فهرست مطالب کاظم استادی

In this article, we have listed 16 independent books and articles that examine the attribution of Hadiqa al-Shi’a to Moqaddas Ardabili and its relationship with Kashif al-Haq by Mu’ezuddin Ardestani, aiming to either negate or prove the connection. Additionally, 78 annotations discussing this topic are included. The author presents the articles in chronological order based on their publication dates, ranging from 1364 to 1402 SH. Each entry is accompanied by a brief introduction of the books and an abstract of the respective articles.

According to Shiite teachings, the Imamate and leadership of the Islamic community and the succession of the Holy Prophet applies to religious and worldly affairs, and from the beginning of his mission, the Holy Prophet paid serious attention to the issue of the leadership of the Muslims after his death while introducing his successor. In order to prove Imamate and the succession of the Prophet, theological and historical proofs as well as verses of the Quran, such as verse 124 of the al-Baqarah Chapter, that is, the Trial of Abraham Verse are cited. Therefore, to discuss, criticize, and study the implication of the verse of Abraham’s trial in the issues of Imamate, it is necessary to clarify in advance whether the explanation of the concept of Imamate through the Quranic verses is based on previous specifications present in early Islam, or this Quranic explanation is formed based on later and newly created specifications and concepts. In the following research, the early Shiite exegeses under the verse of Abraham’s trial have been investigated. In this research, it becomes clear that the early Shiite exegetes did not take the verse of the trial of Abraham as proof of Imamate, at least until the 4th century, and they did not cite this verse regarding specific Imamate.

A story that have been raised about Muhaddith Nourῑ and his book Fasl al-Khitᾱb is concerned with "the British motivation" that caused him to compile Fasl Al-Khitᾱb; Accordingly, he was deceived by British anti-Islamic policies in making division between Muslims and consequently wrote this book at the instigation of a spy-employee of the British Embassy. This story was narrated by Ayatollah Mar'ashῑ, quoting from Sardar Kᾱbulῑ, by several contemporary scholars such as Shunairῑ Zanjᾱnῑ, Muntazirῑ, Ᾱsif Muhsinῑ, and Sᾱdiqῑ Tehrᾱnῑ. The recent scholarly writings prove that this story has been incorrectly attributed to Muhaddith Nourῑ. In order to recognize the true story, it is necessary to examine: 1- What are the narratives of the story of motivation to compile Fasl al-Khitᾱb and what are their different parts? 2- What clues does the information of the story give us to discover the truth? 3- Is the information of the story compatible with other historical evidence related to the era of Muhaddith Nourῑ and Sardᾱr Kᾱbulῑ? 4- What historical event can this story be compared to? This research, through examining the data of the story and analyzing its information, as well as, being careful about the information that is inconsistent with the history and life of Haji Nourῑ, determines that the major part of the story of Ayatollah Mar'ashῑ, quoting from Sardᾱr Kᾱbulῑ, is a story about the events of the book "Masᾱlik al-Muhsinῑn" in the Iran's Constitutional period and Sheikh Fazlullah Nourῑ's opposition to this book; in fact, the narrator of the story has mixed two different stories (which revolved around two Nourῑs, two Sayeds, and two different books).

The book attributed to Salim bin Qays is considered the only historical-theological Shiite work left from the first century AH, which has been noticed and important for various reasons. If the existence of Salim's personality and the authenticity of the books attributed to him are proven, this importance will be doubled and very ponderable. Some important titles for them are: 1- The historical age of the book. 2- Being a special companion of Salim. 3- The immediacy of some hadiths of Salim. 4- The approval of Imam Masoom (AS) on copies of Salim's books. 5- Having special, unique and interesting historical and theological content. One of the prominent features of Salim's book is the narration of events that have always been a source of conflict and conflict between Shia and Sunni. It seems that now it is necessary to criticize and analyze this book from mixed aspects; One of them is reflections on the personal identity and narrative status of Salim bin Qais and his book. In the current research, questions and problems related to various aspects of personal identity and the historical status of Salim's book and its author have been raised; And at the same time, the authenticity of the author and the book attributed to him has been damaged.

For a long time, there have been disputes over the authenticity and validity of hadiths in books attributed to Sulaym, which are narrative texts with historical and theological topics. It is necessary to conduct research on the manuscripts of this book, whether Sulaym's current books are fake or even Salim's person has no historical identity. With a new survey conducted in 1399 HS, 49 physical copies of books attributed to Sulaym have been identified and their bibliographic information has been provided. The age of the manuscripts of Sulaym's books can be considered from two aspects: a. the oldest existing manuscript of the book; b. the version introduced as the oldest one, which of course does not exist. Now, the version of Majlis library (No. 15638) has been introduced as the oldest copy of the oldest known version of Sulaym's books, but it is necessary to conduct research on the date of its writing. This article examines these questions: 1. how valid is the alleged date in the copy of the old version in Majlis library? 2. who has mentioned this date and this ancient version? 3. is there any evidence for or against this date? The result is that the date 309 AH for the version of Katib al-Rammānī (the main version of Majlis) is fake, and the date 609 AH for the copying is not provable either.

According to the current sources, there are many controversies in the Shia sources, especially in the later sources, regarding the historical identity and personality of Sulaim ibn Qais, as well as the authenticity and validity of the work attributed to him. This is despite the fact that every narrative and hadith work can be evaluated and analyzed from several aspects; one of these aspects is the examination of hadith documents or general documents of a narrative book. Since the hadiths attributed to Sulaim are of two types: one is the few and often short hadiths found in some early sources and the other is the seventy and often long hadiths of recent books attributed to Sulaim; therefore, it is necessary to examine and analyze the documents of each of these types of narratives separately. In the upcoming research, while reporting the documents of the manuscripts of the books attributed to Sulaim, the authenticity of these documents and some of their narrators have been discussed and investigated. During this research, it was found that the manuscripts attributed to Sulaim can be divided into two categories, old and new; and both categories, apart from the long cut in document situation, are distorted and invalid due to several reasons such as "the lack of the narrators, uncertainty in the documents and in the class of the narrators, the rijālī problems of the narrators and even the forgery of the document".

According to the current sources, there are many controversies in the Shia sources, especially in the later sources, regarding the historical identity and personality of Sulaim ibn Qais, as well as the authenticity and validity of the work attributed to him. This is despite the fact that every narrative and hadith work can be evaluated and analyzed from several aspects; one of these aspects is the examination of hadith documents or general documents of a narrative book. Since the hadiths attributed to Sulaim are of two types: one is the few and often short hadiths found in some early sources and the other is the seventy and often long hadiths of recent books attributed to Sulaim; therefore, it is necessary to examine and analyze the documents of each of these types of narratives separately. In the upcoming research, while reporting the documents of the manuscripts of the books attributed to Sulaim, the authenticity of these documents and some of their narrators have been discussed and investigated. During this research, it was found that the manuscripts attributed to Sulaim can be divided into two categories, old and new; and both categories, apart from the long cut in document situation, are distorted and invalid due to several reasons such as "the lack of the narrators, uncertainty in the documents and in the class of the narrators, the rijālī problems of the narrators and even the forgery of the document".

From the past until now, conflicting opinions have been expressed about the interpretation attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (AS). Some consider the book as forged, while others regard it as a valid work either explicitly or implicitly attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (AS). Some recent researches have also attributed this work to Nasser Al-Haqq Atrush, the ruler of Tabaristan, due to an error, falsely associating it with the eleventh Imam of Imamiyya Shia. Considering the importance of the interpretation attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (AS), it is now necessary to conduct further and more recent research on Tafsir Askari (Askari's Interpretation). Therefore, researchers interested in this area need a bibliography of this interpretation and should be aware of the number of independent and non-independent works written in recent decades on the interpretation attributed to Imam Askari (AS), as well as other relevant sources they can refer to. In the present study, a preliminary introduction is presented, providing a descriptive overview of 46 independent works and a bibliography of 90 works related to Askari's Interpretation.

Hasan bin Ali or Naser Kabir is one of the Alevi rulers of the 3rd century Hijri in Tabaristan region of Iran. His most famous work is Tafsir Kabir. Considering the historical importance of Naser Utroosh, as one of the Alevi rulers of northern Iran, as well as his religious and narrative personality, researchers interested in this field are in need of a bibliography about him. This article addresses 25 independent or significant works on Utroosh and more than 70 other works, which can help researchers in researches on Utroosh

Historically, the most important issue discussed by Muslims after the Prophet (pbuh) is the issue of Imamate, and thinkers have cited theological, historical and verses of the Holy Qur'an to prove the issue of Imamate and succession of the Prophet (pbuh), one of the most important of these verses is the verse of the test of Prophet Ibrahim (as) or the verse of Imamate. On the other hand, two methods can be followed to investigate the Imamate issue: 1- Explaining the concept of imamate by means of Quranic verses with previous coordinates in the beginning of Islam. 2- Explaining the concept of imamate by means of Quranic verses with coordinates and concepts created later and new. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the status of references to the verse of Ibrahim's test for the issue of Imamate in the narratives of Imamiyyah. In the upcoming research, hadiths about the test verse of Ibrahim have been discussed, according to these questions: "1- Regarding the verse of Ibrahim's test, how many narratives of the infallible Imams (as) are mentioned in hadith and narrative sources? 2- What is the status of their textual content and the similarity and repetition of narrations about the verse of Ibrahim's test? 3- Are the narratives about Ibrahim's test related to the issue of imamate in today's common sense and do they support this issue? Finally, it became clear that there are few hadiths about verse 124 of Baqarah, of course, most of them (except for a few cases that are doubtful) do not mention the issue of public imamate, especially for us contemporary Shiites; and in a way, the narratives are interpretations with a separate subject from the principle of Imamate.

Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Nu'mani, who has known as Ibn Abi Zaynab (360 AH),a Shiite theologian and muhaddith of the fourth century, whose his most famous and most reliable and accessible work is Kitab al-Dhaybah; It was written at the beginning of the period of big absence "Dhayba Kubra" and with the prolonged absence of Imam Zama (a.s.). He explained the Imamate and the secret of the disappearance of the 12th Imam in al-Dhaybah. According to evidence, the Book of al-Ghaybah was written in Aleppo in 342 AH and now, in its existing versions, it has about 26 chapters and 445 hadiths. On the other hand, the most numerous transmitter of Shia hadith in the second century of Hijri is Abu Baṣir; About four thousand traditions have been narrated from him. Also, the largest amount of traditions of Mahdism and occultation belong to Abu Baṣir. This issue can be seen in the earlier books about Imam Zaman (a.s.), such as Nu'mani's al-Ghaybah with more than 51 traditions, Kamal al-Dīn Ibn Bābiwayh's with about 38 traditions, and Sheikh Tūsi's al-Ghaybah with about 30 traditions.

As regards that the largest amount of Mahdism and occultation traditions belongs to Abu Baṣir and in the book al-Ghaybah Numāni, about 11 transmitters have attributed the largest amount of traditions (51 traditions) to him, and considering this large number of traditions Abu Basir regarding the issue of occultism and Mahdism, we are faced with questions such as: Why are most of the traditions of occultism from Abu Basir? Does this situation have nothing to do with the deviant sects created during the time of Ṣādiqayn (pbuh) and the issue of occultation and Mahdism? And on the other hand, are these tradiions authentic? Although there are many articles, books and works about the review or introduction of al-Ghaybah Nomani's book, each of them have paid attention to aspects of this book, as education or criticism. Some works have also dealt with the marginal and analytical aspects, or the historical and theological approaches of al-Ghaybah Nomani; However, none of these articles and works have specifically addressed the validation of Abi Basir's traditions in al-Ghaybah No'mani by "examining its rijali". In this research, in addition to the statistical report of Abu Basir's traditions, with the method of library research and referring to related hadith and religious sources, the status of his religious life and his transmitters in al-Ghaybah Nu'mani has been investigated with regard to those questions.

According to the research carried out on the transmitters of Abu Baṣir in al-Ghaybah, it was found that most of the transmitters of Abu Basir's hadiths in al-Ghaybah are religiously corrupt, Ghālī, inattentive and unknown. Out of the sixteen transmitters before Abu Basir in al-Ghaybah documents that were mentioned, those who are from the Wāqfī group, the largest number, about 38, have the tradition of Abu Basir in al-Ghaybah Nu'mani. On the other hand, if the ignorant and unknown people whose religion we do not know are supposed to be Wāqfīs, the total number of traditions of Abu Basir in the al-Ghaybah documents of the Waqifs will be about 48 out of 51.

Since the Wāqfīs have written many significant books in the occult and the idea of waiting for the Qā'im is one of their special characteristics. As a result of except for a few traditions, all of Abu Basir's traditions in al-Ghaybah book are from the Wāqfīs, it seems that the deviant traditions of the Wāqfīans in search of Mahdism have spread to the al-Ghaybah book; And these traditions of Mahdavi narrated by Abu Basir are not authentic.

manuscripts age can be considered from two aspects: 1. the oldest existing manuscript. 2. The oldest introduced version is unavailable, but there is an available copy. Since the oldest copy of the oldest known version of Sulaym's books has not been introduced yet, this research will examine it.

Research Method/approach:

This research has investigated different types of manuscripts attributed to Sulaym b. Qays, using a descriptive-analytical method and inductive strategy. In addition, this research has studied and analyzed the No.15638 manuscript of Sulaym's book in the Parliament Library. In this research, while introducing the manuscript, at first the Sulaym's old version characteristics will be discussed, and then, this manuscript's specific information will be explained and compared genealogically to the structural models of other Sulaym's books.

The oldest copy of the oldest unavailable dated book attributed to Sulaym b. Qays contains two structural models. The manuscript was probably written in the 11th century AH (around 1036 AH/1626AD) or earlier, and the scribe is unknown. Also, although there are several other versions of this "structural model", they do not claim to be copied from the old version. Therefore, this Parliament Library version is the first edition of this model of Sulaym's books, in which it is claimed that the copy was inscribed from the old manuscript attributed to Abu Muhammad Romani. It is noteworthy that the Parliament versions and all the versions of Salim's C group, apart from the numerous traditional shortcomings, compared to other tradition models have about fourteen more traditions than some other structural models' versions, and also have different order.

From the past until now, conflicting opinions have been expressed about the interpretation attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.); Some thinkers consider the book as the subject, and have specified it; And some scholars have considered the book as authentic. Considering these controversies and especially the problem of attributing Tafsir to Imams Askari (AS), this question arises: What is the originality of Tafsir Askari's book? What is the validity of this book? Can there be any reasons for not attributing or attributing the interpretation to the Askarian imams (a.s.)? The present research, specifically, during the preliminary process, has dealt with the citation measurement and validation of the interpretation attributed to Imam Askari (a.s.). The result of the research shows that, for various reasons, this interpretation is not valid and it is not from the Imams of Askarin (AS); Like: 1- Tafsir not being famous among Imamiyyah until the 6th century. 2- Lack of recognition of the commentary and its narrator in indexes and translations. 3- Legal and documentary problems, such as the difference in the interpretation version of the document. 4- Inconsistency of narrators' stories with Imam Askari (AS). 5- Tafsir not being used by Imami scholars.

From the first centuries of Islam until now, many writings and books have been written about the issue of the succession of the Prophet (pbuh), the Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), as well as the controversies surrounding them, especially among the Shiites. It seems that many of the ambiguities and controversies surrounding the issue of Imamate between Sunnis and Shiites or other Islamic sects, apart from some of their different jurisprudential and theological foundations, are due to the lack of a correct scientific method, and the lack of clarity in the logic of the concepts and issues surrounding Imamate and its margins. Therefore, it is appropriate for researchers and thinkers to consider some of the necessary methodological considerations for Imamate issues. On the other hand, every scientific issue and consequently every religious issue, with the passage of time and the opening of new spheres of thought, needs new analysis and new reflections. These reflections on the issue of Imamate can also influence some prejudices as well as entering into disputes and their results in this issue. In this article, some of the methodological issues required in the issue of Imamate and the logic of proving Imamate, with an example mentioned at the end, have been considered and explained.

The commentary attributed to Imam Hasan ibn Ali al-Askari (AS) is one of the significant early Shiite narrative exegeses from the third century. It has been a subject of controversy, criticism, and discussions among both early and later Imamiyah scholars. Due to certain weak and incorrect content in this commentary and debates surrounding it, along with the question of its attribution to the Eleventh Imam (AS), the issue arises: if the current text of the commentary does not belong to Imam Hasan al-Askari (AS) or his venerable forefather, then who is the author? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that this work belongs to a specific individual? Recently, a comprehensive book addressing the attribution and recognition of the author of "Tafsir Askari" has been written, consisting of thirteen chapters. This paper introduces this book, provides a summary of its chapters and findings, identifies the author of "Tafsir Askari," and, by reviewing evidence from the commentary and other historical documents, argues that the author of the commentary is indeed Hasan ibn Ali al-Askari, also known as Nasir Lil-Hagh Aṭrūsh, the Alawi ruler of Tabaristan and Imam of the Zaidiyah.

In order to argue and prove the issue of Imamate and the succession of the Prophet (PBUH), "theological, historical and also the verses of the Holy Quran" are referred to. In the meantime, verse 124 of Surah Al-Baqarah (which is known among late and contemporary Shias as the verse of the suffering of Ibrahim (AS) or the verse of Imamate) is considered one of the most important verses regarding the issue of Imamate. On the other hand, in order to address and criticize the implications of the verse of Abraham's suffering in matters of imamate, it is necessary to research and know issues such as the position of ancient Shia theological and imamate sources in relation to this verse. In the upcoming research, according to these questions: "1- In which of the advanced theological and imam sources of Shia, the verse about the suffering of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) has been discussed? 2- What is the position of these sources in relation to the verse of Prophet Abraham's affliction and the issue of Imamate? In the current research, about twenty-nine theological and imam works from Shiite sources up to the fifth century have been examined and in the end, it was found that at least until the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century, in most of these sources, there is no mention of citing and arguing the verse of the affliction of Abraham. A) For the issue of imamate, there is no specific Shia definition of it, and few cases related to the issue of imamate have been included in some sources worthy of consideration.

All of the current interpretation book attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (AS), as well as a significant portion of the narrations in the book “Al-Ihtijaj” attributed to Tibrisi, are quoted from a narrator named “Muhammad ibn Qasim Jorjani” or “Muhammad ibn Abi Qasim Astarabadi," known as “Abu al-Hasan Jorjani, the commentator.” This individual is unknown in Shiite Imamiyah Rijal and biographical sources, and significant information about him is not mentioned. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and translate this narrator. This task has several benefits: Firstly, it clarifies the identity of the narrator of the interpretation book attributed to Imam Hasan Askari (AS) and parts of “Al-Ihtijaj.” Secondly, it sheds light on the history of the transmission and conveyance of these books. Thirdly, it may resolve some of the debates surrounding these two books or potentially give rise to new discussions. Now, it is important to ask the following questions: 1. Is “Muhammad ibn Qasim Jorjani” or “Muhammad ibn Abi Qasim Astarabadi” one personality with dual names that have arisen due to a scribal error, or not? 2. What information exists about them in other non-Rijal and biographical sources? 3. How is the history and translation of this interpreter-narrator? The present study examines the history and translation of Abu al-Hasan Jorjani, the commentator, using some peripheral information and evidence, aiming to provide a biography and a Rijali analysis of him as far as possible.

After the publication of the book "Chapter of Al-Khattab" by Muhaddith Nouri, refutations were written about this work; Among these refutations, according to the available documents and according to Agha Bozor Tehrani and according to him some others, Muhaddith Nouri has responded to only one of the refutations, namely the book Kashf al-Artiyab. This treatise of Haji Nouri, from various historical and scientific aspects, is very important for clarifying some of the issues raised around him as well as the issue of Quran distortion. Since it has been said that Haji Noori's answer is to refute the doubts of the book Kashf al-Artiab, now it is necessary to ask questions and research about this book. Issues such as: 1- What are the manuscripts of Kashf al-Atriab; And what are the characteristics of this book? 2- What is the content of detection of anxiety; And dealing with its bibliography, what issues can be clarified? In the present research, while introducing the manuscripts of the book Kashf al-Atriab, and examining its form and content as well as reflecting on the author's translation, it was found that Agha Bozur Tehrani, in identifying and introducing the book Kashf al-Atriab and its connection with Muhaddith Nouri's answer, made a mistake or There has been a misunderstanding; And this refutation of the al-Khattab chapter is not directly related to Muhaddith Nouri's answer (1303 AH); Rather, the answer is someone else's answer.

Among the Shiite scholars, especially the later scholars, the books al-Iḥtijāj and Tafsīr of Imam Hassan Askari (as) are controversial. These disputes are multidimensional and consist of several layers such as: date of authorship, attribution of the book to the author, documents and content of the books. In the meantime, it is noteworthy that the whole book of Tafsīr Askari (as) and also a significant part of the book al-Iḥtijāj, according to a narrator, is called "Abū Ja'far al-Marʿashī". Therefore, it is important to identify and translate the narrator's status. An analysis of Abū Ja'far's situation in earlier sources may shed light on these two books in terms of the rijālī identity of the narrators and authors; also, it may be able to methodize the history of transfers of these books, and even to resolve some of the controversies surrounding these two books. Based on the present research, which has been done by the library method, it became clear that in the early and later Shiite sources, there is no information, more than one text line, about Abū Ja'far Marʿashī and his student Tabarsi; and apart from the fact that his fame is one of the latest made. However, there is little translation of Abū Ja'far by Samʿānī, and he has called him an "exaggerated Shiite."

The most famous and most accessible work attributed to Nu‘mānī is his Kitāb al-Ghaibah, which was written by Nu‘mānī in the early period of Major Occultation and with the prolonged absence of the Hidden Imam (A.S.), and the advent of some doubts among the Shi’ites and was presented for solving this problem. Now, Kitāb al-Ghaibah is one of the important works whose manuscripts need to be compiled and indexed. Therefore, it should be queried: In what status is the number of the extant manuscripts of al-Ghaibah? Do the manuscripts of al-Ghaibah have important differences that can be separated and analyzed in a special way? What statistical information can be provided about the al-Ghaibah manuscripts?

Research Method/Approach:

 The present research has identified and examined different types of manuscripts of Kitāb al-Ghaibah using the descriptive-analytical method and by means of inductive strategy; and through genealogy of the manuscripts, and undertaken to analyze some of their data.

Upon examining the manuscripts, it became clear that the text of the manuscripts of this book are very different from one another and these differences are not merely minor typos; rather, they are different in terms of volume and number of hadiths and can be introduced into four structural groups and models. Furthermore, from among the 23 manuscripts of al-Ghaibah, twenty versions are in Iran and three versions are in Iraq; and except for one manuscript that is from the 6th century, all other manuscripts are from the 10th century onwards. Also, from among the twenty-two available manuscripts of al-Ghaibah in its different models, only 8 manuscripts are without omissions and defects. On the other hand, about half of the manuscripts are without the initial sanad of the manuscript; and the sanad of Abī al-Husayn Shujā’ī is also inauthentic and newly-written in all manuscripts having sanad.

The Tafsīr book attributed to Imām Hassan ibn ʿAlī ʿAskarī (AS) or Tafsīr of  Abū Muḥammad Uṭrūsh is one of the Tafsīr al-Ma’thūr (traditional interpretation) of early Shi’a, which has long been the subject of controversy and discussion among Imāmī Shiite thinkers, especially the later scholars; and  even some consider it as fabricated which has been attributed to Imāmayn  ʿAskarīyayn (AS). Controversies about this book are multidimensional; that  is, it includes both the date of authorship and attribution of the book to the  author, and also includes the Isnād, narrators, and content of the book. Therefore, it is necessary to examine this interpretation from various aspects; one of these dimensions is the rijālī review of the narrators of this work to  find out how is its chains of transmitters? Is there any vacancy and anxiety in these chains of narrators? And also, what is the rijālī status of these narrators? Since the review of the narrators of Isnād up to Sheikh Sadūq has been discussed in other articles, in this article, only the rijālī review of ten of the narrators of this Isnād is discussed from Sheikh Sadūq to ʿAskarī Uṭrūsh. In this rijālī review of the narrators, it was found that the majority of the narrators of this part of the Tafsīr Isnād are unknown in the Imāmī sources, and the rest have not been confirmed.