2015 Report of Research Collaboration & Management Support Course for International Research Output Training
Sunni and Shia at the Crossroad: Rethinking its History, Thoughts and Practices
Edited by Yamamoto Naoki Matsuda Kazunori Yusak Nailil Muna Futatsuyama Tatsuro
Photograph: Front: Turkey, Istanbul, Yamamoto Naoki Inside Cover, Indonesia, Bali, Yamamoto Naoki Back: Turkey, Izmir, Yamamoto Naoki
2015 Report of Research Collaboration & Management Support Course for International Research Output Training
Sunni and Shia at the Crossroad: Rethinking its History, Thoughts and Practices Date of Issue: March 20, 2016 Publisher: Center for On-Site Education and Research, Integrated Area Studies Unit, Center for the Promotion of Interdisciplinary Education and Research, Kyoto University Tel: +81 75-753-9636 / FAX: +81 75-753-9655 E-mail:
[email protected] Printer: Nakanishi Printing Company ISBN: 978-4-905518-20-4
「国際研究発信力強化プログラム・リサーチ C&M 成果報告シリーズ」刊行にあたって
本書は、京都大学学際融合教育研究推進センター・総合地域研究ユニット・臨地教 育支援センターが実施している「国際研究発信力強化プログラム・リサーチ C&M」 プログラムの成果です。このプログラムは、専攻、講座、学年の枠を越えた複数名の 大学院生が、ひとつのグループを組織し、分野、地域を横断する大きな研究テーマを 設定して研究することにより、各自の研究課題をより大きな文脈のなかに位置づけ、 比較の視点をもちながら研究を実施することを目的としています。海外提携大学の大 学院生や若手研究者と国際共同研究をおこない、国内外で研究集会を組織・運営する こと、さらに、最終的な研究成果を報告書として編集し、発信する作業すべてを、ア ドバイザーとなる教員と臨地教育支援センターのサポートのもとで、大学院生が主体 的に実施しています。こうした経験をとおして、高度な研究能力とともに、高度なコ ミュニケーション能力の研鑽を目指しています。 なお、 「国際研究発信力強化プログラム・リサーチ C&M」プログラムの実施、およ び、本報告書の刊行は、平成 27 年度 京都大学全学経費「アフリカ・アジア相互理解の ための臨地研究事業実施経費」 、および、特別経費（プロジェクト分）「変貌するア ジア・アフリカで活躍するグローバル人材の育成」の支援を受けて実現しました。 記してお礼を申し上げます。
臨地教育支援センター センター長 重田 眞義
Contents Introduction
1
Acknowledgments
2
Conference Report
3
Shi’i and the Birth of Baha’i Faith in Iran: History, Teachings, and Movement
9
Amanah Nurish
The Crossroads for Sunnis in 19th Century South Asia:
17
Shāh Muḥammad Ismā‘īl’s Ideas of Revival and Reform Kazunori Matsuda
Comparative Analysis of Resisting Philosophy among Shia and Sunni
25
Sayed Reza Ghaemi
Birgivî Meḥmed Efendi against Corrupt Sufis and Jurists
35
Naoki Yamamoto
Conflict, Tension and Peaceful Relation between Shia and Sunni
43
Elahe Hadian Rasanani
The Religious Philosophy of Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Habashi Al-Harari
51
and the Doctrines and Politics of Al-Ahbash: An Evaluation Md. Thowhidul Islam
An Inquiry into Concepts of Female Leadership: At Islamic Theological Seminaries for Women in Iran Liselotte Abid
65
Transforming Identical, Mass-Produced Religious Commodities:
81
The Case of the Qur’ānic Calendar in Tunisia Tatsuro Futatsuyama
Infallibility of Prophets and Imams in the Doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah and
89
al-Shī‘ah al-Imāmiyyah al-Ithnā ‘Ashariyyah Mohammed Suhailem, al-Hudawi Authenticity of the Ḥadīth “City of Knowledge”:
97
A Study on the Sunnite-Shīʿite Perception of Ḥadīth Rafeeq Karimpanackal
Legitimacy, in Shiite Political Thought (Guardianship of Jurist) and that of Sunnis (Caliphate) and Comparison of their Function, with Focus on the Ottomans and the Constitutional System in Iran Reza Yari-Nia
105
Infallibility of Prophets and Imams in the Doctrines of Ahl alSunnah and al-Shī‘ah al-Imāmiyyah al-Ithnā ‘Ashariyyah Mohammed Suhailem, al-Hudawi1
Introduction and Definition of ‘Iṣmah The Ash‘arite scholars from the Sunni creed define ‘iṣmahor infallibility as a quality as a result of which “Allah does not create sin in [His] slave”; some others say ma‘ṣūm or infallible is “a person endowed with a characteristic in his body or mind which prevents him from committing sin [‘Irfān 1984: 49]”. Al-Jurjānī defines it as “a trait of character which keeps away of sins while having ability to do it [Jurjānī 2004: 127]”. One of the Shiite scholars defines infallibility as “to be away from minor and major sins, and from fault and forgetfulness [Muẓaffar [n.d.]: 54]”. It is evident from these definitions that infallible is not stripped of powers to commit sin but he will not do it because of a special protection Allah set for him. Otherwise, he will become an automaton and there will not be any use in providing him powers like volition or intention which makes him accountable. Rationale for ‘Iṣmah The concept of infallibility is discussed in connection with the duties the Prophets and Imāms have to perform. As the Prophets are commissioned by Allāh to convey his message to the mankind, they should be trustworthy which necessitates their purity especially in actions and words. Otherwise, the people who are required by Allah to follow them in words and deeds, wherein Allāh says “you have exemplary model in the Messenger of Allāh [Qur’ān 33: 21]” and “say: obey Allāh and the Messenger. Then, if they turn away, surely Allāh does not love infidels [Qur’ān 3: 32]”, would be in confusion, and there will be contradiction in ordering to follow them while there is chance to appear sin in them. However, the question regarding Imāms is that whether they have the aforementioned duties of the Prophets or not. As the Shī‘ites assign to their Imāms powers similar to the Prophets, and because they argue for explicit approval of revelation for the transmission of Imāmah, they say Imām, also, should be infallible. On the other side, the Sunnites do not claim infallibility for their Imāms as they do not in see in them such powers which require their infallibility, but confine their duties to the preservation of the already revealed and completed Sharī‘ah, establishing justice, guarding the State, etc. Furthermore, selection of the imams, according to the Sunnite doctrine, is done by the noble men of the Muslim community.
1
Assistant Professor (Department of Aqeeda and Philosophy, Darul Huda Islamic University, Kerala, India)
[email protected]
89
Infallibility of Prophets: The Sunnite View Though Sunnites believe in infallibility of the Prophets in general, they go for explanation while dealing it in detail. Their rulings differ according to the nature and situation of the sin, and of the Prophet. Elaborating the infallibility of the Prophets, they categorize the discussion into four, [a] infallibility in faith, [b] infallibility in action, [c] infallibility in words and [d] infallibility in judgment. The discussion, again, is classified into infallibility before and after the prophethood. Regarding the nature of the sin, they further classify them into grave and minor sins. As for their infallibility in faith, they unanimously hold the Prophets are pure from blasphemy before and after the prophethood. So, they will not fall in infidelity at any point of their life [Ījī [n.d.]: 8/288; Taftāzanī [n.d.]: 139]. Regarding their purity in words, scholars hold the Prophets are infallible from intentional lies in such issues like claiming the Prophethood, transmission of the Sharī‘ah (divine law) from Allah and guiding the community to the straight path, the truthfulness of which were established by divinely supported miracles (mu‘jizah) [Ījī [n.d.]: 8/288; Taftāzanī [n.d.]: 139]. Majority of the scholars including al-Ustādh Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī reject unintentional lie too, because, according to their view, the miracle signified their purity from such sins also. Al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī, on other hand, leans to its possibility because the miracle guaranteed only their intentional occurrence [Ījī [n.d.]: 288]. As for their infallibility in action, they give detailed description, saying: rest of the sins are either major (al-kabīrah) or minor (al-sagīrah) sins and they may happen intentionally or unintentionally, and before or after the prophethood. As for their occurrence after the Prophethood, majority of the scholars opine that they intentionally will not commit major sins. However, if major sin is possible out of forgetfulness (nisyān)? The majority incline to its possibility [Ījī [n.d.]: 8/288]. As for the possibility of minor sin, majority of the scholars except the Muʿtazilite scholar al-Jubbā’ī hold that it is possible provided that it is not such a cheap action like stealing a seed, etc. [Ījī [n.d.]: 2/288]. All these arguments are concerning the life of the Prophets after they receive prophethood. As for their infallibility from grave sins before it, the scholars say there is no reported evidence to take either stand. Opposing this view, the Mu‘tazilites deny the possibility of such sins from them saying that they will urge the people to dislike them and thus, benefit of their deputation would miss [Taftāzanī [n.d.]: 139]. After elaborating the scholarly opinion on this point, Taftāzanī concludes saying “the truth is that such sins which arouse dislike like committing adultery with mother, doing immoral activities and minor sins of low quality are absurd in respect of them” [Taftāzanī [n.d.]: 140]. As for their infallibility in giving judgment, the Sunnite scholars say that they may fall in error in worldly and personal affairs as long as they are not related to the issues of Sharī‘ah. They substantiate this argument indicating to the incident of the pollination of dates, in which the Prophet passed by a group of people doing pollination. Then he said: it will fertilize though you did not do it. [The people stopped it obeying the Prophetic instruction]. Thereafter, it did not grow well. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw it, he asked:
90
what happened to your dates? They said: you told so and so [and we obeyed it]. Then he said: you know better about the issues of your world. In another report he said: I am man. If I say anything related to the religion, behold it; and if I say anything with my own opinion, I am man. [Ibn Ḥanbal [n.d.]]. However, it could be deduced from the above discussion that the difference of opinion expressed by the Sunnite scholars in this issue were not on serious points but were nominal. Moreover, they would reject all such narrations which depict the prophets (peace be upon them) as having told lie or committed sin, if they are transmitted through individual reports (khabar al-wāḥid); or they will interpret them as far as possible if they are reported through massive transmission (al-mutawātir); or will consider such actions avoidance of the best (tark al-awlā) as they are not sins but the prophets could have abstained from it given to their high position; or they will judge them as occurred before their prophethood [Taftāzanī [n.d.]:140].Such interpretations are seen in theological works like Ījī’s al-Mawāqif, Rāzī’s al-Arba‘ūn, etc. Moreover, Subkī, a leading Ash‘arite and Shāf‘iite scholar, totally rejects occurrence of sins from the Prophets. According to him, even minor sin in the state of forgetfulness will not happen from the prophets, which is a stand propounded by some other leading Sunnite scholars like Isfarāyīnī, Abū al-Fatḥ alShahrastānī, al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ and Taqiyy al-Dīn Subkī too [Subkī 2003:61]. Infallibility of Prophets: Shīʿite View According to the Shiite credo, the Prophets are unconditionally infallible. They consider them infallible in all means and do not differentiate between minor and grave sin and sin before and after the prophethood in this regard. However, the prophets, Shī‘ites hold, may pretend to be infidels in the state of dissimulation (taqiyyah), which is an argument that needs careful assessment because none of the Prophets did it while they were very low in number and weak in terms of power. Instead, the Prophets like Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, Muḥammad, may Allah shower his blessings upon them all, stood steadfastly in front of bad conditions and bravely preached their faith. Furthermore, it would lead to hide the preaching of Islam at all because every preaching starts in such conditions [Ījī [n.d.]: 8/288]. They substantiate this argument saying that Allah required us to follow them in all of their actions. So, if we say that they may fall in error, it means that we are ordered to follow the error as well, which is absurd in sense of reason as well revelation. Therefore, they will not commit any sin, be it minor or grave, and intentionally or not [Muẓaffar [n.d]: 41]. Infallibility of Imāms in the Shī‘ite Doctrine Explicating the Shī‘ite belief on prophets, messengers, imams and angels, AlQummī says “al-Shaykh Abū Ja‘far said that they are infallible and immune from all defiles (danas); and that they will not commit any sin, neither minor nor major; and that they will not disobey Allah's order” [Qummī 1993: 96]. They also are perfect persons and bestowed with knowledge from their childhood, and any kinds of defect, ignorance and disobedience is inconceivable of them [Qummī 1993: 96].The noble Prophet (PBUH), his
91
daughter Fāṭimah al-Zahrah (R), and the twelve Imāms (R) are infallible and incapable of sin, error or forgetfulness since they are protected by Allāh [Shīrāzī 2008: 31-32]. Why Imāms Should Be Infallible According to Rida al-Mudaffar, Imāmah is one of the foundations of the religion (aṣlun min uṣūl al-Dīn) without which faith (īmān) is incomplete [Muẓaffar [n.d.]: 54]. Imāmah is a divinely selected post. As Allāh selects whoever he wishes for the prophethood and strengthens him with miracle (mu‘jizah), he will select whomsoever he wishes for the imāmah and will order the prophet to designate him by name as imam after him in order to carry out the duties of the Prophet. However, unlike the Prophet he will not get revelation [Āl Kāshif al-Ghiṭā [n.d.]: 259-260]. In addition, Imāms are custodians of the Sharī‘ah and they are like the Prophet in that sense, and thus proofs for their infallibility is same that of the Prophets [Muẓaffar [n.d.]: 67]. Influenced by the Mu‘tazilite doctrine which considers prophethood a divine mercy (luṭf), the Shīʿites say Imāmah is a divine mercy and that Allāh cannot leave the community without an Imām. So, a guiding Imām is essential for the continuation of the Prophetic duties…, [Muẓaffar [n.d.]: 54-55]. As part of faith, it has to be established by an explicit order from Allāh conveyed through infallible prophet who is immune from lying and being in fault, and from him to others in the list with the same quality of truthfulness and its corollary, infallibility. Shī‘ite scholars give too much importance to establish the infallibility and other necessary issues enhancing it, in the light of the Qur’ān and prophetic traditions as it leads to another important point of their doctrines, that is, to invalidate imāmah of the former three caliphs of Islam because, although their imāmah is agreed by Muslim community, none of them confer the trio status of infallibility and completeness. Hence, according to this Shīʿite criterion, they will be ceased to be eligible for this noble position [‘Irfān 1984: 48]. Actually, major efforts of the Shiite theologians were in invalidating the imāmah of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, may Allāh shower his blessings on them, because only then they could proceed with their doctrine of imāmah. Conditions like infallibility, explicit assignment from Allāh, etc. were the major tools to enhance this concept. Consequently, they were very cautious to establish the unconditioned immunity of the twelve imāms. Shī‘ite theologians have unanimity on this view. Only Ibn Bābwayh alQummī (d. 381 A.H.) and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan (d. 343 A.H.), who permitted occurrence of minor sin out of forgetfulness from them, hold difference to it. However, this views were vehemently rejected by the later theologians and the former status was reestablished. For instance, al-Shaykh al-Mufīd wrote al-Radd ‘alā man za‘amaanna alNabiyyayas hū with this purpose [‘Irfān 1984: 48-49]. Infallibility does not stop in Imams but its effect extends to Shiite mujtahids (those who reaches ability to perform legal reasoning) who perform ijtihād (legal reasoning) in the absence of Imām. According to the Shī‘ite sources, taqlīd (imitating a mujtahid) in furū‘ (applications related to secondary issues) is obligatory for nonmujtahids, which necessitates presence of mujtahids in every period. Imām will do that job if he is alive, but during his occultation (ghaybat), the duty became biding upon
92
community (farḍkifāyah). If anybody attains the stage of mujtahid, then he is representative of Imām; his ruling is the ruling of Imām; whoever rejects him, he has rejected Imām; and whoever rejects Imām, he has rejected Imām [Muẓaffar, [n.d.]:32-35]. Sunnite View on the Infallibility of Imāms 1) Like the Shī‘ites, Sunnites too say that selecting an Imām is obligatory but unlike the former, the latter hold that his selection is not binding upon Allāh; rather, it is the duty of the Muslim community [Rāzī 1986: 2/255-256]. Nasafī says: “the ummah should have an Imām in order to implement the rulings of Islam (al-aḥkām); to carry out the criminal laws; to protect borders; to prepare army; to collect obligatory alms (ṣadaqa); to oppress upraises, pirates and thieves; to establish Jumu‘ah and ‘Īd prayers; to solve disputations; to preside over the marriage of those girls who do not have parents; and to divide booty among people [Taftāzanī [n.d.]: 152-153]. However, they are ordinary persons and not infallibles. Unlike the Shī‘ites who confer infallibility to Imāms, the Suunites claim infallibility for the whole ummah based on the Prophetic tradition “my community will keep unanimity upon a mistake” [Baghdādī 1996: 1/408; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 1994: 1/756]. 2) They also hold that the imāmahof the four caliphs, Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and ‘Alī (may Allah shower His blessing upon them all) is not established through the explicit authority (naṣṣ) of the Qur‘ān and Ḥadīth but with the consensus of the ummah [Shīrāzī 2008: 172]. As Abū Bakr was appointed as caliph after the Prophet (PBUH) with the consensus of his Companions, none of them raised objection when they heard Abū Bakr repeating the words of the Prophet, “imāms are from the Qurayshites.” If they agreed his caliphate hearing an individual report (khabar al-waḥid), Sunnites ask, why they did not appoint ‘Alī who, as the Shiites claim, received explicit approval from the Prophet? [Ījī, [n.d.]: 8/390]. Shīʿite claim that ‘Alī was oppressed and others unjustly took over leadership from him, does not have any justification in the life styles of the former three as they were too pious to show interest in that post. Furthermore, if there was any explicit word for any person, the Zaidites would have followed it. On the contrary, according to their doctrines, although imāmah is restricted to the family of ‘Alī and the Prophet mentioned many proofs which only befit for him and his family, there is no any explicit evidence which designate them by name [Jalī 1986: 1/185]. Despite of it, the Sunnites highly respect the family of the Prophet (PBUH) and ‘Alī as the Shī‘ites do, and they have no any detest or loath towards them because it is against the Prophetic traditions which urge the ummah to love and follow their footsteps. But, the only thing which prevents them from considering 12 descendants of his family as imāms is the absence of proofs which designate them as heirs after the Prophet (PBUH). Shī‘ites consider imāmah a principle of faith. Consequently, is it conceivable that ‘Alī’s faith was incomplete as he lived under the three caliphs before him without demanding it for himself? The Shī‘ites may say he believed in his leadership but did not disclose it as part of dissimulation (taqiyyah), which is practiced during fear of the enemies. Is it imaginable from the great champion of Islam who fought against enemies
93
with extraordinary courage and even slept in on the bed of the Prophet under the swords of the Makkans that he will endure such an insult tantamount to defeat? [Nashshār 1968: 223]. Furthermore, if believing in imām was one of the corner stones of faith, then why it was not mentioned in the Qur’ān in such a way that everybody could understand it? The Shī‘ites may propound many verses and traditions to establish their explicitness, but none of them clearly affirm their doctrine. For instance, the verse of “giving alms in ruku” [Qur’ān 5: 55] is put forward by the Shī‘ites to say that the word ‘walī’ in the verse stands for imām and ‘Alī is that imām because he is the only person fitting for the qualities mentioned in it; he is the only person who believed in Allāh, offered prayer and donated ring while bowing down. The Sunnites rejects it saying: a) the verse was revealed in the case of ‘Ubādatibn al-Ṣāmit who rejected his allegiance with Jews of Madīnah, b) the verse does signify those who give donation during bowing, but it denotes those who offer prayer and give donations, for if the meaning was as they say, giving donation while offering prayer would be highly recommended [Ibn Kathīr 2000: 5/258-268]. Another proof propounded by the Shī‘ites is word of the Prophet (PUBH) which he said to ‘Alī, “your position to me is like that of Hārūn to Mūsā.” They say it signifies imāmah of Ali because it describes ‘Alī as his deputy as Hārūn (PBUH) was deputy of Mūsā (PBUH). Sunnites responds to it saying, this tradition does signify such a meaning because Hārūn (PBU) had died in the lifetime of Mūsā (PBUH). Instead, Yūsha ‘ibn Nūn was his successor and prophet after him. So, if he meant imāmah through this word, he would have said “your position to me is the position of Yūsha ‘ibn Nūn” [Shīrāzī 2008:180]. Regarding the Shī‘ite claim the imams have received special knowledge in the form of al-Ṣaḥīfah, al-Jafr, etc, the Sunnites bring forth a Ḥadīth narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ alBukhārī which carries a testimony from ‘Alī that he does not have any such knowledge. The hadith says “Juḥaifah asked ‘Alī: Have you got any book (apart from the Qur’ān)? ‘Alī replied: No, except Allāh’s Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me) [Muẓaffar (n.d.): 54].” Abū Juḥaifa said, “I asked, 'What is in this sheet of paper?” ‘Alī replied, it deals with the diyah (compensation/blood money paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in qiṣāṣ (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever) [Bukhārī 1979: 1/257]. In short, the Sunnite concept of Imam, his nature and duties is entirely different from that of the Shiites. This difference led the both into the controversy of infallibility. According to the Sunnites, the post of caliph or imām does not necessitate infallibility but piety and god fearing which encourage him to rule the state with justice and equality. On the other hand, the Shī‘ites see in him, though he does not receive revelation, continuity of the Prophethood and venerate them higher than all prophets except Muḥammad (PBUH). As they see him as protector of the Sharī‘ah and see his post a divinely selected one, they say he is infallible and immune from all defiles.
94
Conclusion Based on the above discussion, the paper arrived at the following: (1) Whereas the Shī‘ites confer unconditioned infallibility to the Prophets, the Sunnites categorize the issue according to the nature of the sin and the situation of the Prophets. However, there is no serious divergence between the both while looking to the practical side of the issue. (2) Both Sunnites and Shī‘ites keep serious disagreement on the infallibility of the Imams: a) Whereas Shī‘ites say imāmah is affirmed through revelation, the Sunnites say it affirmed through unanimity of the Muslim community. b) While the Sunnites say he is an ordinary man, the Shī‘ites consider him infallible and superior to all other people in terms of knowledge, perfection and nature. References ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd, ‘Irfān. 1984. Dirāsāt fī al-firaq wa al-‘aqā’id al-Islāmīyah. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah. Āl Kāshif al-Ghiṭā, M. [n.d]. Aṣl al-Shī‘atwa Uṣūluhā. [S.l.]: [s.n.]. Baghdādī, A. 1996. Al-Faqīhwa al-Mutafaqqih. Riyad: Maktabat ibn al-Jawzī. Bukhārī, A. 1979. Al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Cairo: al-Matba‘at al-Salafiyyah. Dūrī, Q. 2012. Al-‘Aqīdat al-Islāmīyah wa Madhāhibuhā. Beirut: Kitāb Nāshirūn. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Namarī. 1994. Jāmi‘ bayān al-‘ilm wa-faḍlihi. Riyad: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī. Ibn Ḥanbal. [n.d]. Musnad al-imām Aḥmad. [S.l.]: [s.n.]. Ibn Kathīr. 2000. Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm. Jizah: Mu’assasat Qurṭubah. Ījī, A. [n.d]. Al-Mawāqif fī ‘ilm al-Kalām. Beirut: ‘Ālam al-Kutub. Jalī, A. 1986. Dirāsat‘an al-Firaq al-Khawārijwa al-Shī‘ah. Riyad: Sharikat al-Ṭibā‘ah al‘Arabiyyah. Jurjānī, A. 2004. M‘ujamal-Ta‘rīfāt. Cairo: Dār al-Faḍīlah. Kulainī, M. 2005. Uṣūl al-Kāfī. Beirut: Dār al-Murtaḍā. Mas‘ūdī, A. 1988. Ithbāt al-Waṣiyyah li al-Imām‘Alīibn Abī Ṭālib. Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwā’. Muẓaffar, R. [n.d]. ‘Aqā’id al-Imāmiyyah. [S.l.]: Al-Fikr.net Nashshār, A. 1968. Nash’at al-Fikr al-Falsafī fī al-Islām. Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘ārif. Qummī, I. 1993. Al-I‘tiqādāt fī Dīn al-Imāmīyah. Beirut: Dār al-Mufīd. Rāzī, F. 1986. Al-Arba‘ūn fī Uṣūl al-Dīn. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyyah. Salafī, A. 2007. Min ‘Aqā’id al-Shī‘ah. [S.l.]: [s.n.]. Shīrāzī, A. 2008. Kitāb al-Ishārah ilā Madhhabahl al-Ḥaqq. Cairo: Wizārat al-Awqāf. Shīrāzī, Muhammad. 2008. The Shia and their Beliefs. Translated by Ali Adam. London: Fountain Books. Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn ‘Alī. 2003. Jama‘ al-jawāmi‘. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah. Taftāzānī, Mas‘ūd ibn ‘Umar [n.d]. Sharḥ al-‘aqā’id al-nasafīyah. Deoband: Faiṣal Publications. Tahānawī, Muḥammad A‘lá ibn ‘Alī. 1996. Mawsū‘at kashshāf iṣṭilāḥāt al-funūn. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān Nāshirūn.
95
96
Authenticity of the Ḥadīth “City of Knowledge”: A Study on the Sunnite-Shīʿite Perception of Ḥadīth Rafeeq Karimpanackal 1
Introduction To a large extent, sectarian divisions in Islam (Sunnite and Shi‘ite Islam) and the controversies among four madhāhib (legal schools in Islam) revolve around the methodology of sifting ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) ḥadīths from those of saqīm (defect) ones. It is worth mentioning that, unlike the disagreements among madhāhib, the Sunnite and Shi‘ite dichotomy is not confined to al-furūʿ (secondary issues) only but to al-usūl (principles) also. This is largely due to the competing claims over who should assume the role of authoritative interpreter of Qur’ān. Thus it is very clear that the main ground for these and other types of differences between the two schools is their perception of ḥadīth, the understanding of which is considered to be a pre-requisite for grasping the extent of divide appropriately. The very effect of the methodological and perceptual differences between them is manifested in the issues extending from belief and worship practices to the determination of lawful and unlawful and the ethical system. In order to narrow down the scope of the study the article will focus mainly on the Imāmi or ithna ‘asharī (‘Twelver’, so called because it traces the prophetic authority through twelve imams. It is also Known as the Jaʿfari School) Shi‘ite ḥadīth tradition. Since, it has been estimated that majority of the world’s Shi‘ite population subscribe to the Imāmi sect (the concentration of which has been found high in Iranian provinces of Qumm and Rayy) and Imāmi ḥadīth scholarship has outnumbered that of other Shi‘ite sects [Brown 2010: 124]. Ḥadīth in Sunnite and Shī‘ite Islam A critical analysis of the different views the scholars of both schools have on the authenticity of a particular ḥadīth, owes much to the general understanding of how they defined the concept of ‘ḥadīth’, on what sources it is built upon and above all what is the nature, origin and development of ḥadīth criticism in both. Both schools agree on the fact that ḥadīth constitutes the second main source of legislation after the Qur’ān and it has an essential and decisive authority in the religion. On the other hand, they disagree when come to the essential matters such as sources and interpretations of ḥadīth and methods of ḥadīth criticism. To trace the answers given by both Sunnite and Shi‘ite Islamic traditions to the question, who should assume the role of authoritative interpreter of Qur’ān, will be an attempt to understand what ḥadīth does mean for them and to whom it has been sourced to. 1
Ph. D Scholar, Department of History, P.S.M.O College, University of Calicut, Kerala, India (
[email protected]).
97
Both have different visions of the heirs to the prophet’s authority. The tradition of Sunnite Islam endows this authority to the community as a whole, represented by the ‘ulema whose interpretations of Islam is as definitive as the Qur’ān or the Prophet’s edicts. But, Shi‘ite Islam proposed that Prophet’s authority to interpret had been inherited first by his family, which was held by select members of the family known as imāms [Brown 2010: 124]. While comparing with Sunnite Islamic tradition, the scope of this authority in Shi‘ite Islam is very narrow where only twelve imāms enjoy this provision after the Prophet. The twelve imāms are as follows [Shīrāzi 2008: 31]: 1. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib 2. Ḥasan 3. Ḥusayn 4. ‘Alī Zayn ‘Ābidīn 5. Muḥammad Bāqir 6. Ja‘far Ṣādiq 7. Mūsā Kāẓim 8. ‘Alī Riḍā 9. Muḥammad Taqī 10. ‘Alī Naqī 11. Ḥasan ‘Askarī 12. Muḥammad Mahdī According to Shi‘ite, apart from the Prophet, the quality of infallibility is also attributed to his daughter Fāṭimah, her husband ‘Alī and rest of the eleven Imāms. They are collectively known as al-Ma‘ṣūmūn (the infallibles) or Fourteen Ma‘ṣūmūn. Definition of Sunnah According to Sunnites, Sunnah or ḥadīth (both are used interchangeably) is the narrations conveying the words (al-aqwāl), acts (al-aʿmāl) and tacit approvals (al-taqrīrāt) expressed by the prophet and the narrations which explicate his moral characteristics and physical appearance [‘Itir 1981:26]. To Imāmi Shi‘ite, the Sunnah constitutes the narrations conveying the words, acts and tacit approvals attributed to al-Ma‘ṣumīn also, including those which explicate their moral characteristics and physical appearance [Demirel 2011:249]. What manifest from the definitions is that the doctrine of al-Imāmah (Imamology) which has the power of infallibility is the element that distinguishes one school from other. Thus obvious differences are there between them in terms of what constitutes the sunnah. As can be perceived from a comparison of definitions, the differences are more than similarities, such that the prophet is the only common authority in terms of source of jurisdiction between these two schools. Unlike Shi‘ite who attribute the quality of infallibility to thirteen more other than the Prophet, the Sunnites restricts it to the Prophet only and rejects the Shi‘ite claim that Imāms are as infallible as the Prophet is and are the sources of jurisdiction. The words of Imāms are decisive not because they are trustworthy narrators of ḥadīths; on the contrary, it is due to their role as judicial sources and conveyers of decrees they receive from Allah [Muzaffar (n.d.): 61]
98
In Imāmi Shi‘ite Islam, each Imam appoints one of his sons as the next Imām. These imāms played the double role as the best source for sayings of the Prophet and they themselves were sources of their own ḥadīths. Thinking on this line, the vast majority of the Imāmi Shi‘ite ḥadīths fall into three main forms [Brown 2010: 124-125]: 1) Imām from Prophet: In this form, a ḥadith of the Prophet is transmitted through an isnād made up of the imāms after him. 2) Imām from Imām: Here the sayings of an imām are transmitted from him by later Imāms. 3) From Imām: Here the sayings of an imām is transmitted from him via an isnād of his followers. Due to the ‘inevitability’ and ‘severability’ of the doctrine of imāma, the Shi‘ite e s was compelled to abandon all except a few generations of al-Ṣaḥābah in the chain of transmission. The necessary corollary of this intended efforts of removing al-Ṣaḥābah and refusing their trustworthiness and uprightness, will be a rejection of the legacy of prophet altogether. This repulsive approach towards them is deemed to be largely because of the hatred Shi‘ite e s had developed towards al-Ṣaḥābah, born out of their denial of ‘divine decrees’ in favor of ‘Alī’s succession of the Prophet in political and religious realms. Contrary to the Shi‘ite e treatment of al-Ṣaḥābah, ḥadīth collections of Sunnite assign them a central role in extending their sources to the Prophet. Hence, a ḥadīth that lacks the presence of any of the al-Ṣaḥābah in its chain cannot be regarded as ṣaḥīḥ (accepted). As a result, ahadith coming from Sunnite sources bear no significance to Shi‘ites [Demirel 2011: 254]. Although sometimes Shi‘ite s may narrate ḥadīths from the Prophet via his companions in the same manner as Sunnites. But this was generally done for polemical purpose of binding Sunnites with their own arguments and sources [Brown 2010: 125]. A transmission from Imām al-Bāqir maintains that all the ṣaḥābah except three became ahl al-riddah (the people of apostasy) after the demise of the Prophet. These three were Salmān Farisī, Miqdād ibn Aswad, and Abū Dharr Ghifārī [Kulayni (n.d.): 245]. Ḥadīth Ṣaḥīḥ Nevertheless, as far as the Shi‘ite definition and criteria of ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth are concerned, differences in them can be seen in many aspects from that of Sunnite. Against a five set criteria proposed by Sunnites, Shi‘ite s propounded only three by leaving behind the criterion of ‘not containing any rareness or defect’ essential for ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ, thus renounced the critique of the text in determining ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ. According to Shi‘ite, “a ḥadīth that is transmitted by Imāmite transmitters with ‘adl and ḍabṭ from other Imāmite transmitters with same qualities through a continuous chain of narration, even though it might be shāzz” [al-Shahīd al-Thanī 1984: 21-22]. The Shi‘ite definition of ḥadīth ṣaḥīḥ clearly demonstrate that more than possessing ‘adl and ḍabt, a transmitter should also be Imāmite. Hadith Criticism In the late seventh century to check the multiplication of false attribution to the Prophet, the ahl al-ḥadīth (Sunnites) scholars evolved a three tier approach to determining
99
the authenticity of a ḥadīth. The first tier was demanding a source (isnād) for the report, the second one evaluating the reliability of that source, and the third tier seeking corroboration for the ḥadīth [Brown 2010: 77]. After an early focus on the isnād as the primary means of authentication, ḥadīth critics in the late 1000s started content criticism by writing books (mawḍū‘āt) that rejected whole prophetic traditions, often because their meanings were unacceptable [Brown 2010: 99]. Unlike its Sunnite counterpart, Shi‘ite ḥadīth criticism began in its full force only in the early eleventh century immediately after the final occultation of the twelfth imām [Brown 2010: 133]. The dispute, whether ḥadīth criticism is permissible or not, culminated in the ramification of al-Imāmia into two sub sects, the Akhbārī School and Usūlī school [Demirel 2011: 257]. The Akhbārī school of thought, the most influential branch of Ja’farī school, is an ardent denouncer of the ḥadīth critique which view ḥadīth methodology as an innovation of Sunnites. The impact of this branch on Shi‘ite ḥadīth literature was so tremendous that caused for the inadequate methodology of ḥadīth criticism and ‘ilm al-rijāl (study of the narrators). One of the leading motivations for the writing of Kulaynī’s and Ibn Babawayh’s collections and declaring the four canonical collections (al-Kutub al-Arba’ah, the collection considered to be a counterpart of al-Kutub al-Sitta in Sunnite literature) to be totally reliable records of the earlier usūl of the imāms, was the failure of scholars to distinguish between reliable and unreliable ḥadīths. Their act of declaring of ḥadīths to be ‘absolute’ by its mere inclusion in the al-Kutub al-Arba’ah has invited controversies for these collections contain ḥadīths contradicting to each other and to the very principle that Qur’ān is preserved as it was revealed by Allah [Demirel 2011: 257-258]. Contrary to the view of Akhbārī School, Usūlī School does not believe that everything in the four major books is authentic. This information is enough to conclude that ḥadīth criticism is not well applied by Shi‘ite. A Case Study in Ḥadīth Criticism: The Ḥadīth “City of Knowledge” Having discussed the differences in the perception of ḥadīth between two schools, let us take a look at the ways both judged the status of a single ḥadīth having pro-‘Alid content. Our case study for determining the status of a ḥadīth is the report “I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate (anāmadīnatul ‘ilmi wa ‘aliyyun bābuhā)’, which is known shortly as the ḥadīth ‘city of knowledge’. A clear understanding of the views of both schools about a certain pro-‘Alid ḥadīth is only possible by tracing the nature of relationship between Sunnite and Shi’ite ḥadīths on the one hand and the Shiite treatment of pro-‘Alid ahadith appeared in Sunnite ḥadīth collections on the other. Although differences are at large, there exist commonalities also. Non-sectarian beliefs of many early Shi’ites, the lingering devotion to the family of the Prophet among Sunnites and the Shi’ite need to draw on Sunnite ḥadīths in their defense of Shi’ite doctrine are considered to be some chief factors responsible for the commonalities found between the two [Brown 2010: 137]. While comparing with the Sunnite ḥadīth tradition, the ḥadīths appeared in Shi’ite ḥadīth corpus are of three types. Majority of them are those related with legitimization of the doctrine of Imāmite and the concept of infallibility and the ḥadīths sourced to imāms
100
