فصلنامه شیعه پژوهی
پیاپی 17 (پاییز و زمستان 1398)

58 letters from Imam al-Ṣādiq has been identified in sources, including his long letter to al-Najjāshī, al-Mansur al-‘Abbasi’s (d. 775/158 AH) agent in Ahvaz. Categorized as an essay of politics, the letter is concerned with how the ruler should interact with his subjects. It might serve as a model for the regulation of relations between rulers and their underlings. The present paper seeks to consider and analyze the letter as far as its sources and text are concerned. The full text of the essay has first appeared in the book, al-Arba‘un Hadith fi Huquq al-Ikhwan by Ibn Zuhra al-Ḥalabī (d. 1236/634 AH), a 13th century scholar, then it appeared in other sources, particularly those of the Safavid Era, and was referred to as Risalat al-Ahwaziyya. As to its content, the letter has two different sections with separate discourses: one focusing on people’s rights and the other on the believer’s rights. I conclude that since the letter is ignored in older texts and it is just cited in a later source, and since its text involves two different discourses, part of the letter is inauthentic, apparently added to the original letter. One such addendum is the part in which Khūzīs are reproached, which seems to be added to letter in consequence of rivalries among active groups of the society in 8th century (2nd AH).

Hishām ibn Sālim was a prominent Shiite theologian in 8th (2nd AH) century. He created one of the two intellectual currents of the time along with Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam. He grew in the Theological School of Kufa, leaving a precious heritage in Shiite kalam. A variety of theological views are ascribed to him, one of the most controversial among which is his monotheistic view, which led to accusations of divine corporeality (tajsīm) and divine anthropomorphism (tashbīh) against him. Writers of sects, including al-Ash‘arī, referred to him as a theorist of divine corporeality and anthropomorphism. In his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, al-Ash‘ari counts him as an anthropomorphist. His scholarly heritage, however, presents us with a different picture of his monotheist view, involving the belief in God’s oneness. In his theorization, nevertheless, because of the freshness of the science of kalam, he deployed terminologies that might imply divine corporeality and anthropomorphism. These were corrected when he presented his views to Imam al-Ṣādiq.

An innovative idea propounded by Ṭabāṭabā’ī concerning the theory of fiṭra (innate nature) is the extension of its functions to Islamic theology, sociology, and epistemology. His students later theorized about the issue in supportive and critical camps: some have admitted the requirements of innate nature besides reason, trying to develop the foundations and consequences of the theory of innate nature, while others adopted a critical approach, reducing innate nature to reason, and thus, ignoring the theory. Supporters include Muṭahharī, Javādī Āmulī, Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, and Ja‘far Subḥānī. They have contributed to the literature with a delineation of the concept of “innate nature,” its different kinds, ways of proving the theory, refinement of the subject-matter of innate nature, human beings have double innate natures, and negation of human essential misery. On the contrary, “fiṭra” is sometimes interpreted as a Qur’anic term for thought and reason, and sometimes as people’s innate tendency to the sacred, which is substantiated by some Western psychologists of religion accepted by some contemporary Shiite intellectuals. Inaccuracy of these critical conceptions is attested by a history study of the background of the theory of innate nature in the Islamic tradition.

Non-prophets’ knowledge of the hidden (‘ilm al-ghayb) is a theological issue with which Muslim scholars have for long been concerned, offering different accounts thereof. Throughout history, some Sunni scholars have attacked the Shi‘a because they ascribe knowledge of the hidden to non-prophets, including their Imams, taking the view to amount to polytheism and exaggeration. A reference to the work of prominent Sunni scholars and first-hand Sunni sources of hadiths, including Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, leads to a different conclusion, however. In this paper, I cite scholars and hadiths from the two Ṣaḥīḥs in order to show that (1) the belief in non-prophets’ knowledge of the hidden is not exclusive to the Shi‘a and (2) the theological foundation of the Shiite belief in the Imam’s knowledge of the hidden has, in addition to intra-religious evidence, been supported by prominent Sunni scholars as well, and (3) it will turn out that accusations of exaggeration and polytheism against the Shi‘a come from religious biases against them.

Although all Islamic denominations agree upon tawassul (recourse to divine saints), they disagree over its limits. Recourse to divine saints after their deaths, and in their life in barzakh, is a controversial issue. Research in this area often tends to be based on transmitted evidence. The present paper considers recourse to divine saints during their life in barzakh in purely rationalistic terms—in terms of Sadraean psychological principles. Prima facie, it seems that some psychological principles of Ṣadrā can be deployed in favor of Wahhabism—in defense of rational impossibility of such recourse. The strong dependence of the soul on the body in the theory of corporeal incipience (al-ḥudūth al-jismānī) of the soul seems to support the Wahhabi theory of “the dead as almost inexistent.” Moreover, the body’s instrumentality for the soul is, prima facie, evidence for their inability to do actions and impossibility of their hearing. On the other hand, multiplicity of the soul’s bodies and the existence of imaginal body in the inferior layer, and in a sense, over the material body, supports the rational possibility of life in barzakh. The idea that the material world is encompassed by the imaginal world (‘ālam al-mithāl), and Mullā Ṣadrā’s account of ultimate human perfection in its union with Active Intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘‘āl)—rationally enabling any manipulation in the material world regardless of bodies—pave the path for recourse to divine saints in life in barzakh and asking them for help.

Ahmad al-Hasan’s followers consider dreams as the closest way of knowing the Imam. The paper deploys a library method to investigate the veridicality and reliability of dreams in principles and ancillaries of the religion. I provide descriptions and analyses to conclude that if a non-Infallible’s dream does not yield certainty or if certainly is not essentially reliable, then it cannot be cited as evidence and is not reliable, because in these two cases, dreams will yield probabilistic belief. Now since such beliefs are treated as unreliable by default—and only exceptional cases of probabilistic beliefs are reliable—and since probabilistic beliefs obtained from dreams are not exceptional cases, dreams should count as unreliable.

Muhammad ‘Abid al-Jabiri (1936-2010) is a contemporary Arab intellectual who particularly contributed to developments of understanding the history of Islam. Al-Jabiri’s Shiite studies are results of his research about Shiism which can be found here and there in his work. This paper seeks to answer the following question: What are parameters of relation between Shiism and Sufism in al-Jabiri’s view? The paper aims at providing an articulation of al-Jabiri’s view of the identity of factors leading to origination of Shiism and Sufism, as well as his identification of Shiism and Sufism. Then we embark on a critique of al-Jabiri’s view. The method of this paper is to formulate al-Jabiri’s view of Shiism-Sufism relation and to criticize it by providing an analysis thereof. Al-Jabiri has a flawed understanding of Shiism, and as a consequence, his account of Shiism is defective. He enumerates certain parameters of the two intellectual currents in order to ground their identification, but his parameters do not suffice to support the identification claim. Therefore, al-Jabiri’s conception of Shiism and Sufism is susceptible to serious objections.

Throughout the history of Islamic Sufism and mysticism, in general, and in the School of Khorasan, in particular, the Shiite Imams were assigned a special place as doctrinal and mystical exegetes of Islam and heads of Sufi and mystical orders. Qāḍī Nūr Allāh Shushtarī, a prominent Shiite scholar, made tremendous efforts at identifying the roots of this phenomenon in Sufi works and thoughts. He concludes that many Sufi mystics and masters believed in “doctrinal Shiism” or at least “passionate Shiism,” although they seemed to belong to the Sunni jurisprudential and theological school. On al-Shushtarī’s criteria, it seems that Jāmī, the great Naqshbandi mystic and poet, can count as belonging to this type of Shiism. Notwithstanding this, Qāḍī Nūr Allāh dismisses the idea, going so far as to consider Jāmī as an enemy of Shiism and the Shi‘a. This paper is concerned with semiotics of contexts and evidence for Jāmī’s Shiite tendencies and interests, as he never fell short of praising and celebrating the Household of Prophet Muhamad, on the one hand, and theological and historical grounds of Qāḍī Nūr Allāh’s discontent of Jāmī because of the latter’s unkind treatment of his contemporary Shi‘a and his failure to sympathize with Shiite or Shi‘a-leaning mystics, as well as his sarcastic remarks about Abū Ṭālib and people of Rafḍ and differences between mystical approaches of Qāḍī Nūr Allāh and Jāmī, on the other hand.

Burqi‘ī (1908-1993) was a Qur’anist clergy who criticized Shiite beliefs. He cites unreliable hadiths to argue that al-Kulaynī, some other Shiite scholars of hadiths, and the Shi‘a in general believe in “distortion of the Qur’an.” In this paper, we consider Sayyid Abu-l-Faḍl al-Burqui‘ī’s views of the distortion of the Qur’an, appraising its accuracy or inaccuracy. In this paper, the data are collected through a library method and have been processed via a descriptive-analytic method. The Shi‘a have numerous reasons to believe in the Qur’an’s immunity from distortion. In addition to many prominent Shiite figures who have pointed to its protection from distortion, impartial Sunni scholars have rejected accusations of Qur’anic distortion against the Shi‘a. Burqi‘ī cites the book, Faṣl al-Khiṭāb, as evidence for his accusation of Quranic distortion against the Shi‘a, while many Shiite scholars have written books in rejection of Faṣl al-Khiṭāb. One problem with Burqui‘ī is his lack of historical view of the issue and his failure to consider the main motivation of authors of hadith books, that is, collection of hadiths and prevention of their destruction.

Bāṭiniyya is characteristic of Isma‘ilis, with which they are distinguished from other Islamic sects and denominations. Since the Isma‘ili denomination and its beliefs were formed in a particular historical period and subsequently developed in later periods, the grounds and course of the Isma‘ili tendency toward Bāṭiniyya can elucidated through a consideration of the early formative period of the denomination and historical conditions that have influenced it. This paper argues that the original core of Isma‘ili beliefs was formed in virtue of Isma‘il’s different political approach, but as a result of peculiar historical and political conditions of the time, his successors had to live in hiding and conceal their denominational and political beliefs. This significant period of the Isma‘ili history, known as the Period of Concealment, left remarkable impacts on the nature and attitude of the Isma‘ili denomination. As a result of the dominant discourse of the Islamic community of the time and in rivalry with other denominations, Isma‘ilis tended to offer evidence from the Qur’an and the Tradition to substantiate their denominational and political claims. Thus, they turned to esoteric interpretations (ta’wīl) of the religion and came to be dubbed “Bāṭiniyya” (advocates of inner esoteric interpretations) as a result of their excessive deployment of such interpretations.

Mullā Ḥusayn Kāshifī’s Rawḍat al-Shuhadā’ [Garden of the Martyrs] is an influential book as a narration of the Event of Karbala. The book was, however, under attack because it contained unreliable hadiths as well. In this paper, our focus is on his unique narrations—the ones that first appeared in this book and were later cited in other sources. The book’s story of al-Husayn’s martyrdom is sometimes incompatible with the tradition, reason, and commonsense as well as other historical accounts or indubitable events. Moreover, there are cases where the book undermines the status of the Infallible Imam or his family such that its straightforwardness makes the work baseless. It is important to deal with this book because it became a foundation for narrations of Shiite scholars in the five centuries following its writing. Furthermore, it influenced certain Shiite beliefs. In this paper, we deploy an analytical-critical approach to appraise remarkable distortions in the book.

Ashura was considered by authors throughout the history as an identity element for the Shi‘a. During the Qajar period, more and more attention was devoted to Ashura given the dominant denominational tendencies of the time. Assuming that writings in each society reflect its cultural condition, this paper deploys a text-based approach and an analytic-descriptive method in order to answer the following question: what was the approach of Qajar-era historians to Ashura, and why did it arise? The research concludes that historians of the period were influenced by the dominant context of their society, particularly early decades of the Qajar period and Iran-Russia wars, as a result of which they adopted an epic approach. In later decades, because of their sympathy with the government and public beliefs, many of their reports highlighted thoughtless emotions, considering apparent order and glory and a predetermined destinies in Ashura and elsewhere.