معصومه طاهریان قادی

Validation of traditions in different ages has been associated with differences. The late Shiites since the time of ′Allāmi Ḥillī have considered the first stage of examining hadiths to be Isnad evaluation, this has caused the weakness of a significant number of hadiths. Therefore, the early traditionists have been accused of tasāhul in Isnad investigations of hadiths (1). One of the prolific predecessors who has many hadith works in the 4th century is Sheikh Ṣadūq, who is also accused of not paying attention to the traditions sanad in the hadiths. Therefore, examining the position of the sanad in the validation of Sheikh Ṣadūq becomes important.

The present study has studied the extent and manner of using sanad reviews in the presence of Sheikh Ṣadūq with a descriptive-analytical method. For this purpose, the Rijāl opinions and the validation of Sheikh Sadūq were extracted from the books of Rijāl al-Najāshī (2), al-Fihrist Sheikh Ṭūsī (3), al-Rijāl Ibn Al-Ghaḍā′irī (4), Kitāb Man lā Yahḍuruhu al-Faqīh (5), Iˈtiqādāt al-Imamīyyah (6), aL-Khisāl (7), aL-Amālī (8), ˈUyūn Akhbār al-Rizā (9), ‘Ilal al-Sharī’ah (10), Kamāl al-Dīn wa Tamām al-Ni′mah (11), Fazāil al-Ashhur al-Thalāthah (12), aL-Tawhīd (13), Maˈānī al-Akhbār (14). and by analyzing them, the method of validating a sanad with Sheikh Sadūq was obtained.

Giving importance to the sanad has been one of the imperatives of Hadith for Sheikh Ṣadūq This is evident in his adherence to not mixing the traditions sanad in similar traditions, choosing the most correct Isnad, and mentioning the sanad in full in most of his traditions. The existence of the title of a Rijāl and hadith critic for Ṣadūq is another confirmation of the influence of the Isnad topics in the validation of the tradition in the eyes of this hadith scholar. Its feedback is evident in the distinction of narrators, the unification of different things and the distinction of commonalities, the validation and weakening of traditions, the expression of sect, and the anonymity of the narrator in the Ṣadūq sanads. The way of the involvement of Rijālī information in the validation of Ṣadūq can be traced in two areas: Isnad factors of the validity of hadiths to Ṣadūq and Isnad factors that undermine the validity of hadiths. Ṣadūq sees the weakness of a sanad in Irsāl and Inqiṭā’ of sanad, the impossibility of meeting the narrator and the person narrated from him, And the individuality of tradition from an unreliable person, the individuality of tradition from a reliable person in case of conflict, considers the narrator's lying (absolutely) and other weakness of Rijāl or the corruption of religion under the condition of conflict.  On the opposite side, the plurality of transmitters, the connection of the Isnad, mentions correct sanads as one of the Isnad factors of the validity of hadiths. In the performance of Ṣadūq, after bibliographic reviews, sanad assessment has priority over textual assessment. So that in case of textual conflict between two traditions with a valid sanad, he has not ruled that any of the conflicting parties is not correct and he has tried to accept the parties of the conflict by interpreting and carrying a narrative on the question of negation, specialization, etc.

In cases where it is clear to Ṣadūq that the tradition is falsified, he completely rejects the tradition and avoids quoting it؛ However, if it is not certain that the tradition is falsified, the weakness of the sanad alone is not the reason for rejection. In some cases, the weakness of the sanad causes the tradition to be rejected if an unreliable person is alone in narrating it, and in the second case, the tradition with a weak sanad is in conflict with the traditions with a valid sanad but without preference. Preferences such as permission and mention of the cause have been compensating for the weakness of the narrative sanad in the position of conflict. This has caused some weak narrators, narrators of the Sunni or corrupt sect to be present in the authentic sanads, but at the same time, in cases of conflict, it has been specified to reject the traditions of Sunni narrators and have a corrupt sect.

Until the 7th century, there has been no independent written work on Dirāyat al-Hadith (comprehension of the hadith) in Shiʿa. Still, the use of the technical terms related to the science of hadith and Dirāyah by earlier Shiite scholars is a major source for identifying the usage of this science in Shiʿa; an issue that has not been fully examined by researchers yet. So, by adopting a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims to show the application of a group of narrative expressions in the fourth century. The results suggest that some of the hadith terms have been used in the Shiite traditionists' works years before their official compilation and today's definitions of most of them are in conformity with their usages by earlier scholars. Also, in some cases, different uses of a term by earlier scholars have appeared in the form of its multiple meanings in the later scholars' works. However, regarding the hadith terms, there are differences between the earlier and later scholars that are due to their different views towards traditional discussions, as well as the validation and development of Dirāyat al-Hadith.

Sheikh Sadūq is accused of his in-disciplined influence from Shiite masters, so that some mention his use of Sunni masters as the reason for entering incorrect narrations into Shiite hadith sources. Based on a descriptive-analytical method, this research intends to show how Sheikh Sadūq uses his masters’ views, explaining his criterion in the extent and areas of influencing from his masters. Finding show that Sheikh Sadūq was influenced by Shiite masters in rijāl, belief, interpretation, lexicography, comprehending hadith, hadith criticism, and history. However, he used to be disciplined in his influence and was critical to their views. He also refrained of accepting any narration from Sunni masters, quoting them in order to prove the legitimacy of Shiite thought, the confession of the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt (AS), and the unity between Shi'as and Sunnis, while reflecting his critical views. Sadūq’s enough knowledge of Sunni jurisprudence caused him not to issue fatwas affected by Sunni masters. In non-jurisprudential issues, his reference to Sunni narrations was either in confirmation of Shiite narrations and beliefs or only in less important issues. Moreover, his Sunni masters did not play a role in transmitting narrations such as Sahw al-Nabī (prophet’s errors), distorting the Qur’an, and the seven letters.

There have been various methods of receiving ḥadīth in the earlier period, which are called methods of tolerating (learning with difficulty, Arabic: تحمل الحدیث) ḥadīth. The method of tolerating (learning with difficulty) through the validity of the ḥadīth has been effective in the tradition of obtaining ḥadīth. Although permission, correspondence and finding (Arabic: وجاده) as ways of tolerating ḥadīth have a lower validity than listening and reciting, but these methods have been used in the ḥadīth works of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq. This research has studied the application and validity of these three methods using descriptive-analytical method before Saduq to show his adherence in mentioning the methods and its effect on the validity of narrations. The results of this study show that permission in two absolute and conjugated (connected) types with other methods of tolerating the ḥadīth has a different degree of validity and only the validity of absolute permission is the subject of discussion. Al-Ṣadūq has resorted to the methods of absolute permission and correspondence due to lack of access to al-Shaykh or lack of time to listen to the ḥadīth. He has stipulated (clarified) through his unusual tolerating method with the word [we were informed, Arabic: اخبرنا, Romanized: ukhbirnā] and other statements in most cases. He believed in the invalidity (the lack of credibility) of finding (Arabic: وجاده) and has considered the finding valid only in the original version of the scripts (Arabic: التوقیع, Romanized: al-tawqī‘āt) with the Infallible's (al-Maʿṣūm) handwriting.

While investigating the isnads, 1) various titles of the same narrator and 2) the homonymous state of a name for different cases are among the obstacles against realizing the identity of the narrators. This study aims at knowing the title Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far. This name has been mentioned with different epithets in the isnad of traditions. Since only Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Ja‘farī was mentioned and authenticated in the early rijal books, the unity (and homonymy) of other epithets with it will cause the authentication of them. According to investigations done in this essay, the epithets of al-Ju‘fī, al-Jawharī, al-Ḥimyarī are shared with Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Ja‘fari. The absolute al-Ja‘farī (with no affix-like additions namely, neither preceded nor followed by something), when narrating from Imam Riḍā (the 8th Shi’a Imam) is this very same narrator. Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far al-Marwazī is a muṣaḥḥaf (misspelling, misreading, etc.) of Sulaymān ibn Ḥafṣ al-Marwazī. Therefore, the absolute version of Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far would be a narrator homonymous with al-Baṣrī and al-Ja‘farī. It seems, however, that Sulaymān ibn Ja‘far - when mentioned without an indication (qarīna) - naturally means al-Ja‘farī.

There is an account of the wedding of Imam Jawad and Umm al-Faḍl which, meanwhile, there happenned a debate between the Imam and Yaḥya b. Aktham. This paper aims to investigate the extant versions of the hadith in the Hadith, Tafsir, and historical sources and through the comparison find the main source of the Hadith and the authenticity of the Hadith could be evaluated. Three main sources of this account are 1) the Ali b. Ibrāhīm’s Tafsir, 2) Tuḥaf al-’Uqūl’s narration of Ali b. Ibrāhīm’s monograph on the wedding, which is not extant today, and 3) Shaykh Mufīd’s al-Irshād. The account is narrated in other Hadith books in two types of direct narration or quotation that implies the consensus of Shiite scholars on the event. The affirmation of the historical books in the wedding and the brief report of the event in Sunnite sources are the proof of the authenticity of the account.

Prayer is one of the spiritual causes in the world. But sometimes in answering it, obstacles are created and some are deprived of answering their prayer. The present article has examined the narrations related to non-answering prayers with a descriptive-comparative method. These narrations name a group of people whose prayers are not answered which are: Arif (governor), Ashar (tax collector), Darogheh owner of drums and tambourine, poet, one who curses his wife while he can divorce her, a person who curses his neighbor while he can change his house, a person who Loaned his money without taking a witness and his money was not returned, one who seeks sustenance from God without effort, one who prays in the severance of kinship and against his parents. The reasons for not answering Prayer are also mentioned in other narrations, which by matching those reasons with the narrations in question, the reason for the exclusion of these people is determined: Which includes the cruelty, laziness, and transgression of these people from the divine factors. And these are just a few examples of prayers that are not answered, and besides, other examples can be mentioned for this group.

One of the obvious characteristics of Shi’a hadiths is that they have been transmitted in writing; therefore, for the early scholars one of the validity assessment methods has been the investigation of the hadith sources. Recognition of the existing methods in this kind of validity assessment requires analysis the early scholars’ function. Having applied a descriptive-analytical method this article presents methods of distinguishing the written sources of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq and the kind of his treatment with these works. Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s way of validity assessment in the field of written hadiths can be divided in three categories: acceptance of the hadith-oriented source on the whole; rejection of the book wholly; and partial acceptance of the work. In these classifications such factors as a) identifying the correctness and incorrectness of the attribution of the book to the compiler, b) teachers and mentors (mashāyikh) of the compiler of the book, c) kind of the book content, d) method of receiving the book and transmitting it, e) validity rank of the copy of the book and f) the personality of the narrator (rāwī) of the book have been instrumental. It seems that the factors influencing in these classifications are true for other early scholars.

Credit is one of the important criteria for selecting and quoting narrations from Sheikh Sadough. However, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars of hadith that criterion has been considered in all their narrations and writings. The present article is descriptive-analytical, that examines the validity of various narrations in Sheikh Sadough’s works from his viewpoint. The findings show that he – except the book "Man la Yahzoror Faghih" which accepts the validity of its narrations - in other works, other criteria such as: occasion with the content of the book and style, consider that article and the credibility of the narrative has probably been his next priority. Also, since the subject of validity in medical, doctrinal, interpretive and moral narrations has not been as important as jurisprudential narrations, the main criterion for his selection has not been established. However, it should be noted that in most cases, Sheikh Sadough has chosen narrations for which "invalidity" has not been established. And whenever he narrates an invalid narration, he refers to the invalidity and possibly the reason for its narration.