CONCEPT OF KHUMS AND THE PRESENT ERA

AIM:The basic aim of this article is to speak about concept of khums in this era as per ahadeeth, and what is actually happening on ground. This was deemed necessary because nowadays, people are being fed with only one view, which is, that you need to divide khums into two parts: sehem-e-imam (asws) and sehem-e-sadaat. And it is posed as if it is not done; we are taking away the right of imam-ulqaim (asws). But as this topic will be covered, you will find that it is actually not so; rather, those who are posing this, are the ones who are snatching the right of imam (asws), and that too by clearly forgetting their own made rules of ilm-ur-rijal. We will divide this into two main parts: First, we will give you the different concepts regarding khums in this era

Second, we will speak of ahadeeth which tell us that khums was made halal for shias till the arrival of imam-ul-qaim (asws); and that those ahadeeth are not daif, rather come with sahih isnaad. We recommend to our readers that if they wish to know more about it, they should read the work of bashir alidina, who had written a book on this issue. It can be downloaded from www.hubeali.com. Here is the download link for that http://hubeali.com/books/Questions_On_Khums.pdf

DIFFERENT CONCEPTS REGARDING KHUMS

It is generally posed to the shia people that it is the order of imam (asws) that we need to give khums in two parts; and sehem-e-imam (asws) in of khums, needs to be given to the maraja-e-taqleed whom we are following. But when we actually read books written by usooli scholars, we find that it was not like that. Let me share with you what is written by mohammad Hussein najafi dhako; who himself claims to be a maraja-e-taqleed nowadays He writes in his book qawaneen-us-shariyya; vol 1, page 449-451, in the chapter named

order regarding khums in the era of major occultation, and a brief description of severe difference of opinions in it

he writes

whatever has been written so far, it is in regards to the era in which imam (asws) is present in front of us; but are these orders applicable to the present era of major occultation or is it

something else? As researcher behraini said

this issue is amongst the important, basic and most complicated issues which has teased the intellects of scholars, shaken their pens, confused the reasoning of many people, and widened the gaps between opinions; and the main reason is the apparent clash of those narrations and sayings which are narrated from aimmah (asws)

The proof for his saying is evident from the fact that there are 15 opinions regarding this issue; and there supporters for those as well which are mentioned in the chapters of fiqh. Is there any other such example?

Here is a brief description of these different opinions

(1st opinion) khums should be taken out, and it should be protected and then handed over to trusted man with the wasiat/last will that it should protected; and he should hand it over to another person at his time of death; and so the chain should continue till the last one hands it over to imam-ul-qaim (asws) at the time of his appearance. This is the the opinion of sheikh mufeed in muqnaa. (2nd opinion) khums will not be given in this era; this is the opinion of sheikh salaar amongst the past scholars, and fazil mohammad baqir khurasani, author of zakhira, and sheikh Abdullah bin salih behraini etc amongst the later scholars (3rd opinion) khums should be buried in earth; and imam-ulqaim (asws) will take it out at the time of his appearance as per his need. This view has been discussed by sheikh mufeed in muqnaa and sheikh tusi in nihaya , they attributed it to some scholars in these books.

(4th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat should be handed over to sadaat; and sehem-e-imam (asws) should be handed over to someone or buried so that it reached imam (asws). This is the opinion of sheikh tusi in nihaya. (5th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat should be spent on them; and sehem-e-imam (asws) should be protected. This is the opinion of sheikh abu salih, sheikh ibn-ul-baraj and sheikh ibn idrees hilli; and allama hilli termed it better in montahi-ul-fiqh (6th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat should be spent on them; and sehem-e-imam (asws) to be given to those sadaat who are deserving. This is the opinion of allama hilli in book mokhtalif, and researcher hilli in sharii.

(7th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat to be spent on sadaat, and sehem-eimam (asws) should be given to imam (asws) by all means; however, if it is not possible then it should be spent on sadaat; and if there is requirement to sadaat, then this part is forgiven/halal for shias. This is the opinion of sheikh Muhammad bin hasan hur amili in wasail-us-shia.

(8th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat to be spent on them; and sehem-eimam (asws) is forgiven as it has been made halal for shias by imam (asws). This is the opinion of syed mohammad, author of al-madarak; mohsin faid kashani; and sheikh yousaf behraini, author of hadaiq. And they termed giving (sehem-e-imam asws) to sadaat better. (9th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat should be spent on them; and as regards to sehem-e-imam (asws), it should be given to those momins who deserve it. This is the opinion of sheikh ibn hamza. (10th opinion) both sehem-e-imam (asws) and sehem-e-sadaat should be given; but sehem-e-imam is forgiven out of arbah-emakasib. This is the opinion of sheikh hasan bin hazrat shaheed thani in his book muntaqi-ul-jaman. (11th opinion) nothing is mubah/halal out of khums which the scholars have deemed so. This is the opinion of ibn-ul-junaid. (12th opinion) those narrations which speak of khums being allowed/halal mean that those possessions from which khums is to be given, it is allowed to use them before payment of khums

provided the owner takes the responsibility of paying it. This is the opinion of allama majlisi. (13th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat to be spent on them; and it is optional to bury sehem-e-imam (asws), hand over to trustworthy so that he can hand it over to imam (asws) , or spent on those sadaat who are deserving if maraja allows. This is the opinion of shaheed-e-awal in his book ad-daroos. (14th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat to be spent on them; as regards to sehem-e-imam (asws), it should be protected till His appearance. However, if scholars spent that on those sadaat whose share is insufficient for them, then it is allowed. This is the opinion of shaheed-e-awal in book al-bayan. (15th opinion) sehem-e-sadaat to be spent on sadaat, and seheme-imam (asws) to be spent as per the permission of maraja in those matters where they are sure that it would gain the acceptance of imam (asws). This is the most famous opinion amongst scholars nowadays. Now, this is what mohammad Hussein dhako writes in his book. He may have mentioned 15 views about it, but my point of view is

that he has mentioned the opinions of scholars, and that is no hujjat upon anyone till the time that view is not backed by ahadeeth-eaimmah (asws). So it would be better if anyone holds any of these opinions, he should have his opinions backed by hadeeth-emasoom asws. The reason for this is those plenty of ahadeeth which have ordered us to do so. For example, we find in wasail-us-shia, vol 27, page 128, hadeeth 33392

And it is reported from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Ali Bin Al Hakam, from Hisaan Abu Ali from Abu Abdillah (asws.) in a Hadeeth that: It is sufficient for you that you should say that which we say, and observe silence in that which we keep silent, as you have seen that allah has not kept any good in any of our adversaries.

Similarly, we read in wasail-us-shia, vol 27, page 70, hadeeth 33227

It has been narrated from Ali Bin Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Ameer from Abdul Rahmaan Bin Al Hajjaj from Hisham Sahib Al Bareed that Abu Abdillah (asws.) said in a Hadeeth: It is a loss for you if you were to say anything which you have not heard from us. So in short, No opinion is valid till it has no backing for ahadeethe-masoomen (asws).

OPINION OF MOHAMMAD HUSSEIN DHAKO Mohammad Hussein dhako, then gives his opinion in the book mentioned above, and says as regards to my humble research in this regard, I opt for 8th opinion, that is, payment of sehem-e-sadaat and its distribution in the three categories is compulsory, but sehem-e-imam (asws) is forgiven in this era; and the reason for this is the letter of imame-zamana (asws) which has been quoted by sheikh sudooq in his book ikmal-ud-din wa tamam-un-nayma; allama tabrasi in

ihtijaaj tabarasi; allama majlisi in bihar-ul-anwar; allama noori in najm-uth-thaqib; fadil nihawandi in al-abqari-ul-ihsan; allama hairi in ghayat-ul-maqsood and other scholars in the life history of imam (asws). Imam (asws) says in that

as regards to khums, it has been made halal and allowed for our shias so that their births remain clean and do not get impure (because of its non-payment)

though the apparent wordings of this letter show that it is covering entire khums, but it should be considered for sehem-eimam (asws) only since one can only forgive his part only, and not rights of others; that is it means that only sehem-e-imam (asws) has been made halal. He has again, given his own opinion in this regard. Because he has accepted that in the lifetime of aimmah (asws), khums was given to imam (asws) in totality, and it is then their own discretion as to how will they distribute it. What he wrote a few pages early in his book is that:

problem 4:- what is clear from ahadeeth of aal-e-mohammad (asws) is that in the presence of aimmah, both parts of khums (sehem-e-imam (asws) and sehem-e-sadaat) are the be given to imam (asws) , and he (asws) will distribute it amongst them as per their needs; and if that is not sufficient for them, He (asws) will fulfill it from his own share; and if anything is left out after payment to them, it will be taken by imam asws; so a maraja should also follow this strategy of holy imam (asws). [page 448] We will, inshallah, prove it from sahih (as per isnaad) ahadeeth that aimmah (asws) forgave entire khums; and not just sehem-eimam (asws) as dhako has been portraying.

AHADEETH WHICH PROVE THAT KHUMS HAS BEEN MADE HALAL

First of all, we would like to remind our readers that khums is not something which aimmah (asws) were not asked about; rather as mohammad Hussein dhako also mentioned, imam-e-zamana (asws) was asked about it as to what should be done to it, and imam (asws) clearly said that it is forgiven. We will, however, not talk about that hadeeth as it has been discussed. Rather, we will turn our attention to other ahadeeth HADEETH NO. 1 We will quote this hadeeth from usool-e-kafi, urdu translation by zafar hasan, vol 2, page 430-431, kitab-ul-hujjat, chapter 104, hadeeth 3 Name of the chapter is

in Arabic version, it is vol 1, page 408 this hadeeth is also present in wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 548

The hadeeth says:-

Here is the translation for it:-

it is narrated from umar bin yazeed that I heard mosamma saying in madina that I took some possessions to imam jafar sadiq (asws), he rejected it.

He told imam (asws) : I was doing diving in behrain, and I earned 400,000 dirham from pearls (1). And I have brought its khums of 80,000 dirham for you(2); I thought it to be bad to stop and abstain from what is your right when allah has fixed that in our earnings.

Imam (asws) said: is our right just khums in earth and its production? O abu sayyar! Entire earth is for us. Whatever is produced from it, is for us.

I said: I will bring the entire possessions for you tomorrow.

Imam (asws) said: o abu sayyar! We have made it clean for you, and allowed it, and made it halal; so mix it with your possessions(3); whatever is there with our shias from this earth, that is halal for them(4) until qaim-e-aal-e-mohammad (asws) appears(5) and throws out our enemies from the earth with disgrace.

Umar bin yazeed said : abu sayyar said that there is none for whom products of earth and those organizing for it, has been made halal except me and those who have been allowed by aimmah (asws) (6). This hadeeth is very important. And first we see what we have been told in this hadeeth. I have given numbering in this hadeeth so that you can easily see what we are been told.

DEDUCTIONS FROM THE HADEETH Point 1 & 2 clearly tell us that imam (asws) was given 80,000 out of 400,000 dirhams. A simple calculation tells us that it is 1/5th of it. That is, imam (asws) was not just given sehem-e-imam (asws), rather the entire khums. Point 3 mentions that imam (asws) told his companion to mix that in his money; and what was that? Was it sehem-e-imam (asws) only? Nope. It was both, sehem-e-imam (asws) and sehem-esadaat. And point 4 & 6 tell us that khums is not made halal for everyone; rather it is just shias for whom it has been made halal. Point 5 tells us that timing till which khums was made halal in this manner. Imam (asws) clealy told us that it was made halal till the appearance of imam-e-zamana (asws), and that would be the time when he would throw enemies of ahlubait (asws) out of earth. ISNAAD ANALYSIS

I will not spent hours debating on this sanad. This is because it has been termed sahih by allama majlisi in miraat-ul-uqool, vol 4, page 347. the book can be counter checked on the following link
http://gadir.free.fr/Ar/Ehlibeyt/kutub2/Mirat_ul_Ukul/004.htm

Someone may still doubt the authenticity of this hadeeth. Well, it is still not possible because this hadeeth comes with yet another chain; and that too, is also very strong. And since, as per scholars of rijal, if there are two chains for one hadeeth, they are counted as two ahadeeth, rather than one. And if one of them has been termed sahih, other one becomes sahih legharihi ,i.e, sahih with support of other chain. So with this information, I will mention other hadeeth as hadeeth no. 2 HADEETH NO.2 This hadeeth is present in 1-tehzeeb-ul-ahkam, vol 4, page 144, hadeeth 45. 2-wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 548, hadeeth 12686.

Chain of hadeeth is like this: We will not go for hadeeth as it has already been covered. ISNAAD ANALYSIS

Saad bin Abdullah was sheikh of sheikh tusi, he praised him and termed him thiqa [naqd-ur-rijal, tifrishi, vol 2, page 310] here is link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/21.html#995 Abu jafar, his name is ahmad bin mohammad bin esa. He is thiqa and was called sheikh of people of qum. [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 1, page 167-168] Here is link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-1/12.html#335 hasan bin mehbood sarad, he is also thiqa
1353 / 134

[naqd-ur-rijal, tifrishi, vol 2, page 56-57] here is link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/04.html#134 umar bin yazeed; khoi said that he is basically umar bin mohammad bin yazeed; and this is the opinion of tafrashi as well.

His full name is umar bin mohammad bin yazeed biaa sabri. He is thiqa as well. Here is direct link for umar bin yazeed where tafrashi said that his name is umar bin mohammad bin yazeed [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 3, page 368] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-3/25.html#1255 and this one is link for umar bin mohammad bin yazeed [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 3, page 364] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-3/25.html#1239 and the last one is the narrator himself, abu sayyar. He was a great companion of imam jafar sadiq (asws), and he had praised him as mentioned by sheikh kashi [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 4, page 375] Here is direct link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-4/25.html#1222 With this, we saw another sahih chain for the hadeeth we have already explained before. HADEETH NO. 3 This hadeeth comes basically in

1- tehzeeb-ul-ahkam, vol 4, page 137, hadeeth 6. 2- hur amili quoted this hadeeth in wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 544, hadeeth 12678.

TRANSLATION:- abu khadija says that one I was with imam (asws) and a man came and said: make furuj/vagina halal/allowed for us(1) imam (asws) was shocked one of the man said: he is not asking for a way which can be criticized, rather he is asking for buying a slave or woman for marriage or gaining heritage or doing business or if something is given(2)

imam (asws) said: this thing is allowed for our shias(3), no matter if present or absent, dead or alive, or those who will be born till the day of judgment, so it is allowed(4); but beware! It is not allowed for anyone except for whom we have allowed(5). We have not taken responsibility for anyone (except you) nor given promise nor oath(6). DEDUCTIONS Point 1 actually talks about the fact that has been explained in other ahadeeth that those for whom khums has not been allowed, furuj/vagina are not halal for them; that is, their births and those of their children are not pure. And that is what was making this man worried, as he was not paying khums either. Point 2 can be explain only when brackets are added to the translation, but I did not intentionally do that, for some of people may have said that I am trying to tamper. So I thought that I add notes here. If I were to add brackets, I would have written (he was asking for forgiveness of khums), and this is how it has been translated by mohammad Hussein dhako in his translation of wasail-us-shia, vol 6, page 324 as well. He included what I wrote in the translation itself

Point 3 and 4 talk about the fact that khums has been made halal for shias only. And the time frame mentioned in this hadeeth is till day of qayamat. Point 5 clarifies that khums has not been made halal for everyone, rather shias only. And point 6 emphasizes that this promise is not for sunnis, and they will have to answer for their action of taking away the right of aimmah. ISNAAD ANALYSIS First narrator is Abu jafar, his name is ahmad bin mohammad bin esa. He is thiqa and was called sheikh of people of qum. [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 1, page 167-168] Here is link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-1/12.html#335 next is hasan bin ali bin ziad alwisha; he was companion of imam raza (asws) [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 2, page 43]

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/03.html#105 his chains have been termed sahih by khoi this is what he writes

http://u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Rijal/moajam/06/a40.htm next is ahmad bin aaiz bin habeeb, and he is thiqa [naqd, vol 1, page 128] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-1/09.html#247 salim bin mokarram was thiqa-tun-thiqa, and a companion of imam (asws), and here is he narrating from imam abu abdullah (asws) whom he was companion of.
2171 / 14 )1(

[naqd, vol 2, page 297] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/20.html#952 HADEETH NO. 4

Technically, I should not be calling it hadeeth 4, and the reason behind this is that this hadeeth comes with different; and each chain counts as separate hadeeth. The hadeeth comes in the following books 1- wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 543 2- bihar-ul-anwar, vol 93, page 186 3- tehzeeb-ul-ahkam, vol 4, page 137 4- al-istibsaar, vol 2, page 58 5- ilal-us-shariii, vol 2, page 377 6- al-muqnaa, page 282 we will quote it from wasail-us-shia, this is what sheikh hur amili wrote

imam abu jafar (asws) said that amir-ul-momineen said that people are destroyed because of their belly, their private organs since they have taken our right, except for our shias and their parents for whom it is (halal). DEDUCTION If you go through the last hadeeth I had mentioned, you will remember that a person had come to imam (asws) and asked to make furuj halal for him; it is this very reason I quoted this hadeeth now so that you come to know why that momin was worried. Here again, imam (asws) is clarifying that it is halal for shias. The most interesting thing is how sheikh sudooq interpreted this hadeeth in ilal-ul-shariii. He did not write any comments, but the way he gave heading to the chapter, explained his point of view well. Let us see what he had written

this is the heading he used chapter: reason for making khums halal for shias and the hadeeth we are talking about, is hadeeth no. 2 in this. So, no one should doubt that this hadeeth is not talking about khums. ISNAAD ANALYSIS first narrator is mohammad bin hasan bin ali, he is sheikh tusi who is thiqa; no one can doubt that

[naqd, vol 4, page 179] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-4/12.html#537 next is saad bin abdullah Saad bin Abdullah was sheikh of sheikh tusi, he praised him and termed him thiqa here is link for him [naqd, vol 2, page 310] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/21.html#995

Abu jafar, his name is ahmad bin mohammad bin esa. He is thiqa and was called sheikh of people of qum. [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 1, page 167-168] Here is link for him http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-1/12.html#335

next is abbas bin maroof, he is thiqa [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 3, page 24] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-3/02.html#85

next is hamad bin esa, and he is thiqa [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 2, page 154-155] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-2/11.html#448 next is hareez bin Abdullah, and he is thiqa [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 1, page 410-411] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-1/28.html#1214 and we see that hareez bin abdullah quoted this hadeeth from three great companions of imam (asws):- abu baseer, zarara, and mohammad bin muslim bin rabah. abu baseer and zurara are well known; but mohammad bin muslim bin rabah is also thiqa [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 4, page 322-323]

http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-4/22.html#1013 So the chains come with THREE isnaad actually, and all the three chains differ above hareez bin abdullah. Still, all sahih chains. HADEETH NO. 5 I am mentioning the hadeeth of sheikh sudooq differently since the source of hadeeth has turn from sheikh tusi to sheikh sudooq; plus the chain has more differences. I will not go into deductions as it has already been done Here is the chain

ISNAAD ANALYSIS Mohammad bin hasan bin waleed. He was sheikh of sudooq and a well known thiqa. [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 4, page 170-171] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-4/12.html#516

http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1898 he narrates from mohammad bin hasan assaffar; he is well known thiqa scholar who wrote basair-ud-darajat [naqd-ur-rijal, vol 4, page 181-182] http://www.rafed.net/books/rejal/naqd-alrejal-4/13.html#540 From here on, it combines with the chain I had mentioned in the previous hadeeth. HADEETH NO. 6 This hadeeth comes in the following sources 1-illal-us-shariii, vol 2, page 377 2-bihar-ul-anwaar, vol 93,page 186 3- wasail-us-shia, vol 9,page 550 hadeeth says

imam abu jafar (asws) said that we have made khums halal for them- that means shias-so that their births remain pure. DEDUCTIONS Already explained in the last hadeeth, please refer to that ISNAAD RESULTS Already explain in the last hadeeth, please refer to that HADEETH NO. 7 The hadeeth which we are going to mention next is from al-kafi, vol 1, page 546, hadeeth 16

Imam abu Abdullah (asws) asked Do you know from where zina/adultery gets into the people? Narrator replied No! I do not know Imam said

This is for not paying khums to ahlubait (asws), except for our shias who are pure, for we made it halal for their births DEDUCTION Already explained ISNAAD ANALYSIS Majlisi termed this hadeeth hasan in miraat-ul-uqool, vol 6, page 278.

AHADEETH WHICH ARE PRESENTED TO PROVE THAT KHUMS HAS TO BE PAYED EVEN IN THIS ERA

We already discussed mohammad Hussein dhako, a maraja himself, accepted that those ahadeeth which speak of giving khums, are about the time when aimmah (asws) were present, and do not cover the time of occultation. However, since those who have established their business empires on this khums do quote ahadeeth to prove their point; I thought to discuss isnaad of those ahadeeth as well. So let us see those ahadeeth and their sanad.

HADEETH NO. 1 This hadeeth comes in 1-al-kafi, vol 1, page 547, hadeeth 25 2- wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 538 we quote it from wasail

mohammad bin zaid narrates that a few businessmen from Persia having some of friends wrote to imam abu hasan raza (asws) asking for permission to have khums imam (asws) replied: in the name of allah, the most merciful, the most beneficent; allah is very merciful, he has promised reward for doing good, and punishment for bad deeds; no one allows possession except the way allah has allowed. We get help from this khums in regards to our religion, our family, our possessions, and what we spend or buy; and protect our respect from enemies; and we do it from this; so stop it not from us; and do not prevent yourselves from our prayers because this is key to your earnings, and forgiveness for your deeds, and property against poverty; and muslim is he who

fulfils the promise he made to allah, and he is not muslim who says with tongue, but opposes from heart. Wasalam.

DEDUCTION So we see that a few businessmen wrote letter and asked for forgiveness of khums; and imam asws replied The most important point is the last sentence in this hadeeth which I have highlighted as well he is not muslim who says with tongue, and opposes from heart this actually tells us that they were not shias; they just said to be so. And this will be highlighted in the very next hadeeth as well; inshallah ISNAAD ANALYSIS Allama majlisi wrote about the hadeeth number 22 of this chapter

And then he continues, terming hadeeth 23,24,25, 26

LIKE BEFORE That is, he termed hadeeth 26 which we have presented

See vol 6, page 284 HADEETH NO. 2 The next hadeeth comes in the same sources of al-kafi, and wasail; except that their number gets one added; that is, they are the next hadeeth to the one mentioned before And it says

with the same isnaad of mohammad bin zaid; he said that a few men from khurasan wrote to imam raza (asws), and asked that khums be allowed for them so imam asws replied: what is this all about? You claim love with your tongue and stop our right which allah has made for

us; I will not make, I will not make, I will not make it halal for you. DEDUCTION Keep in mind that imam raza (asws) was appointed as WALI AHAD of mamoon; and it seems more like that there were people who would claim love, but were actually not shias. As is evident from what I have underlined. ISNAAD ANALYSIS Since it comes with same isnaad, so it should not be surprising to see that majlisi termed it daif-ul-almashoor [miraat-ul-uqool, vol 6, page 286]

HADEETH NO. 3 This hadeeth comes in 1- kamal-ud-deen wa tamam-un-nama, vol 2, page 520 2- al-ihtijaaj tabarasi, vol 2, page 479 3- bihar-ul-anwaar, vol 93, page 184 4- wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 540 let us quote it from wasai-us-shia

it says

abu Hussein mohammad bin jafar asadi narrates that imam-ezamana (asws) replied to my questions which were received by mohammd bin uthman that you asked about the one who

considers our possession which he has- halal, and uses it the way he uses his possessions(1), so he is cursed, and we are his enemies, and holy prophet asws said that who will consider anything halal of my progeny, he is cursed by my tongue and that of all prophets, and he is amongst all zalimeen; and as per saying of allah, curse of allah be on zalimeen, and that you asked about the lands which are ours, who will cultivate them, and pays kharaj, and sends the rest for sake of reward and nearness to you(2)? So it should be clear that when it is not allowed to interfere in property of others, why should it be so in our property? So whosoever will do it without our permission(3), and consider it halal, for him, it is haram; and whosoever will eat from our property, his belly will be filled with fire which will burn soon(4). DEDUCTIONS We will explain this hadeeth along with the next hadeeth; however, we will highlight some of the points we mentioned here Point 1 proves that imam (asws) is not talking about khums in particular, rather, we know that everything belongs to imam (asws). We mentioned one hadeeth in the very beginning, which

was the very first hadeeth of this discussion, that every thing belongs to imam (asws), and not just khums. In regards to point 2, I must say that the way it has been translated by mohammad Hussein dhako in his translation of wasail, that says aur baqi tum ney jo ye sawal kiya hai ka aya humari jo zaminain hain, un ko abad karma aur un se kharaj ada karma, aur baqimanda ko qurbatan illallah humari bargah ma bheejna kesa hai? Tu is ke motaliq wazih ho ka jab kisi ke maal ma us ki ijazat ke baghair tassaraf karma jaiz nahi, to phir humare maal ma esa karna kese jaiz ho sakta hai? Pus jo humaray hokum ka baghair esa kare ga, to who humary motaliq us cheez ka halal samaghney wala tasawwar ho ga jo us per haram hai, and jo humaray maal ma se kuch kahay ga, goya who apne pait ma aag bharay ga, jo anqareeb barak uthey gi [wasail-us-shia, urdu translation by dhako, vol 6, page 322] The highlighted portion says:And that you asked about the lands which are ours, who will cultivate them, and pays kharaj, and sends the rest for sake of reward and nearness to allah to our court

Now, if you see the way dhako has translated it, it means that even if someone is using that money for the sake of nearness to allah, and sending that to imam (asws) without their permission, even that is not allowed. This point is very important because most of the times marajae of present era say that we utilize this for the sake of islam and preaching; and so it is good to do that. But let us ask them if they actually have the permission of doing so? Point 3 shows that those who have not been given permission by aimmah (asws), nothing is halal for them. It is shias for whom it has been made halal. And we have already proved it before. Point 4 tells us that whosoever is taking what is the right of imam (asws), his belly will be filled with fire. This point is very important, because we know that khums is the right of imam (asws); and marajae of present era are eating it by making different excuses. Sometimes, saying that it is the right of imam (asws) but pay the right of imam (asws) to us {and for that, they do not have even a single hadeeth which proves that aimmah (asws) have ordered us to give this to them}. ISNAAD ANALYSIS Sheikh sudooq has been linked to mohammad bin jafar asadi through mohammad bin ahmad as-sanani, ali bin ahmad bin

mohammad daqaq, Hussein bin ibrahim, ahmad bin hasham, ali bin Abdullah. All of these narrators are majhool, and their trustworthiness or praise is not proven as per the greatest rijal scholars of present era, khoi; and that makes the chain daif. The reason is that sahih hadeeth is one which has thiqa (trustworthy) shia ithna ashri narrators linking upto imam (asws). If they are praised, but their trustworthiness is not proven, then chain is hasan. And if they are trustworthy, but not shia, then chain is mauthiq (that is, narration by trustworthy, but not shia itna ashri). But since trustworthiness cannot be proven for these people, they get into category of majhool, and that weakens this chain. Mohammad bin ahmad as-sanaani has been discussed in maujam rijal-ul-hadeeth, khoi, vol 15, page 53 Ali bin ahmad bin mohammad bin imran ad-daqaq has been discussed in maujam rijal-ul-hadeeth, vol 11, page 254 Hussein bin ibrahim bin ahmad bin hasham has been discussed in maujam rijal-ul-hadeeth, vol 5, page 173-174

Ali bin Abdullah wiraq has been discussed in maujam rijal-ulhadeeth, vol 12, page 85 HADEETH NO. 4 Next hadeeth comes in 1- wasail-us-shia, vol 9, page 541 2-kamal-ud-deen wa tamam un-nayma; vol 2, page 544 we quote it from wasail, and it says

abu ali narrates from his father that mohammad bin uthman received a letter with out me asking question that said bimillah; curse of allah, his angels, and all people be on him who considers a dirham halal from our possession

So I said that this is true for the one who considers any haram halal; so what is special for hujjat asws; by god! When I saw the letter again, wordings had changed to bismillah; curse of allah, his angels and all people be on him who will take even a dirham out of our possessions, as haram* narrator says that abu ali took the letter and we saw and read that. DEDUCTION:Most important point is the change in wordings which the narrator saw, and the change was that imam (asws) said that whosoever takes even a dirham out of our possession, it is haram. Interestingly, this hadeeth does apply to the marajae of present era who are taking, not just dirham, rather dollars, in the name of imam (asws) without even a single hadeeth which had allowed them to do so. I do not have a clue as to why they apply this to scare shias for whom aimmah (asws) allowed khums, and made it halal till imamul-qaim (asws) returns. ISNAAD ANALYSIS:-

Mohammad bin mohammad al-khizai, who is the main narrator of the hadeeth, is majhool in the way that there is not tautheeq or jarah for him. He has been discussed in maujam rijal-ul-hadeeth, vol 17, page 211.

CONCLUSION

Let us now conclude this discussion. First of all, I am not interested in using ilm-ur-rijal for the sake of rejecting ahadeeth of aimmah (asws). And this article should not be taken in the sense that I am interested in rejecting ahadeeth. My main aim is not to prove that you are wrong, this means I am right; rather I am against this approach. And my point is that if you believe in something, be honest in that. No one will be questioned about deeds of others, rather every one will be asked about his own deeds. There are so many different scholars and marajae who will take refuge of this ilm-ur-rijal and reject ahadeeth which they do not like or those are against their fatawas; but when that comes to khums, they do not bother. What is the main reason for this hypocrisy, I have not idea. May be it is their vested interests which make them do this.

In this article, we clearly showed from ahadeeth that aimmah (asws) made khums halal for shias and the order will last till zahoor of our beloved imam (asws). It is not that shias did not ask imam-ul-qaim (asws) about it, rather as dhako accepted that He (asws) was asked, and He (asws) did say that I am making it halal for you. However, this permission is not for those who are against the wilayat of aimmah (asws); they will be questioned on the Day of Judgment. We even narrated those ahadeeth which tell us that if anyone utilizes the possessions of aimmah (asws), even if it be a dirham, he is filling his belly with fire. We would, therefore, ask the marajae and all those who are involved in this business by claiming the sehem-e-imam (asws), to present us with ahadeeth which give them permission to ask for it, and utilize it the way they are intending to do so. Otherwise, they should fear Allah for what they are doing. I would also like to ask those people who are being deceived by these people that when you give right of a person to someone else, you actually deny the right of one to whom it belongs. With this I thank you all for patient reading.

Blessings be upon Mohammad (asws) and His pure Family (asws) And May Allah hasten the zahoor of our beloved imam (asws) amin