session a dinar, and hence, I made the offering with it. In this way, I became the cause for Gods relenting toward the Muslims, since I acted as the revelation had required. Had no one acted upon the verse, punishment would have descended from God for the failure of everyone to act upon it.١٦١

This tradition is not included in the present published Jami , by al-Tirmidhi, nor have we succeeded in tracing this in any old manuscript of this compilation. Neither were we able to locate the commentary of al-Thaalibi, who has been-cited in all other works dealing with this subject; nor could we find it in any other place. Whatever the case, the injunction under consideration lasted only a short while and then it was abolished. No one put it into practice except the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, whose merit was manifested through that, regardless of whether the ordainment was actual or was meant to test the believers.

Open Prejudice in Muslim Traditions

Al-Razi found a reason to exonerate the leading Companions of the Prophet who had failed to carry out the injunction of the verse [concerning intimate conversations with the Prophet], even if they had had the time and still refrained from doing so. Thus he writes:

To carry out this requirement [of making voluntary offerings before conversing pri‌ vately with the Prophet] was something that caused anguish among the poor, who were not able to make the offerings ahd hence felt disheartened. It also caused distress in the hearts of the wealthy, because if one did not carry out the injunction and someone else did, that action was bound to become a cause for taunting the one who did not make the offerings. Consequently, refraining from this act, which became a cause for an‌ guish for the poor and distress for the wealthy, was not a great harm because anything that is the cause of harmony is preferable than the thing that causes estrangement. Moreover, the colloquy was neither an obligatory act nor a recommended duty. Rather, as we have pointed out, people were required to make the offerings so that they would refrain from seeking these privileged meetings. Since it was better to avert these meet‌ ings, abstaining from them could not be cause for criticism.١٦٢

Remarks on al-Razls Views

This apology from al-Razi does not explain the apparent sense of the passages of the Quran. Even if we were to disregard all the traditions [related] in this connection, anyone who is familiar with Arabic syntax would realize that Gods query "Are you afraid ... ?" is a reprimand for those who stayed away from conversing with the Prophet, whether that was done in fear of poverty or concern for wealth. Yet God forgives them for being remiss in the performance of their duty toward God and His Prophet, Stranger still is al-Razis earlier admission that among the benefits of this requirement is that it distinguishes those who love the Hereafter from those who are attached to this world, for wealth is the source of Gods trial and testing.
As for his claim that the requirement to offer alms was a cause of anguish for the poor and of distress for the rich, and that abstaining from such a practice was prefer-