Shalmaghani, part 3: Cursed in Dhahir and Batin?
A letter note from al-Husayn ibn Ruh said:
“We have disassociated to God Almighty and His Messenger from him (Shalmaghani) and cursed him with the great curse of Allah - in the dhahir (apparent) and batin (hidden), in secret and in public..”
وأنا برئنا إلى الله تعالى وإلى رسوله صلوات الله عليه وسلامه ورحمته وبركاته منه، ولعناه عليه لعاين الله تترى، في الظاهر منا والباطن، فيالسر والجهر،
Such depth to cursing, can it all have been said in taqiyya?
Yes, it is possible. Such depths in disassociation - even when it is least expected - the Imams have done it out of taqiyya.
Let us observe:
Imams Affirming Slander to Protect Companions
As mentioned in my last article, Yunus ibn Abd al-Rahman was slandered by the Shi’a envying his Bab and deputy position.
One of the slanders was that they called Yunus a “son of zina”.
In this hadith in Rijal al-Kashi, Imam al-Ridha calls Yunus a son of zina disapprovingly.
“On the authority of Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Hajjal, he said:
I was with Al-Ridha, peace be upon him, with a book he was reading in his door, until he hit the ground with it, so he said:
This is the book of the son of zina (adultery), and it was the book of Yunus.
علي بن محمد، قال: حدثني محمد بن أحمد، عن بعض أصحابنا عن علي بن محمد بن عيسى، عن عبد الله بن محمد الحجال، قال: كنت عندالرضا عليه السلام ومعه كتاب يقرؤه في بابه، حتى ضرب به الأرض، فقال: كتاب ولد زنا للزانية فكان كتاب يونس.
Imam al-Ridha is shown disapproving of Yunus above and calls him a son of zina.
Whereas in hadith below, he asks Allah to send his mercy upon Yunus and proclaims to the companion who doubted Yunus’ parentage that Yunus is indeed the son of Abdulrahman (not a son of zina of unknown parentage).
“On the authority of Abu Hashim al-Jaafari, he said: I asked Abu Jaafar Muhammad ibn Ali al-Ridha, peace be upon them, about Yunus?
He said: Who is Yunus?
I said: The freed slave of of Ali bin Yaqtin.
He (Imam) said: Perhaps you mean Yunus ibn Abdul Rahman?
I said: No, by God, I do not know whose son he is.
Rather, he is the son of Abd al-Rahman.
Then he (Imam) said: May God have mercy on Yunus. May God have mercy on Yunus.”
حدثني علي بن محمد القتيبي، قال: حدثني الفضل بن شاذان، عن أبي هاشم الجعفري، قال: سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي الرضا عليهماالسلام عن يونس؟
فقال: من يونس؟ فقلت: مولى علي بن يقطين، فقال: لعلك تريد يونس بن عبد الرحمن؟ فقلت: لا والله لا أدري ابن من هو؟ قال: بل هو ابنعبد الرحمن، ثم قال: رحم الله يونس رحم الله يونس نعم العبد كان لله عز وجل
- A Case of Taqiyya?
We can see that the Imam did taqiyya from his companions in disapproving of Yunus and affirming he was a son of zina.
Whereas, the Imam’s true stance is that Yunus is the legitimate son of Abd al-Rahman and that the Imam sends his mercy upon him.
Why did the Imam go in such depth, that he had to affirm slander of Yunus’ honor - as a form of taqiyya?
The answer is:
Taqiyya of the Imam is so complex and deep, such that even if the Imam proclaims he curses someone in “dhahir and batin” - it could be out of taqiyya.
After all, as Imam al-Sadiq said:
(Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 217)
“9/10th of religion consists of taqiyya”
Shi’ism is its core and its teachings revolves around the concept of secrecy.
Jabir ibn Yazid, Bab of al-Baqir, narrates from al-Sadiq saying:
(Basa’ir al-Darajat, page 47)
“Our matter is a secret within a secret.
And a secret covered by a secret.
And a secret which only benefits a secret.
And a secret upon a secret.
And a secret hiding another secret”
حدثنا محمد بن الحسين عن محمد بن سنان عن عمار بن مروان عن جابر عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال إن أمرنا سر في سر وسرمستسر وسر لا يفيد الا سر وسر على سر وسر مقنع بسر
As such, even what the Imam defines as batin - can be compartmentalized into a ‘dhahir batin’ (apparent batin) and a ‘batin batin’ (true batn).
As Imam al-Baqir tells Jabir, in Tafsir al-‘Ayyashi:
“O Jabir, the Quran has a batn (i.e, batin). An ld the batin has its own batn and dhahr.
يا جابر إن للقرآن بطنا، وللبطن بطن وله ظهر وللظهر ظهر
The batn of the Quran includes knowledge that is extra-Quranic (not focusing on the Quran itself), such as future and day-to-day events - and it is continuously evolving.
I asked Abi Jafar [al-Baqir] about this narration:
‘There is no verse in the Quran, except that it has a dhahr and batn. And there is no harf, except that it has a limit. And to every limit there is a beginning.’
What does he mean by ‘dhahr and batn’?
He [al-Baqir] said: Its dhahr [is so and so], and its batn is its ta’wil - it includes what had passed, and what has not yet happened. It travels with precision, like the Sun and Moon..’
Therefore, Imam al-Mahdi’s curse of Shalmaghani in batin could have been said in the ‘dhahir batin’ form - which would not be the true form. As Shalmaghani stated that when the Imam cursed him, the batin meaning of such act was guaranteeing him (Shalmaghani) heaven.
Given that Shalmaghani was the Imam’s thiqa and his narrations cannot be doubted, his followers refused to stop believing in him. As they believed al-Husayn ibn Ruh’s spoke out of taqiyya.
Therefore, it is not possible to discern whether Imam al-Mahdi truly disassociated Shalmaghani.
- Possible solutions
Of course, I am not going to state my view in this article and as said in my home page - “The goal is to invite the reader to critically contemplate the published posts.”
According, I will present the possible solutions and it is up to the reader if he wishes to adopt either or reasons even another solution than the ones I propose.
1 ) It is possible that al-Husayn ibn Ruh disassociated from from Shalmaghani.
In that case, one must naturally doubt al-Husayn ibn Ruh himself as a thiqa.
And the hadith of impermissibility to doubt the thiqa is voided, by the fact Husayn ibn Ruh made such a grave mistake of appointing Shalmaghani as his thiqa as it led Shalmaghani’s followers to never be able to believe he (Shalmaghani) could disbelieve.
If we do not doubt Husayn ibn Ruh as a thiqa, then at the very least we would doubt Imam al-Mahdi’s infallibility - as he was not able to foresee such as a great unfixable deviation of his followers if he appoints Shalmaghani.
2 ) Or one could believe Shalmaghni and Husayn ibn Ruh were both thiqat, but that Shalmaghani was misrepresented and slandered for the difficult ahadith he brought by jealous scholars.
Similar to Hisham and Yunus, as shown in previous part.
Wa Allahu A’lam