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-ul-
qaim (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-ul-

qaim (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-e-

imam (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-e-
imam (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-e-
makasib. 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 sehem-

e-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-e-
aimmah (asws). So it would be better if anyone holds any of these
opinions, he should have his opinions backed by hadeeth-e-
masoom 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 ahadeeth-

e-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 imam-
e-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-e-
imam (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-e-
imam (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-e-
sadaat.

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-e-

zamana (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-ul-
hadeeth, 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 imam-
ul-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