نشریه حدیث حوزه
سال دهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 20، بهار و تابستان 1399)

of hadith scholarship and to consider the hadith-oriented studies from the aspect of ethics. It has been attempted in this writing to differentiate between the ethics of research and the method of the research and this way to extract - out of the general discussions of ethics of research - what is the urgent necessity of a hadith-oriented study and to make it compatible with and suitable for the atmosphere of hadith-oriented studies. The achievement of this study is collection and classification of hadith scholarship norms in the three sections of “topic finding”, “data finding as well as data scholarship” and “research report”. In the first section, observing the priority, proportion with one’s interest and ability, and the usefulness have been deemed the three ethical norms. In the second section, the comprehensive search, trustfulness, and complying with the truth, along with the working procedures to attain it have been mentioned. In the third section, the four ethical norms of truthfulness, regarding one’s colleagues’ rights, bravery associated with shrewdness, as well as not corrupting the addressee have been stated.

Considering the sublime status of the hadith and its role in the different Islamic knowledge, the certainty of its attribution to the Infallibles is of high importance. For this reason, the science of “criticism of hadith” (naqd al-ḥadīth) has for long been emphasized by the traditionists and other scholars. This validity assessment is carried out by applying different criteria whose results may slightly vary from one criterion to another. One of the most major hadith sources is the book al-Kāfī which is among the sources of the 4th/10th century and has received for long the attention of the traditionists and other scholars. Some of the scholars are of the opinion that all traditions contained in al-Kāfī are reliable. Some nonconformist contemporaries, however, consider most of its traditions as fabricated! Having applied a library-oriented method and a descriptive-analytical approach, the present research aims at investigating the amount of the fabricated traditions of this book. For this purpose, it has measured, at first, the criteria of validity assessment of hadith. Then it has dealt with studying the difference between the weakness of isnad and the fabrication of traditions. In the last step it has explored the amount of fabricated traditions in this book. The findings of this research indicate that the number of the fabricated traditions of this book is either zero or very few.

The issue of khums (one-fifth levy) that has been mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and the Shi’a and Sunni traditions, is among the important Islamic laws to which the jurisprudents and the traditionists of Muslim denominations have paid attention. The Shi’a and Sunni scholars are in a serious diversity of opinions with regard to the instances and also those to whom the khums belongs after Prophet Muhammad (s.‘a. w.). Therefore, the analysis of the issue of khums in the two books: al-Jāmi‘ al- Ṣaḥīḥ by al-Bukhārī and al-Kāfī by al-Kulaynī, as the two reliable hadith collections in the eyes of the Sunnites and the Shi’ites respectively, is the main subject of this study. Having applied an analytical-descriptive method, this study attempts to analyze and compare the hadiths of khums in these two books. Since in these two books – and in most of the tradition books compiled by the early scholars – the authors have made themselves content with just mentioning the hadiths, the analysis of the traditions of khums and the way of their arrangement in these two books provides one with a valid understanding of the intellectual atmosphere of their compilers and the issue of khums. Based on what this study concludes, both compilers have the same opinion about the obligation (wujūb) of khums and some issues that belong to it like buried treasures (dafā’in), booties (ghanā’im), and tribute (fay’). Al-Kulaynī, however, has included the section of khums in the part of Shi’a doctrines and creeds in the Chapter of Proof (kitāb al-ḥujja) of his al-Kafi and paid attention to the ownership of the Infallible Imam over the khums. Similarly, in al-Kāfi the gold and silver mines, as well as the surplus of one’s profit in trading and tilling are introduced as what to which khums is applicable. But al-Bukhārī has mentioned the khums among positive rules derived from the sources of legal knowledge (furū‘ fiqhiyya) and has included it in the Chapter of Jihad. In the discussion of the ownership of the khums, he makes himself content with such generalities as applying the attribute of “distributer” (qāsim) and does not go to its details.

The Infallible Imams (‘a.s.) are considered as the true exegetes of the Qur’an who have a central position and part in explanation, propagation and spread of the Qur’anic culture and teachings. Since the comprehension of the meanings of the Qur’anic verses depends on different factors including paying attention to its rhetoric discussions, there is no doubt that scrutiny and research in the rhetoric viewpoints of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a.s.) enjoys a considerable importance in explaining the meanings of the verses. For long the Shi’a thinkers have made remarkable efforts to comprehend the interpretative traditions and to realize their typology and methodology. With the purpose of explaining the expanse of the level of analyzing the verses by the Infallibles (‘a.s.) the present article intends to investigate one of their methodological dimensions which is emphasizing the structural semantic of the verses, the explanatory methods, and the rhetorical figures as. The outcome of this study is attaining the intellectual system of the Infallibles (‘a.s.) in the structural semantics of the Qur’anic statements and making clear the internal layers and shades by emphasizing the rhetorical purposes of its internal structures and components, as well as paying attention to the devices of trope, metaphor, metonymy, and esthetics of the verses with the criterion of rhetorical figures.

Ibn Bābawayh has narrated from Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (‘a.s.) on the authority of unknown narrators a long tradition about the exegesis of the Surah 212 of the Qur’an most of whose paragraphs have been attributed to other personalities in the sources of the (Islamic) sects. This tradition, with its composite textual features benefits from methods later than that of the Ḥurūfi (Literalist) exegesis for verses dealing with the Divine Unity. The relation of the text with its isnad is weak. Existence of the characteristics of philosophical and mystical schools and the late linguistic context which is incongruous with other traditions, confirm the invalidity of attribution of the entire tradition to the Imams. In his exegesis Abu ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī has attributed a tradition similar to this very tradition of Ibn Bābawayh with another isnad with many damages to Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (‘a.s.) and Ibn ‘Aṭā’. In another Sufi book called ‘Ilm al-Qulūb (knowledge of the hearts) sections from Ibn Bābawayh’s report has been attributed to Ja‘far al-Khuldī which seems to be due to oversight. Similarly, al-Māturīdī has narrated a small part of this tradition from the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali (‘a.s.), but he provided no isnads. The studies on the text and isnad of this tradition indicate that the tradition of Ibn Bābawayh and that of al-Sulamī originate from the same text which is dependent to the intellectual precedent of Khurasan and mostly matches the exegetical method of the Sufis.

The traditions in which the sentence “innamā yuḥallil al-kalām wa yuḥarrim al-kalām” (It is statements that make it lawful as well as unlawful) is contained, have been cited in different chapters of Islamic law (fiqh) including “bay‘” (trading), “muzāra‘a” (contract of share-cropping), “muḍāraba” (sleeping partnership), “nikāḥ” (marriage), and “‘itq” (setting free a slave). The major discussions made in these chapters with regard to the above traditions pertain to the validity of the formula (sīgha) in these contracts (‘uqūd). One of the discussions that have been neglected about these traditions is the investigation of them from the aspect of negation of validity of non-stipulated conditions (shurūṭ ghayr muṣarraḥa); that is whether or not this tradition has any denotation for lack of validity of non-stipulated conditions. Having referred to the sentence “innamā yuḥallil al-kalām wa yuḥarrim al-kalām” some of the jurisprudents have claimed that the non-stipulated conditions are not valid and that merely the condition that has been declared verbally can be effectual. As for the meaning of such traditions, the jurisprudents have mentioned different probabilities. The only probability that proves the above claim is that the term “kalām” (statement) would mean “lafḍ” (word) and that the term “innamā” would denote “ḥaṣr” (restriction). Having applied a descriptive-analytical method and having made use of library-oriented data, this article concludes – by investigating the isnad and denotation of this tradition – that such a probability is invalid and the above traditions cannot question the validity of non-stipulated conditions.

In past years different articles have leveled criticism at the Shi’a hadiths. One of the works written to criticize the Shi’a hadiths is the book “Ḥadīth al-Manzila” by Muhammad Sālim al-Khidr. The author has criticized the isnad and denotation of the well-known hadith “anta minni bi-manzilat Hārūn min Musā” (You – i.e. ‘Ali – are in the same position with respect to me – i.e. Muhammad – as Aaron was to Moses except that there is no prophet after me). He has also analyzed the issuance atmosphere of the above hadith historically and exegetically. Among the weak points this book suffers from, mention can be made of: inattention to the fundamentals of validity assessment of Shi’a hadith, superficiality in analyses, and the confusion of the theological, historical and exegetical data with specialized discussions of hadith. This article introduces the above book and explains its weak points and strong points to pave the way for criticism of the book by [the scholars of] hadith.