The Inconsistent Blunder of Muḥaqqiq Ardabīlī and Fāḍil Ardabīlī Concerning Kulaynī's Master.

The late Kulaynī, in his Al-Kāfī, has profusely related ḥadīth through his master, Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl b. Shādhān, to the extent that some have counted them to be 831 traditions. Muḥaqqiq Ardabīlī (d. 993/1585) has regarded Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl b. Bazī‘ as Kulaynī’s master and Fāḍil Ardabīlī (d. 1101/) believes that Kulaynī has narrated ḥadīth from Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl Barmakī.In this article, both approaches have been refuted with a descriptive-statistical method and proved that Kulaynī has related ḥadīth from Ibn Bazī‘ through three or at least two intermediaries. If it is meant to be the Ibn Bazī‘ who died in the lifetime of Imam al-Jawād (A.S.), then the late Kulaynī must have been contemporary to Imam al-Riḍā (A.S.) up to Imam al-Mahdī (A.S.). With this assumption, he had managed to meet the Imams (A.S.) in person and narrated the traditions directly or at least through one intermediary from them, since the sublimity of sanad and small number of intermediaries are intended-for and desirable. Nevertheless, Kulaynī was from a generation after Barmakī and always related ḥadīth from him through Muḥammad b. Ja‘far Asadī. Delving into various evidences, the present article seeks to confirm the view that the late Kulaynī’s master had been Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl Bandaqī Nayshābūrī.