Categorizing or Sorting the Texts

One of this individual’s criticisms against this book is that it took pains to stack many texts and many references. We say just as what the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) said in one of his letters to Mu`awiyah ibn Aba Sufyan: “By Allah! You intended to speak ill [of me] but you instead complimented [me], and you wanted to expose but you yourself became exposed!”^[1] For what is meant from stacking texts is to show the meaning upon which they all agree, in a scholarly way, through showing the existence of consecutive reporting which spares the researcher the need to minutely research the evidences. A minute research is required when an issue is not certain, is unclear, and its non-existence through such consecutive reporting puts an end to doubts. This is so when each of the many texts adds a degree of possibility, then such possibilities keep increasing whenever a new text is added to its predecessors till we reach a degree of conviction, then to a strong conviction, then to a stronger one, and so on till such possibilities become piled up till the opposite possibility drops and disappears and reason diverts itself from taking it into consideration. This happens with consecutive reporting and with certainty regarding the accuracy of the meaning to be proven. This matter is assisted by various elements and circumstances. For example: whenever references are reliable and at hand since the time when the texts came out, or since the incident, the chances of confirming the meaning will be greater while the need for such “stacking” will be less.

This is assisted by the issue being one of those that do not agree with the policies of the rulers or with historians’ own personal likes and dislikes. Letting many texts of such a characteristic pass through increases the chances of strengthening such possibilities. Stacking of doubts about them becomes faster and more plentiful especially when such an abundance is not contrasted by what contradicts it by those who assist the rulers and by those who are concerned about clearing the name of the party that set off the incident.

If the traditions differ among themselves with regard to minor details, or when some of them include particular details which the other party neglected or overlooked, this does not harm the stacking of doubts about the origin of the incident, since it is intended to be known and to be fixed by all these narrations.

Perhaps one who criticizes us for stating the texts without verifying their sources has not paid attention to this issue because the one who stands to deny has no say in such issues.

Let me add that mentioning the references which were written across consecutive centuries does not necessarily mean that the successor copied his predecessor whose book is available with us, for quite often he may have copied it from another contemporary or previous reference. Moreover, a scholar’s attention in recording this issue and discussing it in numerous volumes proves that he does not take that incident lightly, nor does he look upon it casually.

In our view, assaulting al-Zahra’ (A.S.), her being verbally abused, her house being broken into by force and by a number of people, and the taking of Ali (A.S.) in order to force him to swear the oath of allegiance was narrated from [predicted by] the Prophet (A.S.) and from most Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.) as well as from al-Zahra’ (A.S.) herself in many narratives.

This incident has also been reported, briefly or in detail, by many historians from various degrees and inclinations. Poets have composed poetry about it. Speakers have cited it. Scholars, despite their various inclinations and scholarly levels, have confirmed it. All this pours into one venue: Knowledge is there regarding its being reported by people who cannot all agree on one and the same meaning due to the differences among their sects, due to their various likes and dislikes as well as specializations across many centuries.

There is no room to accept someone’s claim that nothing wrong happened to al-Zahra’ (A.S.) nor to her house, nor inside it, except some people threatening her with burning... while there is also doubt about the seriousness of such a threat since the assailants’ hearts were full of love for al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and since her social status prohibited them from doing any such thing. This is so except when those who oppose reject stacked up texts and deny even their consecutive reporting, evidences and outcomes, contrary to what they publicly announce!

To sum up, one who is not certain, or when there are no proofs supporting an issue, needs to research the evidences in a clear and consecutive manner. Had history been confined to what has only an authoritative support, according to the terminology used by scholars of hadath, then no historical fact can ever be proven except what strays from the common grounds and is quite rare.

Had the researcher been non-Muslim, one who is not concerned about investigating the truthfulness of the narrators as Muslims do, he cannot prove any historical fact at all, even what is most out of the ordinary and rare, unless he relies on the method sought and referred to by the happy martyr, Ayatullah Sayyid al-Sadr, may Allah have mercy on his soul, when he discussed establishing firm grounds for consecutive reports based on possibilities:

Every news heard where there is a possibility of agreeing or disagreeing with it, and when the disagreement is based on the possibility of an error from the side of the reporter or the possibility of deliberate lying in order to serve a specific interest of his that spurs him to hide the truth, if the news comes from many sources, the possibility of its disagreement with the truth diminishes. This is so because the possibility of an error, or in deliberate lying from the side of each and every reporter of it in an artificial manner, if it is present to a certain extent, then the possibility of error, or in deliberate lying by the reporters of one and the same incident, is in a lesser degree. This is so because the degree of possibility results by multiplying the value of the possibility of lying, by one of the reporters, by the value of the possibility of another reporter. Whenever we multiply the value of the possibility by the value of another possibility, the possibility decreases because the value of the possibility always represents a fraction defined from the true figure. If we represent the truth by the figure 1, the possibility will be ½ or 1/3 or something like that. And whenever we multiply a fraction by another fraction, the outcome will be a smaller fraction as is quite obvious.

When a large number of reporters are present, we have to repeat the multiplication by the number of narratives reported by those reporters so that we may reach the value of the possibility of lies in all of them. This possibility becomes very small, and it keeps decreasing as the number of the reporters keeps increasing, and so on till it becomes scientifically null due to its diminution and to the fact that the human mind cannot retain very minute possibilities. The number of narrations which remove such a possibility scientifically, or defacto consecutive reporting, as well as the news will all then be labelled as consecutively reported.

There is no specific value for the number reached in the latter case because this is affected to a great degree, in addition to the number of narrators, by the quality of such narrators and the extent of their reliability, mastership and other factors which make up the possibility. This shows that considering a news as consecutively reported depends on the calculation of possibilities.

Consecutive reporting may sometimes be oral, in other times in general meaning, or as a whole. If the common axis for all news is a specific wording, it will belong to the first type. If it is a specific ideology, it belongs to the second. But if it is persistent and derivative, it belongs to the third.

As long as the axis is more precisely defined, the result of the consecutive reporting required for confirmation, according to the calculation of possibilities, will be faster to come out. In such case, the possibilities of finding common interest grounds among all the reporters to such a degree of precision, despite the differences in their conditions and circumstances, are further than the logic of the calculation of possibilities. The characteristics of the reporters, their quantity and quality, also impact the evaluation of any possibility. Also bearing an impact is the characteristic of those who quote him, i.e. who tell the gist of the news, and these are of two types: general and relative.