَعَ نَسْلُهُمْ فَغَرِقُوا وَلا طِفْلَ فِيهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لِيَهْلِكَ بِعَذَابِهِ مَنْ لا ذَنْبَ لَهُ وَأَمَّا الْبَاقُونَ مِنْ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَأُغْرِقُوا لِتَكْذِيبِهِمْ لِنَبِيِّ اللَّهِ نُوحٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ وَسَائِرُهُمْ أُغْرِقُوا بِرِضَاهُمْ بِتَكْذِيبِ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ وَمَنْ غَابَ مِنْ أَمْرٍ فَرَضِيَ بِهِ كَانَ كَمَنْ شَهِدَهُ وَأَتَاهُ.

3- حَدَّثَنا أَبي رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه، عَنْ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ الحَسَن بن عَلِيِّ الوَشَّاء، عَنِ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ قالَ أَبي‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّه‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَالَ يا نُوحُ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ أَهْلِكَ لانَّهُ كَانَ مُخَالِفاً لَهُ وَجَعَلَ مَنِ اتَّبَعَهُ مِنْ أَهْلِهِ قَالَ وَسَأَلَنِي كَيْفَ يَقْرَءُونَ هَذِهِ الآْيَةَ فِي ابْنِ نُوحٍ فَقُلْتُ يَقْرَؤُهَا النَّاسُ عَلَى وَجْهَيْنِ إِنَّهُ عَمَلٌ غَيْرُ صالِحٍ وَإِنَّهُ عَمِلَ غَيْرَ صَالِحٍ فَقَالَ كَذَبُوا هُوَابْنُهُ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ نَفَاهُ عَنْهُ حِينَ خَالَفَهُ فِي دِينِهِ.

32-4 Ahmad ibn Ziyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamadani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ali ibn Ma’bad, on the authority of Al-Husayn ibn Khalid, on the authority of Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) that he (a.s.) heard his father (a.s.) say, “The Honorable the Exalted God chose Abraham (a.s.) as His friend since he never turned down any needy person without fulfilling his need, and never asked anyone but God for the fulfillment of his own needs.”

32-5 Al-Mudhaffar ibn Ja'far Al-Mudhaffar Al-Alawi As-Samarqandi - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Mas’ood quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Abdullah al-Alawi al-Umari, on the authority of Isma’il ibn Humam, “Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said the following regarding the Honorable the Exalted God’s words, ‘They said, If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him). But these things did Joseph keep locked in his heart, revealing not the secrets to them….’2 The Prophet Isaac (a.s.) had a belt which he (a.s.) had inherited from the great Prophets. That belt and Yusuf (Joseph) were both with Joseph’s aunt. She really liked Joseph. Jacob (a.s.) sent her a message to return the child the following day. She told Jacob’s messenger, ‘Return and tell him to let me keep the boy with me for tonight. I will return him tomorrow.’ When the morning arrived, she undressed him, put the belt on him and then put his shirt on him and sent him to his father. When Joseph (a.s.) left, she started to look for the belt saying that it had been stolen. They found it on Joseph and it was a custom then that if the theft of someone was proved at that time they would give the thief to the owner of the stolen property to be his/her slave.”

32-6 Al-Mudhaffar ibn Ja'far ibn Mudhaffar al-Alawi narrated that Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Mas’ood quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ubaydillah ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid, on the authority of Al-Hassan ibn Ali al-Washsha’, “I heard Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) say, ‘During the rule of the Children of Israel, if someone stole something, he would become the slave of the owner of that stolen property. Joseph (a.s.) was with his aunt when he was small. She really liked him. The Prophet Isaac (a.s.) had a belt which he (a.s.) had put on Jacob (a.s.). That belt was with Isaac’s daughter (Joseph’s aunt). Jacob (a.s.) asked her to return Joseph (a.s.). She got sad about this and sent him a message that she would return the

4- حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ زِيادِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ الْهَمَذانيّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ إِبراهِيمِ بْنِ هاشِمٍ، عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ معبد، عَنْ الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ خالِد، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ إِنَّمَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْراهِيمَ خَلِيلاً لانَّهُ لَمْ يَرُدَّ أَحَداً وَلَمْ يَسْأَلْ أَحَداً قَطُّ غَيْرَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.

5- حَدَّثَنا المُظَفَّر بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ المُظَفَّر العَلَوِي السَمَرْقَنْدِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَنْ أَبيهِ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه العَلَوِيّ قالَ: حَدَّثَني عَلِىِّ بْنِ مُحَمَّد العَلَوِيّ العُمَري قالَ: حَدَّثَني إِسْمَاعِيل بْنِ هَمّامٍ قالَ: قالَ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قالُوا إِنْ يَسْرِقْ فَقَدْ سَرَقَ أَخٌ لَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَأَسَرَّها يُوسُفُ فِي نَفْسِهِ وَلَمْ يُبْدِها لَهُمْ قَالَ كَانَتْ لاسْحَاقَ النَّبِيِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِنْطَقَةٌ تَتَوَارَثُهَا الأَنْبِيَاءُ الأَكَابِرُ وَكَانَتْ عِنْدَ عَمَّةِ يُوسُفَ وَكَانَ يُوسُفُ عِنْدَهَا وَكَانَتْ تُحِبُّهُ فَبَعَثَ إِلَيْهَا أَبُوهُ ابْعَثِيهِ إِلَيَّ وَأَرُدُّهُ إِلَيْكَ فَبَعَثَتْ إِلَيْهِ دَعْهُ عِنْدِيَ اللَّيْلَةَ أَشُمَّهُ ثُمَّ أُرْسِلَهُ إِلَيْكَ غَدَاةً قَالَ فَلَمَّا أَصْبَحَتْ أَخَذَتِ الْمِنْطَقَةَ فَشَدَّتْهَا فِي وَسَطِهِ تَحْتَ الثِّيَابِ وَبَعَثَتْ بِهِ إِلَى أَبِيهِ فَلَمَّا خَرَجَ مِنْ عِنْدِهَا طَلَبَتِ الْمِنْطَقَةَ فَوَجَدَتْ عَلَيْهِ وَكَانَ إِذَا سَرَقَ أَحَدٌ فِي ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ دُفِعَ إِلَى صَاحِبِ السَّرِقَةِ فَكَانَ عَبْدَهُ.

6- حَدَّثَنا المُظَفَّر بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُظَفَّر العَلَوِيّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ عُبِيْداللَّه بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خالِد قالَ: حَدَّثَني الحَسَن بْنِ عَلِى الوَشَّاء قالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَلىِّ بْنِ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يَقُولُ: كَانَتِ الْحُكُومَةُ فِي بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِذَا سَرَقَ أَحَدٌ شَيْئاً اسْتُرِقَّ بِهِ وَكَانَ يُوسُفُ عِنْدَ عَمَّتِهِ وَهُوَصَغِيرٌ وَكَانَتْ تُحِبُّهُ وَكَانَتْ لاسْحَاقَ مِنْطَقَةٌ أَلْبَسَهَا يَعْقُـوبَ وَكَانَتْ عِنْـدَ أُخْتِهِ، وَإِنَّ يَعْـقُوبَ طَلَبَ يُوسُـفَ لِيَأْخُذَهُ مِنْ عَمَّتِهِ فَاغْتَمَّتْ لِذَلِكَ

child later. When she wanted to send him back, she undressed him, put the belt on him and then put his shirt on him and sent him to his father. When Joseph (a.s.) reached Jacob, she arrived there also claiming that the belt had been lost. They searched Joseph’s body and found the belt on him. That was why when Joseph (a.s.) found the drinking cup in his brother’s saddle-bag which he himself had hidden there, his brothers said, ‘…If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).’3 Then Joseph (a.s.) asked them, ‘What is the punishment of the one in whose saddle-bag the drinking cup is found?’ They said, ‘The penalty should be that he in whose saddle-bag it is found, should be held (as bondman) to atone for the (crime)…’ as it is our tradition. Then ‘So he began (the search) with their baggage, before (he came to) the baggage of his brother: at length he brought it out of his brother's baggage…’4 That is why Joseph’s brothers said, ‘If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).’5 They were referring to that belt. ‘…But these things did Joseph keep locked in his heart, revealing not the secrets to them.’”6

32-7 Abdul Wahid Muhammad ibn Ubdoos al-Neishaboori al-Attar - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Qutayba quoted on the authority of Hamdan ibn Soleiman al-Neishaboori, on the authority of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Hamadani who asked Abil Hassan Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), ‘Why did the Honorable the Exalted God drown Pharaoh, even though he believed in Him and confessed to His Unity?’ The Imam (a.s.) replied, ‘That was because he believed only when he saw the punishment, and believing when you see the punishment is not acceptable. This has been the Sublime God’s decree in the past and it will be so for the future as the Honorable the Exalted God said, ‘But when they saw Our Punishment, they said, We believe in God - the one God - and we reject the partners we used to join with Him.’ But their professing the Faith when they (actually) saw Our Punishment was not going to profit them. (a.s.uch has been) God's Way of dealing with His Servants (from the most ancient times). And even thus did the Rejecters of God perish (utterly)!7 ’ And the Honorable the Exalted God has also said, ‘…the day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then; if he believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith. Say: Wait ye: we too are waiting.’8 When Pharaoh was about to drown ‘…he said, I believe that

وَقَالَتْ دَعْهُ حَتَّى أُرْسِلَهُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَخَذَتِ الْمِنْطَقَةَ وَشَدَّتْ بِهَا وَسْطَهُ تَحْتَ الثِّيَابِ فَلَمَّا أَتَى يُوسُفُ أَبَاهُ جَاءَتْ وَقَالَتْ قَدْ سُرِقَتِ الْمِنْطَقَةُ فَفَتَّشَتْهُ فَوَجَدَتْهَا مَعَهُ فِي وَسْطِهِ فَلِذَلِكَ قَالَتْ إِخْوَةُ يُوسُفَ لَمَّا حَبَسَ يُوسُفُ أَخَاهُ حَيْثُ جَعَلَ الصَّاعَ فِي وِعَاءِ أَخِيهِ فَقَالَ يُوسُفُ مَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ وُجِدَ فِي رَحْلِهِ قَالُوا هُوَجَزَاؤُهُ السُّنَّةُ الَّتِي تَجْرِي فِيهِمْ فَلِذَلِكَ قَالَ إِخْوَةُ يُوسُفَ إِنْ يَسْرِقْ فَقَدْ سَرَقَ أَخٌ لَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَأَسَرَّها يُوسُفُ فِي نَفْسِهِ وَلَمْ يُبْدِها لَهُمْ.

7- حَدَّثَنا عَبْد الواحِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدُوسٍ النِيْسابُوري العَطَّار رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قُتَيْبَةَ، عَنْ حَمْدانَ بْنِ سُلَيْمان النِيْسابُوري قالَ: حَدَّثَني إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ مُحَمَّد الهَمْدانِيَّ قُلْتُ لِلرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لايِّ عِلَّةٍ أَغْرَقَ اللَّهُ فِرْعَوْنَ وَقَدْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَأَقَرَّ بِتَوْحِيدِهِ قَالَ لانَّهُ آمَنَ عِنْدَ رُؤْيَةِ الْبَأْسِ وَالإِيمَانُ عِنْدَ رُؤْيَةِ الْبَأْسِ غَيْرُ مَقْبُولٍ وَذَلِكَ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ فِي السَّلَفِ وَالْخَلَفِ قَالَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: (فَلَمَّا رَأَوْا بَأْسَنا قالُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ وَكَفَرْنا بِما كُنَّا بِهِ مُشْرِكِينَ. فَلَمْ يَكُ يَنْفَعُهُمْ إِيمانُهُمْ لَمَّا رَأَوْا بَأْسَنا.) وَقَالَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: (يَوْمَ يَأْتِي بَعْضُ آياتِ رَبِّكَ لا يَنْفَعُ نَفْساً إِيمانُها لَمْ تَكُنْ آمَنَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ أَوْ كَسَبَتْ فِي إِيمانِها خَيْراً.) وَهَكَذَا فِرْعَوْنُ لَمَّا أَدْرَكَهُ الْغَرَقُ قَالَ: آمَنْتُ أَنَّهُ لا إِلهَ إِلا الَّذِي آمَنَتْ بِهِ بَنُو

there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to God in Islam).’9 It was said to him, ‘Ah now! But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion! And thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!’10 Pharaoh was armed to the teeth wearing iron armor. When he was drowned, God threw him up on a high piece of land so that he would be a sign for the people who came later. They could see him on the high land with all his heavy iron weapons. Iron is heavy and it will naturally submerge. That is why this in itself was a sign. Another reason that the Honorable the Exalted God drowned Pharaoh was that he sought help from Moses when he realized that he was going to be drowned, and he did not seek God’s help. Then the Honorable the Exalted God revealed to Moses (a.s.), ‘O Moses! You did not help Pharaoh since you had not created him. Had he asked Me for help, I would have saved him.’”

32-8 Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab al-Qurashi narrated that Mansoor ibn Abdullah al-Isbahani al-Sufi quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Mehrayat al-Qazvini, on the authority of Dawood ibn Soleiman al-Qadhi, “I heard Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) narrate the following on the authority of his father Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.), on the authority of his father Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a.s.) regarding the Honorable the Exalted God’s words, ‘So he smiled, amused at her speech….’11 God was referring to the ant’s words when it said, ‘O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it.’12 The wind that was blowing in the air brought the ant’s voice to Solomon. Solomon stopped and called in that ant and asked it, ‘Don’t you know that I am God’s Prophet and I will not oppress anyone?’ The ant said, ‘Yes.’ Solomon (a.s.) said, ‘Then why did you make them afraid of me oppressing them?’ The ant said, ‘I feared that they might see Your Majesty and get so attracted to you that they forget the Sublime God’s remembrance.’ Then the ant asked, ‘Is your rank higher or that of your father David?’ Solomon (a.s.) said, ‘My father David!’ The ant said, ‘However, your name has one more letter than your father’s name David13 . Doesn’t it?’ Solomon said, ‘I have no knowledge of this.’ The ant said, ‘No. Your father David’s name was actually ‘Davi jorha (meaning that David heals). Then he was called David. I hope you can

إِسْرائِيلَ وَأَنَا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَقِيلَ لَهُ آلآْنَ وَقَدْ عَصَيْتَ قَبْلُ وَكُنْتَ مِنَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ فَالْيَوْمَ نُنَجِّيكَ بِبَدَنِكَ لِتَكُونَ لِمَنْ خَلْفَكَ آيَةً وَقَدْ كَانَ فِرْعَوْنُ مِنْ قَرْنِهِ إِلَى قَدَمِهِ فِي الْحَدِيدِ قَدْ لَبِسَهُ عَلَى بَدَنِهِ فَلَمَّا غَرِقَ أَلْقَاهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَلَى نَجْوَةٍ مِنَ الأَرْضِ بِبَدَنِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِمَنْ بَعْدَهُ عَلامَةً فَيَرَوْنَهُ مَعَ تَثَقُّلِهِ بِالْحَدِيدِ عَلَى مُرْتَفِعٍ مِنَ الأَرْضِ وَسَبِيلُ الثَّقِيلِ أَنْ يَرْسُبَ وَلا يَرْتَفِعَ فَكَانَ ذَلِكَ آيَةً وَعَلامَةً وَلِعِلَّةٍ أُخْرَى أَغْرَقَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَهِيَ أَنَّهُ اسْتَغَاثَ بِمُوسَى لَمَّا أَدْرَكَهُ الْغَرَقُ وَلَمْ يَسْتَغِثْ بِاللَّهِ فَأَوْحَى اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إِلَيْهِ يَا مُوسَى لَمْ تُغِثْ فِرْعَوْنَ لانَّكَ لَمْ تَخْلُقْهُ وَلَوِ اسْتَغَاثَ بِي لاغَثْتُهُ.

8- حَدَّثَنا عَبْدِ اللَّه بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْد الوَهَّاب القُرَشِي قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مَنْصُورِ بْنِ الأصبهانِي الصُّوفيّ قالَ: حَدَّثَني عَلِىِّ بْنِ مهرويه القَزوِيني قالَ: حَدَّثَنا داوُدِ بْنِ سُلَيْمان الغازي قالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَلِىِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يَقُولُ عَنْ أَبيهِ مُوسَى بْنِ جَعْفَر عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، عَن أَبيهِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّد عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي قَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَتَبَسَّمَ ضاحِكاً مِنْ قَوْلِها قَالَ لَمَّا قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ يا أَيُّهَا الَّنمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَساكِنَكُمْ لا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمانُ وَجُنُودُهُ حَمَلَتِ الرِّيحُ صَوْتَ الَّنمْلَةِ إِلَى سُلَيْمانَ وَهُوَمَارٌّ فِي الْهَوَاءِ وَالرِّيحُ قَدْ حَمَلَتْهُ فَوَقَفَ وَقَالَ عَلَيَّ بِالَّنمْلَةِ فَلَمَّا أُتِيَ بِهَا قَالَ سُلَيْمانُ يَا أَيَّتُهَا الَّنمْلَةُ أَمَا عَلِمْتِ أَنِّي نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ وَأَنِّي لا أَظْلِمُ أَحَداً قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ بَلَى قَالَ سُلَيْمانُ فَلِمَ حَذَّرْتِنِيهِمْ ظُلْمِي وَقُلْتِ يا أَيُّهَا الَّنمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَساكِنَكُمْ قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ خَشِيتُ أَنْ يَنْظُرُوا إِلَى زِينَتِكَ فَيُفْتَتَنُوا بِهَا فَيَبْعُدُوا عَنِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ. ثُمَّ قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ: أَنْتَ أَكْبَرُ أَمْ أَبُوكَ دَاوُدُ؟ قَالَ سُلَيْمانُ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: بَلْ أَبِي دَاوُدُ. قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ: فَلِمَ زِيدَ فِي حُرُوفِ اسْمِكَ حَرْفٌ عَلَى حُرُوفِ اسْمِ أَبِيكَ دَاوُدَ؟ قَالَ سُلَيْمانُ: مَا لِي بِهَذَا عِلْمٌ. قَـالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ: لأنَّ أَبَـاكَ دَاوُدَ دَاوَى جُرْحَهُ بِوُدٍّ فَسُمِّيَ دَاوُدَ، وَأَنْتَ يَـا سُلَيْمانُ أَرْجُو أَنْ

reach the rank of your father.’ Then the ant added, ‘Do you know why God did not make things other than the wind subservient to you in His Kingdom?’ Solomon said, ‘I do not know.’ The ant said, ‘The Honorable the Exalted God wanted to teach you that if He had made everything else subservient to you, they would also end as fast as the wind does, and you would lose them as fast as the wind.’ Solomon (a.s.) laughed at this.”14

32-9 (The author of the book narrated) my father - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Sa’d ibn Abdullah quoted on the authority of Yaqoob ibn Yazid, on the authority of Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Ashyam, on the authority of Soleiman al-Ja’fari that Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) told him, ‘Do you know why Ishmael was called strictly true?’15 He said, ‘No.’ Imam Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, ‘It was because he made an appointment with someone and waited for him to come for one year.’

32-10 Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taleqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father, ‘I asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.): Why were the disciples (of Jesus) called the Hawariyoon? He (a.s.) said, ‘They were called the Hawariyoon by the people since they used to wash clothes. They cleansed the filth and dirt from clothes. Another reason is that the word Hawariyoon is derived from the word Hawar (bread) that is a form of bread made with sieved flour. We call them this because they cleansed themselves and others by means of the advice they gave.’ Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal asked, ‘Why were the Christians called the Nasara. The Imam (a.s.) said, ‘Since they came from a town called Nasereh that was one of the towns in Syria. After Mary (a.s.) and Jesus (a.s.) returned from Egypt, they settled down there.’”

32-11 (The author of the book narrated) my father - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Sa’d ibn Abdullah quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Abi Abdillah, on the authority of someone else, on the authority of Abi Tahir ibn Abi Hamza that Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “There are four kinds of temperaments. One is phlegm that is a stubborn enemy. Then there is blood which is like Ethiopian servants who often kill their masters. The third one is the wind which is a king who puts up with his people and treats them gently. The last one is ‘Safra which is like the Earthquake which will make everything on the Earth tremble when it occurs.’”

تَلْحَقَ بِأَبِيكَ. ثُمَّ قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ هَلْ تَدْرِي لِمَ سُخِّرَتْ لَكَ الرِّيحُ مِنْ بَيْنِ سَائِرِ الْمَمْلَكَةِ قَالَ سُلَيْمانُ مَا لِي بِهَذَا عِلْمٌ قَالَتِ الَّنمْلَةُ يَعْنِي عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِذَلِكَ لَوْ سَخَّرْتُ لَكَ جَمِيعَ الْمَمْلَكَةِ كَمَا سَخَّرْتُ لَكَ هَذِهِ الرِّيحَ لَكَانَ زَوَالُهَا مِنْ يَدِكَ كَزَوَالِ الرِّيحِ فَحِينَئِذٍ تَبَسَّمَ ضاحِكاً مِنْ قَوْلِها!

9- حَدَّثَنا أَبي رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا سَعْد بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه، عَنْ يَعْقُوبِ بْنِ يَزِيد، عَنْ عَلىِّ بْن أَشيمِ، عَنْ سُلَيْمان الجَعْفَرِيِّ، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: أَتَدْري لَمْ سُمِّيَ إِسْمَاعِيل صادِقَ الوَعْدِ؟ قالَ: قُلْتُ: لا أَدْرِي، فَقالَ: وَعَدَ رَجُلاً فَجَلَسَ لَهُ حَولاً يَنتَظِرُهُ.

10- حَدَّثَنا أَبُو العَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الكُوفِيّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَنْ أَبيهِ قالَ: قُلْتُ لِلرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لِمَ سُمِّيَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ الْحَوَارِيِّينَ قَالَ أَمَّا عِنْدَ النَّاسِ فَإِنَّهُمْ سُمُّوْا حَوَارِيِّينَ لانَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَصَّارِينَ يُخَلِّصُونَ الثِّيَابَ مِنَ الْوَسَخِ بِالْغَسْلِ وَهُوَاسْمٌ مُشْتَقٌّ مِنَ الْخُبْزِ الْحُوَّارَى وَأَمَّا عِنْدَنَا فَسُمِّيَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ حَوَارِيِّينَ لانَّهُمْ كَانُوا مُخْلَصِينَ فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمُخْلِصِينَ لِغَيْرِهِمْ مِنْ أَوْسَاخِ الذُّنُوبِ بِالْوَعْظِ وَالتَّذْكِيرِ قَالَ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ فَلِمَ سُمِّيَ النَّصَارَى نَصَارَى قَالَ لانَّهُمْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ اسْمُهَا نَاصِرَةُ مِنْ بِلادِ الشَّامِ نَزَلَتْهَا مَرْيَمُ وَعِيسَى‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ بَعْدَ رُجُوعِهِمَا مِنْ مِصْرَ.

11- حَدَّثَنا أَبي رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ أَبي عَبْدِ اللَّه، عَنْ واحِدٍ، عَنْ أَبي طاهِرٍ بْنِ أَبي حَمْزَة، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: الطَّبَائِعُ أَرْبَعٌ فَمِنْهُنَّ الْبَلْغَمُ وَهُوَخَصْمٌ جَدِلٌ وَمِنْهُنَّ الدَّمُ وَهُوَعَبْدٌ وَرُبَّمَا قَتَلَ الْعَبْدُ سَيِّدَهُ وَمِنْهُنَّ الرِّيحُ وَهُوَمَلِكٌ يُدَارَى وَمِنْهُنَّ الْمِرَّةُ وَهَيْهَاتَ وَهَيْهَاتَ هِيَ الأَرْضُ إِذَا ارْتَجَّتْ ارْتَجَّتْ بِمَا عَلَيْهَا.

32-12 Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn Masroor - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Aamir quoted on the authority of Abu Abdullah al-Sayyari, on the authority of Abi Yaqoob ibn al-Baghdadi that Ibn al-Sikkit asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Why did the Honorable the Exalted God send Moses (a.s.) with the miracles of the rod (turning into a serpent), a white hand16 , the means of magic and sent Jesus (a.s.) with the miracles of medicine, but sent Muhammad (a.s.) with speech and eloquence. Abul Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) told him, “Indeed magic was popular when the Blessed the Sublime God appointed Moses (a.s.). That is why he was given the miracle of negating the effect of magic by the Honorable the Exalted God, which the people did not possess. There was none like it within their powers. Therefore, he nullified their magic and proved his rightfulness to them. The Blessed the Sublime God appointed Jesus (a.s.) at a time when untreatable illnesses existed and the people needed medicine and a doctor. Therefore he gave them what they did not have the like of from the Honorable the Exalted God with which he (Jesus (a.s.)) brought their dead back to life, gave sight to those born blind, and treated those suffering from elephantiasis and leprosy17 , all with God’s permission and thereby proving his rightfulness to them. And the Blessed the Sublime God appointed Muhammad (a.s.) at a time when eloquent speech was common. I think he also added in poetry. Therefore he used the Honorable the Exalted God’s Book with its wise sayings, decrees, disproof of the claims of the atheists, and the proof of his own claims and perfected his proof for them.” Ibn al-Sikkit said, ‘I swear by God that I have never seen anyone like you in these times. Tell me, who is the Proof of God for the creatures today.’ Imam Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “It is the intellect which can recognize him who tells the truth about God, acknowledges Him, and recognizes and denounces one who lies about God.” Then Ibn al-Sikkit said, ‘I swear by God that this is the correct answer.’”

32-13 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Kufi al-Hamdani quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father that Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Why were the Best Messengers called the ‘Ulul-Azm?”18 The Imam (a.s.) answered, ‘They were called the ‘Ulu-Azm since they had laws and regulations. The Prophets that came after Noah (a.s.) all followed the

12- حَدَّثَنا جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَسْرُورٍ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عامِرٍ حَدَّثَنا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّه السَيّاري، عَنْ أَبي يَعْقُوبِ البَغدْاديّ قالَ: قَالَ ابْنُ السِّكِّيتِ لابِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لِمَا ذَا بَعَثَ اللَّهُ مُوسَى بْنَ عِمْرَانَ بِيَدِهِ الْبَيْضَاءِ وَالْعَصَا وَآلَةِ السِّحْرِ وَبَعَثَ عِيسَى بِالطِّبِّ وَبَعَثَ مُحَمَّداًبِالْكَلامِ وَالْخُطَبِ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى لَمَّا بَعَثَ مُوسَى‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ كَانَ الأَغْلَبُ عَلَى أَهْلِ عَصْرِهِ السِّحْرَ فَأَتَاهُمْ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي وُسْعِ الْقَوْمِ مِثْلُهُ وَبِمَا أَبْطَلَ بِهِ سِحْرَهُمْ وَأَثْبَتَ بِهِ الْحُجَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى بَعَثَ عِيسَى فِي وَقْتٍ ظَهَرَتْ فِيهِ الزَّمَانَاتُ وَاحْتَاجَ النَّاسُ إِلَى الطِّبِّ فَأَتَاهُمْ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ عِنْدَهُمْ مِثْلُهُ وَبِمَا أَحْيَا لَهُمُ الْمَوْتَى وَأَبْرَأَ الأَكْمَهَ وَالأَبْرَصَ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَأَثْبَتَ بِهِ الْحُجَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى بَعَثَ مُحَمَّداً فِي وَقْتٍ كَانَ الأَغْلَبُ عَلَى أَهْلِ عَصْرِهِ الْخُطَبَ وَالْكَلامَ وَأَظُنُّهُ قَالَ وَالشِّعْرَ فَأَتَاهُمْ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَمَوَاعِظِهِ وَأَحْكَامِهِ مَا أَبْطَلَ بِهِ قَوْلَهُمْ وَأَثْبَتَ الْحُجَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ فَقَالَ ابْنُ السِّكِّيتِ تَاللَّهِ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِثْلَ الْيَوْمِ قَطُّ فَمَا الْحُجَّةُ عَلَى الْخَلْقِ الْيَوْمَ فَقَالَ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ الْعَقْلُ تَعْرِفُ بِهِ الصَّادِقَ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَتُصَدِّقُهُ وَالْكَاذِبَ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَتُكَذِّبُهُ فَقَالَ ابْنُ السِّكِّيتِ هَذَا وَاللَّهِ الْجَوَابُ.

13- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيد الكُوفِيّ الهَمْدانِيَّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: إِنَّمَا سُمِّيَ أُولُو الْعَزْمِ أُوْلِي الْعَزْمِ لانَّهُمْ كَانُوا أَصْحَابَ الْعَزَائِمِ وَالشَّرَائِعِ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ كُلَّ نَبِيٍّ كَـانَ بَعْدَ نُوحٍ‏ كَـانَ عَلَى شَرِيعَتِهِ وَمِنْهَـاجِـهِ

laws of Noah (a.s.), and followed him. The Prophets (a.s.) that came after Noah all followed his Book until Abraham (a.s.) came. The Prophets (a.s.) that came after Abraham (a.s.) all followed Abraham’s laws. The laws and the ways of Abraham were followed by all the Prophets that came after Abraham (a.s.) until Moses (a.s.). Then after Moses (a.s.), the Prophets followed his laws and ways and adhered to his Book until the time of Jesus (a.s.). All the Prophets at the time of Jesus (a.s.) and after him followed his laws and ways and adhered to his Book until the time of our Prophet Muhammad (S). Therefore, these five Prophets are the ‘Ulul-Azm and are the best of the Prophets and Messengers. The laws of Muhammad (a.s.) will not be voided until the Resurrection Day. No Prophet will ever come after him until the Resurrection Day. It is incumbent to kill whoever claims Prophethood after him (a.s.) or brings a book after the Qur’an for anyone who hears his claim.’”

32-14 Al-Mudhaffar ibn Ja'far Al-Mudhaffar al-Alawi As-Samarqandi narrated that Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Mas’ood quoted on the authority of his father - Abil Nasr Muhammad ibn Masood al-Ayyashi, on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of Muhammad ibn al-Waleed, on the authority of Al-Abbas ibn Hilal, on the authority of Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), on the authority of his father Musa (a.s.), on the authority of his father Ja’far (a.s.), on the authority of his father Muhammad (a.s.), on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Husayn (a.s.), on the authority of his father Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) that God’s Prophet (S) said, “There are five things which I will not quit doing until I die: eating food, sitting on the ground along with the slaves, riding animals using a saddle, milking goats using my own hands, wearing rough clothes and greeting children. These will become traditions after me.”

32-15 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father, “I asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), ‘Why did the people quit making pledges of allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) and were attracted to other people, even though they knew the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) was superior and they knew his rank in the presence of the Prophet of God (a.s.)?’ He (a.s.) replied, ‘They quit making pledges of allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) and were attracted to other people, even though they knew he was

وَتَابِعاً لِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى زَمَنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْخَلِيلِ وَكُلَّ نَبِيٍّ كَانَ فِي أَيَّامِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَبَعْدَهُ كَانَ عَلَى شَرِيعَةِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمِنْهَاجِهِ وَتَابِعاً لِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى زَمَنِ مُوسَى وَكُلَّ نَبِيٍّ كَانَ فِي زَمَنِ مُوسَى وَبَعْدَهُ كَانَ عَلَى شَرِيعَةِ مُوسَى وَمِنْهَاجِهِ وَتَابِعاً لِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى أَيَّامِ عِيسَى وَكُلَّ نَبِيٍّ كَانَ فِي أَيَّامِ عِيسَى وَبَعْدَهُ كَانَ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ عِيسَى وَشَرِيعَتِهِ وَتَابِعاً لِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى زَمَنِ نَبِيِّنَا مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ‏فَهَؤُلاءِ الْخَمْسَةُ أُولُو الْعَزْمِ وَهُمْ أَفْضَلُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالرُّسُلِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ وَشَرِيعَةُ مُحَمَّدٍ لا تُنْسَخُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَمَنِ ادَّعَى بَعْدَهُ نُبُوَّةً أَوْ أَتَى بَعْدَ الْقُرْآنِ بِكِتَابٍ فَدَمُهُ مُبَاحٌ لِكُلِّ مَنْ سَمِعَ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ.

14- حَدَّثَنا المُظَفَّر بْنِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ المُظَفَّر العَلَوِيّ السَمَرْقَنْدِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَبي النَصْر مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَسْعُودِ العَيَّاشِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الوَلِيد، عَنْ العَبَّاسِ بْنِ هِلالٍ، عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، عَنْ أَبيهِ مُوسَى، عَنْ أَبيهِ جَعْفَر، عَنْ أَبيهِ مُحَمَّد، عَنْ أَبيهِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحُسَيْن، عَنْ أَبيهِ الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عَلِى، عَنْ أَبيهِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ أَبي طالِب‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: قالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: خَمْسٌ لا أَدَعُهُنَّ حَتَّى الْمَمَاتِ الأَكْلُ عَلَى الْحَضِيضِ مَعَ الْعَبِيدِ وَرُكُوبِيَ الْحِمَارَ مُؤْكَفاً وَحَلْبِيَ الْعَنْزَ بِيَدِي وَلُبْسُ الصُّوفِ وَالتَّسْلِيمُ عَلَى الصِّبْيَانِ لِتَكُونَ سُنَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِي.

15- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الكُوفِيّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: سَأَلْته عَنْ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنين‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: كَيْفَ مَالَ النَّاسُ عَنْهُ إِلَى غَيْرِهِ وَقَدْ عَرَفُوا فَضْلَهُ وَسَابِقَتَهُ وَمَكَانَهُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ. فَقَالَ

superior and they knew his rank in the presence of the Prophet of God (a.s.), since the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) had killed many of their fathers, uncles, and other relatives who were the enemies of God’s Prophet (S). That is why they disliked him in their hearts. They did not like him to be their master. They did not have such a feeling in their heart towards others, since others were not like Ali (a.s.) in the battles. They had not seen from them what they had seen from Ali (a.s.) in the battles. That is why they turned away from Ali (a.s.) and became inclined towards others.’”

32-16 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Abu Sa’eed Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Adawi quoted that al-Haytham ibn Abdullah al-Romani asked Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “O son of God’s Prophet! Why didn’t Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) fight his enemies for twenty-five years after God’s Prophet (S), and then started fighting during his (own) rule?” The Imam (a.s.) replied, “Ali (a.s.) followed God’s Prophet (S) as his model in this regard. Ali (a.s.) had not fought with the pagans for thirteen years in Mecca and nine months after his migration to Medina, because he had very few followers and he did not have the power to overcome his enemies. Ali (a.s.) did the same and put off fighting his enemies due to having few supporters. The Prophethood of the Prophet of God (a.s.) was not nullified by putting off a Holy War for thirteen years and nine months. The same holds for Ali (a.s.). His Trusteeship was not nullified by putting off the Holy War for twenty-five years. Both of them had obstacles. Neither one’s mission was voided. They both had the same reason.”

32-17 Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Abdillah ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Abdillah al-Barqi, may God be pleased with him - narrated that his father quoted on the authority of his grandfather, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Abi Abdillah al-Barqi, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Isa that Muhammad ibn Abi Yaqoob al-Balkhi asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Why is Divine Leadership in the lineage of Al-Husayn, and not that of Al-Hassan?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “Indeed the Honorable the Exalted God established Divine Leadership in the lineage of Al-Husayn (a.s.), and God cannot be questioned regarding what He does.”

إِنَّمَا مَالُوا عَنْهُ إِلَى غَيْرِهِ وَقَدْ عَرَفُوا فَضْلَهُ لانَّهُ قَدْ كَانَ قَتَلَ مِنْ آبَائِهِمْ وَأَجْدَادِهِمْ وَإِخْوَانِهِمْ وَأَعْمَامِهِمْ وَأَخْوَالِهِمْ وَأَقْرِبَائِهِمُ الْمحَادِّينَ لِلَّهِ وَلِرَسُولِهِ عَدَداً كَثِيراً، وَكَانَ حِقْدُهُمْ عَلَيْهِ لِذَلِكَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَلَمْ يُحِبُّوا أَنْ يَتَوَلَّى عَلَيْهِمْ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ، لانَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ فِي الْجِهَادِ بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ مِثْلُ مَا كَانَ، فَلِذَلِكَ عَدَلُوا عَنْهُ وَمَالُوا إِلَى سِوَاهُ.

16- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَبُو سَعِيدُ الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عَلِى العدوي قالَ: حَدَّثَنا الهِيْثَم بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه الرمانِي قالَ: سَأَلْتُ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أَخْبِرْنِي عَنْ عَلِيٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لِمَ لَمْ يُجَاهِدْ أَعْدَاءَهُ خَمْساً وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ جَاهَدَ فِي أَيَّامِ وَلايَتِهِ فَقَالَ لانَّهُ اقْتَدَى بِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ فِي تَرْكِهِ جِهَادَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ بِمَكَّةَ بَعْدَ النُّبُوَّةِ ثَلاثَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً وَبِالْمَدِينَةِ تِسْعَةَ عَشَرَ شَهْراً وَذَلِكَ لِقِلَّةِ أَعْوَانِهِ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَكَذَلِكَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ تَرَكَ مُجَاهَدَةَ أَعْدَائِهِ لِقِلَّةِ أَعْوَانِهِ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَلَمَّا لَمْ تَبْطُلْ نُبُوَّةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ مَعَ تَرْكِهِ الْجِهَادَ ثَلاثَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً وَتِسْعَةَ عَشَرَ شَهْراً، كَذَلِكَ لَمْ تَبْطُلْ إِمَامَةُ عَلِيٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مَعَ تَرْكِهِ الْجِهَادَ خَمْساً وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً، إِذَا كَانَتِ الْعِلَّةُ الْمَانِعَةُ لَهُمَا مِنَ الْجِهَادِ وَاحِدَةً.

17- حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ أَبي عَبْدِ اللَّه البَرْقِي رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَبي عَنْ جَدِّي أَحْمَدِ بْنِ أَبي عَبْدِ اللَّه البَرْقِي، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبي يَعْقُوبِ البلخي قالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قُلْتُ لَهُ لايِّ عِلَّةٍ صَارَتِ الإِمَامَةُ فِي وُلْدِ الْحُسَيْنِ دُونَ وُلْدِ الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ لانَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ جَعَلَهَا فِي وُلْدِ الْحُسَيْنِ وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْهَا فِي وُلْدِ الْحَسَنِ وَاللَّهُ لا يُسْئَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ.

32-18 (The author of the book narrated) my father - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Sa’d ibn Abdullah quoted on the authority of Muhammad ibn Isa, on the authority of Dorost, on the authority of Ibrahim ibn Abdul Hamid that Abil Hassan (Ar-Ridha’) (a.s.) said, “God’s Prophet (S) went to see Ayesha when she was putting her bulging long-necked bottle in the sun. He (a.s.) said, “O Homayra (Aa’isha)! What is this?” She said, “I want to wash my head and body.”19 He (a.s.) said, “Do not do this again since it will cause elephantiasis.”

The author of this book (a.s.heikh Sadooq) - may God forgive him - said, “What is meant by Abil Hassan (a.s.) in this tradition is Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) or it could refer to his father Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.), since Ibrahim ibn Abdul Hamid has narrated this tradition from both of them. Therefore this is one of the ‘mirasil traditions.20

32-19 Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Idris - may God be pleased with him - narrated that his father quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, on the authority of Al-Hassan ibn al-Nadhr that he had asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Imagine that two people are on a journey. One of them passes away and the other one is in a state of major ritual impurity21 . There is only enough water for making the ablution of the corpse or the ablution of the person in a state of major ritual impurity. What should the water be used for?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “The person who is in a state of major ritual impurity should use the water for making ablutions, since this is an obligatory act. He should leave the dead, since making the ablutions for the dead is a part of the tradition (of the Prophet (S) and is not obligatory).”

32-20 Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Waleed - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan al-Saffar quoted on the authority of Muhammad ibn Isa that Al-Hassan al-Nadhr asked Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “What is the reason they say the phrase God is the Greatest five times over a person’s corpse?” He (a.s.) said, “On the surface it seems that this is because it has been taken from the five daily prayers. However, there is another reason for that. Indeed the Honorable the Exalted God has made it incumbent upon His servants to perform five obligatory deeds: praying, paying the alms-tax, fasting, going on the Hajj pilgrimage, and accepting the Mastery (of the Immaculate Imams). Therefore, He has established saying God is the Greatest once for each

18- حَدَّثَنا أَبي رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَني سَعْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ دُرُستٍ، عَنْ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ عَبْد الحَمِيدَ، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: دَخَلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ وَقَدْ وَضَعَتْ قُمْقُمَتَهَا فِي الشَّمْسِ فَقَالَ يَا حُمَيْرَاءُ مَا هَذَا قَالَتْ أَغْسِلُ رَأْسِي وَجَسَدِي قَالَ لا تَعُودِي فَإِنَّهُ يُورِثُ الْبَرَص.

قالَ مُصَنِّفُ هذا الْكِتاب‏رحمه الله: أَبُو الحَسَن صاحِبُ الْحَدِيث يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الرِّضا، وَيَجُوز أَنْ يَكُونَ مُوسَى بْنِ جَعْفَرعَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ لانَّ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ عَبْد الحَمِيدَ لَقيَهُما جَمِيعاً وَهذا الْحَدِيثُ مِنَ المَراسِيلِ.

19- حَدَّثَنا الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ إِدْرِيس رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: أَخْبَرنا أَبي، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ أحْمَد بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ الحَسَن بْنِ النَّضر قالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَنِ الْقَوْمِ يَكُونُونَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَيَمُوتُ مِنْهُمْ مَيِّتٌ وَمَعَهُمْ جُنُبٌ وَمَعَهُمْ مَاءٌ قَلِيلٌ قَدْرَ مَا يَكْفِي أَحَدَهُمْ أَيُّهُمْ يَبْدَأُ بِهِ قَالَ يَغْتَسِلُ الْجُنُبُ وَيُتْرَكُ الْمَيِّتُ لانَّهُ هَذَا فَرِيضَةٌ وَهَذَا سُنَّةٌ.

20- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحَسَن بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ الوَلِيد رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحَسَن الصَفَّار، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنِ الحَسَن النَّضر قالَ: قُلْتُ لِلرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: مَا الْعِلَّةُ فِي التَّكْبِيرِ عَلَى الْمَيِّتِ خَمْسُ تَكْبِيرَاتٍ قُلْتُ رَوَوْا أَنَّهَا قَدِ اشْتُقَّتْ مِنْ خَمْسِ صَلَوَاتٍ فَقَالَ هَذَا ظَاهِرُ الْحَدِيثِ فَأَمَّا بَاطِنُهُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَرَضَ عَلَى الْعِبَادِ خَمْسَ فَرَائِضَ الصَّـلاةَ وَالزَّكَـاةَ وَالصِّيَـامَ وَالْحَجَّ وَالْوَلايَةَ فَجَعَلَ لِلْمَيِّتِ مِنْ كُلِّ فَرِيضَـةٍ تَكْبِيرَةً

of the obligatory deeds. If he has accepted the Mastery (of the Immaculate Imams), then it should be said five times. However, if he has not accepted it, the phrase God is the Greatest should be said only four times. That is why when one of you (the Shiites) die, the phrase is said five times. However, when one who disagrees with you (i.e. is not one of the Shiites) dies, the phrase is said only four times.

32-21 Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Imran ad-Daqqaq - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Abul Husayn Muhammad ibn Ja’far al-Asadi quoted on the authority of Sahl ibn Ziyad al-Adami, on the authority of Ja’far ibn Uthman al-Daremi that Soleiman ibn Ja’far asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “What is ‘Talbiyeh22 ? And what are the reasons for it?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “When the servants (people) enter the state of ritual consecration for the Hajj the Honorable the Exalted God addresses them and says, ‘O My servants and slaves! I forbid the Fire from you as you forbade things for yourselves.’ Then they say ‘Labbayk Allahuma Labbayk’ implying that they have accepted God’s call and are responding to it.’”

32-22 My father - may God have Mercy upon him - narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ali ibn Ma’bad that Al-Husayn ibn Khalid asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “For how many people is the offering of a camel (for sacrifice on the ‘Eid ul-Adha) enough of an offering?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “One.” Then he asked, “What about offering a cow?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “For five individuals it is enough, if they spend and eat together.” Then he asked, “Why does offering one cow suffice for five people while offering a camel does not?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “It is because of the reason there lies behind a camel which does not lie behind a cow. The people of the Children of Israel who invited the people to worship the calf were five. They were all from the same home and they all ate together. They were Azinooneh, his brother Mabzooneh, his brother’s son, his daughter and his wife.23 They were the ones who invited the people to worship the calf. They were the same ones who killed the cow which God had ordered to be offered for sacrifice.”24

32-23 Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Waleed - may God have Mercy upon him - narrated that Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan al-Saffar quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, on the authority

وَاحِدَةً فَمَنْ قَبِلَ الْوَلايَةَ كَبَّرَ خَمْساً وَمَنْ لَمْ يَقْبَلِ الْوَلايَةَ كَبَّرَ أَرْبَعاً فَمِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ تُكَبِّرُونَ خَمْساً وَمَنْ خَالَفَكُمْ يُكَبِّرُ أَرْبَعاً.

21- حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِمْران الدَّقَّاق رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَبُو الحُسَيْن جَعْفَرٍ الأَسَدِيُّ، عَنْ سَهْل بْنِ زِياد الأَدَمِي، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ عُثْمان الدَّارمي، عَنْ سُلَيْمان بْنِ جَعفَرٍ قالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَنِ التَّلْبِيَةِ وَعِلَّتِهَا فَقَالَ إِنَّ النَّاسَ إِذَا أَحْرَمُوا نَادَاهُمُ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فَقَالَ يَا عِبَادِي وَإِمَائِي لاحَرِّمَنَّكُمْ عَلَى النَّارِ كَمَا أَحْرَمْتُمْ لِي فَيَقُولُونَ لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ إِجَابَةً لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ عَلَى نِدَائِهِ إِيَّاهُمْ.

22- حَدَّثَنا أَبي‏رحمه الله قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ إِبراهِيمِ بْنِ هاشِم، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَنْ عَلِىِّ بْنِ معبد، عَنْ الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ خالِد، عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: قُلْتُ لَهُ كَمْ تُجْزِي الْبَدَنَةُ قَالَ عَنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ قُلْتُ فَالْبَقَرَةُ قَالَ تُجْزِي عَنْ خَمْسَةٍ إِذَا كَانُوا يَأْكُلُونَ عَلَى مَائِدَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ قُلْتُ كَيْفَ صَارَتِ الْبَدَنَةُ لا تُجْزِي إِلا عَنْ وَاحِدَةٍ وَالْبَقَرَةُ تُجْزِي عَنْ خَمْسَةٍ قَالَ لانَّ الْبَدَنَةَ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهَا مِنَ الْعِلَّةِ مَا كَانَ فِي الْبَقَرَةِ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ أَمَرُوا قَوْمَ مُوسَى‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ بِعِبَادَةِ الْعِجْلِ كَانُوا خَمْسَةَ أَنْفُسٍ وَكَانُوا أَهْلَ بَيْتٍ يَأْكُلُونَ عَلَى خِوَانٍ وَاحِدٍ وَهُمْ أذينوه وَأَخُوهُ ميذويه وَابْنُ أَخِيهِ وَابْنَتُهُ وَامْرَأَتُهُ وَهُمُ الَّذِينَ أَمَرُوا بِعِبَادَةِ الْعِجْلِ وَهُمُ الَّذِينَ ذَبَحُوا الْبَقَرَةَ الَّتِي أَمَرَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِذَبْحِهَا.

23- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحَسَن بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ الوَلِيدرحمه الله قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الحَسَن الصَفَّار، عَنْ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَن الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ خالِد قـالَ: قُلْتُ لأبِي

of his father that Al-Husayn ibn Khalid asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Why is it that the sins of one who goes on the Hajj pilgrimage are not recorded for four months?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “It is because the Sublime God has forbidden the entry of the atheists into the Shrine for four months as He says, ‘Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land…’25 That is whenever one of the believers goes to visit the Holy House (of God), his sins will not be recorded for four months.”

32-24 (The author of the book narrated) my father - may God have mercy upon him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Idris quoted on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Imran al-Ash’ari, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ma’roof, on the authority of his brother, on the authority of Ja’far ibn Oyayna that Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Indeed after the migration from Mecca (to Medina), Ali (a.s.) never spent the night in Mecca until the Honorable the Exalted God took back his soul.” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) was asked, “Why?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Ali (a.s.) disliked to stay overnight in the land from which God’s Prophet (S) had migrated. He (a.s.) usually said his afternoon prayer there and set out to spend the night elsewhere.”

32-25 Muhammad ibn Ali Majilawayh - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of Ali ibn Ma’bad that Al-Husayn ibn Khalid asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Why is the nuptial gift five hundred Dirhams?” He (a.s.) replied, “It is because the Blessed the Sublime God made it incumbent upon Himself that if any believer says God is the Greatest one hundred times, Praise be to God one hundred times; Glory be to God one hundred times; There is no god but God one hundred times; Blessings be upon Muhammad and his Household one-hundred times; and O my God! Please marry off one of the houris to me God will marry off one of the houris from Paradise to him, and set these words of remembrance that he has uttered as her nuptial gift. That is why the Honorable the Exalted God revealed to His Prophet (S) to make it a tradition for the nuptial gift of the believing women to be five-hundred Dirhams and God’s Prophet (S) did so.”

الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لايِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ صَارَ الْحَاجُّ لا يُكْتَبُ عَلَيْهِ ذَنْبٌ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ قَالَ لانَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى أَبَاحَ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ الْحَرَمَ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ إِذْ يَقُولُ فَسِيحُوا فِي الأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ وَهَبَ لِمَنْ حَجَّ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الْبَيْتَ الذُّنُوبَ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ.

24- حَدَّثَنا أَبي‏رحمه الله قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ إِدْرِيس عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى بْنِ عِمْران الأَشْعَرِيِّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ معروف عَنْ أَخِيهِ عمر عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ عيينة عَنْ أَبي الحَسَن‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: إِنَّ عَلِيّاً عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لَمْ يَبِتْ بِمَكَّةَ بَعْدَ إِذْ هَاجَرَ مِنْهَا حَتَّى قَبَضَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إِلَيْهِ قَالَ قُلْتُ وَلِمَ ذَلِكَ قَالَ يَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَبِيتَ بِأَرْضٍ هَاجَرَ مِنْهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَكَانَ يُصَلِّي الْعَصْرَ وَيَخْرُجُ مِنْهَا وَيَبِيتُ بِغَيْرِهَا.

25- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِى ماجِيلوَيْه قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ إِبراهِيمِ بْنِ هاشِم، عَنْ أَبيهِ، عَن عَلِىِّ بْنِ معبد، عَن الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ خالِد قالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، عَن مَهْرِ السُّنَّةِ كَيْفَ صَارَ خَمْسَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ فَقَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى أَوْجَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ أَنْ لا يُكَبِّرَهُ مُؤْمِنٌ مِائَةَ تَكْبِيرَةٍ وَيُحَمِّدَهُ مِائَةَ تَحْمِيدَةٍ وَيُسَبِّحَهُ مِائَةَ تَسْبِيحَةٍ وَيُهَلِّلَهُ مِائَةَ تَهْلِيلَةٍ وَيُصَلِّيَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِائَةَ مَرَّةٍ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ: اللَّهُمَّ زَوِّجْنِي مِنَ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ إِلا زَوَّجَهُ اللَّهُ حَوْرَاءَ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ وَجَعَلَ ذَلِكَ مَهْرَهَا فَمِنْ ثَمَّ أَوْحَى اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إِلَى نَبِيِّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ‏أَنْ يَسُنَّ مُهُورَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ خَمْسَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ فَفَعَلَ ذَلِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ.

32-26 Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Idris - may God be pleased with him - narrated that his father quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, on the authority of Ibn Abi Nasr that Al-Husayn ibn Khalid asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “May I be your ransom! Why is it that the nuptial gift for women is set at five-hundred Dirhams equivalent to 12.5 Okes26 .” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “The Honorable the Exalted God has made it incumbent upon Himself that if any believer says God is the Greatest one hundred times; Praise be to God one hundred times; Glory be to God one hundred times; There is no god but God one hundred times; Blessings be upon Muhammad and his Household one-hundred times; and O my God! Please marry off one of the houris to me, God will marry off one of the houris to him. That is why the nuptial gift of the believing women has been determined to be five-hundred Dirhams. If anyone turns down the request of a believing courter who wants to marry a woman with the nuptial gift of five-hundred Dirhams, and then he does not marry her off to the courter, has indeed harmed him. Then it is the right of the Honorable the Exalted God not to marry off a houri to him.”27

32-27 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Hamadani quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father, “I asked Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) about the reason why a woman who has been divorced three times cannot be married to her original husband again, until after she marries someone else (and her new husband either dies or divorces her before she can be married).28 Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, ‘The Blessed the Sublime God has only granted the permission for divorce (and return) twice as the Honorable the Exalted God says, ‘A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness…’29 Therefore, if a man divorces his wife for the third time which God dislikes, God makes that woman unlawful for him. She will no longer be legitimate for him until after she marries someone else. This is established so that the people do not underestimate divorce and do not misuse women.”30

32-28 Muhammad ibn Ali Majilawayh - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-At’tar quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, on the authority of Ja’far ibn Muhammad

26- حَدَّثَنا الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أَحْمَدِ بْنِ إِدْرِيس، عَن أَبيهِ، عَن أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَن ابْنِ أَبي نصر، عَن الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ خالِد قالَ: قُلْتُ لابِي الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ كَيْفَ صَارَ مَهْرُ النِّسَاءِ خَمْسَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ اثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَةَ أُوقِيَّةً وَنش [نَشّاً] قَالَ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى أَوْجَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ أَنْ لا يُكَبِّرَهُ مُؤْمِنٌ مِائَةَ تَكْبِيرَةٍ وَيُسَبِّحَهُ مِائَةَ تَسْبِيحَةٍ وَيُحَمِّدَهُ مِائَةَ تَحْمِيدَةٍ وَيُهَلِّلَهُ مِائَةَ مَرَّةٍ وَيُصَلِّيَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَآلِهِ مِائَةَ مَرَّةٍ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ اللَّهُمَّ زَوِّجْنِي مِنَ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ إِلا زَوَّجَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ جُعِلَ مَهْرُ النِّسَاءِ خَمْسَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ وَأَيُّمَا مُؤْمِنٍ خَطَبَ إِلَى أَخِيهِ حُرْمَةً وَبَذَلَ لَهُ خَمْسَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ فَلَمْ يُزَوِّجْهُ فَقَدْ عَقَّهُ وَاسْتَحَقَّ مِنَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَنْ لا يُزَوِّجَهُ حَوْرَاءَ.

27- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الهَمْدانِيَّ، عَن عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَن أَبيهِ قالَ: سَأَلْتُ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَنِ الْعِلَّةِ الَّتِي مِنْ أَجْلِهَا لا تَحِلُّ الْمُطَلَّقَةُ لِلْعِدَّةِ لِزَوْجِهَا حَتَّى تَنْكِحَ زَوْجاً غَيْرَهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى إِنَّمَا أَذِنَ فِي الطَّلاقِ مَرَّتَيْنِ فَقَالَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ الطَّلاقُ مَرَّتانِ فَإِمْساكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسانٍ يَعْنِي فِي التَّطْلِيقَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ وَلِدُخُولِهِ فِيَما كَرِهَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَهُ مِنَ الطَّلاقِ الثَّالِثِ حَرَّمَهَا عَلَيْهِ فَلا تَحِلُّ لَهُ... حَتَّى تَنْكِحَ زَوْجاً غَيْرَهُ لِئَلا يُوقِعَ النَّاسَ الاسْتِخْفَافُ بِالطَّلاقِ وَلا يُضَارُّوا النِّسَاءَ.

28- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِى ماجِيلوَيْه قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى العَطَّار، عَن أحْمَد بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّد الأَشْعَرِيِّ عَن أَبيهِ قالَ: سَأَلْتُ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، عَن تَزْوِيجِ

al-Ash’ari, on the authority of his father that he had asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) about marrying women who have been divorced thrice. Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “The women divorced thrice by you (the Shiites) are not legitimate for others, but the non-Shiite’s divorced women are legitimate for you. This is because you do not consider their divorcing thrice to be right, but they consider yours to be right.”

32-29 Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father: I asked Abal Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), “Why was the Prophet’s (a.s.) nickname Abul Qasim?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “It was because he had a son named Qasim. That was why his nickname was Abul Qasim.” I asked him, “O son of God’s Prophet (S)! Do you consider me worthy of more explanation?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Yes. Don’t you know that God’s Prophet (S) said?, “Ali and I are the fathers of this nation.” I said, “Yes, I do.” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Don’t you know that God’s Prophet (S) is the father of all the nation, and Ali is one of the members of this nation?” I said, “Yes.” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Don’t you know that Ali (a.s.) is the ‘Qasim or the one who divides up Paradise and Hell?” I replied, “Yes.” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “Then that is why the Prophet (S) is called Abul Qasim - as he is the father of the one who divides up Paradise and Hell.” I asked, “What does this mean?” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, “The kindness of the Prophet (S) for his nation is like that of a father for his children. The noblest member of his nation is Ali (a.s.). And after him the kindness of Ali (a.s.) for them is like the kindness of the Prophet (S), since he is the Prophet’s (a.s.) Trustee, Successor and the Divine Leader after the Prophet (S). That is why the Prophet (S) said, “Ali and I are the two fathers of this nation.” God’s Prophet (S) climbed up the pulpit and said, “Whoever leaves behind a debt or a wife, I must repay his debt and pay for the living expenses of his wife. Whoever leaves behind some property, that property will belong to his inheritors.” That is why the Prophet (S) was superior to their fathers, mothers and even themselves. The same thing held true for the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) after God’s Prophet (S).”

32-30 Tamim ibn Abdullah ibn Tamim al-Qurashi narrated that his father quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Ali Al-Ansari, that Abi Salt al-Harawi said, “One day Al-Ma’mun told Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), ‘O Abal Hassan Al-

الْمُطَلَّقَاتِ ثَلاثاً فَقَالَ لِي إِنَّ طَلاقَكُمُ الثَّلاثَ لا يَحِلُّ لِغَيْرِكُمْ وَطَلاقَهُمْ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ لانَّكُمْ لا تَرَوْنَ الثَّلاثَ شَيْئاً وَهُمْ يُوجِبُونَهَا.

29- حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ رَضِىَ اللهُ عَنْهُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الكُوفِي قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَن أَبيهِ قالَ: سَأَلْتُ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ لِمَ كُنِّيَ النَّبِيُ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ بِأَبِي الْقَاسِمِ فَقَالَ لانَّهُ كَانَ لَهُ ابْنٌ يُقَالُ لَهُ قَاسِمٌ فَكُنِّيَ بِهِ قَالَ فَقُلْتُ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَهَلْ تَرَانِي أَهْلاً لِلزِّيَادَةِ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ قَالَ أَنَا وَعَلِيٌّ أَبَوَا هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ أَبٌ لِجَمِيعِ أُمَّتِهِ وَعَلِيٌّ بِمَنْزِلَتِهِ فِيهِمْ قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً قَاسِمُ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ فَقِيلَ لَهُ أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ لانَّهُ أَبُو قَاسِمِ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ وَمَا مَعْنَى ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ شَفَقَةَ الرَّسُولِ عَلَى أُمَّتِهِ شَفَقَةُ الآْبَاءِ عَلَى أَلأَوْلادِ وَأَفْضَلُ أُمَّتِهِ عَلِيٌ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ وَمِنْ بَعْدِهِ شَفَقَةُ عَلِيٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَلَيْهِمْ كَشَفَقَتِهِ لانَّهُ وَصِيُّهُ وَخَلِيفَتُهُ وَالإِمَامُ بَعْدَهُ فَلِذَلِكَ قَالَ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ أَنَا وَعَلِيٌّ أَبَوَا هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ وَصَعِدَ النَّبِيُ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ الْمِنْبَرَ فَقَالَ مَنْ تَرَكَ دَيْناً أَوْ ضَيَاعاً فَعَلَيَّ وَإِلَيَّ وَمَنْ تَرَكَ مَالاً فَلِوَرَثَتِهِ فَصَارَ بِذَلِكَ أَوْلَى بِهِمْ مِنْ آبَائِهِمْ وَأُمَّهَاتِهِمْ وَصَارَ أَوْلَى بِهِمْ مِنْهُمْ بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَكَذَلِكَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ بَعْدَهُ جَرَى لَهُ مِثْلُ مَا جَرَى لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ.

30- حَدَّثَنا تَمِيمُ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّه بْنِ تَمِيمُ القُرَشِي قالَ حَدَّثَني أَبي، عَن أَحْمَدِ بْنِ عَلِى الأَنْصـارِي عَنْ أَبي الصَّـلْتِ الهَرَوِيِّ قـالَ: قَـالَ الْمَـأْمُونُ يَوْماً لِلرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: يَا أَبَا

Ridha’ (a.s.)! Tell me, why is it that your grandfather Ali - the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) became the one to divide up Paradise and Hell. What is meant by this? I have thought a lot about this.” Then Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) told him, “O Commander of the Faithful (i.e. Al-Ma’mun)! Has it not been narrated by your father, on the authority of your forefathers, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Abbas to have said that he had heard God’s Prophet (S) say, “Liking Ali is the same as faith, and despising him is the same as atheism.” Al-Ma’mun said, “Yes.” Then Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) added, “Therefore, he is the one who divides up Paradise and Hell as it is loving him which equals faith, and despising him which equals atheism.” Then Al-Ma’mun said, “O Abal Hassan (Ar-Ridha’)! May God not let me live after you! I testify that you are the inheritor of the knowledge of God’s Prophet (S).” Abi Salt (al-Harawi) added, “When Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) returned home, I went to see him (a.s.) and said, “O son of God’s Prophet! How nice did you respond to the Commander of the Faithful’s (al-Ma’mun) question!” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, “O Aba Salt! I answered him using the same way that he was reasoning. I heard my father (a.s.) narrate on the authority of his forefathers (a.s.), on the authority of Ali (a.s.) that God’s Prophet (S) told him, “O Ali! You are the one to divide up Paradise and Fire on the Resurrection Day. You will order the Fire to let go of some saying that they are yours, and tell the Fire that some are for the Fire to capture and they belong to it.’”

32-31 Abu Ali Ahmad ibn Al-Hassan al-Qattan narrated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-Hamadani quoted on the authority of Ali ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Fadhdhal, on the authority of his father, “I asked Abil Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.), ‘Why did the Commander of the Faithful (Imam Ali) (a.s.) not return Fadak to its true owner after he (a.s.) took charge of the people?’31 Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, ‘That is because the Honorable the Exalted God has granted us the Mastery. Therefore, no one but Him will seize our due rights from those who oppressed us. We are the Members of the Holy Household who rule over the people and judge about them, and seize back what is rightfully theirs from those who have oppressively captured their property. However, we (the Members of the Holy Household of the Prophet (S)) never seize back our own rights.”

(The author of the book has said) I have presented other aspects of this issue in my book Illal Ul-Sharaye’a from the traditions. In this book, I have just sufficed with this tradition that was narrated on the authority of Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.).

الْحَسَنِ أَخْبِرْنِي، عَن جَدِّكَ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ بِأَيِّ وَجْهٍ هُوَقَسِيمُ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ وَبِأَيِّ مَعْنَى فَقَدْ كَثُرَ فِكْرِي فِي ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ لَهُ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَلَمْ تُرْوَعَنْ أَبِيكَ، عَن آبَائِهِ، عَن عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ يَقُولُ حُبُّ عَلِيٍّ إِيمَانٌ وَبُغْضُهُ كُفْرٌ فَقَالَ بَلَى فَقَالَ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَقِسْمَةُ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ إِذَا كَانَتْ عَلَى حُبِّهِ وَبُغْضِهِ فَهُوَقَسِيمُ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ فَقَالَ الْمَأْمُونِ لا أَبْقَانِيَ اللَّهُ بَعْدَكَ يَا أَبَا الْحَسَنِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّكَ وَارِثُ عِلْمِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ قَالَ أَبُو الصَّلْتِ الْهَرَوِيُّ فَلَمَّا انْصَرَفَ الرِّضَا إِلَى مَنْزِلِهِ أَتَيْتُهُ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ مَا أَحْسَنَ مَا أَجَبْتَ بِهِ أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَقَالَ لِي الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ إِنَّمَا كَلَّمْتُهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ هُوَوَلَقَدْ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ، عَن آبَائِهِ، عَن عَلِيٍ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ أَنَّهُ قالَ: قالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ‏يَا عَلِيُّ أَنْتَ قَسِيمُ الْجَنَّةِ وَالنَّارِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ تَقُولُ لِلنَّارِ هَذَا لِي وَهَذَا لَكَ.

31- حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ الحَسَن القَطَّانُ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدُ الهَمْدانِيَ‏حَدَّثَنا عَلِىِّ بْنِ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِىِّ بْنِ فضال، عَن أَبيهِ، عَن أَبي الحَسَن الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قالَ: سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ لِمَ لَمْ يَسْتَرْجِعْ فَدَكَ لَمَّا وَلِيَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ لانَّا أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ وَلِيُّنَا اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لا يَأْخُذُ لَنَا حُقُوقَنَا مِمَّنْ يَظْلِمُنَا إِلا هُوَ، وَنَحْنُ أَوْلِيَاءُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، إِنَّمَا نَحْكُمُ لَهُمْ وَنَأْخُذُ حُقُوقَهُمْ مِمَّنْ يَظْلِمُهُمْ، وَلا نَأْخُذُ لانْفُسِنَا.

وَقَدْ أَخْرَجْتُ لِذلِكَ عِلَل فِي كِتاب عِلَلُ الشَّرائِع الأحْكامِ وَالأَسبابِ، وَاقتَصَرتُ فِي هذا الْكِتابِ عَلَى ما رَوى‏ فِيهِ عَنِ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ.

32-32 Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli quoted on the authority of Al-Qasim ibn Isma’il Abi Zakwan: I heard Ibrahim ibn Al-Abbas narrate that Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) quoted on the authority of his father Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) that a man asked Aba Abdullah (as-Sadiq) (a.s.), “What is the reason that propagating or studying the Qur’an always adds freshness (to life)?” Imam As-Sadiq (a.s.) replied, “It is because the Qur’an has not been revealed for a certain time, or to a certain people. It is fresh at any time and for any people all the way up until the end of time and the Resurrection Day.”

33-33 Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli quoted on the authority of Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Nasr al-Razi, on the authority of his father, “I asked Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) about what the Prophet (S) meant when he (a.s.) said, ‘My companions are like the stars. Whichever one you follow will guide you.’ And I asked about what the Prophet (S) meant when he (a.s.) said, ‘Leave my companions to me.’ Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) replied, ‘That is right. ‘Companions’ in these traditions refers to those who did not themselves change later, and did not change what was said about the religion.’ I asked, ‘How can we tell that they themselves changed or changed the religion?’ Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) said, ‘That is because the Prophet (S) himself said, ‘Some of my companions will be forbidden from approaching my Pool on the Resurrection Day, just as people push others’ camels away from drinking water. I will say: O Lord! They are from my companions! My companions! I will be told, ‘Don’t you know what they did after you?’ They will be grabbed and directed to the left. They will be told, ‘This is due to the lies which you ascribed.’ Then Imam Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) added, ‘Are they not those who changed themselves and changed the religion?’”

32-34 Al-Hakim Abu Ali Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Bayhaqi narrated that Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli quoted on the authority of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Taliqani, on the authority of his father, “A man in Khorasan claimed that Mo’awiya was not one of the companions of God’s Prophet (S). He swore that his wife would be illegal for him, if his claim turned out to be false. This happened during the time Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) was there. The jurists around there had issued a decree that that man’s wife was illegal for him. The people asked Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) if that man’s wife was illegal for him or not. The Imam (a.s.) replied, “No, she is not illegal.” All the jurists wrote him a letter in which it was written, “O son of God’s

32- حَدَّثَنا الْحاكِم أَبُو عَلِي الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أحْمَد الْبِيْهَقِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى الصُّوليُّ قالَ حَدَّثَني القاسِم بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيل أَبي ذكوان قالَ سَمِعْتُ إِبْراهيمِ بْنِ العَبَّاسِ يَحْدُثَ عَنْ الرضا، عَن أبِيهِ مُوسَى بْنِ جَعْفَر عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلاَمُ ؛ أَنَّ رَجُلاً سَأَلَ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مَا بَالُ الْقُرْآنِ لا يَزْدَادُ عَلَى النَّشْرِ وَالدَّرْسِ إِلا غَضَاضَةً فَقَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى لَمْ يَجْعَلْهُ لِزَمَانٍ دُونَ زَمَانٍ وَلِنَاسٍ دُونَ نَاسٍ فَهُوَفِي كُلِّ زَمَانٍ جَدِيدٌ وَعِنْدَ كُلِّ قَوْمٍ غَضٌّ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ.

33- حَدَّثَنا الْحاكِم أَبُو عَلِي الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أحْمَد الْبِيْهَقِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَني مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى الصُّوليُّ قالَ حَدَّثَني مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُوسَى بْنِ نَصْرِ الرَّازِيُّ قالَ حَدَّثَني أَبي قالَ سَئَلَ الرِّضا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَنْ قَوْلَ النَّبِيّ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ بِأَيِّهِمُ اقْتَدَيْتُمُ اهْتَدَيْتُمْ وَعَنْ قَوْلِهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ دَعُوا لِي أَصْحَابِي فَقَالَ هَذَا صَحِيحٌ يُرِيدُ مَنْ لَمْ يُغَيِّرْ بَعْدَهُ وَلَمْ يُبَدِّلْ قِيلَ وَكَيْفَ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ غَيَّرُوا وَبَدَّلُوا قَالَ لِمَا يَرْوُونَهُ مِنْ أَنَّهُ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ قَالَ لَيُذَادَنَّ رِجَالٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عَنْ حَوْضِي كَمَا تُذَادُ غَرَائِبُ الإِبِلِ عَنِ الْمَاءِ فَأَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ أَصْحَابِي أَصْحَابِي فَيُقَالُ لِي إِنَّكَ لا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ فَيُؤْخَذُ بِهِمْ ذَاتَ الشِّمَالِ فَأَقُولُ بُعْداً لَهُمْ وَسُحْقاً أَفَتَرَى هَذَا لِمَنْ لَمْ يُغَيِّرْ وَلَمْ يُبَدِّلْ.

34- حَدَّثَنا الْحاكِم أَبُو عَلِي الحُسَيْنِ بْنِ أحْمَد الْبِيْهَقِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَني مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى الصُّوليُّ قالَ حَدَّثَني أَحْمَدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحاق الطَّالِقانِيُّ قالَ: حَدَّثَني أَبي قالَ: حَلَفَ رَجُلٌ بِخُرَاسَانَ بِالطَّلاقِ أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ لَيْسَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ‏أَيَّامَ كَانَ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ بِهَا فَأَفْتَى الْفُقَهَاءُ بِطَلاقِهَا فَسُئِلَ الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَأَفْتَى أَنَّهَا لا تُطَلَّقُ فَكَتَبَ الْفُقَهَاءُ رُقْعَةً أَنْفَذُوهَا إِلَيْهِ وَقَالُوا لَهُ مِنْ أَيْنَ قُلْتَ يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ

Prophet! How and why do you consider her not to be illegal for him.” The Imam (a.s.) wrote the following in a corner of their letter, “This is based on the tradition which you yourselves have narrated on the authority of Sa’eed al-Khodri in which it is narrated that after the conquest of Mecca, God’s Prophet (S) expressed that ‘You are of the good ones, and my companions are of the good ones’ to those who expressed submission to God and became Muslim when many of them had gathered around the Prophet (S). However, the Prophet (S) said, ‘There will be no migration after victory.’ Thus the Prophet (S) abolished migration after the victory of Mecca, and considered them (including Mo’awiya) not to be his companions.” When the jurists read the answer they changed their decree to that of Imam Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.).

32-35 Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Sowli narrated that Oan ibn Muhammad quoted on the authority of Sahl ibn al-Qasim, “Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) heard one of his companions say: May God damn those who fought the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.).” Then Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) told him, “Say: except for those who have repented and improved themselves.” Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) then added, “The sin of those who disobeyed him (i.e. Imam Ali (a.s.)) and did not accompany him to fight corruption and the corrupt ones is even greater than that of those who fought him and then repented. And God made them succeed in repenting.”

Notes

1. “He said, ‘O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!’”[Qur’an, 11:46]. He here refers to Noah’s son.

2. Qur’an, 12:77

3. Qur’an, 12:77

4. Qur’an, 12:76

5. Qur’an, 12:77

6. Ibid.

7. Qur’an, 40:84-85

8. Qur’an, 6:158

9. Qur’an, 10:90

10. Qur’an, 10:91-92

11. Qur’an, 27:19

12. At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said, "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it." [Qur’an, 27:18]

13. In Hebrew

14. It seems that this is not an authentic tradition. It seems that some things have been said by the Imam (a.s.) in this regard, but the things narrated are not all proper.

15. “Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma'il: He was (a.s.trictly) true to what he promised, and he was an Apostle (and) a Prophet.” [Qur’an, Maryam 19:34]

16. “Now draw thy hand close to thy side: It shall come forth white (and shining), without harm (or stain),- as another Sign.” [Qur’an, 20:22]

17. Elephantiasis is a species of leprosy that pervaded throughout Europe in the latter part of the Middle Ages. It is a certain disease arising from the spreading of the black bile throughout the whole person, so that it corrupts the temperament of the body members, and the external conditions thereof; and sometimes in the dissundering, or corrosion of the body members and their falling off, in consequence of ulceration, so called because it dissunders the flesh, and causes it to fall off; or because the fingers, or toes become cut-off. It is a cracking of the skin, and a dissundering and gradual falling off of the flesh. However, leprosy is a well-known disease, which is white patches occuring on the skin and appears upon the exterior of the body by reason of a corrupt state of constitution.

18. The ‘Ulul-Azm are the Prophets Noah (a.s.), Abraham (a.s.), Moses (a.s.), Jesus (a.s.) and Muhammad (a.s.), as we read in the following verse, “And remember We took from the Prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant.” [Qur’an, 33:7].

19. With the water heated in the sun.

20. Since it is directly quoted without any chain being mentioned.

21. ‘janabah; The state of ceremonial impurity, or ‘janabah, occurs as a result of ejaculation, whether involuntary, as in the case of a wet dream, or deliberate, or as a result of sexual intercourse. To remove it, one has to take a complete bath, washing his head and every part of his body with water. So a shower without soap is sufficient. It is not possible to offer prayers while a person is in a state of ceremonial impurity. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to remove that state by taking a shower or a bath immediately. It is not good to put it off. However, there is nothing sinful in putting it off, unless that leads to missing an obligatory prayer. If one happens to get into this state two or three times a day, it may not be easy for him to take so many showers. Therefore, he should make sure that removing that state is easy before one gets into it. If it happens two or three times, without taking a shower in between, then one shower would remove it all. Suppose a person goes to sleep after he has said the Morning Prayer, and on waking up he discovers that he has had a wet dream. He realizes that he must leave home immediately because he is late for work. That is appropriate, if he knows that he will return before the time for the noon prayer and he will be able to take his shower and say the noon prayer. Similarly, if one has more than one time of intercourse with his wife during the night, he can have one shower for all. He is recommended, however, to have washed himself in between. Involuntary discharge of urine is an illness which can be treated. For the purposes of prayer, however, one should make sure that the urine does not fall on his clothes or his body. [A urinal discharge does not cause ceremonial impurity and needs washing of the affected areas of the body only.] What he should do is to tie a polyethylene bag with a piece of cotton or tissue paper in it. When he wants to make ablutions and pray, he replaces it with a clean one and makes his ablutions. He only needs to make another ablution for every prayer, repeating the same method for cleanliness.

22. Saying, “Labbayk.. Allahuma Labbayk. La Sharika Laka Labbayk.”

23. The spelling of the name of Mabzooneh is Mabzooyeh in the book Man La Yahzaro ul-Faqih.

24. Ali Akbar Ghaffari comments that this is a weak tradition and its chain of transmission is not reliable.

25. Qur’an, 9:2

26. Dirham is silver currency. Oke refers to any of three units of weight varying around 2.8 pounds and used respectively in Greece, Turkey and Egypt. in silver

27. Ali ibn Hamran narrated on the authority of his father that Imam As-Sadiq (a.s.) said, "One day I left the house with my father, and saw some of our companions who were between the grave and the pulpit. My father approached them and said, "I swear by God that I like your smell and your breath. Please assist us with your piety and hard work. Beware that no one can attain our friendship except through piety and hard work. Whenever you decide to follow someone you must act like him. You are God's followers; you are God's soldiers. You are God's helpers. You are the first and the last forerunners. In this world, you are the first forerunners to attain our friendship, and in the Hereafter you are the forerunners towards Heaven. We guarantee Heaven to you through the guarantees of God and God's Prophet (S). You are the pure ones. Your women are pure. Any believing woman is one of the houris of Heaven, and any believing man is honest in his speech."[Mishkat ul-Anwar Fi Ghurar il-Akhbar, The Lamp Niche for the Best Traditions, Tradition no. 444]

28. “So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case, there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by God. Such are the limits ordained by God, which He makes plain to those who understand.”[Qur’an, Baqara 2:230]

29. Qur’an, Baqara 2:229

30. It should be mentioned that the marriage with another man should be consummated. It should be done with the intentions of a permanent marriage. Then if the man dies, or they cannot live together and the man divorces her, she can be remarried to her first husband again. It is also not allowed that he marries the divorced woman, and then after consummating the marriage he divorces her so as to facilitate the first husband in re-marry his divorced wife.

31. Why did Imam Ali (a.s.) not take back Fadak when he (a.s.) became the ruler of the State?