Ambiguous Narrations in Islamic Tradition (Revāyāt‑e Motashābeh)

Dar al-Hedayah | In previous articles, we understood that obeying the Yamani is not only not obligatory, but according to some narrations, nothing is more important than preserving one’s life for Imam al-Zaman (aj). In line with this, the faction of the claimant Yamani has attempted to portray the narration in question as mutashabih (having apparent ambiguity) and cast doubt on its authority. This article critiques and examines the statements of this movement.

📜 The Narration on Preserving Life

Among the narrations indicating the non-obligation of joining the Yamani is a narration from Imam al-Baqir (as) about an Eastern movement:

From Abu Khalid al-Kabuli from Abu Ja’far (as) that he said: “It is as if I see a people who have emerged in the East seeking the truth, but they are not granted it. Then they seek it again, but they are not granted it. So when they see that, they place their swords upon their shoulders (i.e., prepare for battle). Then they are given what they asked for, but they do not accept it until they rise up, and they will not hand it over except to your companion (sahibikum). Their slain are martyrs. Indeed, if I were to reach that time, I would have preserved myself for the companion of this affair (sahib hadha al-amr).“

Al-Ghaybah (by al-Nu’mani), P. 273

🧐 Ahmad al-Basri’s Claim

Ahmad al-Basri says regarding this narration: “This narration is mutashabih (having apparent ambiguity) and does not in any way indicate guiding people to desist from supporting the Yamani.”
*(Nasihat ila Talabat al-Hawzat al-‘Ilmiyyah…, P. 25)*

🤔 Response to the Claim

In response, it must be said that this statement is not at all correct. The indication of this narration on the priority of being patient and rising with Imam al-Zaman (as) is clear.

Before the appearance of Imam al-Zaman (as), some praiseworthy banners will emerge, supporting which is also recommended. However, due to His Eminence’s special status and rank, naturally, supporting him is superior to accompanying anyone else.

Given this, how can a narration with such clarity be called mutashabih? If this obvious narration is mutashabih to Ahmad al-Basri, to us it is of the utmost clarity.

Interestingly, Ahmad al-Basri, who claims Imamate and alleges to have learned his knowledge from Imam al-Zaman (as), believes this clear statement is mutashabih and he does not know its meaning. However, a statement that is mutashabih to people should not be mutashabih to the Imams (as), because just as they have knowledge of the muhkamat (clear verses), knowledge of the mutashabihat (ambiguous verses) is also with them, as the Quran testifies:

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] muhkamat – they are the foundation of the Book – and others mutashabihat. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is mutashabih, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah and those firm in knowledge (al-rasikhuna fi al-‘ilm) say, ‘We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.’ And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Surah Al ‘Imran, 3:7)

🧠 The Imams’ Knowledge of the Mutashabihat

Regarding this Quranic verse, the following narration was issued:

From Burayd bin Mu’awiyah from one of the two Imams (as): “…The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is the best of those firmly grounded in knowledge. Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, taught him all that He sent down to him of revelation (al-tanzil) and interpretation (al-ta’wil)… And His successors (awsiya’) after him know all of it. …The Quran has specific and general [verses], muhkam and mutashabih, abrogating and abrogated, and those firmly grounded in knowledge know it.“

Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, P. 213

This narration explicitly states that knowledge of the mutashabihat is with the successors of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Now, Ahmad al-Basri, who claims to be a successor of the Prophet, should have knowledge of the mutashabihat like the other successors, not be ignorant of them.

Consequently, the statement in question not only provides no justification for supporting the Yamani but indicates that supporting Imam al-Zaman (as) is better than supporting anyone else. Reason dictates that we choose the better option from among good and better.

⏳ The Temporal Indication of the Narration “I Would Have Preserved Myself”

Among the claims of Ahmad al-Basri’s followers regarding this narration is: “The narration indicates preserving oneself until the movement of Imam al-Zaman (as) begins, and the start of the Imam’s movement is triggered by the start of the Yamani’s movement.”
*(Dirasah fi Shakhsiyyat al-Yamani al-Maw’ud, P. 88)*

This statement is false because the emergence of the Yamani will be before Imam al-Zaman (as), not at the beginning of his appearance (zuhur). The Yamani is merely a sign, like other signs, indicating the imminence of Imam al-Zaman’s (as) appearance. What is desired in the narration is preserving oneself to join and support Imam al-Zaman (as). If what the followers say were intended, the Imam’s statement “I would have preserved myself for the companion of this affair” would have no conceivable meaning, because the condition of the people the narration speaks about is like that of the Yamani: they, like the Yamani, will hand over their banner to Imam al-Zaman (as) and will be among his companions.

🗣️ A Personal Invitation from Imam al-Baqir (as)?

They also say regarding Imam al-Baqir’s (as) statement: “Imam al-Baqir spoke about himself and says, ‘If I reach that time, I will preserve myself for the companion of the affair.’ The Imam (as) does not say, ‘Whoever reaches that time should preserve himself for the companion of the affair.’ Imam al-Baqir (as) is more aware of his statement. The Ahl al-Bayt (as) have goals in their speech that cannot be understood except by divine success (tawfiq).”
*(Dirasah fi Shakhsiyyat al-Yamani al-Maw’ud, P. 89)*

In response, we say the root of this statement stems from distorting the speech of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), which is a habit of Ahmad al-Basri’s followers. There is no doubt that if Imam al-Baqir (as) intended to urge the Shi’a to support and join the intended movement, he would not say, “I preserve myself for the companion of the affair.” This is because the apparent meaning of his words indicates that preserving oneself for Imam al-Zaman (as) is preferable and superior for all Shi’a over supporting this movement and similar movements.

If Imam al-Baqir (as) intended to explain a specific duty for himself, different from the duties of other Shi’a, he should have explained it to the narrator so that the Shi’a would not fall into error and think this was their duty as well, leading to the abandonment of an obligation. Furthermore, if this duty were specific to the Imam and the duty of the Shi’a contradicted it, what benefit would there be in mentioning it to the narrator, given that no duty is incumbent upon the narrator?

🔗 Consistency with Other Narrations

The meaning of the narration “I would have preserved myself” aligns with narrations that command remaining tranquil and not rising with any banner before the appearance (zuhur).

For example, other narrations instruct the Shi’a to remain in their homes and not accompany any armed movements before the rise of Imam al-Zaman (as), even if the cause is just, until the Imam himself emerges.

One of the clearest narrations indicating what we have said is the following:

Al-Husain bin Khalid said: I said to Abu al-Hasan al-Rida (as): “Abdullah bin Bukayr used to narrate a hadith and interpret it, and I would like to present it to you.” He (as) said: “What is that hadith?” I said: “Ibn Bukayr said: ‘Ubayd bin Zurarah narrated to me: I was with Abu Abdullah (as) during the emergence of Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al-Hasan, when a man from our companions entered upon him and said to him: ‘May I be your ransom, Muhammad bin Abdullah has emerged, and the people have responded to him. What do you say about emerging with him?’ So Abu Abdullah (as) said: ‘Remain tranquil as long as the sky and the earth are tranquil.’” … Abu al-Hasan (as) said: “Abu Abdullah (as) spoke the truth, and the matter is not as Ibn Bukayr interpreted it. Abu Abdullah (as) only said: ‘Remain tranquil as long as the sky is tranquil from the call (al-nida’) and the earth is tranquil from the swallowing of the army (al-khasf bi al-jaysh).'”

Al-Amali (by al-Tusi), Vol. 1, P. 412