فصلنامه علوم حدیث
سال بیست و پنجم شماره 2 (پیاپی 96، تابستان 1399)

One of the complicated traditions in the field of God's unicity is the response of the InfallibleImams to the question whether or not the world can be inserted into an egg with no change in thevolume of either of them. It is followed by two basic problems: first,to consider an intellectuallyimpossible issue by the analogy of insertion of the image of things in the eye,which is notcongruous with the mere question,second,the contradiction,duality when responding the samequestion. Having applied a descriptive-deductive method,the present article has analyzed thesehadiths,has found out that the scholars accept merely the apparent denotation of certaintraditions,have deemed this issue impossible. They either interpret or deny the traditions thathave solved the problem by the metaphorical allegory of insertion of the world in the eye. On thecontrary,they have no comments when facing the traditions that denote the feasibility of this issueby means of making changes in the two sides (i.e. eye,world). Today by means of the theoriesof "holography","removal of the free space of an atom" in physics a new version of thesetraditions can be presented,so that the improbable denotation of these traditions can be manifestedas possible,this version can be considered as a solution to remove this contradiction.

Certain hadiths have a controversial content which is hardly understood. They are categorized as mushkil al-hadīth (hadith containing difficult words or meanings) and the attempt to understand them in a correct way is associated with different approaches. One of these hadiths is the one denoting that in the eyes of the Children of Israel (Banī Isrā'īl) the flesh, skin or clothes when contaminated with urine should be cut off. This tradition has been mentioned in Shi'a and Sunni hadith collections with different words but with almost the same concept. The opinions about this hadith can be classified in the three major groups of acceptance, rejection and suspension of decision (tawaqquf). Having quoted and criticized these opinions the present study is inclined to attribute the concept of this hadith as a metaphorical meaning denoting the exaggeration of the hardship of purification among the Children of Israel.

Mu`jizah (miracle) is one of the major subjects of Qur'anic sciences that has permanently received the attention of scholars and theologians. Different interpretations from the aspects of conditions and possibility of its occurrence are laid on the carpet. Since this term has not occurred in the Qur'an, and that a diversity of opinions about its application in the hadith literature exists, it is an inevitable necessity to discuss the quality of emergence of the thought of i`jāz (inimitability), and the application of the term mu`jizah (miracle). Having applied the method of analytical dating of text and isnad, this article has investigated the traditions in which the term mu`jizah is contained. Dating the text suggests differences in various editions of the traditions. The isnad-oriented dating indicates that Shaykh Ṣadūq, as a common link of the traditions of miracle, has mentioned this term in his hadith works. Similarly, the combined dating of text and isnad suggests that one cannot consider the Infallible Imams as the theoreticians of the term mu`jizah. Therefore, having patterned on the Qur'an, they have used in different hadiths the words āyāt bayyināt (manifest signs) and barāhīn (proofs) in this field.

The tradition "My community do not agree on misguiding" (lā-tajtami`u ummatī `alā al-ḍalālah) that has been transmitted and published by means of Sunni hadith collections, is used today as the evidence of jurisprudential consensus along with the Book, the Sunnah and the judicial reasoning by analogy (qiās). It has been deemed for long the official evidence for legitimacy of the performance of the companions, particularly the caliphs after the Prophet (ṣ.`a.w.). The Sunni scholars have permanently used this tradition in their theological disputations to refute the argumentations of the Shi'a scholars. This tradition has also crept in some of later Shi'a hadith collections. Having studied the isnad of the above tradition this article has proved the weakness of its different transmission paths (ṭuruq). Taking the historical view and the denotation of the tradition text into consideration, not only it is not deemed that this tradition denotes the concept and legitimacy of ijmā`, but also the misreading (taṣḥīf) or forgery due to political motivations is understood.

According to the nature, intellect and teachings of the revealed religions, theism has always existed among most of the human beings. Some people believe that the belief in God originates from fear, ignorance or delusion, and thus they have become atheists. Among them Richard Dawkins, the contemporary biologist, considers the belief in God and supernatural affairs as a delusion. The main question of the present study is ' What factors have basically caused Dawkins to be inclined towards such an approach, and what criticism may be made against it from a hadith-oriented point of view?' 'Despite the rational and transmitted evidences how can the mere existence of God be considered as a delusion?' The claim of inexplicability of God, lack of adequate evidences for His existence, and the delusion that evils and defects exist in the world are among the factors for Dawkins' inclination to this issue. Considering the rational and transmitted evidences and by means of an analytic-critical method in data processing, it is made clear in the present study that none of these claims can cause atheism. Based on hadith literature God is proved from the dimension that is free from experimental explanations and perceptive evidences. The analysis on and criticism against Dawkins' claims in the book "The God Delusion" on the basis of Qur'anic verses and particularly the traditions narrated from the Infallibles are among the new findings of this study.

No doubt Rijal-oriented discussions make remarkable contribution to evaluation (and credit assessment) of traditions. However, diversity of opinions of the scholars in understanding the expressions of the earlier Rijal experts occasionally makes it difficult to attain the truth. Explanation of the Rijal-oriented thoughts of Shaykh Muhammad `Āmilī, the grandson of the Second Martyr (al-Shahīd al-Thānī) who is a scrutinizer in this filed, can cause to resolve the problem. Having applied a descriptive-analytical method the present article explains some of his specific viewpoints in the filed of evaluation of traditions, as well as the Rijal science. According to the findings of this study, Shaykh `Āmilī returns the descriptions mentioned under the name of a subordinate narrator in the early Rijal works to the main narrator. He deems the transmission paths (ṭuruq) of Shaykh Ṭūsī to Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ash'arī valid. He maintains that only in specific conditions the procuration (wikālah) denotes the reliability of the procurator (wakīl), while it is impossible for the later scholars in most of the cases to ascertain these conditions. He is of the opinion that the term khayr signifies different meanings and that it implies praise (for the narrator). Having adduced evidences, the also maintains that Ibn Walīd's exceptions in his Nawādir alḤikmah do not cause any harm (qadḥ) against the narrator. Of course, his last two viewpoints are worthy of criticism.

Al-Fazārī, the traditionist of the third/ninth century in Baghdad, enjoys a position worthy of heeding in transmission of the Imāmī hadith heritage to other hadith schools of that era, in the field of Islamic scholastic theological discussions, particularly, in the issue of Mahdi'ism and Occultation. He has been accused of falsehood (kidhb) and extremism (ghuluww) by some of early Rijal experts. His exclusion from the isnads of Nawādir al-Ḥikmah along with other problems, has made the idea of his weakness well-known, while he enjoys general and specific authentications which are worthy of heeding. This very diversity of opinions about him as well as the importance of alFazārī's reports in theological discussions, make it necessary to understand his Rijal-oriented character more precisely. Imperfection of almost all evidences for his weakness, along with available proofs denoting the validity of his denomination, and the goodness of his behavior seriously questions the opinion of his weakness. Plethora of the prominent Imāmī scholars' narrations from him along with authentication of his representatives as well as the awareness of those who have authenticated him of the opinions about his weakness, altogether make it preferable to maintain he is reliable.