The writer says that the resort to reason is due to the lack of tradition or a fraud in tradition. Well, then what is the way to reach the truth if reason is rejected? What is heard might be wrong; what is said might be commentitious; what is told could be deceptive; well, then to what alternative should one resort to as a dernier one? In every dispute, reason has often stood powerful and strong. But on what reason the writer is not willing to entertain a reason is astonishing enough.
In any case, supposing there is any deviation in a tradition this would not amount to say that every tradition is invalid. What is false would not be so impetus as to nullify the fact. If in a bundle one thing happens to be short, it would not mean that the whole bundle is missing. Likewise, if an argument lames it cannot be said that reason cannot pace. In a human life hearing or oral evidences have a great influence? It is from this hearing that one garners knowledge, collects acquaintance with sciences, treasures information and holds it as a rod for aid.
It is an irrefragable fact that in every age the market of false and fraud has had been flourishing, very much profitable, very much prolific. Still no one has denied the value of oral communications. A general consensus has approved oral evidences and oral proofs. This too cannot be denied that everything does not undergo the load of reason as, it is only accustomed to the yoke of proof that should be audible.
Besides, things pertaining belief or a faith like the prophet hood of the prophets, and the Imamate of the Imams, or the Day of Judgment, or the Next world one should create certitude in them. Else any proof, any evidence, any testimony would not help because it is not in their range to create a belief. If a narrator has narrated and the source of his story is only one it should be attested by the standard of that only source and should be an argumentally established one. Else, such narration cannot be trusted.
After this prelude we go back again to the issue of Ghaybat (absence) of the Imam and his Imam-hood. To trust we need the source of the stories or the narration that surround this subject to be trustworthy and reliable. Who can be more so than the very person of the Prophet himself? If what we hear does not convince us we revert to reason. What is wrong in it?
If he says all the news and the hidings and the narration are fabricated ones, deprived of reality and bereft of truth, from the side of Bani Ummayah and Bani Abbas, that is, by their courts and courtiers, to obnubilate the real status of the Imams and to consolidate their own stations, that is, to propagate after than realities and spread a mist so that the mentalities could not visualize further it could serve a fortress to them necessary for their safety.
No one denies this. Yes, it was so; and, indeed, such they worked. But to what end? All such fabricated stories, false narration, fake sayings, flame words, and feigned traditions are distinguished.
Therefore, they are sifted from the real and authentic ones, as grains from dust. Besides, the narrators too who were hired for this mission are pretty much discredited into their biographies and they are no more credible in the science of Hadith (tradition). They are discarded. When distinction is drawn between the truth and the false it is not a problem to ascertain the correct one from the wrong.
The credibility of the traditions that pertain the Imamate established. This subject is a vast one, which opens wider avenues of discussion before us. The enemy of the Shia has in every age taken stand against them. The writer says that the narration and traditions are all false and fabricated ones. If so, why the enemy at every time and in every era of a caliph whether he be from Bani Ummayah or he be from Bani Abbas? Why were the people restricted from telling and hearing the traditions (that is the Prophet’s words) that mirrored the real station of the Imams and reflected their tributes?
They are lies. Why care? Why be afraid of lies? A lie lives shorter than truth. A lie is always lame. A lie cannot form a dread. The Bani Ummayahs and Bani Abbas even imprisoned those who only narrated what they had heard from the Prophet (S) about any of the twelve Imams. They confiscated the belongings of those persons. We just ask Why? The writer is claiming that the traditions were a fraud. Volumes are written about the atrocities of the caliphs because of the traditions which the scholars spoken or wrote and the poets sang all in the praise of the Prophet’s Household - the Imams.
Even the Sunni authorities, like Bukhari has written in his book Saheeh about Imam Sadiq (as), he first curses them who had restricted the narration of such traditions. He says: “God curse them for turning down the truth.” Abu Hanifa, a student of Imam Sadiq (as) too admits the greatness of the truth surrounding the Prophet’s Household, the Ahlul Bait. But all this is a lie to the writer. We leave him to Bukhari.