The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof
Session Fifty-Nine
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, Examination of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Objections, Commentary on the Treatise on Rights, The Right of Fasting, The Importance of Fasting
December 17, 2025
Summary of the Previous Session
Regarding the chain of transmission (sanad) of the Hadith of Lifting, we mentioned that although the popular opinion considers this chain to be authentic (sahih), some have not deemed it authentic due to the presence of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar; because according to some, this person is of unknown status (majhul al-hal). The author of Al-Jawahir, the late Naraqi, and the late Mr. Khoei believe that he is unknown (majhul). Nonetheless, in contrast, many contemporary and non-contemporary scholars have considered the chain of this narration to be authentic.
Yesterday, it was stated that the reason this chain is considered authentic is that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar, although he was not verified as trustworthy in the early biographical evaluation (rijal) books, no defamation (qadh) was made against him either. Furthermore, eminent scholars (ajilla’) have transmitted numerous narrations from him, he is among the masters who granted transmission licenses (mashayikh al-ijazah) to Sheikh Saduq, and later scholars have verified his trustworthiness. In addition, this narration is transmitted in the book Al-Kafi, and this alone is sufficient for the credibility of the narration. Based on the combination of these reasons, we said that the chain of this narration is authentic.
However, objections have been raised against these points; meaning that the very reasons that collectively led to relying on the trustworthiness (wathaqah) of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar have been contested.
Examination of the Objections
The First Objection and Its Analysis
First, there is a dispute regarding the credibility of the narrations of Al-Kafi. Many believe that the mere transmission of a narration in the book Al-Kafi is not a proof of its credibility, and that a textual and chain-based examination (sandi) must be conducted. However, our foundation and view is that the narrations of the Four Books (Al-Kutub al-Arba’ah) are credible. This is a foundational difference (ikhtilaf-e mabna), and no other answer can be given to it.
The Second Objection
However, the claim that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar is among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah (masters of license), and that merely being a Sheikh al-Ijazah is sufficient to prove trustworthiness (wathaqah), has also been contested and objected to.
1. The late Mr. Khoei objected that being a Sheikh al-Ijazah does not differ from being a Sheikh al-Riwayah (master of transmission). If a narration is transmitted from a Sheikh al-Riwayah—for example, if Sheikh Saduq transmits a narration from one of his masters—the mere fact of being a Sheikh al-Riwayah does not indicate the trustworthiness of that person. Thus, being a Sheikh al-Ijazah is the same. What difference is there between these two such that you do not consider being among the masters of transmission to indicate trustworthiness, but you consider being among the masters of license to indicate trustworthiness?
Indeed, there is a difference between a Sheikh al-Ijazah and a Sheikh al-Riwayah; meaning there is an advantage in being a Sheikh al-Ijazah. When someone receives permission (ijazah) from a Sheikh al-Ijazah, the chain of the narration becomes connected up to him, from this very license-seeker (mustajiz) to the end. However, the connection of the chain does not necessarily mean trustworthiness.
The Third Objection
Furthermore, the late Mr. Khoei states: The claim that a person’s being among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah constitutes their trustworthiness or verification of trustworthiness (tawthiq) is refutable (qabil al-naqd); because we observe that scholars like al-Najashi have weakened (tad’if) some of the Mashayikh al-Ijazah. For example, Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya is among the Mashayikh al-Ijazah, yet al-Najashi weakened him. This shows that merely being a Sheikh al-Ijazah does not indicate the trustworthiness of the person.
Therefore, he raises two objections against the argumentation based on being a Sheikh al-Ijazah.
Examination of the Second Objection
Nonetheless, it appears that this objection is not valid, because:
2. A person who is a Sheikh al-Ijazah was considered trustworthy (thiqah); otherwise, great scholars like Sheikh Tusi or Sheikh Saduq, had they had any doubt regarding the trustworthiness of these individuals, would have never obtained permission from them. The Mashayikh al-Ijazah are perhaps even more important than the Mashayikh al-Riwayah. How can it be claimed that there is no difference between the two? When a figure like Sheikh Saduq goes to someone and receives permission to transmit a book or an original notebook (asl), and not merely to transmit a single narration, it becomes clear that he considered him trustworthy, since he obtained permission to transmit an entire notebook or book. Therefore, the first objection of the late Mr. Khoei does not seem valid.
Question: …
Teacher: Certainly, it is so; Sheikh Saduq and Sheikh Tusi did not go to ordinary, untrustworthy, and non-reliable individuals to obtain permission to transmit an Asl or a book, or permission to narrate. It is certainly so. Why should we not consider this as a proof of trustworthiness? Would Sheikh Saduq so easily obtain permission from an untrustworthy person to transmit an Asl or a book—meaning all of its narrations—rather than a specific narration?
Examination of the Third Objection
His other objection, in which he cited al-Najashi’s weakening of some of the Mashayikh al-Ijazah, is also rejected. That is, this objection does not harm our claim. We assume that in some cases, a scholar like al-Najashi or Sheikh Tusi might have weakened one of the Mashayikh al-Ijazah. This, in fact, constitutes a defamation (qadh) against that person. However, we stated that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar is considered among the *Mashayikh al-Ijazah of Saduq and no defamation (qadh) has been made against him. In other words, being a Sheikh al-Ijazah is a sign of trustworthiness provided that, at the very least, no defamation has been made against him by the scholars of Rijal. Otherwise, if someone was a Sheikh al-Ijazah and yet a defamation was made against him, we do not consider this as indicating trustworthiness. Being a Sheikh al-Ijazah is an indication (amarah) and sign of trustworthiness in a case where no defamation has been made against him by any of the credible biographical scholars like al-Najashi, Sheikh Tusi, or al-Kashshi; and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar is indeed like this—meaning no defamation has been made against him.
In addition, as I mentioned, while it is true that great scholars like the author of Al-Jawahir and some others have said he is of unknown status (majhul), they have not defamed him either. On the other hand, great scholars like the late Mr. Borujerdi, Imam (Khomeini), and others have considered him trustworthy.
The Fourth Objection and Its Analysis
Regarding the abundance of transmissions by eminent scholars (kathrat naql al-ajilla’), the reality is that Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar has been trusted, and his narrations have been transmitted, by many eminent narrators and prominent figures. When we see that a large number of prominent scholars transmit narrations from a person, this automatically creates trust in the trustworthiness of that person. It is not a matter of one or two narrations; dozens of narrations, and that too by eminent and prominent scholars, have been transmitted from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar. Should we now ignore and cast aside this abundance of transmissions by eminent and prominent scholars, and merely say that this person has no specific verification, and is therefore of unknown status, thereby causing a problem in the chain of transmission of the narration? This is unacceptable. Therefore, the abundance of transmissions by eminent scholars is truly one of the indications (amarat) of a person’s trustworthiness.
Examination of the Fourth Objection
Of course, these points I am mentioning are all foundational discussions. We have examined these discussions in detail elsewhere; at what grade is the abundance of transmissions by eminent scholars? Can the verification of later scholars be an indication of trustworthiness or not? These have been discussed in detail, and here I only confine myself to pointing out these objections and their responses.
The Fifth Objection and Its Analysis
The late Mr. Khoei does not accept the verification of later scholars (tawthiq al-muta’akhkhirin) either. He (the late Mr. Khoei) states: The verification of the early scholars (tawthiq al-mutaqaddimin) is an indication of trustworthiness because it is based on sensory experience (hiss) and association. The early scholars, such as al-Barqi, al-Kashshi, al-Najashi, Sheikh Tusi, and their likes, up to the time of Sheikh Tusi, are considered among the early biographical evaluation scholars. Those who came after Sheikh Tusi—since a gap and distance arose between Sheikh Tusi and them, such as Ibn Shahrashub, al-Allamah al-Hilli, al-Shahid al-Thani, and in some cases, Muqaddas al-Ardabili and their likes—are among the later scholars. Later scholars means they were not their contemporaries; meaning from the time of the Sheikh onward. These scholars have verified trustworthiness.
The question here is: If someone was not verified as trustworthy by Sheikh Tusi, but al-Allamah and al-Shahid al-Thani verified him, is this an indication of trustworthiness or not? Note that they (the early scholars) did not verify him, but they did not defame or weaken him either. If they had defamed him and the later scholars had praised him—meaning a conflict arose between the opinions of the early and later scholars—then certainly the opinion of the early scholars takes precedence. Our assumption is a case where the early scholars did not make any defamation or weakening, but the later scholars verified his trustworthiness. Now, can this verification of the later scholars be an indication of trustworthiness or not? This is the core of our discussion.
The entire objection of the late Mr. Khoei and some others is that the testimony and verification of the early scholars is accepted because it is based on sensory experience (‘an hiss); they were familiar with those narrators, associated with them, and those [narrators] also had connection with their predecessors. However, the later scholars, from the time of Ibn Shahrashub and al-Allamah onward, did not act based on sensory experience, and none of them had met those narrators so that their verification would be based on sensory experience and observation; rather, based on the clues and evidence they saw, they made a conjectural evaluation (hads) of trustworthiness—not a mere probability, but rather reassurance (itminan) was attained for them regarding their trustworthiness. This is open to discussion. We have discussed the verification of later scholars in detail, and time has also passed, so we will not deal with it extensively. Whether indeed all the verifications of the early scholars were based on sensory experience is itself open to debate. Perhaps some of the later scholars acted using the same methods by which the early scholars verified trustworthiness. Their verification is within the framework of the same criteria that they observed.
At any rate, although the verification of later scholars is not sufficient on its own, in some cases it can be relied upon. This aspect also exists in a general way in the case of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Attar.
Therefore, none of these objections prevent ruling on the trustworthiness of this person. On this basis, we say that the chain of transmission of the narration is credible.
Let us take a step further; even if we assume that none of these proofs exist—although we have relied on all three or four aspects collectively: transmission in the book Al-Kafi, transmission by eminent scholars, verification of later scholars, and being a Sheikh al-Ijazah, which as a set creates trust and an indication of trustworthiness—but now if someone says: “I do not accept any of these; they do not result in trustworthiness and are not considered indications of trustworthiness,” what is to be done?
Here it can be said: even if this narration is weak due to this person, since the companions (scholars) have acted upon this narration, the practice of the companions (‘amal al-ashab) mends the weakness of the chain (jabor-e da’f-e sanad). The popular opinion has acted upon this narration, and popularity (shuhrat) certainly mends the weakness of the chain. Of course, the late Mr. Khoei does not accept this foundation either. He initially believed that popularity mends the weakness of the chain, but later retracted this opinion and stated that popularity does not mend the weakness of the chain. Now, if someone does not accept this foundation, they are no longer amenable to any solution, and nothing can be done.
However, we submit that even if we cast aside all those past matters, the narration remains reliable and credible; and that is because the popular opinion has acted upon this narration, and the practice of the popular opinion (‘amal-e mashhur) compensates for the weakness of the chain.
Hadha tamam al-kalam fi sanad al-riwayah (This concludes the discussion on the chain of transmission of the narration); as for the indication of the narration (dalalat al-riwayah), we shall discuss and examine it in the next session.
Commentary on the Treatise on Rights
We mentioned that Imam Sajjad (PBUH) addressed the right of fasting. We gave a general explanation and stated what this passage of the Imam’s statement means.
First, I will state a few words regarding the importance of fasting, then, God willing, we shall address the right of fasting as stated in the words of Imam Sajjad (PBUH).
The Importance of Fasting
Fasting is among the obligations (wajibat) that have been recommended and emphasized both in the Holy Quran and in the traditions of the Infallibles (PBUT). Allah states in the Quran: “O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous [attain piety].”
“Kutiba” (it was written/decreed) means obligation (wujub); that is, it was made obligatory for you, just as it was made obligatory for those before you.
According to some traditions, fasting was obligatory only for the previous prophets; meaning that all prophets from the beginning were obligated to fast, but the generalization of this obligation is from the time of the Final Prophet (PBUH) and is exclusive to the nation (ummah) of Muhammad (PBUH). This too, in fact, based on the forty-fifth supplication of Al-Sahifah al-Sajjadiyyah, was due to the honor of the Prophet’s nation, that this obligation was established exclusively for the Prophet’s nation. Of course, some researchers also believe that not only the prophets, but some of the past religions also had such an obligation, but not in this exact form. Even among the Jews, there was a form of fasting. This exclusivity to the prophets without their nations is not very clear.
Now, whether this duty was exclusive to the prophets or other nations also enjoyed it and were obligated by it, in any case, this is an obligation (wajib) whose fruit and result has been designated as piety (taqwa).
In the traditions, this emphasis on fasting is also observed. Zurarah transmits from Imam al-Baqir (PBUH): “Islam is built on five things: on prayer, zakat, fasting, pilgrimage (hajj), and guardianship (wilayah).” Then he further states: And the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Fasting is a shield against the Fire.” That Islam is built on five things: prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj, and wilayah, and the very fact that fasting is recorded among these indicates that it is a very important obligation. Then the Imam (PBUH) himself transmitted this statement of the Messenger of Allah, that fasting is a shield against the Fire. Later, in the words of Imam Sajjad (PBUH), we shall explain this point; because Imam Sajjad (PBUH) has also stated this very point, meaning how it is a shield against the Fire.
At any rate, fasting (sawm) is among the most important obligations and has numerous material and spiritual effects. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) says: “The sleep of the fasting person is worship, and their breath is glorification (tasbih).” He does not say it has the benefit of glorification or the reward of glorification; he says: it is itself glorification. Even though it is [merely] breath, not remembrance (dhikr) nor speech; just by walking, sitting, or sleeping, as they breathe, this breath of theirs is the glorification of Allah. Such a worship, which gives a different color and fragrance to these very ordinary deeds of a human, is highly important. We must recognize the right of such an important worship.
I only wanted to state these few words regarding the importance of fasting, so that after that, we can discuss what right it has over us.