One of the harms of conceit is that it weakens one's reliance on the favor of Allāh, the most Blessed, the most Exalted. Those who admire their deeds fall into a severe darkness and peril, so much so that if one mentions one of the favors of Allāh and His infinite mercy, they deny it, as if they love that Allāh, Praise to Him and Exaltation, deals with His servants according to His justice, so these admirers may be the ones who receive salvation, according to their claim, and their endeavor in undertaking good deeds will not go to waste.
In other words, the ailment of conceit creates in the conceited persons the ailment of envy, too. If we apply an impossible supposition, that is, if they are saved through Allāh's justice, they do not wish the rest of people to be saved through His favor. Although they are deeply immersed in sins, nay, they are the personification of sins and offenses, if these individuals hear someone saying that Allāh, Praise to Him, forgives whomsoever He pleases and pays no attention to anyone, nor is He concerned about him, instead of being pleased and happy with such a statement, they may deny it inwardly though they may not articulate it.
They thus object to Allāh about why the Praised One should thus forgive! In fact, [according to them] He does not forgive, because if he forgives others, what is the difference between them, those who exhausted themselves on the paths of asceticism and adoration, and those who did not? They are as the Commander of the Faithful (ع) described: "He fears for others on account of what is less than his own sin, hoping to get more than his deed [is worthy of], magnifying the offense of others while underestimating what he himself commits. He magnifies his acts of obedience while underestimating the same when done by others."
As a result of this disease, the admirers reject most narratives on the side of anticipation narrated by Ahl al-Bayt (ع), especially with regard to their Shi'ites. They either reject them or interpret them with some of their own views and interpretation. For this there are many evidences. We would like to state one of them as an example:
The great master, Ibn Tawoos, may Allāh be pleased with him, has stated in his book, Al-Iqbāl, a tradition from Imām Ali ibn Mousa al-Rida (ع) about the virtue of the Ghadīr Day. In it, the following is stated: "Allāh orders in it the honored scribes not to record the sins of those who love and follow Ahl al-Bayt for three days starting on the Ghadīr Day, not to record any of their sins in honor of Muhammad, Ali, and the Imāms (peace be with them), all of them."
This tradition is one of hundreds of similar ones the recording en masse from Ahl al-Bayt is definitive, and they have a sequentially narrated meaning, but they are heavy on the taste of those among the worshippers and ascetics who think that they are holy and who admire their deeds, so they cast doubt about them under the guise of defending the creed. They say that such narratives permit some people to commit offenses during the three Ghadīr days, relying on this narrative.
In making such a statement, they really are not concerned about the creed; rather, the root of this confusion, as we pointed out, is the disease of conceit. Since they rely on their deeds, seeing themselves as being in no need for divine care, they feign sorrow for the creed. But they doubt a man of divinity and spirituality, such as Ibn Tawoos, who has a moral contact with the supreme spiritual kingdom, something which is admitted by all scholars and great Muslims, and the same doubt they apply to the great traditionist, al-Majlisi, and other great men of the creed.
But their sectarian fanaticism is actually much greater than their concern. They believe they definitely protect the creed more than these holy men. But these men have recorded this tradition and similar ones in their books and were not concerned about some readers having the "courage" to charge them with offense. These "nurses that are more merciful than the mothers", or the branches that are superfluous to the main root, defend the sanctities of the creed. They claim the recording of this tradition and its likes causes people to dare to transgress.
These vain claimants must be told that the curtain of seeing the soul and its adoration obstructs belief in these facts; otherwise, there is no room to dislike such narratives, and there is no room for confusion. What, then, is the difference between a written sin being forgiven and not being written in the first place? Are there no clear verses and consecutively reported narratives that say that Allāh Almighty forgives all sins, including the sin of shirk when combined with repentance, if He wills, even if one sinned for seventy years?
The One Who forgives the sins of seventy years and wipes them out through a signal from Him, the most Exalted One, does not only wipe out sins but, according to the manifestation of the attribute of "O One Who changes wrong deeds with good deeds!", replaces a sin with a good deed. Allāh changes their sins into good deeds… Should such obvious verses and authentic narratives cause people to dare to sin, let that narrative, too, be as such?!
Any answer which you provide about these verses and narratives we respond to it by contrasting it with this narrative, and what we have stated underscores the scholarly term.
As for the resolving answer and analysis in the issue, one who truly loves Ali (ع) is during the Ghadīr days immersed in an ocean of happiness and elation. Just as one who is immersed in the sea, surrounded by the tumultuous sea waves does not accept any outside filth, nor does filth affect him nor makes him dirty, in the sense that water overwhelms him and surrounds him from all sides, so it does not permit filth to bear any impact on him…, so is the case with the Ghadīr days.
They do not permit room for offense's impact which is in the sense of writing and confirming, nor does it necessitate crossing the borders, either: One who loves Ali (ع) by instinct shies away from transgressing. If a sin is committed by him, it is by virtue of the overpowering nature and external obstacles.
He, having committed a sin, even during committing a sin, is ashamed of it, regretting it, which is one of the important factors for the sin having no effect and necessitating Allāh's forgiveness, not only during those three days but in all days, during the entire life-span. The reality of repentance is nothing but this. Repentance is regret, and this is what our Lord, the Almighty, has decreed. Anyone who does not accept Allāh's decrees and rulings can do whatever he wants, whatever he can.
Based on the above, there is no room in the narrative for any direction, for any affectation, which has been committed by some of those who say that this narrative and its likes is negative because the subject rejects such a conclusion in the sense that one who loves Ali (ع) during these days commits no sin. Or, as some have committed, according to what has been transmitted by observers from among the sects of the difference between a sin and an offense, it is said that the offense is the one that is not recorded. As for the sin, it is recorded.
Based on this trend, they had a problem passing a judgment on al-Majlisi, criticizing him for having interpreted the offenses referred to in the narrative as the sins in his book Zād al-Ma1ād. The summary of what they say is that they made a distinction between the offense and the sin. They say that the transgression is the sin that is done on purpose, while the offense is the sin that is done unintentionally, unwillingly.
What is stated in the narrative is that what is not recorded during the three Ghadīr days is the offense, the sin that is done unintentionally, unwillingly, not the transgression that is pre-meditated, done on purpose, pre-determined, for it is called a sin, not an offense. But this distinction is unnecessary absurdity because a "sin" in the books of language means the absolute transgression, whether it is on purpose or without. But there is disagreement about the offense: Is it the absolute sin undertaken on purpose, as is stated in Al-Munjid? In the latter reference, this text exists: "An offense is a sin, and some say it is done deliberately."
The same exists in Muntaha al-Arab; so, one can refer to them if he wishes. What is added to the above is derived from its linguistic meaning. This term, the offense, is used in the Qur'ān in more than twenty places, and most of these places cannot convey the sense of a sin done unintentionally or unwillingly such as these verses of the Almighty:
"… Nor does he have any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds which none eat except those in sin" (Qur'ān, 36-37)";
"… And Pharaoh, and those before him, and the overthrown cities, all committed habitual sin" (Qur'ān, 69:9); "… A lying, sinful forelock!" (Qur'ān, 96:16);
"Surely those who seek gain in evil and are engulfed in their sins are the companions of the Fire: they shall dwell in it (forever)" (Qur'ān, 2:81);
"Because of their sins, they were drowned and were made to enter the Fire (for punishment)" (Qur'ān, 71:25).
So, how can all these places where Allāh, Praised is He, makes such strong threats convey the meaning that an offense is the sin that is done unintentionally or unwillingly?! How could Pharaoh or the people of Noah or other sinners have committed their sins unwillingly, unintentionally?!
Even if you overlook all of these, what is the meaning of forgiveness for an offense that is done unintentionally or unwillingly during these three days although the narrative refers to a status of gratitude, whereas such forgiveness is not restricted to it? It is apparent that these trends and explanations are unacceptable.
They remind one of the Persian axiom which says, "… like one who composes poetry but is unable to come up with a rhyme scheme!" The imām of the nation, the leader of the Islamic revolution, imām al-Khomeini, may his blessings endure, has made statements on the occasion of the narratives cited about the virtue of weeping out of fear of Allāh which I would like to quote for more benefit: