ULUM (Aug 2019)
Textual Criticism In Shīʿa (PhD. Dissertation)
Abstract
Beginning with ʿusūls, that is, the ḥadith booklets which were originally formed to record the Imam’s words back in the late second hijrī century, Shīʿī (Ithnā ʿAsharī/Twelver) ḥadith scholarship has developed a comprehensive and unique literature over the last twelve centuries. One of the unique features of Twelver Shīʿīte ḥadith approach is the fact that the systematic application of isnad-centered criticism in the study and evaluation of ḥadiths with regard to accuracy was begun to be practiced after the 7th hijrī century and gained wide acceptance only after that time. To put it differently, the text (matn) and the textual criteria, instead of the chain of transmitters (sanad) were central in the evaluation of ḥadith reports for a long time in the history of Shīʿī ḥadith scholarship. This centrality of textual criteria employed in the evaluation of ḥadith reports continued throughout the Shīʿī ḥadith history and it reached its most effective position in the last century. Despite the decisive role the text and textual criteria have played in the study of ḥadiths in Shīʿa, textual criticism has received little scholarly attention so far, which makes this topic a significant research question. Furthermore, in order to examine the exact meaning of textual criticism present in Islamic tradition as comprehensively as possible, it is a necessity to approach it not only from Sunnī perspective but also with an approach that includes all the other madhhabs. Correspondingly, this study, Şīʿa’da Metin Tenkidi [Textual Criticism In Shīʿa] (PhD. Dissertation, Ankara University, Institute of Social Science, Department of Main Islamic Sciences, Ankara, Turkey, 2017) has explored the different approaches and practices of textual criticism as employed over the course of Shīʿīte ḥadith tradition. The social and political unrest, especially during the 2nd and 3rd hijrī centuries before the Shīʿa (Ithnā ʿAsharīyah) completed its development as a systematic Islamic madhhab, led to the emergence of ġhulāt, the extremist groups ascribing divine characteristics to ʿAlī and his family members. As an effective way of propagation and attracting more supporters, such groups used some reports fabricated in accordance with their views, and attributed them to the Imams of Shīʿa. The widespread practice of fabricating ḥadiths led way to the formation of a group reacting against such extremist ideas as well. The first chapter of the thesis provides a brief overview of the 3rd century Shīʿī theologians’ critiques of the ġhulāt-induced ḥadiths, and explores the initial attempts of early-period Akhbārīs, the scholars of so-called Qom School, to eliminate the fabricated reports as the first practices of textual criticism made by Twelver Shīʿītes. Having lived in the 3rd hijrī century, al-Faḍl b. Shāẕān (d. 260/873-4) and Ibn Qiba (d. 319/931) were among the early Shīʿī theologians, and they developed significant approaches with regard to textual criticism in ḥadith scholarship. They claimed that some factoids attributed to Shīʿa were actually originated from the reports of ġhulāt, and thus criticized them.The uncompromising attitude of Qom School towards the ġhulātis presented by Imāmiyya as an argument for the elimination of fabricated ḥadiths and not including these kind of reports in al-Kutub al-Arbaʿa. Indeed, it is obvious that the scholars of early Qom School employed a text-based criteria in eliminating the reports containing extremist ideas, such as ascribing divinity to other beings except Allah. As a matter of fact, such extremist ideas of ġhulātdo not appear as ḥadith reports in Shīʿī compilations. While the absence of such reports can be seen as an argument for the existence of a critical approach based on the content (matn), it is rather impossible to determine the exact criteria used and the status of textual criticism due to lack of data concerning its methodology. Besides, it cannot be claimed that these efforts were successful in eliminating the fabricated reports of ġhulātcompletely and in preventing their circulation among the Shīʿī ḥadith sources. Additionally, when it comes to the problem of imāmah -the identity and the features of the leaders after Prophet Mohammad-, the critique of the fabricated reports was not practiced in the same meticulous manner, which is because of the fact that its imāmahparadigm is the core concept shaping Imāmiyyah as a madhhab and Shīʿī scholars failed to be objective in evaluating the ġhulātfabricated reports on this issue. Consequently, most of such reports escaped textual criticism. The second chapter examines the approaches and practices of Baghdad, Ḥilla and Jabal ʿĀmil Usūlī schools, which had active roles between 5th and 11th hijrī centuries respectively, towards textual criticism. The most prominent representatives of Baghdad Usūlī School are al-Shayḫ al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022), al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044) and Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067). Drawing on the works of these three scholars, it was aimed to be exposed the fact that text-related issues are the main determinants for evaluating, accepting or rejecting ḥadith reports in practise of Baghdad Usūlī School. In this respect, the key concept, used by these scholars is “qarīna”. According to their approaches, “khabar al-wāhid” (a report which falls short of the predicate mutawātir) is acceptable only when it has one of the qarīnas which are being coherent with the Qur'an, Sunnah, reason or ijmāʿ. The reports contradicting those qarīnas were claimed to have been rejected, at least theoretically. On the other hand, the role of sanad was not overlooked completely by scholars of Baghdad. It is obvious that isnad was an important tool in evaluating contradictory reports, as in the practise of al-Ṭūsī in particular. As I argue, Bagdad Usūlī School had serious doubts concerning the accuracy of sanads of reports, which made the scholars employ textual criticism instead of isnad,as the main method in evaluating ḥadith reports.Increased emphasis on the role of isnad with the rise of Ḥilla School in 7th hijrī century resulted in a decrease in the efficiency of qarīnas related to matn. I am of the opinion that the most influential factor for this is the fact the Shīʿa communities had to live under Sunnī rule for long years, especially with the collapse of the Buwayhids in the second half of the 5th hijrī century. It is inconceivable that Shīʿa, undergoing an unproductive era after Buwayhids, was not affected by Sunnī understanding, which was at the height of its scholarly productivity back then. Thus, with the Ḥilla School, isnad began to gain a substantial position in Shīʿī ḥadith methodology in ways similar to the isnad-centered Sunnī ḥadith methodology. Moreover, the isnad-centered Usūlīsm, beginning with the Ḥilla School, reached its heyday especially with al-Shahīd al-Thānī (d. 965-6/1559), who was one of the prominent scholars of Jabal ʿĀmil of Lebanon. This is due to the different approach of al-Shahīd al-Thānī favoured in ḥadith evaluation process. In Ḥilla School, despite the increasing role of isnad, matn was still important. However, al-Shahīd al-Thānī, who wrote Shīʿa’s first ḥadith methodology book, rejected the role of matn in the consideration of ḥadith reports almost completely. As I argue, that dysfunction of textual criticism, which is one of two main methods of ḥadith criticism, accelerated the rise of Systematic Akhbārism, which gained prominence in the 11th hijrī century and objected to all forms of criticising ḥadith reports. The third chapter investigates the contemporary practises of textual criticism. During the last century, in addition to the classical approach of Usūlīsm, significant improvements have taken place with regard to the understanding of textual criticism because of various historical and sociological factors. Within the scope of such recent practices, there have been scholarly attempts to identify and eliminate the ḥadith reports that were fabricated -especially- by ġhulātin the early period of Islam and found their ways into the main ḥadith sources. In this regard, it is crucial that the first examples of mawḍūʿātbooks, including the fabricated reports, have been compiled. Especially in al-Mawḍūʿātof Hāshim Maʿrūf al-Ḥasanī, textual criticism seems to be the main method used in order to identify the fabricated reports. However, it is not possible to say that such attempts have found wide acceptance among the Shīʿa scholars yet. To conclude, this study demonstrates that the textual criticism has always been used as a method in evaluating ḥadith reports throughout the history of Shīʿī ḥadith scholarship. However, there are differences with regard to the scale of emphasis put on textual criticism and to what extent it has been employed as a methodology in each school. Even in the periods dominated by al-Shahīd al-Thānī and his successors and shortly afterwards by Akhbārīs, textual criticism was applied to the reports related to doctrinal issues while its practice area was significantly limited for the reports on Islamic Jurisprudence.
