Source Urdu Lectures of Moulana Sadiq Hassan Book
Other links from Al-islam.org Shaikh Mufid | Place of Sh. Mufid
One thousand years ago on a tumultous day, the grounds at the Ushnan Square
in Baghdad could hardly contain the crowds of people who had gathered there
on account of a sorrowful event. Thousands wept and mourned for a man whose
death was a terrible loss. Tens of thousands offered funeral prayers for a
sublime human being who had for fifty years, like a shining torch,
illuminated a vast expanse of the Islamic world with his wisdom and
knowledge, and who, at Baghdad by the side of the Tigris, had set flowing
another Tigris of knowledge and learning. The storms of bitter and bloody
events and the winds of prejudice and resentment that blew through the
`Abbasid capital had failed to put out the lamp of knowledge and
righteousness that drew its oil from the olive tree of the Qur'anic sciences
and the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them, and whose
flame drew its brilliance from the light of human intelligence. The thorny
growth of twisted judgement and guile could not stop the surging floods in
their auspicious course that had carried Islamic jurisprudence and theology,
reason and narration to fertile lands.
On that day when the large crowds of mourners attended his funeral and
offered prayers, led by the Sayyid al-Sharif 'Ali al-Murtada, over his body,
there were others who, with hearts full of malice and devoid of wisdom and
foresight, thought that everything had ended for that great man, and they
foolishly proceeded to celebrate his death.
However, every thoughtful person could see clearly that the death of that
august thinker could not spell an end for someone who through half a century
of effort had originated numerous springs of wisdom and learning, morality
and high culture, through the realms of human thought, that the will of God
and the laws of history had guaranteed its fecundity and exuberance in its
perpetual movement through generations, centuries and eras, right up to its
merger into the endless ocean of ultimate human edification.
On that day the emaciated body of al-Mufid was consigned to the earth in his
house at Darb al-Rabah, to be transferred later to the Shrine of Imam Abu
Ja'far al-Jawad, may peace be upon him, and laid to rest in that abode of
peace and Divine mercy. But the spirit of this warrior, indomitable and
unforgettable, would linger before the gaze of time and would never be
forgotten. It is still very much alive to this day and at work in the growth
and fruition of the fiqh,
kalam and religion of the Ahl
al-Bayt, may peace be upon them.
Today, one thousand years later, this al-Shaykh al-Mufid Millennium held
with your precious efforts commemorates that event and pays homage to that
epitome of learning and piety whose sublimity has not been diminished by ten
centuries of growth of science and culture, nor whose visage has been dimmed
by the mists of time.
In fact, by paying homage to al-Mufid and publishing his written works, the
scholarship of this generation pays in fact the debt of gratitude to a man
whose personality and ideas have had a continued presence throughout the
rich and fruitful growth of the fiqh and kalam of
the school of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them. They have served as
the cornerstone of the high edifice of Shi'i theological and legal studies
of the last thousand years.
Al-Mufid's presence in the assembly of living theological ideas and
scholarly pursuits does not lie in publication of his books and discussion
of his views, although the publication of his writings and the discussion of
his ideas and views is an expression of gratitude for the debt that all
theologians and jurists that came after him owe him. Rather, this radiant
presence lies in the continuity of the tradition in fiqh and kalam established
by him. The holding of this millennium of gratitude and homage, firstly,
makes the present generation more familiar with the visage of this great man
and prepares the ground for better recognition and utilization of his legacy
by this and the future generations.
Secondly, it provides researchers in the field of the history of fiqh and
the rational sciences the opportunity to obtain new insights concerning the
history of development of these sciences and the formation and growth of
their formative elements during a critical period. This point acquires
greater significance when we study the 4th/10th and the 5th/llth centuries
as an outstanding and brilliant phase in the cultural, scientific and
literary development of the Islamic world.
Thirdly, it will be conducive to the expansion of acquaintance with the
basic theological teaching of Shi'ism on behalf of Muslim scholars and
masses irrespective of school or sect. The importance of this becomes
obvious when we observe the venomous pens and mercenary hands, of the enemy
or his malicious agents, write and publish such lies and slanders concerning
the beliefs of the Shi'ah, one of the major sects of Islam and today the
heralds of Muslim awakening, as are comparable to those fabricated
throughout the entire course of history. [1]
Unfortunately, political motives and colonial designs are active in such
moves, aimed to deceive the public. They are even more evident today than
they were at the time when Umayyad and `Abbasid caliphs considered malign
propaganda against the Shi'ah as part of their all-out campaign against the
followers of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them, and a necessary
prerequisite of their suppression. In view of this, any effort to inform the
public concerning the Shi'i doctrines and teachings is also conducive to the
establishment of Muslim solidarity and brotherhood. Because the enemies of
Islam have always tried to misrepresent the doctrinal and juristic
principles of Muslim sects to one another in order to divide Muslims.
Three Aspects of al-Mufid's Work
I thank the distinguished scholars with whose efforts this high-level
scholarly gathering is being convened and I thank all of you, scholars and
experts, who will enrich it with your scholarly presence. I would like to
participate in your momentous collective enterprise by discussing an
important point relating to the scholarly personality of al-Mufid, that
glorious Shaykh, and do my share of the job in unveiling the luminous visage
of this man of centuries and eras. This point concerns "the place of Mufid
in the development of Shi`ism in the fields of kalam and fiqh."
I have reached these conclusions with the help of reliable evidence based on
his statements, views, and writings, as well as the statements of his pupils
and biographers.
That thesis, put briefly, is that al-Shaykh al-Mufid is not merely an
eminent theologian and jurist amongst Imamiyyah scholars. Rather, far more
than that, he is the founder and progenitor of the evolving tradition in the
fields of kalam and fiqh that
continues to this day in the centres of Shi'i learning. And though not
entirely free of historical, geographical and ideological influences, it has
preserved its basic framework and original characteristics.
The exposition of this thesis and its affirmation is important because this
tradition underwent such a rapid and astonishing growth and change in the
period of half a century following him that the seminal role of al-Shaykh
al-Mufid has been often ignored. Here, a point to be emphasized is that the
brilliant and distinguished scholarly achievements of al-Shaykh Mufid's
outstanding pupil, that is, al-Sayyid al-Murtada `Alam al-Huda (d.
432/1040), and the high peak of this chain as represented by the era of
Shaykh al-Ta'ifah Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi (d.46411067), are, in fact,
a continuation of the tradition whose founder was Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn
al-Nu'man al-Mufid. In order to explain this thesis, it is essential to
elucidate the influential and decisive role of al-Mufid in the following
three aspects:
1. establishment of the independent identity of the school of the Ahl-Bayt,
may peace be upon them;
2. creation of a correct pattern and model for the development of Shi'i
fiqh;
3. devising a method in fiqh and kalam based
on logical compatibility between reason and revelation.
The high edifice built by Shi'i jurists and theologians during the last ten
centuries and the incomparably rich literary tradition created by them
through their works, rest on the foundations laid down by al-Shaykh al-Mufid
through these three facets of his work.
Yet, before these three aspects are explained, it should be noted that
al-Shaykh al-Mufid and the Shi'i centre of learning at Baghdad, each of them
is a phenomenon that did not have a precedent in Shi'i history up to that
time.
Undoubtedly, before that time, active Shi'i centres of learning were
scattered everywhere from Syria to Transoxiana. Qumm, which succeeded the
Kufah of the 2nd/8th and the 3rd/9th centuries as a major centre of hadith, and
Ray, from which the well-known figures of al-Kulayni and Ibn Qibah al-Razi,
among others, came, were only two of the numerous centres of Shi'i learning
of that era. In the east, the centres of Transoxiana, two of whose famous
representatives are al--`Ayyashi from Samarqand and Abu `Amr al-Kashshi, and
the centre at Aleppo, whose Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Sabi'i al-Halabi and 'Ali ibn
Khalid al-Halabi's names appear among the teachers of al-Mufid, should have
been, as suggested by available evidence, important Shi'i centres of
learning. A glance at the list of al-Kashshi's teachers shows what a
remarkable number of scholars and traditionists received their training in
the regions of Khurasan and Transoxiana far from the original Shi'i centres.
This lends weight to the presumption that, perhaps, there were more than one
centre of Shi'i learning engaged in the training of the learned in these
regions. At least ten of the teachers of the above-mentioned scholars
belonged to Samarqand or Kashsh (near Samarqand) and about the same number
came from the cities of Bukhara, Balkh, Herat, Sarakhs, Nayshabur, Bayhaq,
Fariyab and other towns of the region. [2]
The names of these scholars-all or most of whom were presumably Shi'ah-with nisbahs related
to the towns of Transoxiana and Khurasan, lend support to the surmise that
al-`Ayyashi-the doors of whose house according to al-Najashi, remained open
in generous hospitality for learned Shi'is and scholars (kanat marta'an
lil-Shi`ah wa ahl al-`ilm) [3] and
which "like a mosque, was full of people including copyists, proofreaders,qaris and
commentators [4]--lived
at Samarqand and not Baghdad [5](also,
it is very improbable that someone from Kufah or Baghdad would have gone
seeking such a number of shaykhs from
Khurasan and Turkistan), and this indicates the prevalence of the teachings
and sciences of the Ahl al-Bayt and the presence of a very active centre of
Shi'i learning in that city.
Also in Greater Syria and particularly Aleppo, in view of its large Shi'i
population and the rule of the Hamdanids, who were themselves Shi'i and
observed Shi'i customs and ceremonials, [6] there
undoubtedly existed a considerable centre of learning, though in view of its
proximity to Iraq and the presence of its traditionists and jurists in
Baghdad, and later, during the times of al-Shaykh al-Tusi, in Najaf, it
cannot be reckoned amongst the major centres.
This was in brief the position of Shi'i centres of learning during the
period leading up to al-Mufid's times. The centre at Baghdad was also active
during that period and was engaged in the study of the Islamic sciences and
teachings. But with the appearance of al-Shaykh al-Mufid on the scene and
the gradual spread of his scholarly renown, Baghdad, which was the political
and geographical centre of the domains of Islam, also became the main centre
of Shi'i learning. It became not only the central authority to which the
religious and intellectual problems of the Shi'is were referred for
solution, [7] but
also the Mecca of those who aspired to acquire scholarship and learning.
Although an exhaustive list of all of al-Mufid's pupils-whose number must
have been quite large-is not available, the number of those who are
mentioned in the biographical sources amongst his pupils is very small, far
less than what someone like al-Mufid must have trained during a period of
about half a century of intellectual leadership of the Shi'ah. But the fact
that a genius such as al-Shaykh al-Tusi was drawn towards Baghdad from Tus
and not towards any of the centres near his native Tus (that is, those of
Khurasan and Transoxiana), and his unwillingness to settle down in Rayy or
Qumm, as well as the absence of any famous and prominent figure in these
centres for a period that was not after all so short-all these indicate that
with the rise of al-Mufid into prominence Baghdad assumed a place that none
of the Shi'i centres of learning is known to have acquired earlier. That is,
through a dominant position in all the sciences current in the different
Shi'i centres, it eclipsed the fame of all the other centres throughout the
Islamic world and continued to be reckoned the crown of Shi'i centres of
learning until the birth of the auspicious and virgin centre of Najaf (in
448/1056 or 449/1057).
Without doubt, the active hub and the shining core of this centre was
al-Shaykh al-Mufid. With his genius, extraordinary talents, and unceasing
efforts, and by utilizing the unique position of Baghdad as the political
and geographic centre of the Islamic world and the rendezvous of scholars of
the various schools and sects, he attained a station which was unprecedented
in its inclusiveness, which made him the cynosure and the rallying point of
the Shi'i centre of Baghdad during his lifetime.
A study of the works of this august Shaykh as well as evidence from other
sources make it clear that al-Mufid represents a wonderful confluence of
most of the diverse qualities for which some eminent Shi'i figures until
that time were famed: he combined in himself the fiqh of
the early legists such as Ibn Babawayh and Ja'far ibn Qulawayh, the kalam of
Ibn Qibah and the Nawbakht family, the `ilm
al-rijal of al-Kashshi and
al-Barqi, thehadith of
al-Saduq, al-Saffar and al-Kulayni, in addition to his unique formidable
talents for polemic and intellectual wrestling as well as other
distinguished qualities. Of course, each of them is a torch that illuminates
one of the paths relating to the teaching of the Ahl al-Bayt. But al-Mufid,
like a candelabrum, combines of all their brilliance. And this is something
which we do not find in any of the scholars before him. The statement of Ibn
al-Nadim (d.380/990) suffices as a proof of his singular talents when he
describes al-Mufid at an age of less than 44 years [8] as
the leading Shi`i scholar of fiqh,
kalam and hadith. And
al-Dhahabi who, in hisTa'rikh al-'Islam, speaks
of him in a biased and hostile tone, nonetheless cites Ibn Abi Tayy's
statement about him:
"He was unrivalled in all the sciences: in the two usul [i.e usul
al din andusul al fiqh], in fiqh
-tradition, the science of rijal,
the Qur'an and exegesis, grammar and poetry ... In all these sciences he was
unequalled by anyone and he debated followers of any creed." [9]
Thus al-Mufid is one who combined in himself the sciences of his
predecessors and it was through the means of such a versatile and
multi-faceted personality that the tradition of Shi'i learning, as continued
for centuries after him, came to be founded. In it fiqh, kalam, usul, literature,hadith and rijal were
taught, studied and developed as complementaries of one another and side by
side. It was this tradition whose sublime peak is represented by al-Sayyid
al-Murtada and the zenith of whose perfection was the Shaykh al-Ta'ifah
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi.
In view of what we have said concerning the unprecedented character of
al-Shaykh al-Mufid and the contemporary centre of Baghdad, al-Mufid must be
considered the true progenitor of the Shi'i centres of learning of the
following centuries with their characteristic constitution as places where
all the Islamic sciences based on reason and tradition were taught and
learnt and whose graduates were well-versed in all or most of those
sciences.
At least until the era of al-Shahid al-'Awwal-that is, the time when
speciality in fiqh and
its prerequisites became the overwhelming concern of Shi'i centres of
learning-the same constitution is observable in all or most of the centres
and their human products. And this was a continuation of the tradition
originated by the person of al-Mufid and the academic centre created by him:
that is, the centre of Baghdad until the year 413/1022.
Therefore, it is not surprising if it is claimed that such a unique and
distinguished figure was the originator and pioneer of a new path along the
threefold lines mentioned earlier.
Now we shall discuss the threefold aspects of al-Mufid's intellectual
personality.
1. Establishment of the Independent Identity of the School of the Ahl
al-Bayt
After the beginning of the Era of Occultation (ghaybah) and,
in particular, following the seventy-four year period of the Lesser
Occultation and total severance of the Shi'ah from the Hidden Inan-may our
souls be ransomed for him-one of the dangers that threatened the integrity
of the school of the Ahl al-Bayt was that of accretions and losses that
might occur in it through conscious or unconscious errors and deviations on
behalf of those associated with this school. Another danger was that of
adulteration of its truths with the doctrines or precepts of deviant creeds
and counterfeit schools of jurisprudence as a result of the main conceptual
boundaries of the school becoming vague and indistinct. Whenever such a
thing occurred during the era of the Imam's presence in society, or whenever
such a danger arose, the sacred person of the Imam himself represented the
rallying centre and the criterion against which everything was judged and
evaluated. Hence, as long as the Imam, may peace be upon him, was in the
people's midst, errors did not linger for long and that infallible leader
would elucidate the major errors at sensitive junctures. The Shi'ah were
confident that if there occurs any deviation in the main lines of the school
in any quarter, the truth would at last become manifest and those who seek
it shall find it. During the times of the Imams, may peace be upon them, we
come across individuals who were expressly repudiated and rejected for being
guilty of some bid'ah, or
for instituting a wrong creed, or for preaching some false doctrine-such as
Muhammad ibn Miqlas, known as Abu al-Khattab, and Ibn Abi al--`Adhafir,
known as al-Shalmaghani (this one pertaining to the era of the Lesser
Occultation) and many others like them. We even come across instances where
in cases of dispute between two groups of sincere and genuine followers when
one of them denounced and ostracized some person or group for holding some
belief, the Imam would rise to their defence by making complimentary remarks
about them, approving that belief or acquitting the persons involved of the
allegations of heresy. An example of it is the Imam's approval of Yunus ibn
`Abd al-Rahman (through such remarks as: "rahimahullah,
kana `abdan salihan," or "inna
Yunusa awwalu man yujibu `Aliyyan idha da'ah";see Rijal
al-Kashshi, the biographical
account of Yunus ibn `Abd al-Rahman) when ostracized by the Qummis, who
narrated denunciatory traditions regarding him. Another is the case of the
Banu Faddal, who were eagerly sought for by the seekers of the sciences of
the Ahl al-Bayt as a reliable source of knowledge. With the remark "khudhu
ma rawu wa dharu ma daru" (`Take
what they narrate but refrain from their interpretations'), the Imams
checked their heretical (Fathi) belief
from penetrating into the Shi`i masses. Such instances are numerous in the
history of the relations of the Imams ('a) with
their contemporaries and disciples.
From this viewpoint, during the period of his presence the Imam, may peace
be upon him, is the ever-vigilant and watchful keeper of the creed's
frontiers who safeguards the boundaries of the creed which are critical to
its integrity.
However, it is a totally different situation during the period of
occultation of the Imam, especially during the Greater Occultation. In this
period, on the one hand, due to the daily increasing needs of the community,
which now had to be met by the `ulama' rather than the Imam (`a), and, on
the other, due to the absence of a clear and decisive authority to settle
what are natural disagreements between the `Ulama' and the learned of the
faith, the door is open for different ideas, views and interpretations in
matters of religious doctrine and law. Amongst the varied opinions that
emerged, it was natural that elements belonging to deviant schools of
thought or those pertaining to heretical Shi'i creeds (Zaydi, Isma'ili,
Fathi, etc.) should enter the school of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon
them, and compromise its purity and integrity, or even pose the threat of
total disintegration in the long run.
Here arises one of the most important duties of the living leaders of the
ummah, a duty which if carried out faithfully ensures the survival of the
faith and amounts to a jihad critical
for its continued life. That duty is that of the definition of the Shi'i
faith as a system of thought and practice and the determination of a
doctrinal and legal framework derived from the precious legacy of the
statements of the Imams, may peace be upon them. The independent and
clear-cut identity of the faith of the Ahl al-Bayt (`a)thus defined
becomes available to its followers for understanding and utilization. This
enables the `ulama' and the thinkers to distinguish departures from the
principles in kalam and
fiqh from variance of
opinion within the framework of the school.
There is no doubt that this task had remained unattended until the time of
al-Mufid, may God's mercy be upon him. Ibn al-Junayd's deviant inclination
towards qiyas in
fiqh and Mu'tazilite
leanings in kalam on
behalf of the house of Nawbakht are the best evidence of this claim, and
these are just two examples of consequences arising from the absence of
definition of boundaries of Shi'ism in the spheres of doctrine and law.
In the field of fiqh, the
neglect of rational principles of juristic deduction and the failure to
practise the inference of detailed rules from general principles-which were
an incontestable part of the teachings of the Imams, may peace be upon
them-or, on the opposite side, tumbling into the valley of qiyas, are
reckoned as two opposite deviant tendencies that emerged as a result of the
absence of a clear-cut framework and there existing no demarcation of the
conceptual boundaries of the school. In the field ofkalam, the
major manifestation of this absence of framework is the adulteration of
Shi'i kalam by
Mu'tazilite theology.
In the second case, the consequences were greater and more harmful. In this
relation, the following cases are worthy of note:
(a) Major and famed theologians such as those of the Nawbakhti family fell
victim to Mu'tazilite tendencies in many issues of 'ilm
al-kalam and, like the
Mu'tazilah, adopted an extreme rationalism for understanding theological
issues.
(b) Some major Shi'i figures have been claimed by the Mu'tazilah, and
Mu'tazili writers consider them as belonging to their own fold. One of them
is the famous Shi'i scholar and theologian al-Hasan ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti,
the nephew and contemporary of Abu Sahl Isma'il ibn 'Ali al-Nawbakhti, the
distinguished figure of the Nawbakhtis. [10]
(c) It came to be imagined that Shi'ism and Mu'tazilism could come together
in a single person, and some eminent figures are presented as having been
both Shi'i and Mu'tazili. Some even accepted such a notion concerning
themselves, proclaiming it repeatedly, and coming to believe it! An example
of this kind is al-Sahib ibn 'Abbad, who declares in his verses:
Were my heart to be split open, Its inside would reveal a couplet, written
by no scribe: 'Justice and tawhid' on
one, And 'Love of the Ahl al-Bayt' on the other side. [11]
And elsewhere he says:
I declared: Indeed I am a Shi'i and a Mu'tazili!
This, despite the fact that the distinctive doctrine of Shi'sm is the
Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them, which no Mu'tazili
accepts, and the distinctive dogma of I'tizal
is al-manzilah bayn al-manzilatayn[i.e. the belief that the perpetrator
of a major sin is neither a mu'min nor
akafir], which
contradicts established Shi'i beliefs.
(d) Some Shi'i scholars accepted one of the five Mu'tazilite dogmas without
being styled Mu'tazili by others or themselves. For instance, al-Najashi
writes about Muhammad ibn Bishr al-Hamduni that "he held sound beliefs but
believed in wa'id" [i.e.
the belief that the perpetrator of grave sins would be in hell forever] (Rijal, p.
381).
(e) Shi'i kalam in
general has been thought to have been derived from Mu'tazilite kalam, in
particular the two doctrines of tawhid and 'adl,which
are claimed to have entered Shi'ite theology from I'tizal. This
notion is repeatedly stated in the statements of non-Shi'i heresiographers
and theologians from the early times to the later eras, as well as in the
statements of those who have relied for their information on non-Shi'i
works, as in the case of the Orientalists. Even at the time of al-Mufid
himself, the Mu'tazilite theologian and Hanafi faqih from
Saghan, to whom al-Mufid refers as the "deluded shaykh" in his al-Masa'il
al-Saghaniyyah,did have such a misconception about al-Mufid, concerning
whom he says, "A shaykh from Baghdad who has borrowed his ideas from the
Mu'tazilites has said . . . " (see al-Masa'il
al-Saghaniyyah, p. 41).
However, Shi'i researchers and writers-excepting those who, like the
Orientalists, have relied on non-Shi'i sources-have remained secure from
this error and this is on account of the greatly fruitful work of al-Mufid.[12]
* * * * * *
With attention to that which has been said, the importance of al-Mufid's
work as someone who took upon himself the task of defining the school of the
Ahl al-Bayt becomes evident. Answering the need of the times and by relying
on his own scholarly powers, this august genius took up this difficult,
unprecedented, and greatly momentous and critical task and truly
accomplished it successfully. This is not to claim that after al-Mufid no
one did, or could not, fall victim to ignorance and error in understanding
the content of Shi'ism. What is claimed is that the understanding of this
school of thought and the recognition of its boundaries and limits became
easier for someone trying to find them, and the faith of the Ahl al-Bayt ('a) with
its special characteristics in the spheres of fiqh and kalam became
quite accessible to researchers without the danger of being confused with
other creeds.
For accomplishing this great task, al-Mufid made a number of practical moves
each of which deserves to be studied independently. I will make just a
passing reference to the list of these moves in the fields of fiqh andkalam.
In fiqh he
wrote Kitab al-muqni'ah, which
contains an almost complete course in fiqh. In
that book, he took the straight path of adopting the middle course of legal
deduction comprising the employment of literal proofs (adillah lafziyyah) and
the juristic rules (qawa'id usuliyyah) and
abstention from qiyas [analogical
reasoning], istihsan and
other invalid tools (we will discuss this matter later in the subsequent
section).
In addition to this, he also wrote al-Tadhkirah
bi usul al-fiqh, and-so far
as it is possible to make an assertion on the basis of written works-for the
first time collected the juristic rules of legal deduction, giving fatwa on
this basis (we will speak of this book, too, later on). Apart from these two
works, he also compiled al-'I'lam wherein
he mentioned the cases where Shi'i legists concur on a certain hukm and
the Sunni legists disagree [with the Shi'i position] unanimously and none
amongst the legists of the Ahl al-Sunnah has given a ruling in accordance
with the Shi'i consensus. A number of the chapters of this book have been
the subject of discussion and research on account of the cases of consensus
reported. In relation to the definition of the lines of demarcation between
Imami and Hanafi fiqh,
al-Masa'il al-Saghaniyyah, written
as a rejoinder to the objections of a Hanafi jurist about some issues of
Shi'ite fiqh, is also
a precious work.
One of al-Mufid's original works in this field is al-Naqd
'ala Ibn al-Junayd, whose
title is indicative of his role as a determined sentinel determined to guard
the fiqhi frontiers
of the school of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them. Of course, a
definite judgement concerning the book's content is not possible, for it is
not available to us. But our acquaintance with his style of work, the
powerful character of his arguments in religious polemics, his extensive
knowledge of the religious sources, his firm ordering of the preliminaries
in a discursive argument, his determined stance against Ibn al-Junayd's
tendency towards qiyas,examples
of which can be seen in al-Masa'il
al-Saghaniyyah [13] -all
these lead us to believe that the said work must have been scholarly and
convincing in its content and without doubt it was quite influential in
discontinuing the said tendency amongst Imami legists.
However, al-Mufid's more important and more extensive contribution in this
regard, i.e. the establishment of Shi'ism's independent identity, relates to kalam. In
this field, the purpose of this august shaykh of ours was to draw, with his
characteristic perspicacity and precision, the lines of demarcation between
Shi'i doctrines and the other creeds. This would enable him to stop the
doctrinal elements of other Islamic and Shi'i creeds from encroaching into
the body of Shi'i doctrines and to frustrate the attempts to attribute wrong
ideas to the Shi'i creed which have nothing to do with Shi'ism. That is the
reason why during his career as a polemist he calls all the creeds of his
time to debate, and engages in debate with Ash'arites, Mu'tazilites,
Murji'ites, Kharijites, anthropomorphists, the Ahl al-Hadith, the Ghulat,
the Nasibites and representative of other major and minor Muslim sects. But
more than any other rival sect, he was concerned to confront Mu'tazilism and
its well-known offshoots and devoted himself to the refutation of
Mu'tazilite views concerning various issues in several of his books and
major and minor risalahs. The
clue to this matter is that of all the various Islamic sects it was
Mu`tazilism which, due to the resemblance between some of its doctrines and
certain Shi'i principles, could be a likely candidate for the suspicion that
it was the source of many Shi'i beliefs, or even of the belief that it was
the same as Shi'ism with some slight differences. It could lead to the
misconception that Shi'i kalam in
its entirety was derived from Mu'tazilite theology, or that the principles
of Shi'i theology were the same as that of Mu'tazilism. And as stated
earlier, this misconception has resulted in certain harmful consequences. In
fact, the preoccupation with Mu'tazilite doctrines in al-Mufid's works is a
prominent instance of his role as a sentinel safeguarding the integrity of
Shi'ism and affirming the independence and originality of its theological
system.
In this context, the most important work of the Shaykh is his famousAwa'il
al-maqalat fi al-madhahib wa al-mukhtarat written
to explain the difference between Shi'ism and Mu'tazilism. As he himself
explains in the book's introduction, there he has paid attention even to the
differences of these two sects in some common doctrines, such as that of
Justice, and their points of disagreement. [14]
It appears from his statements in this brief introduction that the aim of
writing this book was to provide a reliable source of reference concerning
matters of doctrine for those interested in the details of the fundamentals
of the creed. In this book, he criticizes even some Shi'ite scholars who had
earlier adopted some Mu'tazilite views and compromised the purity of the
system of Shi'i theology. He mentions Banu Nawbakht in this context. This is
the same duty of guarding the frontiers and defending the conceptual system
of Shi'ism of which al-Mufid, may God's mercy be upon him, was-so far as we
have detailed knowledge-the first standard bearer.
Of course, the work of demarcation of doctrinal boundaries between Shi'ism
and Mu'tazilism is not confined to the Awa'il
al-maqalat. In his other books as well he devotes himself to this task,
approaching the subject in various ways and often, from the viewpoint of
style, in a most appealing and effective manner. But in the Awa'il this
characteristic is visible in its consummate form In it we encounter cases
where there is an agreement between the Shi'ah and the Mu'tazilah concerning
a certain belief. In such cases, his treatment of the subject is such as to
highlight the independence of the school of the Ahl al-Bayt in respect of
that belief, and any doubt that the Shi'ah might have followed the
Mu'tazilah in the matter is laid to rest. For instance, concerning the
denial of the possibility of Beatific Vision he states: "I say that it is
not possible to see God, glory be to Him, with the eyes. This statement is
affirmed by reason, the Qur'an states it, and the traditions of the Imams of
guidance belonging to the Family of Muhammad (s) are mutawatir in this
regard. All the Imamiyyah as well as all their theologians are unanimous in
this regard, except one of them who has departed from the straight path due
to a doubt that appeared to him in the interpretation of the traditions. The
Mu'tazilah are in agreement with the Imamiyyah in this regard and so also
all the Murji'ah and many of the Khawarij and the Zaydis and groups of Ashab
al-Hadith . . ." (Awail al-Maqalat, pp. 62-63).
In holding this belief, the Shi'ah rely upon their own reliable proofs (adillah)
derived from the Book and mutawatir Sunnah,
in addition to its affirmation through rational proofs. Accordingly, there
is no reason why they should borrow from the Mu'tazilah or some other sect.
Rather, it is the Mu'tazilah who have gone along with the Imamiyyah in this
matter. Such an account suggests that it is the Mu'tazilites who are
indebted to the Shi'ah in this matter.
Again, in the context of "God's knowledge of things prior to their
existence," he states:
I say that God, the Most Exalted, knows everything before its coming into
existence. Indeed there is no temporally produced thing (hadith) that
He does not know before its coming into being. There is nothing that can be
possibly known but that He knows its reality, and, indeed, there is nothing
in the earth or the heaven that is concealed from Him, subhanah. This
is based on rational proofs, the Scripture, and mutawatir traditions
narrated from the family of the Messenger (s), and this is the creed of all
the Imamiyyah. And we know nothing of what the Mu'tazilites report of Hisham
ibn al-Hakam in opposition to it. Our opinion is that it was fabricated by
them against him, and it has deceived those Shi'ites who followed them and
alleged it of him . . . .
With us in the doctrine we hold on the subject are all the believers in
God's Unity, except al-Jahm ibn Safwan among the determinists and Hisham ibn
`Amr al-Fuwati among the Mu'tazilah. (pp. 60-61)
In this passage, the writer's tone and his recourse to the Qur'an, mutawatir
traditions, and reason as the grounds for holding the belief, all clearly
suggest the independence of Shi`i theology, although that belief is shared
by the Mu'tazilah and other sects.
In some cases, the Shi'ah and the Mu'tazilah concur in regard to part of a
certain well-known issue. In such instances, al-Mufid mentions the points of
difference between the Shi'ah and the Mu'tazilah so that their ostensible
partial agreement in regard to the issue should not mislead one in regard to
its detailed aspects.
For instance, both the Shi'ah and the Mu`tazilah subscribe to the doctrine
of lutf and aslah.
But al-Mufid; in order to avert the possibility of error in understanding
the issue and in order that the Shi'ah might steer clear of the error of the
Mu'tazilah in this problem, after explaining the doctrine ofaslah immediately
adds:
I say that the Help (lutf) which
the proponents of the doctrine of lutfmake
incumbent upon God is so from His generosity and nobility (al-jud wa
al-karam). It is
not-as they think-justice that obliges Him, so that He would be unjust were
He not to give it. (Awa'il, p. 65)
Even in cases where there are isolated cases of some Shi'i theologians
concurring with the Mu'tazilite standpoint, he insists upon mentioning them
by name or through some other indication so that the viewpoint held by these
exceptions to the rule is not ascribed to Shi`ism as such. For instance, in
the context of `ismah (infallibility),
after mentioning the Imami view concerning the protection of the Imams, may
peace be upon them, from minor sins and even inadvertent faults (sahw)
and forgetfulness, he says:
This is the doctrine of all the Imamis, except someone who is eccentric and
sticks to the letter of traditions which have interpretations contrary to
his pernicious opinion in this matter. All the Mutazilites oppose it,
allowing grave sins and apostasy to occur on the part of the Imam. (Awa'il,
p. 74)
It appears that here al-Mufid's reference is to al-Shaykh al-Saduq, may
God's mercy be upon him.
Apparent in these examples, and throughout the Awa'il
al-maqalat, is the distinguished role of al-Shaykh al-Mufid, in defining
the doctrinal boundaries of Shi'ism, as a vigilant and unsparing sentinel
fully determined to define the doctrinal and theological framework of
Shi'ism in such a manner that its adherent is not mistaken for the follower
of any other creed.
The same goal is also pursued in other books though in a somewhat different
way. For instance, in al-Hikayat, the
major part of which deals with the refutation of Mu'tazilite doctrines
relating to different theological issues, there is a chapter entitled "ittiham
al-tashbih" in which the
narrator, who is probably al-Sayyid al-Murtada, says: "The Mu'tazilah
accused our predecessors of anthropomorphism, and even some traditionists (ahl
al-hadith) belonging
to the Imamiyyah, who have taken their word for it, claim that we have
borrowed our anti-anthropomorphic stance from the Mu'tazilah. [15] Thereupon
he requests al-Shaykh al-Mufid, may God's mercy be upon him, to narrate a
tradition refuting this allegation.
In reply, al-Mufid, after speaking at some length about the origin and
history of this allegation and after pointing out that the number of riwayathanded
down from the Ahl al-Bayt (`a) concerning
the repudiation oftashbih is innumerable,
cites in this context a tradition from Hadrat Abu `Abd Allah (a). Then
he says: "This is a statement of Abu `Abd Allah, may peace be upon him. Now
how is it possible (to say) that we have borrowed it from the Mu'tazilah,
without the speaker of such a statement being lacking in piety?" (al-Hikayat,
pp. 79-81). This deep
concern with repudiating the accusations of tashbih,
jabr and ru'yah in
relation to Shi'i belief is also another conspicuous example of the role of
al-Shaykh al-Mufid of guarding the faith's frontiers and establishing the
independent identity of the creed of the Ahl al-Bayt (`a).
In view of al-Mufid's concern in the Awa'il
al-maqalat and his other
theological writings, such as Tashih
al-Ittiqad, al-Fusul al-mukhtarah,etc., for defining Shi'i doctrine and
demarcating its boundaries in relation to the other theological creeds and
sects, especially Mu'tazilism, it can be said that he planned to present
Shi'ism as a coherent conceptual system with well-defined and clear-cut
boundaries. There is no doubt that the distinctive mark of this conceptual
system is Imamate, which puts Shi'sm apart from every other sect, and faith
in which is the criterion for attributing an individual or group to the
Shi'i creed. It is true that in other doctrinal matters as well there are
major differences in respect of ethos and spirit and in respect of some
details and subsidiary issues between the Shi'ah and the other sects despite
some nominal similarities-as in the case oftawhid, Justice,
Divine attributes, and the like-but it is in the doctrine of Imamate that
the difference between the Shi'ah and other Islamic sects is more
conspicuous and explicit than in any other issue. Accordingly, apart from
the fact that he opens some of his longer works, such as the Awa'il
al-maqalat and other books,
with the discussion of Imamate, he has written numerous treatises, long and
short and with different titles, on the subject of Imamate.
Here, it would be appropriate to point out that to say that the doctrine of
Imamate is a distinctive characteristic of al-Mufid's system of thought is
quite different from stating, as one Orientalist does, that Imamate plays a
`pivotal role' in al-Mufid's thought. The pivot and axis in the system of
Shi'i thought, and in that of all Shi'i theologians including al-Mufid and
others, is the faith in the Creator and the Unity (tawhid) of
God, the Most Exalted. Such important doctrines as that of Divine
attributes, their number, meaning, and relation to the essence of` of
magestic is His Name, the doctrine of prophethood and its related issues,
the doctrine of justice, the doctrine of Imamate, and the doctrines related
to human obligation, resurrection and so on-all of them with their
respective issues are based on the doctrine of tawhid. Unfortunately,
the Orientalists, and others who lack an adequate grasp of Islamic concepts,
make such errors in understanding the intent of some major Shi`i figures
such as al-Shaykh al-Mufid. It is hoped that gatherings and discussions such
as this one would help in dispelling the misconceptions and revealing the
facts. A Western scholar who has written about the ideas of al-Shaykh
al-Mufid has at one place expressed the opinion that al-Mufid lacked a
coherent system of thought. Elsewhere he states that his system of thought
is based on Imamate. As said, both these views are mistaken. Al-Mufid's
system of thought has been clearly set forth in his numerous books and
treatises, and their pivot-after the problem of ma'rifah, which
is a logical prelude to all theological issues-is the issue of the Divine
essence and attributes. Other issues, in order of their rank, are subsidiary
to it. The issue of Imamate, as said, is the essential distinctive feature
of this school in contrast to the other schools and is a doctrine by which a
Shi'i believer is identified. Perhaps, it may be compared to the doctrine of al-manzilah
bayn al-manzilatayn in
Mu'tazilism. Yet, amongst the fivefold doctrines of Mu'tazilism, this one is
neither the foremost nor the most important nor the most fundamental
doctrine as is tawhid or
Justice. But, at the same time, the doctrine of al-manzilah
bayn al-manzilatayn is a
characteristic feature of Mu'tazilism and the source of its origin and there
is no Mu'tazilite who does not believe in it. The same is true of Imamate in
the conceptual system of Shi'ism.
From that which has been said, it becomes clear that al-Shaykh al-Mufid,
that great genius of Shi'i history, was the first to define and demarcate
the boundaries of Shi'ism in fiqh and kalam. In `ilm
al-kalam he formulated a
coherent and well-defined system of theology from the bulk of Shi'i beliefs
and saved it from being confused with other Islamic creeds as well as
non-Imamite offshoots of Shi'ism. In the field of fiqh, he
produced a comprehensive text setting forth the methods of deduction based
on principles derived from the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be
upon them, and blocked the way to such unreliable practices as qiyas[analogical
reasoning] and such inadequate or primitive methods as were employed by the
traditionists (ahl al-hadith).
In other words, he established the independent identity of the school of the
Ahl al-Bayt, may Peace be upon them. This is the first of the threefold
aspects fundamental to understanding al-Mufid as the founder and originator
of the evolving tradition of scholarship pertaining to the school of the Ahl
al-Bayt, may Peace be upon them.
2. Devising a Correct Model and Pattern for Shi'i Fiqh
Fiqh, in the sense of the
practice of inferring the laws of the Shari'ah from its sources, the Book
and the Sunnah, has a long history in Shi'ism. Al-'Imam al-Baqir's directing
Aban ibn Taghlib to give fatwas, with
the words, "Ijlis fi
masild al-Madinah wa if ti al-nas," [16] and
his instructions given to `Abd al--'A'la (Ya'rif u hadha wa ashbahahu min
kitab Alldh `azza wa jall: Qala Allahu ta'ala: "Ma ja'ala `alaykum fi
al-dini min haraj") and
other statements of the kind indicate that the companions of the Imams had
begun to practise the deduction of ahkamfrom
the Qur'an, the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and statements of the Imams (a) at
an early stage. `Fiqh' in
the sense of the knowledge ofahkam was
not limited amongst the Shi'is to merely practising taqlid and
acting in accordance with the statements of the Imams (a). It
steadily continued to develop and expand with time, becoming more extensive
and complex in respect of juristic inference. Nevertheless, there is a great
distance which separates the Shi'i fiqh and ifta' as
practised by the jurists from among the companions of the Imams (a) from
what it became during the eras of its maturity and fruition: that is, the
activity of deducing the laws (furu`) from juristic principles (usul)
and the inference of hundreds of general rules and thousands of complex and
complicated juristic precepts from the Book, the Sunnah, and reason, and the
procurement of innumerable furu` capable
of meeting all the needs of mukallaf persons
during the ghaybah of
the Infallible Imam, as well as the identification of God's halal and haram in
all the spheres in their full details. This great distance was to be covered
through a gradual progress of the juristic tradition.
There is no doubt that the legists before al-Mufid had made valuable
contributions in this direction. But this great teacher, with the
intellectual prowess of a genius, is considered in this field, too, a point
of departure for a new phase which was as eventful as it was to become
progressively prolific and profound. It appears that after several centuries
of collection of the sources of fiqh-that
is, the statements of the
Infallible Ones-and giving of juristic opinion on the basis of the texts and
literal meanings of traditions, the time had come in the history of fiqh to
remould this legacy into a scientific structure and to devise a methodology
for the deduction ofahkam.
There existed two different trends in Shi'ite fiqh before
al-Mufid. One of them is the one whose prominent representative was 'Ali ibn
Babawayh (d. 329/940). We may perhaps call it "the Qumm tradition," and it
is highly probable that Ja'far ibn Qalawayh (d. 368/978 or 369/979),
al-Mufid's teacher, also belonged to it. The practice of fiqh in
this tradition was based on giving juristic rulings in accordance with the
texts of tradition, so that every fatwa in
the books of this group of jurists referred to a relevant tradition.
Accordingly, whenever the author of such a fatwa possessed
the prerequisites of reliability (withaqah) and
precision (dabt), that fatwa
istaken as the equivalent of a hadith. This
is why al-Shahid al-'Awwal states in his Dhikra: "Shi'i
scholars used to rely upon the contents of al-Shaykh Abu al-Hasan Ibn
Babawayh's [Kitab] al-Shara'i` for
paucity of [hadith]texts, on account of their good opinion of him and
for the reason that hisfatwa was
like his riwayah." [17]
Obviously, a fiqh of
this kind is quite of an elementary character and devoid of any complicated
technicalities. The furu` mentioned
in the legal texts pertaining to this trend are confined to the furu` contained
in the texts of traditions and are very few and limited. It was this lack
which caused the opponents to criticize Shi'i fiqh for
its poverty in regard to the number of furu`. This
criticism in turn prompted al-Shaykh al-Tusi-may God's mercy be upon
him-later on to write his al-Mabsut in
order to silence such criticisms.
The second trend was opposed to the first one; it was based on reasoning
and, presumably, inspired by Sunni fiqh. Its
two well-known representatives are al-Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi `Aqil
al-`Ummani (d. c 350/9701 and Ibn al-Junayd al-'Iskafi (d. probably
381/991). Although we don't possess adequate information concerning this
trend-and even about these two famous jurists-to judge with precision the
level of their expertise in ijtihad and
juristic deduction, but, on the basis of what others have reported
concerning Ibn al-Junayd, it appears fairly certain that he was disposed
towards qiyas and ra'y and
had departed from acceptable Shi'i practice. As to al-`Ummani, this tendency
is not ascribed to him. Rather al-Najashi says of him: "I heard our Shaykh
Abu `Abd Allah praising a lot this man, may God have mercy upon him." [18] From
al-Najashi's statement-and judging from what al-Tusi says about him in al-Fihrist [19] -we
may conclude that he was a jurist of the straight kind and perhaps his
approach was the same as the one adopted by al-Mufid, the one on which he
based his works and his research and in accordance with which trained his
pupils. However, his opinions are mostly of the eccentric kind, rarely held
by jurists (shadhdh), and
are not followed (matruk).And perhaps that is the reason why
all that survived of his book during the periods following 'Allamah and
Muhaqqiq-may God's mercy be upon them-was its name. Accordingly, it may be
surmised that he could not have been among the progenitors of the subsequent
juristic tradition and that his juristic approach must have suffered from
some inadequacies. Nevertheless, this pioneering scholar, about whom Bahr
al-`Ulum says, "He was the first to refine fiqh and
to employ rational judgement and analysis in the matters of usul and furu` at
the outset of the Greator Occultation" (Fatawa al-'alamayn, p.
13), was undoubtedly instrumental in helping al-Mufid find a valid framework
for the practice of fiqh,
whichwas a first step, to which al-'Ummani's work must be considered a
prelude.
As noted, each of these two trends in the practice of fiqh was
deficient in certain respects. In the first, the fatwa consisted
of the text of the riwayahwithout
involving any effort made to deduce a rule from general principles and
without any critical study, scrutiny and reasoning. Ijtihad, in
its current technical sense, played no role in the practice of fiqh. In
the second trend, although resort was made to reasoning and critical
judgement, it was not apparently fully in accord with the teachings of the
Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them. Either it was accompanied with qiyas or
was of such a nature that led to eccentric results and hence could not
continue in Shi'i juristic circles.
Al-Mufid's jurisprudence was free from these two faults and possessed the
merits of both the trends: it relied upon such methods as were acceptable
for the Imamiyyah and employed ijtihad in
its current technical sense as well, making use of reasoning and critical
inference in fiqh. Accordingly,
he is the one who produced a scientific model that was reliable and
acceptable to the Shi'ah, giving a scientific order to the traditional
material and the principles of jurisprudence, and left it as an enduring
legacy for Shi'i centres of legal studies. Through the course of centuries
until today it has been pursued by the official tradition of fiqh and
nurtured to the maturity and fruition that it possesses today.
In order to get briefly acquainted with the worth and significance of
al-Mufid's work in fiqh, we
will make a passing reference to three relevant topics. They are: (a) the Kitab
al-muqni'ah; (b) al-Mufid's
short rasa'ilrelating to fiqh; (c)
the Kitab al-tadhkirah bi usul
al-fiqh.
(a) Kitab
al-Muqni'ah
The Muqni'ah constitutes
almost a complete course in fiqh. There
existed no other earlier work in fiqh with
this characteristic. Al-Saduq's Muqni',besides
being comprised of texts of traditions, like the book of 'Ali ibn Babawayh,
is not as comprehensive as the Muqni'ah in
respects of the legal topics covered. Moreover, its discussions are short
and brief. Although in his book al-Mufid does not set forth the argument
underlying his fatwas-and that is why it is not easy to understand the
demonstrative grounds supporting his legal opinions-but, on the basis of
some reliable evidence, we can say that his fatwas in
this book are based on a firm demonstrative basis. And though he did not
commit these arguments to writing-which would have been beneficial for the
future generation had he done so-they were such as to serve as a model for
his pupils and the next generation of legists who developed them on similar
lines. That reliable evidence is furnished by the Kitab
al-tahdhib of al-Shaykh
al-Tusi. As we know, the Tahdhib
is a commentary on the Muqni'ah and
mentions the juristic arguments underlying it. While mentioning his motives
for writing the book in its introduction, al-Shaykh al-Tusi-may God's mercy
be upon him-says that the same friend who had requested him to compile the
work had also asked him to write a commentary on al-Mufid's Muqni'ah,which,
he said, was comprehensive, adequate, and free from superfluous and
unnecessary material. Thereafter, al-Tusi describes his own method of
demonstration which is briefly as follows: First, recourse would be made to
the literal or express meanings of Qur'anic verses or their various kinds of
connotative meanings; following that recourse would be made to the
established Sunnah, in the sense of a tradition that is mutawatir or
one accompanied with supporting evidence or general consensus of the Muslim
community or consensus of the Imamiyyah; following that `prevalent' (mashhur) traditions
relating to every issue would be cited; then an examination of the
conflicting text (dalil) (if
existent) would be undertaken and an effort made to affect a synthesis
between the two conflicting dalilsand
when that is not possible the conflicting text would be rejected for the
`weakness' of its isnad or
due to the absence of its popularity amongst Shi'i scholars; in cases where
both the texts are equal in respect of isnadand
such other aspect (such as the immediate context [jaht] of
its pronouncement or the lack of its popularity among legists, etc.) and
none of the two can be preferred to the other, the tradition which is in
agreement with the general principles and rules of the Shari'ah would be
adopted and the other which is contrary to them would be abandoned; in cases
where there exists no relevant tradition in a given matter, one would act in
accordance with the relevant (Shari'i) principle
and at all times textual synthesis would be preferred to preference on the
basis of sanadand, so far
as possible, the textual synthesis would be affected in accordance with a
precedent recorded in tradition (shahid al-jam` al-mansus).
This is the method mentioned by al-Shaykh al-Tusi at the beginning of theTahdhib with
reference to his aim of unravelling the demonstrative basis of the Muqni'ah. The
experts in the field know very well that it sums up the methods of juristic
reasoning used throughout all the eras of Shi'i fiqh until
today, and it reflects the general pattern of legal deduction prevalent from
the times of al-Tusi-may God's mercy be upon him-up to the present. Now, the
question is whether al-Shaykh al-Mufid, as the author of theMuqni'ah, was
himself aware of this comprehensive method of deduction that could lead a
jurist to all the fatwas of
that book, or if he formulated those fatwas without
the knowledge of this method of inference. In other words, is al-Shaykh
al-Tusi himself the originator of this method or if he had learnt it from
al-Mufid, his teacher? It appears that the answer to this question becomes
clear if we examine the different aspects of the matter. It is known that
al-Shaykh al-Tusi began the compilation of the Tahdhibduring
the life of al-Mufid, that is, before 413/1022, and its introduction was
written at that time. Al-Shaykh al-Tusi came to Iraq in 408/1017 when he was
a youth of 23 years and began his higher studies and research under the
guidance of al-Shaykh al-Mufid. He benefited from that great genius for a
period of five years and the rest of his education continued under al-Sayyid
al-Murtada for a period of 23 years. Accordingly, there remains no doubt
that al-Tusi imbibed that method of legal deduction from al-Shaykh al-Mufid,
and since he knew his teacher's method of deduction, he could furnish the
demonstrative grounds of his teacher's work in accordance with the latter's
principle of juristic reasoning.
Such a conclusion is further affirmed, or rather becomes quite definite,
when we examine al-Shaykh al-Mufid's principles of juristic inference as
discussed in his book on usul al-fiqh, which
shall be discussed later on. When we consider that book and al-Mufid's
reliance on the Qur'an, onmutawatir Sunnah
accompanied with supporting evidence, and on themashhur and mursal traditions
acted upon by Shi'i jurists, as well as his other views relating to
jurisprudence, it becomes quite certain that the deductive methodology
described by al-Shaykh al-Tusi in the introduction to the Tahdhib
is the same as the one
adopted and followed by his teacher and taught by the master to his pupils.
Hence we may conclude that although the Kitab
al-muqni'ah does not contain
demonstrative details, its fatwas are
based on the same lines of deduction as became prevalent in Shi'i centres of
law and jurisprudence throughout the thousand years after al-Mufid.
Moreover, this method of deduction constitutes a comprehensive and inclusive
approach that is unprecedented in the two earlier trends of Shi'i juristic
thought-i.e. the trend represented by Ibn Babawayh and the other by Ibn Abi
`Aqil and Ibn al-Junayd-and our honoured Shaykh was its founder and
originator.
(b) Juristic
Treatises
Despite their brevity, these treatises (rasa'il) reveal
the profundity of al-Mufid's juristic wisdom. Although some of them, like al-Mash
`ala al-rijlayn and Dhaba'ih
ahl al-kirab are based on an
argumentation of polemical and quasi-rational character, but some others,
such as al-Mihr Jawabat ahl
al-Mawsil fi al-ru'yah wa al-`adad and al-Masa'il
al-Saghaniyyah truly possess
a firm and structured juristic style. In the second risalah, which
is devoted to the refutation of the belief, ascribed to al-Saduq and some
other early jurists, concerning the month of Ramadan always consisting of
thirty days, al-Shaykh al-Mufid, makes recourse to Qur'anic verses, advances
etymological reasons, calls indubitable juristic rules as witness, offers a
critical examination of the traditions that are advanced as evidence by the
adversaries, scrutinizes the tradition's chain of transmission, mentions the
biographical details concerning the narrators, as well as many points that
help in understanding the traditions and making an inference from them,
while utilizing them in the best and the most dexterous manner. One of the
interesting things he does in this treatise is his treatment of a tradition
advanced by the opposite side. After citing it, he shows the weakness of its
isnad and, while advancing
a firm argument, declares its content to be unreasonable, far from the
wisdom of the Imam's statements, and the product of an ignorant fabricator.
He mentions reasons that suggest the probability of discontinuity (irsal) in
the chain of its narration, which show his profound knowledge and mastery of hadith (see
p. 23 ff., the section relating to the riwayah of
Ya'qub ibn Shu'ayb from al-'Imam al-Sadiq, may peace be upon him).
Al-Masa'il al-Saghaniyyah, written
as a rejoinder to the objections of an Hanafi jurist of Saghan concerning
some ten issues of fiqh, is another
example of the powers of juristic reasoning and the vast and profound
learning of the venerable Shaykh. Although this treatise is of a theological
character-as it is intended to meet the allegations of a non-Shi'i opponent
in a polemical encounter and responds by accusing him of engaging in slander
and his imam of instituting bid'ah-but
since the issues posed
generally relate to law, in it al-Mufid's argumentative powers, his
scientific spirit and ijtihad are
clearly evident to any specialist in the field.
This treatise, along with al-`Adad
wa al-ru'yah, is well
indicative of al-Shaykh al-Mufid's originality and is another evidence of
the fact that the juristic method observable in the approach of his
disciples, as well as their pupils, is derived in its entirety from the
method devised by him.
(c) Kitab
al-Tadhkirah bi Usul al-Fiqh
The science of Usul al-fiqh
constitutes the code of
juristic deduction. It consists of a method for deriving practical rules
from reliable sources. The formulation of the rules of jurisprudence amounts
to laying down a code for the practice of fiqh. Without
such a code, the practice of fiqh lacks
a well-defined framework and is prone to error, confusion, and incursion of
foreign elements, as a result of which the rules deduced would lack
credibility. Moreover, without such a code, subjective opinion and personal
understanding and taste of the legist affects the results obtained to an
inordinate extent and juristic opinion becomes subject to divergence and
chaos.
It is true that the growing sophistication and maturity of usul al-fiqh
isconducive to the soundness of juristic opinions; but that which has a
critical relevance for the results of juristic effort is the creation of
this discipline. Without doubt, the real roots and sources of usul al-fiqh are
implicit in the formulations of the Imams, may peace be upon them, which are
referred to as usul mutlaqat,
but the first work on usul amongst
the Shi'ah (so far as we know) was written by al-Shaykh al-Mufid. It is a
small book but rich in content, entitled al-Tadhkirah
bi usul al-fiqh, which
is probably an abridgement made by al-Shaykh Abu al-Fadl al-Karajaki (d.
44911057), al-Mufid's pupil, of the master's work, which was itself a short
work.
Despite its briefness, this work has considerable importance because,
firstly, it is the first work on Shi'ite usul al-fiqh. In
the introduction to his`Uddat al-'usul, al-Shaykh
al-Tusi says: "We do not know of anyone from amongst our companions having
written anything on this subject (fihadha al-ma'na) except
that which our teacher Abu `Abd Allah-may God's mercy be upon him-has
mentioned in his short work (al-mukhtasar) on usul
al-fiqh. [20]
Secondly, many topics are dealt with in it in a concise manner and
especially in the chapter relating to semantics?' (mabahith al-'alfaz) there
are several section headings covering important topics. Thirdly, the
opinions of al-Mufid on some of the topics discussed in it are very similar
to those of much later scholars of usul.
For instance, his statement concerning khass and 'amm (general
and particular) resembles very much what latter-day scholars close to our
own age mean by al-'iradat
al-jiddiyyah and al-'iradat
al-'isti'maliyyah. In this
context al-Mufid says (p. 37):
Fourthly, though the book was meant to be a short one, [21] the
topics which are of greater relevance and need for the deduction of juristic
rules have been given priority in the book, and other topics of theoretical
interest (such as those related to the nature of knowledge and language,
which the Shaykh al-Ta'ifah-may God's mercy be upon him-has discussed in
detail at the beginning of the `Uddat
al-'usul) have not
been dealt by him. In view of this it is very interesting that in spite of
the book's conciseness, some topics which are of frequent use and reference
in legal inference have not been neglected but discussed in an appropriate
manner. Some of these topics are: the applicability of the concepts of `umum anditlaq only
to verbal Sunnah (al-sunnat al-qawliyyah), not
to behavioural Sunnah (al-sunnat al-fi'liyyah); [22] that
a command (amr) subsequent to a prohibition does not signify anything
more than permissibility (ibdhah);[23] that when
an exception is made subsequent to several commands, in the absence of an
indication the exception applies to all those instances.[24]
From that which has been said it becomes clear that al-Shaykh al-Mufid,
through his book on usul al-fiqh
prepared the necessary ground
for the development of a scientific model for juristic inference. For him `ilm
al-'usul is not a
collection of quasi-theological notions, but, as mentioned expressly by his
pupil in 'Uddat al-'usul, it
is "the basis on which the laws of the Shari'ah are based. The knowledge of
the Shari'ah does not become perfect without making this basis strong, and
one who fails to acquire a firm knowledge of jurisprudence is only a
narrator." That is, such a person is an imitator, not a true scholar. [25]
3. Devising a Method in Fiqh and Kalam Based on a Synthesis Between
Reason and Revelation
This is the third aspect of al-Shaykh al-Mufid's work as the founder and
progenitor of the present Shi'i tradition of learning. Here, too, he paved a
new path, midway between the unchecked rationalism of the Mu'tazilah and
their Shi'i followers, such as the Nawbakhtis, and the traditionalism of
al-Shaykh al-Saduq.
During the hay day of Mu'tazilism, that is, at the end of the first phase of
the `Abbasid caliphate (a phase that concluded about the middle of the
3rd/9th century), the Mu'tazilah were strongly influenced by the influx of
alien philosophical ideas (Greek, Pahlavi, Indian, etc.) into the Islamic
world and translation of works related to those traditions. At that time,
both the influx of alien thought as well as this tendency of the Mu'tazilah
received enthusiastic patronage of the 'Abbasid caliphs, especially
al-Ma'mun. The movement of the Ahl al-Hadith amongst the Sunnis, and such
traditionists as al-Saduq, may God's mercy be upon him, amongst the Shi'ah,
who sought to understand certain theological and doctrinal issues through hadith, represented
a reaction to this extreme rationalism of the Mu'tazilah.
The great contribution of al-Mufid was to drive home the point that reason
is incapable of independently understanding all the issues of theology. For
instance, he points out, it is only with the help of revelation that reason
can acquire the knowledge of such Divine attributes as Will, Hearing, Sight
and so on. To enter this domain of knowledge about God, the Exalted and the
Glorious, with reason as one's sole guide is to invite perplexity and
perdition.
In fact, this is a restatement of the traditions that prohibit man from
trying to fathom the mystery of Godhead. Al-Mufid does not expel reason from
its own realm (which is not the sphere of revelation and tradition) to which
belong the substantiation of such issues as the necessity of a Creator, the
proofs of God's existence, Divine Unity (tawhid), and
the need of prophethood. Rather, his aim is to confine reason within the
limits assigned to it by its Creator so that it may not go astray.
At one point in the Awa'il
al-maqalat, he writes: "The
ascription of all these attributes [that is, His being the Hearer, the Seer,
and the Knower] to the Eternal One, Glory be to Him is on the basis of
revelation, not rational grounds or analogy."" At another place he says:
"Verily, the Qur'an (kalam Allah ta'ala) is temporally
produced (muhdath) and
there are traditions from the Household of Muhammad-may Allah bless him and
his Household-in support of this." [27] Elsewhere
he writes: "That God, the Exalted, is Willing I say because of revelation,
following and defferring to what is said in the Qur'an. I do not derive it
from reason." [28] Yet
at another place he declares: "All the Imamis concur that reason stands in
need of revelation for its knowledge and conclusions and that it is
inseparable from the revelation apprehended by a person in full possession
of his senses (reading al-'aqil, instead
of al-ghafil) in
a rationally valid manner ('ala kayfiyyat al-'istidlal) ....
and the Mu'tazilites concur in holding the contrary, with the claim that
reason can act alone without the help of revelation and instruction " [29]
There are many such statements of an explicit character in al-Mufid's
writings. Nevertheless, he accepts the authority of a tradition only when
there are no rational grounds for considering it impossible. Accordingly, in
the context of the miracles of the Imams ('a) he
says, "They belong to the category of possible things that are neither
necessary on rational grounds nor impossible analogously." [30] He
reiterates similar statements in other places. [31] However,
in the Tashih i'tiqad
al-'Imamiyyah, which is a
gloss on al-Shaykh al-Saduq's Risalat
al-Itiqddat, after rejecting
traditions that contradict with the Qur'an, his view is stated more
explicity than anywhere else. There, he says: "That is why when we come
across a tradition conflicting with rational principles (ahkam al-'uqul) we
reject it because reason judges it to be invalid. [32] In
this statement, in addition to rejecting such traditions as contrary to
reason, he makes reason itself the criterion for this judgement and thus
puts a dual emphasis on the authority of reason.
Faith in reasoning and rational argument in the thought of al-Shaykh
al-Mufid is so much that in a passage of the Awa'il, under
the heading "On salutary pain without compensation," after mentioning his
own singular view which is shared neither by the partisans of Justice (i.e.
the Mu'tazilites) nor the Murji'ites, he declares with a rare sense of
personal self-confidence: "I have made here a synthesis of principles which
only I hold, without any of the other partisans of Justice and irja' agreeing
with me. Its truth is clear to me, however, from reasoning (nazar). Those
who are opposed have not made me feel lonely, since I have good arguments (hujjah), and
there is no loneliness where truth is concerned, and all praise belongs to
God !" [33] In
view of the fact that in his discussion concerning pain and the discussion
pertaining to the doctrine of lutf (Divine
help) he generally relies on reason rather than revelation, one may be sure
that by`hujjah' in the
above passage he means arguments based on reason rather than revelation.
The presence of the factor of revelation in the theological thought of
al-Shaykh al-Mufid enabled him to resolve many of the difficult problems,
whose solution is a very lengthy process, with comparable ease with the help
of the sayings of the Imams, may peace be upon them, and saved subsequent
Shi'i theological thought from deviance and confusion.
A relevant example in this regard is the issue of the attributes of God. The
Mu'tazilah had to go a long way from the outright negation of the attributes
in the statements of Wasil ibn `Ata' and the theory of niyabah
concerningthe relation between the Divine essence and attributes, to the
concepttawhid in the sense
of not conceiving the attributes as something additional to the essence but
as identical with the essence in the Divine Being. The treatment of the same
issue in al-Mufid's statement is based on tradition (sam'), such
as the contents of the Nahj
al-bahaghah and other similar
traditions transmitted from the Imams, may peace be upon them. It can even
be inferred from these traditions that these problems were posed amongst the
Shi'is already during the times of the Imams (`a), and their followers
benefited from the perpetual source of knowledge represented by the Ahl
al-Bayt, may peace be upon them (See al-Kafi ,
vol. i, p. 107,"bab sifat al-dhat" and
the various parts of al-Saduq's al-Tawhid and
the sermons of the Nahj
al-balaghah). Another
point worthy of notice is al-Mufid's recourse to rational argumentation by
the side of argument based on sam` (in
his short theological treatises such as al-Nukat
fi muqaddimdt al-'usul) even
in relation to the topic of Divine attributes, whereas in the Awa'il
al-maqalat he considers
inference from sam` as
the sole source of knowledge in such matters. The following are two examples
from al-Nukat;
Likewise he goes on to offer rational arguments concerning the attributes of
Hearing, Sight, Wisdom and so on (al-Nukat fi muqaddimdt al-'usul,pp.
33-34). This cannot be
regarded as a departure from the view advanced in the Awa'il
al-maqalat. We said earlier
that the short treatises written in the question and answer format were most
likely compiled as didactical guides for Shi'i initiates living in far-off
regions and engaged in learning the art of polemical debate and who did not
have immediate access to a teacher like al-Mufid. The Shaykh seems to have
preferred the rational approach for its wider utility which made those
treatises useful for confronting any kind of adversary.
This discussion makes clear that the synthesis affected by al-Mufid in his
theological method between rational argument and argument from revelatory
sources was an outstanding and original contribution of that great master.
I hope that this scientific and scholarly meeting will study these important
topics as well as numerous other aspects of the brilliant intellectual life
of the venerable al-Shaykh al-Mufid.
At the conclusion of this paper, it would be good to remember that this
sublime genius carried out his long intellectual struggle-in the course of
which he laid the foundations of the edifice of fiqh and
inaugurated a new middle path in kalam-under
difficult social conditions. Although the Buwayhid rule in Baghdad had
created an atmosphere conducive to free scholarly debates, it could not
solve the problem created by the fanaticism of Hanbali jurists and the
harassment of Shi'is in general and al-Mufid in particular by the `Abbasid
establishment. The persecution of the Shi'is of Karkh in Baghdad and the
great hardships inflicted upon them and their noble leaders, are facts to
which history bears manifest testimony.
It appears that besides the three instances of al-Mufid's exile recorded in
the works of history, he faced difficult circumstances for two years in the
period from 405-407/1014-1016, during which the exact character of his
travails is not clear. This question arises because there is no mention of
al-Shaykh al-Mufid in the accounts relating to the death, in the year
406/1016, of al-Sayyid
al-Radi, al-Mufid's beloved pupil, which describe his funeral and other
details, as recorded in the books. Although one would expect the name of
al-Mufid to come up there several times, one does not find a single
reference to him. Another thing that makes one curious is that in the Amali of
al-Mufid, whose contents indicate that he used to hold several sessions (majalis)
every year around the month of Ramadan at his house, or in his mosque, at
Darb al-Rabah and that these sessions continued from 404/1013 to 411/1020,
we do not find any majlis pertaining to the years 405/1014 and 406/1016 in
that record of his dictation sessions.
Another thing is that during the events of the Muharram of 406/1016, when
there were big anti-Shi'i riots-something that had become a recurring
feature of their life in Baghdad-the person who was selected as the
representative and leader of the Shi'is for talks with the Baghdad regime
was al-Sayyid al-Murtada, not al-Shaykh al-Mufid, although the latter was at
the time the undisputed leader of the Shi'is and in the years before that
al-Sayyid al-Murtada was considered his humble and obedient disciple.
These indications raise in the mind the probability that al-Mufid was faced
with some kind of trouble that resulted in his absence from Baghdad during
these two years. The matter needs to be investigated. However, that which is
certain is that life in Baghdad was very difficult for the Shi'ah and their
leaders for the most part of the hundred and thirteen years of Buwayhid rule
over Iraq and Baghdad, accompanied as they were by persecution, sectarian
conflict, and bloodshed. [34] It
was in the midst of such great hardships and despite the heavy
responsibilities of the leadership of the Shi'is of Iraq, or rather of the
whole Islamic world, that he made such a great contribution to Shi'i
teachings.
As a last point, I shall insist that the scholars and thinkers present at
this academic gathering make all the efforts they can to utilize this
scholarly meeting as a means of furthering intellectual concord and real
solidarity between Islamic sects.
The character of al-Mufid's confrontation with the religious opponents of
his era was certainly influenced by the bitter social events and hardships
caused by blind prejudice with which the oppressed Shi`is of those days were
faced. That kind of conduct cannot today serve as a model for mutual
relations between Islamic sects, even in the area of kalam. Today
all the Islamic sects should draw the lesson of friendship and peaceful
coexistence from those painful scenes of history. At a time when the very
principles of Islam-for whose revival the Mufids of every sect have taken
great pains-are threatened by the enemies, they should devote their total
efforts to the promotion of solidarity, concord and cooperation between all
the sects and their thinkers. This is the great aspiration of the Revolution
and the lasting counsel of our late Imam, may God sanctify his pure soul.
Once again I beseech God, the Exalted, to grant you success and pray to Him
to bless this gathering of yours with bright results and lasting
achievements. Was-saldmu
`alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
'Ali al-Husayni al-Khamenei
Farvardeen, 1372.
Shawwal, 1413.
[1]. In this case the bias, or ignorance, that
has gone into such efforts in the past is such that it astounds a Shi'i
researcher. For instance, al-Sadaq wrote his Kitab
al-tawhid, a major work
consisting of 67 chapters and 583 traditions related to theology, because,
as he himself states in the book's introduction, the opponents accused the
Shi'ah of believing in jabr(determinism)
and tashbih (anthropomorphism),
whereas "amr bayn al-'amrayn" and "la
tashbih wa la ta'til" are
amongst the most well-known principles of Shi'i doctrine. The allegations of
al-Shahristani in his al-Milal
wa al-nihal, as well as those
that appear in the works written before and after him, are prominent
examples of the unfair campaign waged against the .followers of the school
of the Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them.
In our own time, irresponsible writers-who do not consider themselves
answerable for whatever they may write concerning the Shi'ah and who do not
care how dear is the price that they pay in terms of loss of piety and harm
to truth-in order to please their masters, who care for nothing except
dollars and pomp, write so profusely and recklessly that Ahmad Amin, the
anti-Shi`i Egyptian writer of the last generation, who recognized no bounds
in making absurd misrepresentations and propagating lies must now be
assigned a second or third place. It should be noted, however, that there is
nothing wrong with books and works of scholarly integrity written to affirm
or refute any creed in an argumentative manner. Rather, such writings are
essential for the intellectual development of Muslims and helpful in
enabling them to choose the best views. What we are speaking about here is
deception, fabrication, defamation and false accusation.
[2]. Jibra'il ibn Ahmad al-Fariyabi (from
Fariyab, a town between Balkh and Marw al-Rud), who according to al-Shaykh
al-Tusi had settled at Kashsh; Ibrahim ibn Nasir al-Kashshi (Kashsh, a
village near Samarqand); Khalaf ibn Hammad al-Kashshi; Khalaf ibn Muhammad,
known al-Mannan, al-Kashshi; 'Uthman ibn Hamid al-Kashshi; Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan al-Kashshi; Muhammad ibn Sa'd ibn Mazid al-Kashshi, Ibrahim ibn
'Ali al-Kufi al-Samarqandi (the order of these two nisbahs suggests
that this Kufi shaykh had migrated to Samarqand);Ibrahim al-Warraq
al-Samarqandi; Ja'far ibn Ahmad ibn Ayyub al-Samarqandi; Muhammad ibn Mas'ud
al-Ayyashi al-Samarqandi; Adam ibn Muhammad al-Qalanisi al-Balkhi; Ahmad
ibn'Ali ibn Kulthum al-Sarakhsi; Ahmad ibn Ya'qiib al-Bayhaqi; 'Ali ibn
Muhammad ibn Qutaybah al-Nayshaburi; Muhiammad ibn Abi 'Awf al-Bukhari;
Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Harawi; Muhammad ibn Rashid al-Harawi; Nasr ibn
al-Sabbah al-Balkhi, and others.
[3]. al-Najashi, Rijal, the
biographical entry on al-Kashshi, p. 372.
[4]. Ibid., the entry on al-Ayyashi, p. 351.
[5]. It is further confirmed by the fact that
'Ali ibn Muhamntad al-Qazwini was the first to bring al-'Ayyashi's books to
Baghdad in 356/966-7. See al-Najashi, p. 267.
[6]. Rumi in his Mathnawi narrates
the story of a poet who was in Aleppo on the day of 'Ashura'. On seeing all
people dressed in black and the bazaar closed, he thought that the amir or
some prince must have died. When he questioned the town's people they told
him, "Obviously, you are a stranger here...:'
[7]. Noteworthy in this regard are al-Mufid's
epistles (rasa'il) written
in reply to queries that came from various Muslim towns, as well as their
great variety. In some of them al-Mufid not only seeks to resolve the
questioner's problem but also rises to combat a theological opponent, as if
he considers it his duty to defend from his seat at Baghdad the Shi'i creed
and believers subject to the assaults of dangerous enemies. In this relation
see al-Masa'il al-Saghaniyyah and
its strongly aggressive and confident tone meant to heighten the morale of a
beleaguered Shi'i from the Khurasan of those days whose creedal sanctum had
been violated and subjected to assault. This suggests that the treatises of
the "in qila, faqul'("if
[the opponents] say to you... then tell them") kind, such as al-Nukat
fi muqaddimat al-'usul and al-Nukat
al-'itiqadiyyah, were mostly
written for Shi'is living in far-off places who were perpetually under the
pressure of deliberately framed objections of a religious character and who
sought guidance and help for firm theological rejoinders.
[8]. Because, in the year of his death al-Mufid
(d. 336/947) was 44 and it is not known how many years earlier he had
written the entry on al-Mufid in his list.
[9]. The source of this statement is al-Dhahabis Ta'rikh
al-'Islam wa wafayat al-mashahir wa al-'a'lam, which
has not yet been published. Apparently, this statement has been cited from a
forthcoming edition of it.
[10]. Jalal Huma'i, Tarikh-e'ulum-e'Islami,
p. 51.
[11]. `Abbas al-Qummi, al-Kuna
wa al-'alqab, vol. ii, p. 404.
[12]. What is surprising is that even in our
own time one Orientalist, in his work on al-Mufid's theological ideas,
presents him as a follower of the Baghdad Mu'tazilite school.
[13]. In al-Masa'il
al-Saghaniyyah, al-Mufid
attacks Ibn al-Junayd and refers to his statements as "hadhayan" (delirious)
and his views as"ghayr sadid" (unsound).
See al-Masa'il al-Saghaniyyah,
p. 62.
[14]. Following is the text in Awa'il
al-maqalat, p. 40.
[15]. Al-Najashi, Rijal, p.
10.
[16]. Al-Hurr al-`Amili, Wasa'il
al-Shi'ah, vol. i, p. 327.
[17]. Fatawa
al-'alamayn, p. 5.
[18]. Al-Najashi, op.
cit., p. 48.
[19]. The text in al-Najashi (p. 48) reads:
The text in al-Tusi's Fihrist (p. 368,
and with a slight difference of wording on page 96) reads:
[20]. 'Uddat
al-'usul, p.5.
[21]. Note the text cited from the 'Uddah:
[22]. Al-Tadhkirah, p.
38:
[23]. Ibid.,
p. 30:
[24]. Ibid.,
p. 41:
[25]. 'Uddat
al-'usul. n. 8
[26]. Awa'il
a1-maqalat, p. 59
[27]. Ibid.,
p. 57
[28]. Ibid.,
p. 58
[29]. Ibid., p.
57
[30]. Ibid., p.
79
[31]. Ibid.,
"al-qawl fi sima' al-'a'immah ('a) kalam
al-mala'ikat al-kiram, etc.,
p. 80.
[32]. Tashih
al-'i tiqad, p. 149.
[33]. Awa'il
al-maqalat, p. 129.
