Shiitic Studies

7. We do have independent reports attributed to Muḥammad b. Muslim in the Imami corpus confirming that he learnt these answers from al-Bāqir.

Ibn Bābawayh reports from Zurāra and Muḥammad b. Muslim a report wherein 2 Barīds is the distance given for beginning to shorten your prayer.

رُوِيَ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ وَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ أَنَّهُمَا قَالا: قُلْنَا لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع: مَا تَقُولُ فِي الصَّلَاةِ فِي السَّفَرِ كَيْفَ هِيَ؟ وَكَمْ هِيَ؟ ... وَقَدْ سَافَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِلَى ذِي خُشُبٍ وَهِيَ مَسِيرَةُ يَوْمٍ مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ يَكُونُ إِلَيْهَا بَرِيدَانِ‌ أَرْبَعَةٌ وَ عِشْرُونَ مِيلًا فَقَصَّرَ وَأَفْطَرَ فَصَارَتْ سُنَّةً ...

Ṭūsī reports from Muḥammad b. Muslim that Friday prayer is obligatory when they reach 7 in number

وَرَوَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ: تَجِبُ الْجُمُعَةُ عَلَى سَبْعَةِ نَفَرٍ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلَا تَجِبُ عَلَى أَقَلَّ مِنْهُمُ: الْإِمَامُ وَقَاضِيهِ وَمُدَّعِيَا حَقٍّ وَشَاهِدَانِ وَالَّذِي يَضْرِبُ الْحُدُودَ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الْإِمَام

But this is not contradictory with 5 since in another report we learn that the Imams would say 7 first and then drop it to 5 (which some jurists have interpreted as wujūb and istiḥbāb respectively).

الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَامِرٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَهْزِيَارَ عَنْ فَضَالَةَ عَنْ أَبَانِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ أَبِي الْعَبَّاسِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ: أَدْنَى مَا يُجْزِئُ فِي الْجُمُعَةِ سَبْعَةٌ أَوْ خَمْسَةٌ أَدْنَاهُ

8. The incredible thing is that both answers have not changed from that day when Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym confronted Sharīk in the orchard to this day of ours. It is the famous position of all our jurists that one should begin to shorten prayer after travelling 8 farsakh (= 2 barīds) (https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2264/) and that Friday prayer becomes obligatory when they reach 5 men including the Imam (https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2210/).
So much for the Imami madhhab not being preserved!

9. Sharīk thought that if the questions were in ṣalāt they would be easy to answer but alas it was not to be so! He is commended, however, for realizing the momentous gravity of making up a Prophetic report on the spot, and acknowledging that he did not know the answer to both issues.

This is a far cry from other jurists who are known to have made up Prophetic reports to support the legal position they were inclined to. As a famous fabricator put it:

كنا إذا رأينا رأيًا، جعلنا له حديثًا

This is a known phenomenon which Sunni scholars had to contend with.

10. Muḥammad b. Muslim had a reputation for three things: Having a long beard, being truthful, being a kashshābī.

Those were the days when the Shia were the forefront in applying the sunna. If one has a long beard today he would be deemed as belonging to some other sect (which need not be named)

Khashābī originated as a label for the mainly Persian mawālī followers of Mukhtār who joined his insurrection in Kūfa, this was because wooden clubs were the main weapons used by this economically disadvantaged segment who could not afford more conventional weapons before becoming a wider derogatory term for the Rāfiḍa as a whole.
 
In conclusion: The fact that there is external corroboration for numerous points found in this report not to speak its internal coherence gives confidence that we are dealing with a historical event.

5. Al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq were the ones who taught their followers (the Imamis) to be anti-qiyās and declared that they possessed the ṣaḥīfa, a document containing the dictation of the Messenger of Allah and written down in ʿAlī's hand, covering all areas of the law down to the smallest detail of the compensation for a "scratch". This was the "treasure" which they passed down "father to son" and which made all their answers have Prophetic sanction.

To quote Jaʿfar:

If we were to give fatwā to the people based on our raʾy (opinion) and hawā (desire) we would be among those destroyed. Rather it is athar (reports) from the Messenger of Allah and an aṣl (source) of knowledge which we inherit, son from father, we guard it the way the people guard their gold and silver!

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَامِرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَجَّالِ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ أَبِي يَزِيدَ عَنْ الْأَحْوَلِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ (ع) قَالَ: سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ‌: إِنَّا لَوْ كُنَّا نُفْتِي النَّاسَ بِرَأْيِنَا وَهَوَانَا لَكُنَّا مِنَ الْهَالِكِينَ وَلَكِنَّهَا آثَارٌ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ (ص) وأصل عِلْمٍ نَتَوَارَثُهَا كَابِرٌ عَنْ كَابِرٍ نَكْنِزُهَا كَمَا يَكْنِزُ النَّاسُ ذَهَبَهُمْ وَفِضَّتَهُمْ

In fact, we know that Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym was particularly proud of this aspect of Imami law. An independent report has him addressing al-Kāẓim as follows:

May I be made your ransom! We have gained understanding of the religion and Allah has made us self-sufficient from needing the people. So much so that a group of us may be in a gathering, not a man asks his fellow a question which comes to his mind except that he receives an answer for it (from your hadith), this is from the mercy of Allah on us through you …

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لابِي الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلام: جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ فُقِّهْنَا فِي الدِّينِ وَأَغْنَانَا الله بِكُمْ عَنِ النَّاسِ حَتَّى إِنَّ الْجَمَاعَةَ مِنَّا لَتَكُونُ فِي الْمَجْلِسِ مَا يَسْأَلُ رَجُلٌ صَاحِبَهُ تَحْضُرُهُ الْمَسْأَلَةُ وَيَحْضُرُهُ جَوَابُهَا فِيمَا مَنَّ الله عَلَيْنَا بِكُمْ ...

6. Muḥammad b. Muslim was an absolute don of Imami hadith. He is quoted as saying that "Nothing crossed his mind except that he asked Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir about it". And why not? Muḥammad is said to have resided in Medina for a period of 4 years attending to Abū Jaʿfar almost every single day. Thus it is no exaggeration when he states that he asked al-Bāqir about 30,000 issues and his son Jaʿfar about 16,000 issues.

The 2 issues here would have just been a drop in the oceanic knowledge he possessed and acquired from those two Imams. Muḥammad knew that all the answers he received can be traced back directly to the Prophet without requiring the Imam to state that for each and every instance.

Commentary

1. Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym (alive in 183) was among the elite companions of al-Kāẓim who were allowed to debate with other schools of thought. Thus, when the names of those were practising theological disputation were reported to al-Kāẓim he is said to have commented: "As for Ibn al-Ḥukaym then let him be (i.e. he can continue)!" (Rijāl al-Kashshī, n. 843). In another report we read that al-Kāẓim would instruct Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym to sit in the masjid of the Messenger (in Medina) and to debate with "them" until he debated about the status of the ṣāḥib al-qabr (i.e. Abu Bakr who was buried next to the Messenger). (Rijāl al-Kashshī, n. 844). It is not surprising with this background in mind that Muḥammad challenged Sharīk.
 
2. Sharīk b. ʿAbdallāh al-Nakhaʿī (d. 177) was a very prolific proto-Sunni hadith narrator and was later appointed the judge of Kūfa by the Abbasids. Ibn Mubārak (d. 181) comments that Sharīk was "more knowledgeable of the hadith of his town than (even) Sufyān (i.e. al-Thawrī)"
 
3. The statement that Sharīk attributes to Ibn Masʿūd in the encounter: "This sawād of ours should not deceive you …" can be independently traced back to Ibn Masʿūd and is found in the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 230).

حدثنا علي بن مسهر عن الشيباني عن قيس بن مسلم عن طارق ابن شهاب عن ابن مسعود قال: لا يغرنكم سوادكم هذا من صلاتكم فإنما هو من مصركم

4. Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym and his associate were sure that Sharīk would not have any Prophetic reports on these secondary issues of the law, in other words the whole thing was a setup to make a point.

This was our Imami predecessors' greatest criticism of proto-Sunni fiqh i.e. it does not have all the answers sourced from the Prophet. In fact, Sunni scholars freely admit that the authentic reports attributed to the Prophet on matters of law number in the few hundreds and all the remaining matters require the faqīh to apply his qiyās (analogical reasoning) or issue a fatwā based on the raʾy (personal opinion) attributed to different companions and their successors.

Capturing the Essence of Early Imami Law: The Fascinating Conversation Between Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym and Sharīk b. ʿAbdallāh al-Nakhaʿī

I have been working to produce a translation and commentary of the fascinating work that is Rijāl al-Kashshī on and off for many years now.

I present a snippet of the translation and commentary of a single report because it has always caught my eye. I believe that it captures the essence of what early Imamism was all about when it came to the law.

Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Qutayba narrated to me. He said: Al-Faḍl b. Shādhān narrated to me. He said: My father narrated to me from more than one of our fellows from Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym and an associate of his. [Faḍl comments: His name (i.e. the associate) became effaced in the book of my father]. They both (i.e. Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym and his associate) said:

We saw Sharīk standing in a walled-orchard from the orchards of so-and-so [Faḍl: His name also became effaced in the book] so one of us said to the other: "Do you (desire) having a conversation with Sharīk?" So we came to him and greeted him. He returned the greeting.
We said to him: "O Abā ʿAbdillāh (i.e. Sharīk), a question (for you)!"
He said: "In what topic?"
We said: "In ritual prayer"
He said: "Ask whatever occurs to you!"
We said: "We do not want you to say: 'So-and-so said the following, another (authority) said the following.' We want you to chain it back to the Prophet"
He asked: "Is it (i.e. the question) not concerning the ritual prayer?"
We replied: "Yes."
He said: "Ask whatever occurs to you!"
We said: "After what (distance) does shortening the prayer (taqṣīr) become obligatory?"
He replied: "Ibn Masʿūd used to say: 'This sawād (rural agricultural environs) of ours (Kūfa) should not deceive you' but so-and-so used to say: ..."
I (i.e. Muḥammad b. Ḥukaym) interrupted: "We had made an exception that you do not report to us except on the authority of the Prophet!"
He said: "By Allah, it is disgraceful for a shaykh (authority) to be asked a question concerning the ritual prayer and not have anything in it from the Prophet, but even more disgraceful than that would be for me to lie upon the Messenger of Allah!"
We said: "Another question?"
He asked: "Is it not concerning the ritual prayer?
We replied: "Yes."
He said: "Then ask whatever occurs to you!"
We asked: "Upon how many (people) does the Friday prayer become obligatory?"
He said: "The question has returned like a young she-camel (i.e. an idiom which in modern parlance would be 'we are back to square one'). I do not have anything about this from the Messenger of Allah.
We wanted to depart, but he said: "You did not ask this except that you have some knowledge about it!"
I said: "Yes. Muḥammad b. Muslim al-Thaqafī reported to us from Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (al-Bāqir) from his father from his grandfather from the Prophet"
He asked: "Al-Thaqafī the long-bearded one?"
We replied: "Yes."
He remarked: "As for him then he was trustworthy in hadith except that they used to say that he was a khashshābī!"
Then he said: "What did he narrate?"
We said: "He narrated from the Prophet that taqṣīr becomes obligatory after two barīds and that if five men gather including the imām then they are to (pray) the Friday"

Sensitivity towards preserving early historical sites linked to the Prophet so that later generations can benefit from them is not a modern phenomenon but can be traced back to the salaf themselves.

The early Sunni hadith scholar Ḥammād b. Isḥāq (d. 267) quotes the famous Mālik b. Anas (d. 179) as saying:

“I found some of the people of knowledge saying: We wished that when they expanded the masjid of Medina and enclosed the grave of the Messenger of Allah with a wall that they would have left the original nine rooms of the Messenger of Allah as they were, so that the people could see that they were made out of palm-leaves and coarse-cloth and take instruction from that and say: ‘This is the most honoured of creatures unto Allah, he is content from the world with this (humble abode)!’”

حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ قَالَ: ثنا أَبِي قَالَ: ثنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْمَعْذِلِ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ بَعْضَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ: وَدِدْنَا أَنَّهُمْ حَيْثُ كَانُوا بَنَوْا مَسْجِدَ الْمَدِينَةِ وَأَحَاطُوا الْحَائِطَ عَلَى قَبْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانُوا تَرَكُوا أَبْيَاتَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ التِّسْعَ حَتَّى يَرَاهَا النَّاسُ قَدِ اتُّخِذَتْ بِالْجَرِيدِ وَالْمُسُوحِ فَيَعْتَبِرُونَ بِذَلِكَ، وَيَقُولُونَ هَذَا أَكْرَمُ الْخَلْقِ عَلَى اللَّهِ رَضِيَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا بِهَذَا!

Note: The masjid was expanded in the time of the Umayyad Caliph, ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (d. 101).

Reference: Turkat al-Nabī (ed. Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī), pp. 111-112.

Formal Practises in the Transmission of Imāmī Hadith in the 2nd Century: The Case of ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān  

Approximately 67% of the hadith in the Imāmī corpus go back to Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148). The advantage of this is that Jaʿfar was teaching hadith at a time when writing down reports was a default not the exception. This means that there is no lengthy oral period of transmission to contend with.

There is a lot of incidental evidence that can be used to demonstrate this but I will present just one: The case of Jaʿfar’s student called ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān.

We know that ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān was writing down what he heard from Jaʿfar because he reports the following:

I asked Abā ʿAbdillāh about a woman who breast-feeds a slave boy of hers, born to a female slave belonging to her, until she weans him. Is it permissible for her to sell him?
He replied: No. His price is forbidden to her (i.e. she cannot sell him). Did not the Messenger of Allah say, “It is forbidden through suckling what is forbidden through descent”? Has he not become her son?!
I started writing it down whereupon Abū ʿAbdillāh said: “The likes of this are not written down”

  وعنه عن الحسن بن محبوب عن عبد الله بن سنان قال: سألت ابا عبد الله عليه‌ السلام عن امرأة ترضع غلاما لها من مملوكة حتى تفطمه يحل لها بيعه؟ قال: لا، حرام عليها ثمنه أليس قد قال رسول الله صلى‌ الله‌ عليه ‌وآله: يحرم من الرضاع ما يحرم من النسب!؟ أليس قد صار ابنها! فذهبت اكتبه فقال أبو عبد الله عليه‌ السلام : وليس مثل هذا يكتب

Note that Jaʿfar was not against the writing down of reports, but this question was such a basic one (everyone should know that relation by fosterage is akin to that by blood) that he did not deem it important enough to warrant writing.

We also know that ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān had begun transmitting his book containing the reports of Jaʿfar to his students. He once asked Jaʿfar:

The group comes and hears your hadith from me, but I (sometimes) become weary and do not have the strength (to read out all the hadith for them) (what should I do)?
He said: Read out for them from the beginning (of the book) a hadith, from the middle a hadith, and from the ending a hadith.

 وعنه، عن أحمد بن محمد ومحمد بن الحسين، عن ابن محبوب، عن عبد الله بن سنان قال: قلت لابي عبد الله عليه السلام: يجيئني القوم فيستمعون مني حديثكم فأضجر ولا أقوى قال: فاقرأ عليهم من أوله حديثا ومن وسطه حديثا ومن آخره حديثا   

This speaks to formal transmission practises wherein students come to a teacher, copy down the contents of his book for themselves, and then hear the contents being read out loud by the teacher (qirāʾāh) to check for any errors.

How were ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān’s books received? Let us refer to Najāshī’s (d. 450) entry to find out:

ʿAbdallāh b. Sinān b. Ṭarīf. A mawlā of the Banī Hāshim. It is said the mawlā of the descendants of Abī Ṭālib and it is also said a mawlā of the descendants of al-ʿAbbās. He was a treasurer for al-Manṣūr, al-Mahdī, al-Hādī, and al-Rashīd. Kufan. thiqa. One of our companions (i.e. an Imāmī). Meritorious. Not criticized for anything. He narrated from Abī ʿAbdillāh ... He has Kitāb al-Ṣalāt which is known as ʿAmal Yawm wa Layla, a bigger Kitāb al-Ṣalāt, a Kitāb collecting (reports on) all the different topics on the ḥalāl and the ḥarām. These books were transmitted by a very large number of our companions because of his lofty status in the sect, his trustworthiness, and his merit.

عبد الله بن سنان بن طريف مولى بني هاشم، يقال مولى بني أبي طالب، ويقال مولى بني العباس. كان خازنا للمنصور والمهدي والهادي والرشيد، كوفي، ثقة، من أصحابنا، جليل لا يطعن عليه في شيء، روى عن أبي عبد الله (ع)، وقيل: روى عن أبي الحسن موسى (ع)، وليس بثبت. له كتاب الصلاة الذي يعرف بعمل يوم وليلة، وكتاب الصلاة الكبير، وكتاب في سائر الأبواب من الحلال والحرام، روى هذه الكتب عنه جماعات من أصحابنا لعظمه في الطائفة، وثقته وجلالته

What happened to ʿAbdallāh's books? While the books do not survive independently, reports taken from them were incorporated into later works. Thus we find that close to 1000 examples of ʿAbdallāh’s reports on legal topics are quoted in the 4 main books of Shia hadith.

"Escaping Humiliation": The Incident of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, his two mawlās, and a troublesome Abbasid official.

From him (i.e. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā) from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad from Muḥammad b. Murāzim from his father. He said:

We set out together with Abī ʿAbdallāh (Jaʿfar) when he departed from Abī Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr (the Abbasid caliph) at Ḥīra. He departed the moment he was given permission and reached Sāliḥīn at the beginning of the night. An ʿāshir (tithe collector on roads) who was assigned to Sāliḥīn said to him: “I will not let you pass through.” He (i.e. Jaʿfar) implored and beseeched him, but he (i.e. the ʿāshir) refused categorically. Muṣādif and I were with him. Muṣādif said to him (privately): “May I be made your ransom, this dog has troubled you and I fear that he may return you (back to Ḥīra) in which case I do not know what Abī Jaʿfar (the caliph) may choose to do. Murāzim and I, do you allow us to strike his neck and throw him (i.e. his corpse) in the river?” He (i.e. Jaʿfar) said: "Desist, Muṣādif!" Then he (i.e. Jaʿfar) kept beseeching him (i.e. the ʿāshir) for most of the night and was (finally) given permission. He continued (the journey) and asked: “O Murāzim, is this better or what you wanted?” I said: “This (is better), may I be made your ransom.” He (i.e. Jaʿfar) said: “A man tries to escape a slight humiliation which makes him fall into much greater humiliation.”

Reference: Al-Kāfī (old edition), v. 8, p. 87, n. 49.

Commentary: How true is the wisdom found in the Imam’s ultimate statement! Haste and an inflated sense of ego can make a tense situation much worse. A pious believer, however, is always ready to undergo such discomfort and even much greater suffering without immediately thinking of retaliatory escalation.

The Imam is known to have commented that he had ten men-servants all given a name beginning with the letter mīm, and Muʿattib (who was not present here) was the best of an unruly bunch (see Rijāl al-Kashshi, nn. 465; 466).

The first two Abbasid caliphs are known to have relocated to Ḥīra outside of Kufa for a time before Baghdad was built. The Imam was summoned there from Medina on at least two occasions to keep a close tab on him and to ensure that he had no intentions of revolting.

عنه، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن مرازم، عن أبيه قال: خرجنا مع أبي عبد الله عليه السلام حيث خرج من عند أبي جعفر المنصور من الحيرة فخرج ساعة أذن له وانتهى إلى السالحين في أول الليل فعرض له عاشر كان يكون في السالحين في أول الليل فقال له: لا أدعك أن تجوز فألح عليه وطلب إليه، فأبى إباءا وأنا ومصادف معه فقال له مصادف: جعلت فداك إنما هذا كلب قد آذاك وأخاف أن يردك وما أدري ما يكون من أمر أبي جعفر وأنا ومرازم أتأذن لنا أن نضرب عنقه، ثم نطرحه في النهر فقال: كف يا مصادف، فلم يزل يطلب إليه حتى ذهب من الليل أكثره فأذن له فمضى فقال: يا مرازم هذا خير أم الذي قلتماه؟ قلت: هذا جعلت فداك، فقال: إن الرجل يخرج من الذل الصغير فيدخله ذلك في الذل الكبير

Artefacts of History: Two Manumission Agreements of Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq

One of the more interesting documents preserved by al-Kulaynī (d. 329) is the manumission agreement that Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d. 148) wrote for one of his slaves whom he was freeing.

The document reads:

“This is what Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad has freed. He has freed his Sindhi slave (named) so-and-so upon the stipulation that he bears witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without partner; and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. That resurrection is true; Paradise is true; and Hellfire is true. That he adheres to (yuwālī) the friends (awliyāʾ) of Allah and disavows (yatabarrāʾ) the enemies of Allah. That he deems permissible what Allah has permitted and deems forbidden what Allah has forbidden. That he believes in the messengers of Allah, and affirms what has come from Allah.
He has set him free seeking the pleasure of Allah, he expects neither compensation nor thanks.
No one has any claim over him except in goodness.
So-and-so has witnessed it.”

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ سِنَانٍ عَنْ غُلَامٍ أَعْتَقَهُ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللهِ عليه ‌السلام: هذَا مَا أَعْتَقَ جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَعْتَقَ غُلَامَهُ السِّنْدِيَّ فُلَاناً عَلى أَنَّهُ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَاإِلهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ وَحْدَهُ لَاشَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّداً عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَأَنَّ الْبَعْثَ حَقٌّ، وَأَنَّ الْجَنَّةَ حَقٌّ، وَأَنَّ النَّارَ حَقٌّ، وَعَلى أَنَّهُ يُوَالِي أَوْلِيَاءَ اللهِ، وَيَتَبَرَّأُ مِنْ أَعْدَاءِ اللهِ، وَيُحِلُّ حَلَالَ اللهِ، وَيُحَرِّمُ حَرَامَ اللهِ، وَيُؤْمِنُ بِرُسُلِ اللهِ، وَيُقِرُّ بِمَا جَاءَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ، أَعْتَقَهُ لِوَجْهِ اللهِ لَايُرِيدُ بِهِ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُوراً، وَلَيْسَ لِأَحَدٍ عَلَيْهِ سَبِيلٌ إِلاَّ بِخَيْرٍ؛ شَهِدَ فُلَانٌ

Kulaynī also narrates with his chain to the companion Ibrāhīm b. Abī al-Bilād (d. after 183) who reports:

“I read the manumission (agreement) of Abī ʿAbdillāh and this was its text:

This is what Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad has freed. He has freed so-and-so his slave seeking the pleasure of Allah, he expects neither compensation nor thanks, upon the stipulation that he establishes prayer; gives out zakāt; performs pilgrimage to the house; fasts the month of Ramaḍān; adheres to the friends of Allah and disavows the enemies of Allah.
So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so have witnessed it. Three (witnesses)”

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيى، عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ‌ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ أَبِي الْبِلَادِ، قَالَ: قَرَأْتُ عِتْقَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ عليه السلام، فَإِذَا هُوَ شَرْحُهُ: هذَا مَا أَعْتَقَ جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَعْتَقَ فُلَاناً غُلَامَهُ لِوَجْهِ اللهِ لَايُرِيدُ بِهِ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُوراً، عَلى أَنْ يُقِيمَ الصَّلَاةَ، وَيُؤْتِيَ الزَّكَاةَ، وَيَحُجَّ الْبَيْتَ، وَيَصُومَ شَهْرَ رَمَضَانَ، وَيَتَوَلّى أَوْلِيَاءَ اللهِ، وَيَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْ أَعْدَاءِ اللهِ؛ شَهِدَ فُلَانٌ وَفُلَانٌ وَفُلَانٌ ثَلَاثَةٌ

These two reports with reliable chains are further evidence that a major component of Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq’s teaching was tawallī/tabarrī, both of which are doctrines that can be sourced back to the Qur’an.

In fact, numerous reports apart from this last indicate that he listed wilāya among the 5 farāʾiḍ (obligations) of the religion together with ṣalāt, zakāt, ḥajj, and ṣawm.

Other reports attributed to him further elaborate on who exactly these awliyāʾ who deserve loyalty and adherence are.

Reference: Al-Kāfī, kitāb al-ʿitq wa-l-tadbīr wa-l-kitāba, bāb kitāb al-ʿitq, ḥadīth 1 & 2.

New mini-article alert 🚨

When a latecomer joins the congregational prayer in the middle is he praying the last part of his ṣalāt with the imam (adraka ākhir ṣalātih) before being required to repay the first part that he had missed or is he beginning his ṣalāt regardless of where the imam is (adraka awwal ṣalātih)?

This was a controversial question which generated two contradictory answers and split the companions and other early authorities into two different camps.

The settled position of Abū Ḥanifah (d. 150), Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241), and ignoring some slight nuance, Mālik b. Anas (d. 179), was that the latecomer (masbūq) counts with the imam and then repays (yaqḍī) what he has missed after. This is what the overwhelming majority of Sunnis, with the exception of the Shāfiʿīs and modern Salafis, do to this day.

To illustrate with an example: If a latecomer joins the congregation for ʿishāʾ in the 3rd rakāt he will pray the 3rd and 4rth rakāt with the imam, and when the imam completes the ṣalāt the latecomer will stand and repay the 1st and 2nd rakāt he had missed by reciting both al-Ḥamd and another sūra in them.

In my latest mini-article I demonstrate how the Imāmī corpus authentically preserves al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar’s position on this issue before independently verifying it to have also been ʿAlī’s position on it.

https://shiiticstudies.com/2026/08/22/we-do-not-say-as-the-fools-do-how-the-imami-corpus-preserves-%ca%bfalis-position-on-the-latecomer-to-the-congregation/

I am extremely pleased to share the pdf of my paper Al-Kulaynī: Insights into His Life and Methodology

After highlighting some less well-known biographical details, I delve into analysing the muqadimma (preface) of the work which sheds light into his methodology for resolving contradiction between reports among other important points.

The paper can be downloaded from: https://www.academia.edu/171375096/Al_Kulayn%C4%AB_Insights_into_His_Life_and_Methodology

“They can stone my grave if they want to!”: A Fascinating Report Concerning the Permissibility of Mutʿa (Temporary Marriage)

Al-Bukhārī (d. 256) and Muslim (d. 261) transmit via their chains to al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. c. 100) who reports from two companions Salamah b. al-Akwaʿ and Jābir b. ʿAbdallāh that a herald came to them and announced: “The Messenger of Allah has permitted you to engage in mutʿa!”

This canonical report (see: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5117; https://sunnah.com/muslim:1405a) indicates that mutʿa was permissible at some point in time although Sunni orthodoxy argues that this permission was later abrogated.

However, a fascinating report which survives only in a single source: the little-studied musnad of the Sunni hadith compiler Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Hārūn al-Ruwayānī (d. 307) preserves more of the actual conversation between al-Ḥasan and Salamah beyond the above truncated statement.

Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, himself a grandson of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, is quoted as saying to ʿUbādah b. al-Walīd, the grandson of the companion ʿUbādah b. al-Ṣāmit: “The people in my household refuse to agree with me about this mutʿa (they say) ‘(it is) ḥalāl’ and that the Messenger of Allah permitted it whereas I oppose them in it, so let us go to Salamah b. al-Akwaʿ and ask him about it, for he is one of the righteous and early companions of the Prophet.”

The duo set out for Salamah and meet him in Bīlāt (a location close to the Prophet’s masjid), by the residence of Marwān b. al-Ḥakam (the governor). Salamah is now old, grown blind, and is being led by a guide. The following exchange ensues:

Al-Ḥasan: “Do stop so that me and my companion can ask you about a ḥadīth”
Salamah: “Who are you?”
Al-Ḥasan: “I am the son of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib”
Salamah: “The son of my brother! Go ahead - what do you want to ask me about?”
Al-Ḥasan: “The mutʿa of women”
Salamah: “O the son of my brother, conceal this ḥadīth from me as long as I am alive and narrate it when I am dead so they can stone my grave if they want to after that! The Messenger of Allah instructed us (to engage in it) and we engaged in it until Allah took him away. Allah did not send down any taḥrīm (prohibition) for it nor was there any prohibition from the Messenger of Allah about it!”

Notes: The report has a fair chain per Sunni rijāl standards. Ibn Isḥāq (the famous author of the sīra) is known for his tadlīs but is specifying simāʿa in this case. Hārūn al-Shāmī was a scribe of Ibn Isḥāq and praised for his accuracy by Ibn al-Madīnī. Bukhārī personally met Hārūn’s son ʿAbdallāh and did not criticize him. Both father and son were included by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Kitāb al-Thiqāt. The remaining narrators are indisputably thiqah.

We can derive a number of salient points from this exchange but foremost in my mind is how we have lost the context behind quite a number of reports which were truncated and are preserved in an atomistic manner.

It is also significant that al-Ḥasan states that the people of his household, that is the Alids, were all united in deeming it permissible with him being the sole exception. This would surely include his contemporary ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (d. 94) and Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir (d. 114) as is maintained in the Imāmī corpus.

The fact that Salamah was apprehensive of narrating this ḥadīth which contradicts the prohibition set by ʿUmar and later perpetuated by the Umayyads provides a window into how socially and even punitively problematic it was to go against the policy of the shaykhayn by this time.

Reference: Musnad al-Ruwyānī (ed. Ayman ʿAlī Abū Yamānī), v. 2, pp. 259-260 (https://shamela.ws/book/13161/1323).

What to do in the 3rd and the 4th? A Distinctive Position of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in Ṣalāt

A distinctive legal position attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib is that he used not to recite any Qur'an (even al-Ḥamd) in the 3rd and 4th unit of prayer.

ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211) narrates in his Muṣannaf from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī from al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar that “ʿAlī used not to recite (any Qur’an) in the last two (units) and would call them subḥatayn.“
عبد الرزاق، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: كَانَ لَا يَقْرَأُ فِي الْآخِرَتَيْنِ، وَيُسَمِّيهِمَا سُبْحَتَيْنِ

In another report, ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrates from Maʿmar b. Rāshid from al-Zuhrī from ʿUbaydallāh b. Abī Rāfiʿ (a mawlā who was ʿAlī's scribe) that he (i.e. ʿAlī) used to “Recite Umm al-Qur’an (i.e. al-Ḥamd) and another sūra in the first two units of Ẓuhr and ʻAṣr and would not recite (any Qur’an) in the last two.”
عبد الرزاق، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي رَافِعٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ يَعْنِي: عَلِيًّا - يَقْرَأُ فِي الْأُولَيَيْنِ مِنَ الظُّهْرِ وَالْعَصْرِ بِأُمِّ الْقُرْآنِ وَسُورَةٍ، وَلَا يَقْرَأُ فِي الْآخِرَتَيْنِ

Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235) has a chapter in his Muṣannaf entitled: man kāna yaqūlu yusabbiḥu fī al-ukharayayni wa lā yuqraʼu or “Those (authorities) who used to assert that one glorifies in the last two (units) and does not recite”. Ibn Abī Shayba can only cite ʿAlī and (arguably) Ibn Masʿūd as companions who held this position.

All the Sunnī madhhabs (with the exception of the Ḥanafīs) ignore ʿAlī's position in favour of reports attributed to other companions which have them reciting al-Ḥamd in the 3rd and the 4th units.

The Imāmī school, on the other hand, and since it authentically preserves the legal positions of al-Bāqir (d. 114) and al-Ṣādiq (d. 148), and since both Imams give preference to the positions of their ancestor ʻAlī in all matters, it comes as no surprise that it allows for one to make tasbīḥ in the last two units.

Thus we find al-Bāqir teaching Zurāra that it is sufficient to say subḥānallāh wa-l-ḥamdulillāh wa lā ilāha illā-llāh wa-llāhu akbar in the last two units.
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنِ الْفَضْلِ بْنِ شَاذَانَ، عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسى، عَنْ حَرِيزٍ، عَنْ زُرَارَةَ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عليه ‌السلام: مَا يُجْزِئُ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ فِي الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ الْأَخِيرَتَيْنِ؟ قَالَ: أَنْ تَقُولَ: سُبْحَانَ اللهِ، وَالْحَمْدُ لِلّهِ، وَلَا إِلهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ، وَاللهُ أَكْبَرُ، وَتُكَبِّرُ، وَتَرْكَعُ

In another report, al-Bāqir tells Zurāra: “Do not recite anything (of the Qur’an) in the last two units of a four-unit obligatory prayer, whether you are the Imam (leading others) or otherwise.“
Al-Bāqir instructs him to recite subḥānallāh wa-l-ḥamdulillāh wa lā ilāha illā-llāh 3 times instead.
وَرَوَى زُرَارَةُ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع أَنَّهُ قَالَ: لَا تَقْرَأَنَ‌ فِي الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ الْأَخِيرَتَيْنِ مِنَ الْأَرْبَعِ الرَّكَعَاتِ الْمَفْرُوضَاتِ شَيْئاً إِمَاماً كُنْتَ أَوْ غَيْرَ إِمَامٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ: فَمَا أَقُولُ فِيهَا؟ قَالَ: إِنْ كُنْتَ إِمَاماً أَوْ وَحْدَكَ فَقُلْ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَلَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ تُكَمِّلُهُ تِسْعَ تَسْبِيحَاتٍ ثُمَّ تُكَبِّرُ وَتَرْكَعُ

This is what most Shias practise today and it is something that can be traced back to ʿAlī!

I am pleased to share the slides of the presentation I gave at AMI conference (2026) entitled: “Literary Analysis of Polemical Anecdotes: A Neglected Source for the Study of the Early Ghulāt”.

Using the profile of the infamous Kufan narrator Mufaḍḍal b. ʿUmar al-Juʿfī (d. after 183/799) as a case-study, it is demonstrated that literary analysis of what I call ‘polemical anecdotes’, including those likely formulated and promulgated within ghulāt circles, can reveal a lot about the historical beliefs of the early ghulāt including their attitudes towards antinomianism and their perception of the true status of the Imams.

Link: https://www.academia.edu/169986738/Literary_Analysis_of_Polemical_Anecdotes_A_Neglected_Source_for_the_Study_of_the_Early_Ghul%C4%81t

Who Was Responsible for the Killing of al-Ḥusayn?

It is ridiculous to find some trying to minimize the Umayyad role in the killing of al-Ḥusayn when it was acknowledged by the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65-86) himself.

The prolific scholar Ibn Abī Dunyā (d. 281) reports with his chain:

ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān used to write to (his governor) al-Ḥajjāj: “Keep me away from the blood of the Banī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib for I saw the Banī Ḥarb shedding it thus they were not given respite (i.e. their kingdom was taken away from them)”

حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْخٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ، عَنْ أَخِيهِ يَحْيَى بْنِ زِيَادٍ قَالَ: كَانَ عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مَرْوَانَ يَكْتُبُ إِلَى الْحَجَّاجِ: جَنِّبْنِي دِمَاءَ بَنِي عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ فَإِنِّي رَأَيْتُ بَنِيَ حَرْبٍ أَصَابُوهَا فَلَمْ يُمْهِلْ لَهُمْ

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) accepted this report in his Minhāj al-Sunna. He writes:

“This lie is akin to the lie of the one who says ‘al-Ḥajjāj killed the ashrāf (descendants of the Prophet)’ whereas al-Ḥajjāj did not kill anyone from the Banī Hāshim despite his oppression and murder of many other than them. Instead he killed many of the Arab nobility. ʿAbd al-Malik had sent (a letter) to him that he should not kill anyone from the Banī Hāshim and noted how when al-Ḥusayn was killed during the rule of the Banī Ḥarb, that is the rule of Yazīd, evil had befallen them, so ʿAbd al-Malik took lesson from that and forbade him from killing anyone from among the Banī Hāshim …”

بَلْ هَذَا الْكَذِبُ مِثْلُ كَذِبِ مَنْ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ الْحَجَّاجَ قَتَلَ الْأَشْرَافَ، وَالْحَجَّاجُ لَمْ يَقْتُلْ أَحَدًا مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ، مَعَ ظُلْمِهِ وَفَتْكِهِ بِكَثِيرٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ، لَكِنْ قَتَلَ كَثِيرًا مِنْ أَشْرَافِ الْعَرَبِ، وَكَانَ عبد الْمَلِكُ قَدْ أَرْسَلَ إِلَيْهِ أَنْ لَا يَقْتُلَ أَحَدًا مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ، وَذَكَرَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ لَمَّا قُتِلَ الْحُسَيْنُ فِي وِلَايَةِ بَنِي حَرْبٍ - يَعْنِي مُلْكَ يَزِيدَ - أَصَابَهُمْ شَرٌّ، فَاعْتَبَرَ عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بِذَلِكَ، فَنَهَاهُ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ أَحَدًا مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ

Note: Ḥarb is the name of Abū Sufyān’s father and the allusion here is to Yazīd and how this branch of the Umayyads soon lost the throne after al-Ḥusayn’s killing.

Ibn Taymiyya obfuscates when he speaks of al-Ḥusayn being killed “in the rule of Yazīd” thereby shifting direct responsibility whereas ʿAbd al-Malik’s original words are much more direct when he refers to the “Banī Ḥarb shedding it (aṣābūhā)”

References: Al-Ishrāf fī Manāzil al-Ashrāf (ed. Maktabat al-Rushd), p. 255, n. 321; Minhāj al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya (ed. Muḥammad Rashād Sālim), v. 8, p. 105.

An esteemed researcher and friend has brought to my attention his study of the other variants of this particular report and added useful notes:

https://t.me/Al_Meerath/1056?single

(It is in Farsi, but the one who is interested can use AI to translate).

A more complete version of this report can be found in the chronicles of Ibn ʿAsākir wherein ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn narrates from his father, al-Ḥusayn, an account of John the Baptist’s killing at the hands of Herodias and her daughter Salome.

See Taʾrīkh Madīnat al-Dimashq (ed. al-ʿAmrawī), v. 64, pp. 206-207 (https://shamela.ws/book/71/29586), and compare to the account found in  the Gospel of Mark 6:17-28.

What the World is Worth

ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn said: We set out with al-Ḥusayn (towards Karbala). There was no station on the road where he would not recall John the Baptist and his killing.

Then he said one day, “A demonstration of the utter worthlessness of this world to Allah is that the head of John the son of Zechariah was presented to a prostitute from among the prostitutes of the Children of Israel!”

Explanation: If worldly supremacy meant something to Allah when compared to the ranking in the life hereafter - He would not have allowed a favourite of his, such as John, to be killed in that manner.

وروى سفيان بن عيينة، عن علي بن زيد، عن علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام قال: خرجنا مع الحسين عليه السلام فما نزل منزلا ولا ارتحل عنه إلا ذكر يحيى بن زكريا، وقال يوما: من هوان الدنيا على الله عز وجل أن رأس يحيى بن زكريا أهدي إلى بغي من بغايا بني إسرائيل

Reference: Al-Irshād of al-Mufīd (ed. Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt), v. 2, p. 132.

It was conveyed to us both that al-Barbahārī said: ‘I have been informed that there is reciter who is known as Khilb who eulogizes. Seek her out and kill her!’”

Notes: Khilb means ‘veil of the heart’. She was probably a slave-girl. Al-Barbahārī (d. 329) was a well-known Ḥanbalī preacher who attempted to impose his version of amr bil maʿrūf/naḥy anil munkar in the city of Baghdad through rousing the rabble at which he was very good. It is not known whether his fatwa led to Khilb’s murder or not.

Reference: Nishwār al-Muḥāḍara wa Akhbār al-Mudhākara ed. ʿAbbūd al-Shāljī, (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1995), v. 2, p. 233, n. 124