The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof
Session Fifty-Eight
The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof: Narrations, First Narration: The Hadith of Lifting, Examination of the Chain of Transmission of the Narration, The Objection of Muhaqqiq Khoei, The Response
December 16, 2025
The Second Proof: Narrations
The discussion regarding the first proof for the rule of Exemption has concluded. In this section, several verses of the Holy Quran were cited and examined, and the conclusion was that the Holy Quran can be utilized to prove the rule of Exemption.
The First Narration: The Hadith of Lifting
The most important narration cited, about which most prominent scholars have spoken in detail, is the Hadith of Lifting (Hadith al-Raf’). This tradition has been transmitted through various chains (turuq) and in different forms.
Perhaps the earliest book and the first narrator to transmit this tradition is the book Al-Mahasin, authored by Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Barqi. However, in the extant manuscript of Al-Mahasin, the word wudi’a (placed down/removed) is mentioned instead of the word rufi’a (lifted), and additionally, instead of nine items, [only] three items are enumerated. The text of the narration in Al-Mahasin is: “Wudi’a ‘an ummati thalathu khisal” (Three traits have been removed from my nation), which, according to the transmission of Al-Mahasin, are: error (khata’), forgetfulness (nisyan), and that which a person is coerced into (ma ukrihu ‘alayh).
In the book Al-Kafi, the late Kulayni has transmitted this narration through two chains of transmission (asnad); in one narration four items are mentioned, and in the other narration, nine items are mentioned.
In one transmission, it states: Husayn ibn Muhammad, from Mu’alla ibn Muhammad, from Abu Dawud, who said: Umar ibn Marwan narrated to me, saying: I heard Abu Abdillah (PBUH) say: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Rufi’a ‘an ummati arba’u khisal: khata’uhum, wa nisyanuhum, wa ma ukrihu ‘alayh, wa ma la yatiqun…” (Lifted from my nation are four traits: their error, their forgetfulness, that which they are coerced into, and that which they cannot bear…). This is the narration that transmits four items. Following this narration, Imam al-Sadiq (PBUH) or the Prophet (PBUH) said: “And that is the word of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic: ‘Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear.’” That is, it is as if this statement of the Prophet is actually based on the verse of the Quran.
Another narration transmitted by Kulayni comprises nine items, and this very narration is the subject of the current discussion. The late Sheikh Saduq has also transmitted this narration with the mention of nine items in his books Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Al-Tawhid, and Al-Khisal. Therefore, in Shia hadith corpora, the Hadith of Lifting has been transmitted in three textual forms: in one place three matters, in another place four matters, and in another place nine matters. What is famous and well-known is this latter transmission (comprising nine items).
This tradition has also been transmitted in Sunni hadith corpora, such as Sahih al-Bukhari, Kanz al-‘Ummal, and some other books. However, in this scope, our discussion revolves around the narration transmitted by Sheikh Saduq as well as the late Kulayni.
This narration has been cited in several areas of jurisprudence (fiqh), including the discussion on prayer (salat) and other instances. The importance of this tradition has led to its extensive analysis in academic circles; therefore, it is fitting to conduct a more comprehensive examination of it.
The late Kulayni transmitted this narration in Kitab al-Iman wa al-Kufr, volume two, in a specific chapter entitled “Chapter on What Has Been Lifted from the Nation” (Bab Ma Rufi’a ‘an al-Ummah). Additionally, the author of Wasa’il al-Shia has recorded it in Kitab al-Jihad, chapter 56 of the chapters on the Jihad of the Soul (Abwab Jihad al-Nafs).
Examination of the Chain of Transmission of the Narration
The chain of transmission (sanad) of this narration, according to the popular opinion, is authentic (sahih), and it is predominantly transmitted in books with the designation of sahihah (authentic narration) or through an authentic chain from the Prophet (PBUH). However, the question is: Why is this narration called authentic (sahih or sahihah), and what are the objections that some have raised against its chain? Can we truly consider the chain of this narration to be authentic or not?
The main problem in the chain concerns one narrator who has been discussed to some extent: “Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Attar (written in the text as al-Tar), from Sa’d ibn Abdillah, from Ya’qub ibn Yazid, from Sahl ibn Abdillah, from Hurayd (or Harid), from Abu Abdillah, peace be upon him.” The primary objection surrounds “Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Attar (written in the text as al-Tar).”
The late Ayatollah Khoei (may he rest in peace) referred to this narration as authentic (sahih) in his book on Usul, including in Al-Muhadarat. Perhaps at that time, either he did not pay attention to this objection, or his opinion was different. At any rate, he considers the aforementioned narrator to be of unknown status (majhul al-hal). Obviously, if this is the case, this objection holds, and how can a narration be called authentic (sahih) despite the presence of a narrator of unknown status?
He states: In the books of the early biographical evaluation (rijal) scholars, there is no verification of trustworthiness (tawthiq) for this person. The text of the chain mentions “Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar),” but apparently it should be “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar)”; because this person is among the teachers who granted transmission licenses (mashayikh al-ijazah) to Sheikh Saduq. It is said that this individual has not received specific verification (tawthiq khass) by the early biographical scholars, nor does general verification (tawthiq ‘amm) exist regarding him. The cases mentioned as general verification for him are few, and apparently, they were not accepted by the late Ayatollah Khoei.
“Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar)” was verified as trustworthy by the later scholars (muta’akhkhirin). In addition, many eminent and prominent scholars have transmitted narrations from him. Thirdly, he is a Sheikh al-Ijazah (a master who grants license for transmission). The late Ayatollah Khoei believed that the verification of later scholars does not solve the problem, because the verification of later scholars is based on conjecture (hads) and is of no benefit. Also, the transmission of eminent scholars from him or the abundance of narrations (ikthar al-riwayah) is, in his view, insufficient. Furthermore, the fact that he is a Sheikh al-Ijazah cannot establish his trustworthiness (wathaqah).
I will now refer to these three points and then explain whether these points can establish the credibility of “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar)” or not.
This discussion has been raised in its own place in the science of Rijal, and we have also examined it in detail in the book Masa’il-e Bonyadin-e ‘Elm-e Rijal (Fundamental Issues in the Science of Rijal), to which you may refer. If someone does not have specific verification (tawthiq khass) and is of unknown status (majhul al-hal) in this sense (though indeed there is no defamation [qadh] against him either), but we see that eminent scholars (prominent figures in the world of hadith) transmit narrations from him, then this abundance of transmission (ikthar al-riwayah) and the frequency of transmission by eminent scholars indicates, according to some or many, the trustworthiness of this person.
Another path is that this person is a Sheikh al-Ijazah. Sheikh al-Ijazah means that an individual grants permission to his student or another person to transmit narrations. The transmission of a narration takes two forms: sometimes a narrator relates a narration directly to another and says, “I heard from so-and-so such-and-such” (sami’tu ‘an fulan kadha), and then mentions the chain of transmission and the text of the narration. However, sometimes the owners of Usul (original notebooks) or books granted permission to others to transmit all the narrations of that Asl or book; meaning that instead of transmitting each narration one by one, they permitted the person in question to narrate the entire book. Accordingly, a group among the compilers of hadith corpora are recognized as Mashayikh al-Ijazah, which is different from merely being a narrator of a narration. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar) is also among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah, meaning he granted permission to others to transmit narrations and his book.
In the science of Rijal, there is a group known as Mashayikh al-Ijazah. When a Sheikh al-Ijazah grants permission to transmit, he in fact establishes the connection of the chain of the license-seeker (mustajiz) to that book, and this person, through this permission, becomes connected to the chain of transmission—a chain that extends to the original narrator from the Imam (PBUH) or the Prophet (PBUH). Here, it is said that he is among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah of Sheikh Saduq. Therefore, when Sheikh Saduq transmits this book, the credibility of the narration transmitted by him is established. Some believe that the very status of being a Sheikh al-Ijazah can be considered a form of tawthiq, or at least replace specific verification (tawthiq khass), rendering a separate specific verification unnecessary.
Now, this person (Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar [al-Tar]), in addition to being verified as trustworthy by later scholars, has had many eminent and prominent scholars transmit narrations from him, and he is also a Sheikh al-Ijazah. Despite all these aspects, the late Ayatollah Khoei (may he rest in peace) considers him to be of unknown status (majhul al-hal). Obviously, if the narrator is of unknown status, the narration cannot be transmitted with the designation of “through an authentic chain” or “authentic narration” stating that “the Messenger of Allah said: Lifted from my nation…”. Therefore, from this perspective, an objection has been raised against the chain of this narration, asserting that it is not credible.
However, according to research, it appears that this narration is authentic (sahih), just as the popular opinion states and as scholars such as Sheikh Ansari, Muhaqqiq Isfahani, the author of Al-Fusul, the late Akhund Khorasani, the late Na’ini, and other prominent figures have declared; this narration is credible and accepted. The majority of later legal theorists (usuliyyin) and prominent scholars also consider its chain to be credible and the narration to be authentic.
Now, suppose this narrator does not have specific verification (tawthiq khass); can his trustworthiness (wathaqah) be established by relying on the set of the three aforementioned matters (the verification of the later scholars, the abundance of transmissions by eminent scholars from him, and the status of being a Sheikh al-Ijazah)? The truth is that the combination of these clues (qara’in) can be considered a verification of trustworthiness (tawthiq) for “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar).”
Another point worth mentioning is that the mere transmission of the narration in the book Al-Kafi, according to our foundation, is sufficient for the credibility of the narration. Therefore:
First: The late Kulayni recorded this narration in Al-Kafi, and we consider the narrations of the Four Books (Al-Kutub al-Arba’ah) to be credible.
Second: Eminent scholars have transmitted numerous narrations from this narrator (perhaps about a hundred narrations in Al-Kafi have been transmitted from him). This abundance of transmission, especially when compared to cases where only two or three narrations are transmitted from a narrator in a book, indicates credibility.
Third: In addition, he is among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah of Sheikh Saduq. At least, the aforementioned narration in the book Al-Khisal of Sheikh Saduq is transmitted through his chain, wherein one of the Mashayikh al-Ijazah in that chain is this very “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar (al-Tar).”
Fourth: The verification of the later scholars can also be a supporting factor (mu’ayyid), even if it is not an independent proof on its own.
Therefore, perhaps the later scholars, based on these very clues (the abundance of transmissions by eminent scholars and the status of being a Sheikh al-Ijazah), considered him credible and specifically verified his trustworthiness. The late Imam Khomeini (may he rest in peace), the late Ayatollah Borujerdi (may he rest in peace), and most later legal theorists also considered the chain of this narration to be authentic.
Discussion of the Next Session
In our view, considering the detailed discussions raised in their own place, this perspective is acceptable. However, the late Ayatollah Khoei (may he rest in peace) raised an objection to these proofs and did not accept them. Now, we must examine whether his objections are fundamentally valid here or not; and also, assuming the validity of the objections, whether there is a way to correct the chain of transmission of this narration or not. This discussion contains complementary points that, God willing, we will present in the next session.