Mouood Mouood English Edition
Some matters are understood from this Hadith:
First is the necessity of Khums in all benefits and incomes, and compatibility of verse of advantage (غنیمت) with that and interpretation of advantage (غنیمت) in its vast meaning that means any kind of income which has been mentioned below the Hadith.
Another one is the necessity of an extraordinary Islamic tax equal to Khums for a specific year, the year 220 h.gh., because of extraordinary conditions that have happened for Imam and Shiites, and as it is understood from history (and also a Hadith which has been mentioned in Kafi) it was the same year that Mu’tasim had invited his holiness to Baghdad and kept his eyes on his holiness respectfully. Surely, in that year Imam and Shiites of Baghdad had extraordinary condition and Imam had to organize the conditions of Shiite needed people and specially Shiites of Bani Hashim, and he had no choice other than taking this extraordinary Khums from them.
This matter is not exclusive to Imam, and if conditions are too much hard that Khums does not suffice the costs, governor can raise the tax for rich people in order to save the benefits of Muslims, also it is possible that Zakat which answers to all needs in ordinary conditions according to explicit cabbalas could not suffice alone; for example when all Muslims were in danger of attack of enemies and Islamic armies need more money, at this time Islamic governors can ask for extraordinary amounts of money for solving the problem, as an Islamic necessity.
It is interesting that Imam had necessitated this extraordinary tax on gold and silver which one year had passed them.
People who are familiar with Islamic Fiqh and especially Shiite Fiqh and had studied the authorities of governor know that Islamic government or its governor had special authorities for these conditions.
Therefore, this extraordinary Khums which had been temporary has no relation with general ruling of Khums on incomes.
But obstinate caviler who has no knowledge about this matter had been amazed that how it is possible to take two kinds of Khums from people, unaware that one of them is the permanent law of Islam and the other is temporary ruling and related to authorities of Islamic governor, and according to what had been said there is no doubt remaining about the meaning of Hadith.
And it is interesting that obstinate caviler has arisen several objections to this Hadith which any of them is more amazing than the other and is the sign of extremity of his honesty and vastness of his knowledge and impartiality and integrity (?)!!
Now pay attention to some of their samples:
1- He says that Hadith tellers who had quoted from Ali ibn Mahzyar are unknown persons and are not famous in Rijal books.
While“Ahmad ibn Muhammad” who is one of these two Hadith tellers (and even without any need to another Hadith teller the evidence and document of this Hadith is compete, because both two teller have quoted the Hadith from Ali ibn Mahzyar horizontally) is “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa” who is one of most famous persons of Shiite Rijal and is from reliable, famous and accredited persons and his name has been mentioned in all Rijal books.
But maybe caviler never had referred to Rijal books about this matter and has shot a bullet in the darkness with the hope that people have no time for referring to Rijal books and his lie will never been revealed or he referred but did not understand and idiomatically he has mistaken deliberately.
The reason for that “Ahmad ibn Muhammad” is the same as “Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Eisa” is that the person who quoted from him is “Muhammad ibn Hassan Saffar”the author of the famous book “Basa’ir Al-Darajat”, and we know that Muhammad ibn Hassan Saffar is one of students of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Eisa.
He says: It has been mentioned in Hadith that lots of assets of “Khorramian” had been gained by companions of Imam, while final defeat of them had happened in the year 221, one year after the date which has been mentioned in this Hadith and “Babak Khorram-Din” the dynast of “Khorramian” had been defeated after the year 221.
We don’t know that if he had thought that nobody knows about the history of Khorramian? And nobody will refer to history?
We read in Tabari history6 that in this year lots of people of Iran converted to the faith of Babak Khorram-Din, and Mu’tasim Abbasi sent a great army to them, and in the same year sixty thousand of followers of Babak had been killed, and the others escaped to the Roman countries.
It is interesting that caviler quotes explicitly from Tabari history in his text about the incidents of “the year 219”, that commander of an army which had been sent from Baghdad to repress Khorramian, “entered Baghdad with a number of captives of Khorramian in 11th of Jamada El Oula of the year 219 and it is said that one thousands of them had been killed”.7
Obviously in such a battle with this number of killed people lots of spoils had been gained by worriers and we cannot ignore this truth even we act like people who know nothing about that.
The text that mentioned before is not exclusive to Tabari history, but also the same expression has been mentioned in complete history of Ibn Athir that:“Ishaq ibn Ibrahim (commander of army of Baghdad) entered Baghdad with a large number of captives of Khorramian in Jamada El Oula”.8 (Notice that it has been emphasized on the phrase “a large number”.)
And we know that in that time they sold the infidel war captives as slaves or freed them by taking ransom and naturally lots of money had been gained by people of Baghdad in this way.
More amazing is that it has been written in the dictionary of Dehkhoda under the word “Babak Khorram-Din” quoted from “the selected of Hamdullah Mostofi” that:“Ishaq ibn Ibrahim enteredBaghdad in Jamada El Oula and there were a large group of Khorram-Dinan captives with him”.9
And while caviler had Dehkhoda dictionary in his hands by testify of his explicit words, but he acted as he is deaf and did not pay any attention to these explicit evidences that show lots of assets had gained by Muslims as spoils from “Khorram-Dinan” before the year 220. (Damn obstinacy! That what results it has!)
By the way, this objection to Hadith of Ali ibn Mahzyar is more instable than cobweb.
3- He says that how Imam Javad (a.s.) could have connection with his friends and send them letters when he was under observation in Baghdad?
But maybe he has forgotten that Imam Javad (a.s.) had acme to Baghdad by invitation of Mu’tasim, he was neither in prison nor so much limited that cannot contact people, as this matter has been affirmed in “Mir’at Al-Oqool”, vol. 6, page 95.
We read about Imam Hassan Askari (a.s.) who was under strong observation in Samarra that he was partly in touch with his friends by letters, and surely violence of Mutawakkil Abbasi about Imam Askari (a.s.) was harsher than severity of Mu’tasim about Imam Javad (a.s.).
We read in the book “Rijal Kashi” that: “Imam Askari (a.s.) wrote a letter to Ishaq ibn Ismael and expressed lots of matters in that letter”.10
And we read in the book “History of Qom” that “Ahmad ibn Ishaq” went to Samarra in pilgrimage of Hajj and went to Imam Hassan Askari (a.s.).11
Therefore, being under observation of those superiors had never prevented them from contacting with people.
Moreover, if Imam Javad (a.s.) had been in conditions that could not write letter to Shiites, how could Ali ibn Mahzyar dare to say, in the same date, such a false statement that everyone knew about it?
