پژوهش نامه علوم حدیث تطبیقی
پیاپی 2 (بهار و تابستان 1394)

Undoubtedly¡ Prophetic Traditions and those of the Imāms (peace be upon them all)¡ which have reached us under the rubric of ‘Heritage of the Infallibles’¡ are considered one of the most important sources of Islamic teachings. Obviously¡ all the traditions that have reached us cannot be said to be of the same level of authenticity¡ since some essentially or through external corroboration¡ lead to certain knowledge whereas others give rise to conjecture and some are even devoid of any value whatsoever. At present¡ we will not concern ourselves with the first and third types of traditions. Rather¡ we will examine the three perspectives related to the second type of traditions i.e. the ‘minimum’¡ ‘medial’ and ‘maximum’ perspectives. In this paper¡ we will show through analysis and study that the medial perspective or what lies somewhere between complete rejection and complete acceptance¡ is correct¡ and that the solitary report has probative value not only in the domain of jurisprudence¡ but also in exegesis¡ Qur’anic sciences¡ history¡ ethics¡ and also in other theologically related fields.

A section of the traditions of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) are dedicated to medical matters. One of the issues pertaining to this type of traditions is related to the principles of verification applicable to them. In this paper¡ by examining the views of both Shi’i and Sunni hadith scholars¡ we study the various principles related to the chains of transmission and the content of medicinal traditions¡ and examine the inconsistency of some traditions with recent scientific findings. In appraising the chains of transmission of medicinal traditions¡ Muslim scholars are in agreement about the validity of traditions are successively narrated (mutawātir) or supported by external corroborative evidence¡ but they differ regarding the solitary reports that are narrated by reliable individuals. Due to the practical nature of the subject¡ and the advancements in the field of medicine¡ consonance and lack of contradiction with what has been established by scientific means is one of the more important yardsticks for scrutiny of these traditions. In cases of incongruity¡ certified reports hold sway over unsubstantiated scientific theories while established scientific findings trump uncertified reports. In cases where both sides are conjectural¡ it is not possible to verify any position and attribute it to religious teachings. As for confirmed traditions contradicting established scientific findings¡ this is a priori impossible and if one ever comes across this¡ he should embark upon a meticulous scrutiny of the traditions and scientific findings [to see which of the two is flawed].

The knowledge of the Imām is one of the perennial issues of theology. Sharīf Raḍī has collected¡ in the Nahj al-Balāgha¡ some traditions about the knowledge of the unseen that Imām ʿAlī (‘a) and other Imāms after him possessed. Among some schools of thought¡ such as the Mu‘tazilis¡ it is believed that only Imām ʿAlī (‘a) had knowledge of the unseen and was an infallible. One of the most important commentators [of Nahj al-Balāgha] is Ibn Abī alḤadīd who was a Mu‘tazili and was of the opinion that Imām ʿAlī was infallible and possessed knowledge of the unseen. Despite this¡ other Shi‘i commentators of Nahj al-Balāgha believe that the Nahj al-Balāgha contains allusions and explicit statements about the generic nature of knowledge of the unseen. Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd is considered by the Shi’is to be¡ at the very least¡ fair and unbiased in his views about the political events that transpired after the Prophet. It is with this objectivity and theological background that he embarked upon the commentary of a book wherein the knowledge of the unseen is portrayed as generic to the Imāms. This very issue was the cause of a kind of internal struggle between his objectivity and theological persuasion related to some of the passages of Nahj al-Balāgha that he experienced. As a result¡ he would at times lean towards his fair and unbiased approach and at other times he was pulled towards his dogmatic beliefs. The Shi‘i commentators of Nahj al-Balāgha have also tried to challenge his dual approach. The present paper examines the views of Shi‘i commentators as well as Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd regarding the generic or personal nature of the Imām’s knowledge.

The value and renown of the Nahj al-Balāgha is¡ on the one hand¡ due to the beautiful and profound enlivening words of Amīr al-Mu’minīn ʿAlī (‘a) and on the other hand¡ due to the skillful selection of Sayyid Raḍī¡ its compiler. The compiler’s introduction clearly elucidates his artistic structure¡ his motive and his outlook. Since his primary objective in this work was to compile what represents the most beautiful discourses of ʿAlī (‘a)¡ he consciously divided the work based on three different forms of discourse¡ which is beneficial when examining one type of discourse in relation to another. Being selective¡ not expounding upon the chains of transmission and avoiding repetition are some of the other creative choices of the compiler that he purposefully applied¡ and which played an important role in the persistency of this work. Not only is this not a point of weakness¡ it is one of the laudable achievements of his work. In this paper¡ we aim to compare the structure of the book to see how it conforms to what is mentioned in the introduction and then answer the various criticisms about it from both Shi‘i and Sunni scholars.

In order to understand some of the views of Orientalists about the role of the sunnah in Qur’anic exegesis¡ and the importance of this topic¡ the present paper aims to introduce and analyse the article entitled ‘Sunnah and its Role in Interpretation’ that has been authored by Professor Oliver Leaman¡ the editor of ‘The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia’. The author of said article mentions certain applications for the sunnah in Qur’anic exegesis¡ and for each instance¡ he mentions the related verses and traditions. Despite some noteworthy positive points that exist in this article¡ it fails to mention the primary function of hadith in a coherent manner with its classifications. This¡ along with the incorrect utilization of some of these functions in interpreting selected verses as well as reference to only wellknown Sunni traditions¡ some of which are solitary and fabricated¡ exemplify the weaknesses of this article that this paper aims to examine.

The ‘Tradition of Faith (īmān)’ is one of the famous narrations from ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (‘a) which he articulated upon entry into the city of Neyshābūr¡ quoting from his illustrious forefathers up to his great-grandfather the Prophet of Allāh (ṣ). It is also known as the Golden Chain (silsilah al-dhahab)Tradition¡ since all the narrators in its chain¡ right up to Imām al-Riḍā (‘a)¡ are from the [infallible] progeny of the Holy Prophet (ṣ). The secondary narrators who transmitted this tradition from Imām al-Riḍā (‘a) did so with numerous chains of transmission that have been recorded in Sunni sources and altogether come up to 57 chains. If we ignore Abū Ṣalt¡ the narrators in at least seven chains make up sound chains of transmission. Unfortunately¡ despite the numerous chains and the soundness of some of them¡ as well as the fact that it has been recorded as one of the established historical events¡ this narration was still overlooked by some of the great traditionists. The only reason for this is that some Sunni biographers considered Abū Ṣalt to be a weak narrator. Of course¡ this kind of judgment against Abū Ṣalt is not based on any logical or rational principles¡ which part of this paper proves. Furthermore¡ at least one chain of this narration found in Shi‘i sources is considered sound¡ which itself increases the strength and authority of this tradition. The other chains¡ in both Shi‘i and Sunni sources¡ which are considered weak¡ can still be considered as corroborating evidence.