فصلنامه علوم حدیث
سال بیستم شماره 3 (پیاپی 77، پاییز 1394)

Fasting on the Day of ‘Ashura has constantly been under attention of Sunni scholars, and at the same time has been a controversial discussion among the Shi‘a scholars. The cause of this difference was the existence of two groups of traditions in Shi‘a hadith literature about this subject. This article intends to examine the isnâd (transmission chain) of these traditions and cast a glance at the content of them in a descriptive analytical-critical method with the purpose of familiarity with these two groups of traditions,and to verify their validity.
The findings of the present research denote that the fasting on the Day of ‘Ashura had prevailed before the fast of Ramadan was legislated, but it was forsaken later.
Some of the traditions forbidding the fasting on the Day of ‘Ashura are weak from the aspect of transmission chain, however, they collectively seem stronger than the traditions that permit this fasting, and conform better with the reported sîrah (conduct) of the Imams after the heart-rending Event of ‘Ashura. Furthermore, the fact that Shakh Kulaynî contented himself with merely narrating the permitting traditions, can be deemed an evidence for the validity decrease of permitting traditions in his opinion.

There exist traditions in hadith texts speaking of “presenting the ta’wîlî (interpretative) traditions to the Book of God”. These traditions are considered as suggesting a strategy and a criterion, also accepted by Islamic scholars, to verify the authenticity of traditions.
On the other hand, there exist in the Islamic literatures, traditions containing teachings called ta’wîl (interpretation), and it is of the bâṭinî (esoteric) type of it (i.e. ta’wîl). These teachings which are ascribed to the Qur’anic verses and possibly are their ta’wîl, have, at the first glance, no congruence with the ẓâhir (outward meaning) of the Qur’an. It is said that considering the narrations in which mention has been made of the Ahl al- Bayt's mastery of ta’wîl, and the traditions in which it has been claimed that the Qur’an has baṭn (an inner layer of meaning), it is understood that these teachings are the same baṭn and ta’wîl.
This article intends to analyze the relation between the ẓâhir of the Qur’an and baṭinî ta’wîls (interpretations of the inner layer of the meaning). The writer believes that by ta’wîl and baṭn, in this group of traditions, it is not meant that they are infra-linguistic, rather (proves that) a number of them are incongruent with the ẓâhir of the Qur’an, and a group of them are beyond the realm of the technical sense of ta’wîl.

In this research the traditions are classified in four groups: 1) verbal allegiance along with bodily action, 2) bodily action, 3) verbal allegiance, 4) permissibility of shaking non-mahram women (or men) by the hand under the condition of existence of a cover (e.g. gloves, etc. as an impediment to direct touch).
By studying the content of those traditions it is concluded that many of (seemingly) contradictory traditions are indeed complements to one another and can be brought together. Only those traditions are unacceptable that denote permissibility of shaking hands (with a non-mahram) without there be an impediment to direct touch. In addition, the effects of the verse (Q 60:12) on these traditions become clear, because on the one hand the atmosphere of paying allegiance to the Prophet (S) by the women is elucidated by different groups of traditions, and on the other hand the authenticity of the related traditions can be examined by studying the cause of revelation of this verse.

which is a tradition ascribed to Imam Ali (A.S) mentioned in literatures having a mystical approach, has at times been explained in the mystical and philosophical heritage and about which many monographs have been written on occasion. This fact that emphasizes the necessity of evaluation of this tradition, is studied this article.
The investigations indicate that Ibn Ṭalḥh Shâfi‘î living in the seventh/eleventh century was the first person who considered in his book “al-Durr al-munaẓẓam fî al-sirr al-a‘ẓam” this sentence as Imam Ali’s discourse. However, neither he nor later scholars who deemed the sentence attributed to the Imam have mentioned any evidence (or isnâd) for their
claim. On the other hand such individuals as ‘Ayn al-Quât Hamadânî, Sam‘ânî, Ibn ‘Arabî and Sa‘îdud-din Furghanî have deemed it the words of Shiblî, the Sufi. At the same time Abu Sa‘d Khargûshî in his Tahdhîb al- Asrâr, Abu ’l-Qâsim Qushayrî in his al-Risâlah al-Qushayriyyah, Ghazzâlî in his Iḥy⒠al-‘Ulûm , and ‘Aṭṭâr Nayshâbûrî in his Tadhkirat al-Awliyâ’
believe that it is the discourse of an unknown contemporary of Shiblî.
In addition, non-existence of dots in the Arabic script in the early Islam,the history of adding dots in the Muṣḥafs, and adding dots as diacritic marks to them, as well as the Muṣḥafs free of dots attributed to the Infallibles (A.S)
in the first/seventh century, non-application of the (term) “dot” in its technical meaning in the traditions and finally, the fact that the narrative supporters (of this attribution) are weak and fail to denote the above claim,all of these make one question the attribution of this tradition to the Commander of the Faithful (A.S). All of these issues are examined in this article.

The hadith of the Infallibles has constantly been one of major sources in inferring the religious knowledge and teachings in various ranges. Attention to this category has preoccupied certain Twelver Shi‘a scholars, namely the traditionists and text-inclined scholars who were committed not to transgress the specified limits of the traditions. Based on this, they just attempted in such different fields as theology, exegesis, jurisprudence, etc. to present their system of thought through transmitting and classifying the text of hadiths.
Presenting the thought within the narrative texts in an implicit way and failure in specifying it has caused difficulty in its recognition.
Muhammad b. Hasan Ṣaffâr, the compiler of the book Baṣâ’ir al-Darajât,is one of text-inclined scholars who has attempted to expose his approach in the realm of doctrines, and Imamate in particular to the public view in his book.
An analysis on his way in dividing the book in chapters and putting similar narrative texts together shows that his basic concerns in the field of Imamate scholarship was the necessity of existence of the Imam, as well as his characteristics. Among these characteristics Ṣaffâr highly emphasizes on the knowledge of the Imam and the relevant issues like the sources,obtaining mediums, and scope of his knowledge along with the Imam’s power.

The expression “yûnusî” used for certain Shi‘a hadith transmitters in Shaykh Ṭûsî’s Kitâb al-Rijâl is a disputable and likely unclear expression in the Shi‘a Rijal literature. Certain researchers defined the expression as “tilmîdh Yûnus” (Yûnus’s pupil) and “min aṣḥâb Yûnus” (from among Yûnus’s companions or adherents) denoting either censuring the transmitter
or praising him. Based on the investigations accomplished in the present research this understanding may not be right and the above definitions cannot elucidate and specify the exact meaning of the expression in question.
Scrutiny of the relationship between instances of transmitters - about whom such an expression had been applied - and Yûnus b. `Abd al-Raḥmân,and the role they played in propagating the beliefs of Yûnus shows that the expression “yûnusî” (used for a number of hadith transmitters) denotes in its correct and exact meaning that the transmitter was a distinguished personality from the aspect of adhering to a particular theological sect
attributed to Yûnus that at least in the eyes of certain hadith masters of Qum
signified the transmitter’s censure.

Many of the surviving works belonging to the Nuṣayryya denomination in the middle AH centuries contain countless quotations of the lost legacy of the Ghulât (extremists) of Kufa on which one can rely as intermediate.resources in retrieving the content of that legacy and consequently, the immediate understanding of the Ghulâ’s teachings. Kitâb al-Aẓilla is an instance of this kind of the Ghulât’s legacy paragraphs of which are accessible through the medium of four old texts of the Nuṣayriyya denomination. Determining the aproximate date of compilation of these intermediate works can be helpful in dating the Kitâb al-Aẓilla and even in recognizing its author. Textual existing evidences confirm that these resources had been compiled in the third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries,and this way it can be said that Kitâb al-Aẓilla dates back to a time earlier than the second/eighth or third/ninth century. Mention has been made of the three compilers of Kitâb al-Aẓilla in the Imami bibliographical references: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isâ Ash‘arî Qummî, ‘Abd al-Raḥmân b. Kathîr Hâshimî and Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. Sinân Zâhirî, namely the authors
whose age of life coincides with the estimated time span of compilation of the book under discussion.
Based on the isnâds (transmission chains) available in Nusayrî resources (as access channels) to Kitâb al-Aẓilla it is more probable that the book belongs to Muhammad b. Sinân.