CHAPTER 14

Shiʿism
Ahmad Pakatchi

For the Shiʿa, like the majority of Muslims, hadith has a special place as a second source
of religious teaching next to the Holy Qurʾan, and as a development of Qurʾanic content.
That the Qurʾan should be interpreted under the light of hadith was a belief held in
common between the Shiʿa and the majority, and it was the basis for the great authority
of hadith in the formation of religious beliefs and practices. The hadith known as H૎ adıષth
al‐thaqalayn is cited by Shiʿi scholars not only to give a parallel authority to hadith
alongside the Qurʾan but also to grant authority to hadith from the Prophet’s household
as a way of properly understanding the Qurʾan. Further, this hadith serves as a basis
for a generalization regarding the domain of hadith: based on this hadith’s reference to
the “Scripture of God and my household (ʿ itra),” the Shiʿa argue that the teaching of the
Twelve Imams is an extension of Prophetic sunna.
Consequently, in all theoretical resources of the Shiʿa, especially in works on princi-
ples of jurisprudence (us૎ul al‐fiqh), sunna refers to teachings of the Twelve Imams as
well as the Holy Prophet himself. This is the basis, in Shiʿi belief, for a generalized con-
ception of hadith. Unlike Sunni scholars, hadith for Shiʿi scholars is the oral or behavioral
teachings of the Holy Prophet and all Twelve Imams, and an accepted definition for
hadith is “all that is received from the Prophet or Imams” (al‐Shahı dષ al‐Thaષnı ષ 1988,
50). However, an alternative definition reserves the term “hadith” for what is received
only from the Prophet and uses the term khabar for hadith received from the Imams
(al‐Shahı dષ al‐Thaષnı ષ 1988, 50, 52). Thus, Shiʿi jurists and theologians have often
preferred to use the term khabar (pl. akhbaષr) rather than “hadith” for narrations received
from the Twelve Imams. Shaykh T૎uષ sı ષ (d. 460/1068), for example, when he compiled a
collection of contradictory juristic hadiths, preferred to call them akhbaષr. He names his
book, which became the fourth of the Four Books of Shiʿite hadith, al‐Istibs૎aષr fıષmaષ
ukhtulifa fıષhi min al‐akhbaષr. Consequently when a struggle arose between supporters of

The Wiley Blackwell Concise Companion to the Hadith, First Edition. Edited by Daniel W. Brown.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
282 AHMAD PAKATCHI

jurisprudential methods and supporters of hadith in the field of Shiʿi canonical law
from the sixth/twelfth century, the latter movement was called akhbaષrıષ, that is, sup-
porters of khabars (Qazvı nષ ı ષ Raષzı ષ 1980, 568–569).
On the relationship between hadith and Qurʾan, a key maxim among Shiʿa scholars,
especially in recent centuries, introduces the Qurʾan as “decisive in source and indeci-
sive in signification,” while describing the hadith as “indecisive in source and decisive in
signification” (Qummı ષ 1886, 309). Consequently, most Imaષmıષ scholars refer cases of
ambiguity in Qurʾanic verses to related interpretive hadiths and restrict non‐literal
exegesis of the Qurʾan to the infallible Imams (Kulaynı ષ 1971, 1:186, 213; T૎uષ sı ષ 1964,
2:400). It is a generally accepted position among Imaષmıષs that taʾwıષl (non‐literal exegesis)
of the Qurʾan is proper to the Imams from the household of the Prophet, and further
that the teaching of the Imams can only be known through hadith.

The Authenticity of Hadith

The description of hadith as “indecisive in source” raises the critical issue of authen-
ticity. By contrast with the Holy Qurʾan, any hadith is approached critically and can
never be used as an authoritative source unless scrutinized with regard to authenticity.
One of the earliest Shiʿi traditions regarding the criticism of hadith is a saying narrated
from Imam ʿAli which classifies transmitters of Prophetic hadiths into four groups:
first, the hypocrites who consciously attribute forged hadiths to the Prophet; second,
people who are deficient in memory or confused; third, people who transmit abrogated
decrees unaware of the abrogation; and fourth, people free from all these deficiencies
who transmitted hadiths properly (Kulaynı ષ 1971, 1:62; al‐Sharı fષ al‐Rad૎ı ષ 2:400).
Shiʿi scholars further distinguished between criticism of hadith from outside the Shiʿi
community and criticism from within it. In principle, the Shiʿa usually evaluated the
hadiths of the majority Sunni community pessimistically, giving little credence even to
the most widely accepted hadith collections, the Six Books (s૎ih૎ah ષ ૎ al‐sitta). Other reports,
however, show that the position of the early Shiʿa in relation to majority transmitters
was not entirely negative. According to one narrative from the middle of second/eighth
century, Muh૎ ammad ibn Muslim, a great Shiʿa scholar, asked Imam Jaʿfar al‐S૎ad ષ iq about
some people not suspected of lying who narrated sayings of the Prophet incompatible
with teachings of Shiʿa Imams. In response, Imam S૎ad ષ iq explained the contradiction by
means of abrogation without accusing the narrators of lying (Kulaynı ષ 1971, 1:64–65).
Nevertheless, in addition to the probable occurrence of lying and forgery, by finding defi-
ciencies in transmission such as abrogation, Shiʿa scholars dismissed Sunni hadiths as
untrustworthy and have left these hadith in a situation of suspended judgment.
One of the concerns of the Shiʿa about the majority community’s hadiths was change
or loss of context. For example, a hadith narrated from Imam Rid૎aષ declares that although
the main expression of the hadith “God created man in his own image” (Bukhaષrı ષ 1987,
5:2299; Muslim 1955, 4:2017; cf. Genesis, 1:27) is authentic, what leads to misunder-
standing is the fact that it is separated from its context (Ibn Baષbawayh 1984, 1:110).
Shiʿa scholars also worried about proper understanding even of the text of a hadith.
From a historical distance the meaning could not be properly understood by the majority,
 SHIʿISM 283

and the only authorities capable of confirming the meaning are leaders from the
Prophet’s household, hence the maxim: “The People of Household are more knowledge-
able about what exists in the House” (Fayd૎ Kaષshaષnı ષ 1986, 6:244). The viewpoint of the
Shiʿa about the confusion of the majority community concerning the meaning of
Prophetic hadith is based on an analogy between the hadith and the Qurʾan in nature of
their language. When speaking about multivalent expressions (mutashaષbihaષt) in Qurʾan,
Shiʿi religious literature describes the hadith of the Prophet and the Prophetic household
as “hard to understand” (s૎aʿ b‐un mustas૎ʿ ab). Just as Qurʾanic multivalent words must be
referred to the Imams, so also obscurities in the hadith. A specific work from hadith
scholars who tried to interpret the complicated hadiths using auxiliary hadiths is Ibn
Baષbawayh’s Maʿ aષnıષ al‐akhbaષr (1361/1972). The problem is further complicated by the
issue of “meaning‐based alterations in expression” (naql bi'l‐maʿ naષ); some records that
show the Shiʿa community engaged in such a problem from the middle of second century.
Despite these concerns, Shiʿi scholars did reference non‐Shiʿi hadith and included
them in their writings, particularly for the purposes of polemics and apologetics. Shiʿa
scholars felt free to use the majority community’s hadiths to make arguments against
them. In particular, they made widespread use of Sunni hadiths to support Imaષmıષ
positions on subjects such as the Twelve Imams, the Mahdi and the apocalypse, and the
Imamate in general. In jurisprudence they also applied hadith from the majority to
support significant Imaષmıષ practices such as the prohibition of beer and the permissi-
bility of concubinage (Mutʿ a) (Murtad૎aષ 1994, 268; T૎uષ sı ષ 1983, 256ff.).
In fields more ethical than jurisprudential, the Shiʿa drew extensively from Sunni
hadiths. A well‐known case is Fayd૎ Kaષshaષnı ષ ’s al‐Mah૎ajja al‐bayd૎aષʾ, which was a Shiʿi
version of al‐Ghazaષlı ’ષ s Ih૎yaષʾ ʿ uluષ m al‐dıષn (ed. Tehran, 1383/1963). Also, Shiʿi scholars
did not hesitate to use hadiths with wisdom content because of teaching from Imams
allowing their usage. For example, according to a famous hadith of Imam ʿAli, “Wisdom
is a lost object for the believer, and he/she seeks it anywhere it exists, even in the hearth
of a hypocrite” (al‐Sharı fષ al‐Rad૎ı ષ 1967, aphorism no. 79–80; Tirmidhı ષ 1938, 5:51).
Based on such beliefs, the wisdom books of the Shiʿa contain a large volume of hadiths
from Sunni sources, as well as materials from Jews and Christians. We see such an
approach in hadith works such as Nahj al‐balaષgha compiled by Sharı fષ al‐Rad૎ı ષ and Ghurar
al‐h૎ikam by Aષ midı ષ (sixth century AH; ed. Qom, 1366/1987). Such an orientation led to
the circulation among the Imaષmiyya of Sunni hadith works in morals or medicine.
These included the Shihaષb al‐akhbaષr of Qaષd૎ı ષ al‐Qud૎aષʿı ષ (d. 454/1062), edited with a
commentary in Tehran (1361/1982), and T૎ibb al‐Nabiyy of Abuષ al‐ʿAbbaષs Mustaghfirı ષ
(d. 432/1041), published in Najaf (1385/1965).
Regarding criticism of hadith inside the community, there are reports from Imams
which accuse some companions of being liars: Bayaષn (Banaષn) al‐Tabbaષn was accused
of lying by Imam Sajjaષd; Mughı rષ a ibn Saʿı dષ was accused of lying by Imam Baષqir, and
some other figures were accused of lying by other Imams (Kashshı ,ષ 1969, 108, 192,
301–302). In the third/ninth century, even in the traditionalist milieu of Qom, accusa-
tions of lying against figures like Abuષ Samı n ષ a al‐S૎ayrafı ,ષ or accusations against others
like Ah૎ mad Barqı ષ of an over‐optimistic approach to narrators became grounds for their
exile from Qom by the leader of hadith scholars, Saʿd ibn ʿAbdullaષh Ashʿarı ષ (Ibn
Ghad૎aષʾirı ષ 2001, 39, 94; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 32).
284 AHMAD PAKATCHI

Such critical viewpoints regarding Shiʿa transmitters of hadith led scholars to the
development of fields of study related to isnaષd criticism, ʿ ilm al‐rijaષl and ʿ ilm al‐diraષya.
The former field emerged from the late third/ninth century onwards (i.e. T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 92;
Najaષshı ષ 1987, 36) and the latter from the ninth/fifteenth century with the Kitaષb
al‐riʿ aષya of al‐Shahı dષ al‐Thaષnı ષ (1408/1988). While the scholar Amı n ષ Istaraષbaષdı ષ
(d. 1036/1627) challenged the methods of hadith criticism of the H૎ illa school proposed
by Jamal al‐Dı n ષ ibn T૎aષwuષ s and ʿAllaષma al‐H૎ illı ષ during the seventh/thirteenth and
eighth/fourteenth centuries, Istaraષbaષdı ષ also agreed that there was another method of
criticism of isnad among Shiʿa in early centuries (Istaraષbaષdı ષ 2003, 109).
Despite strict boundaries separating Shiʿa sects, sectarian concerns do not seem to
play an important role in the sphere of hadith. The only sects excluded from hadith cir-
cles by Imaષmıષ Shiʿa scholars were the extremists (ghulaષt). A wide range of narrators
recognized by Shiʿa scholars were associated with different sects of the Imaષmıષ Shiʿa,
including the Waષqifa, the Fat h ૎ ૎ iyya, and the Jaષruષ diyya, which was the closest Zaydi sect
to the Imaષmıષ Shiʿa. Among the greatest figures in the folios of Shiʿi hadith works are
ʿAbdullaષh ibn Bukayr of the Fat h ૎ ૎ iyya, ʿAlı ષ ibn Abı ષ H૎ amza of the Waષqifa, and Abuષ al‐
Jaષruષ d, the founder of Jaષruષ diyya (Ibn Daષwuષ d al‐H૎ illı ષ 1972, 286ff.). In the first half of
fourth/tenth century, when narratives of some Imaષmıષ scholars with special tendencies,
such as Muhammad ibn Bah૎ r Ruhnı ષ (Kashshı ષ 1969, 147) and Ibn Junaid al‐Iskaષfı ષ (see
Najaષshı ષ 1987, 387), were filtered, narrations from Waષqifa scholars like H૎ umaid ibn
Ziyaષd al‐Nainawaષʾı ,ષ and from Jaષruષ diyya like Abuષ al‐ʿAbbaષs ibn ʿUqda, were nevertheless
included in mainstream of Imaષmıષ hadith collections (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 3, 4; Najaષshı ષ 1987,
14, 98). This common ground among Twelver Shiʿa sects in the sphere of hadith was
extended in the fourth/tenth century to include the works of non‐Twelver scholars.
Thus some Twelver scholars used the works of the Ismaષʿı lષ ı ષ scholar Qaષd૎ı ષ Nuʿmaષn,
including his Daʿ aષʾim al‐islaષm (1383/1963) and his Sharh૎ al‐akhbaષr (1409/1989–
1412/1992), like their own heritage (see for example Nuષ rı ષ 1987, 1:84, 11:17).

Early Hadith Works Ascribed to Imams

For the Shiʿa, the writing of hadith begins with Imam ʿAli, who is reported to have pre-
pared several manuscripts of the teaching of the Prophet (S૎affaષr 1984, 168, 182; Ibn
Baષbawayh 1966, 1:106). The most important work ascribed to him is entitled Kitaષb
ʿ Alıષ, The Book of ʿ Ali. Many references to the content of this book and many quotations
from it indicate that it was well known in hadith circles. The book contains mostly
juristic topics (Kulaynı ષ 1971, 3:9, 175, 505; T૎uષ sı ષ 1985, 6:343, 10:146). A narrative
from Imam S૎aષdiq reports that Imam Sajjaષd used to refer to The Book of ʿ Ali (Kulaynı ષ
1971, 8:163), and other reports indicate that other Imams had access to it (S૎affaષr
1984, 165, 182; Kulaynı ષ 1971, 6:219). Although no manuscripts of this work have
been preserved, Mus૎t a૎ faષ Qas૎ı rષ al‐ʿAષ milı ષ recently attempted to reconstruct the Kitaષb ʿ Alıષ
from passages quoted in hadith sources (1415/1995). Other books ascribed to Imam
ʿAli  include al‐Jaષmiʿ a (the comprehensive), al‐Faraષʾid૎ (Book of Inheritance), and Kitaષb
al‐diyaષt (the book of Legal Compensations) (Kulaynı ષ 1971, 1:57, 7:214, 330–343).
 SHIʿISM 285

One of the most widely circulated texts in the history of the Imaષmıષ School is a collec-
tion of hymns, allegedly from the first/seventh century, transmitted by Imam Sajjaષd. In
spite of the fact there are some differences in the number of hymns included in various
versions of the book, the main body of the text has vast transmission chains and dis-
plays a high level of accuracy in preservation of content. This text, which is famous as
al‐S૎ah૎ıfષ a al‐sajjaષdiyya and has been called “Psalms of Muhammad’s Household,” has
been the subject of several commentaries (T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983, 13:345–359).
A second text ascribed to Imam Sajjaષd is the Risaષlat al‐h૎uquષ q (Treatise of the Rights),
which contains detailed instructions about all the obligations arising from rights of
God and rights of relatives and neighbors that a believer should fulfill in his life.
A  complete version of the text is given by Ibn Baષbawayh (1986, 2:392–399) and
partially quoted in Sunni works (see Abuષ Nuʿaim 1932, 3:138). Finally, the content of
a brief text containing instructions on ascetics is ascribed to Imam Sajjaષd, and its com-
pilation and narration are attributed to Abuષ H૎ amza al‐Thumaષlı ;ષ the complete text is
inserted in al‐Kaષfıષ of Kulaynı ષ (1971, 8:14–17), and in some bibliographies this text,
entitled al‐Zuhd, is attributed to Abuષ H૎ amza (Sezgin 1967, 1:531).
In the first half of the second/tenth century, Imam S૎aષdiq, the leader of Jaʿfari School,
laid the foundations for Imaષmıષ teaching on theology and jurisprudence, and thereafter
we find several texts ascribed to him circulating in Imaષmıષ circles. Imam S૎aષdiq’s life
coincides with the start of the hadith compilation movement, and the attribution of
writings to him is therefore not unexpected. The texts allegedly written by Imam S૎aષdiq
differ widely from the standpoint of authenticity. A famous text attributed to Imam
S૎aષdiq is a book on theology and cosmology known as Tawh૎ıdષ al‐mufad૎d૎al of which
Mufad૎da ૎ l ibn ʿUmar al‐Juʿfı ષ was the main transmitter (Najaષshı ષ 1987, 416) and which
has been published several times in different editions (i.e. Beirut, 1404/1984). Another
considerable work ascribed to Imam S૎aષdiq is a work of exegesis narrated by the well‐
known mystic Abuષ ʿAbd al‐Rah૎ maષn Sulamı .ષ The text, which is quoted in Sulamı ’ષ s
H૎ aqaષʾiq al‐tafsıષr (1970), is a work of mystical exegesis and is known in Sufi circles (see
Ansari 2011, 523 ff.). Another text with ethical content entitled Mis૎baષh૎ al‐sharıષʿ a
(Light of Religion) is attributed to Imam S૎aષdiq (ed. Beirut, 1400/1980), but there is evi-
dence that the book is a later work by a Sufi author (Pakatchi 2009, 101ff.; for other
works attributed to Imam S૎aષdiq, see Khodayari 2012, 555ff.).
In the second half of second/eighth century, a book known as Masaષʾil ʿ Alıષ ibn Jaʿ far
contains the answers of Imam Kaષz૎im to the questions of his brother ʿAli. Shiʿi critics
rate the credibility of this text highly and it is quoted in the Four Books of the Shiʿa (e.g.
Kulayni, 1971, 3: 44). We are also told of a manuscript in Qurʾanic exegesis ascribed to
Imam Kaષz૎im which was in the hands of Ibn Shahr Aષ shuષ b in sixth/twelfth century and
had some quotations from it (1957, 3:107).
In the last years of sixth/twelfth century, during the lifetime of Imam Rid૎aષ, Sunni
hadith scholarship was well developed, and it is unsurprising that Shiʿa Imams were
also active in this regard. The most famous book ascribed to Imam Rid૎aષ is al‐Risaષla
al‐dhahabiyya (ed. Najaf 1361/1982) (the Golden Treatise) or T૎ibb al‐Rid૎aષ (Medicine of
Rid૎aષ). According to traditions cited in the introduction to the text, Imam Rid૎aષ wrote
this treatise at the request of Caliph Maʾmuષ n. Although the book circulated widely
286 AHMAD PAKATCHI

among Shiʿi scholars and there are some commentaries written on it (T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983,
13:363–364), its ascription to Imam Rid૎aષ has been questioned by some critics (Shakuri
2010, 313ff.; for other works ascribed to him, see Haj‐Manuchehri 2013, 431ff.).
In the first half of the third/ninth century, we are informed of brief writings from
later Imams (Kashshı ષ 1969, 575–580; Ibn Baષbawayh 1984, 1:53–55; Ibn Shuʿba
1997, 458–481). The only work worthy of mention is a Tafsir on the early part of
the  Qurʾan attributed to Imam ʿAskarı ષ which was circulated among Imaષmıષs in the
middle and late centuries (al‐ʿAskarı ષ 1989). The commentary was reportedly recited by
the Imam and recorded in writing by two disciples from the city of Astaraષbaષdh (Gurgan),
as reflected in the introduction (al‐ʿAskarı ,ષ 9–10). However, the text was not known
before the fourth century in Imaષmıષ bibliographical sources and its authenticity is
doubtful (Shushtarı ષ 1981, 1:152ff.).

Early Twelver Hadith Collections

Companions of Imam ʿAli such as Sulaym ibn Qays, ʿUbaydullaષh ibn Abı ષ Raષfiʿ, and his
brother ʿAlı ષ are reported to be the compilers of the earliest hadith works (Najaષshı ષ 1987,
4–8; Sezgin 1967, 1:86), of which only Sulaym’s work is supposed to have survived.
This book has no obvious order and its content is focused entirely on the doctrine of
Imamate and relations between the Shiʿa and majority community in the early decades
after the Prophet.
The movement to compile collections of hadith, including both hadiths from the
Prophet and from the Imams, coincided with the formation of the Jaʿfari school in
the first half of second/eighth century. A significant part of early hadith heritage of the
Imaષmıષ school is contained in the Us૎uષ l al‐arbaʿ miʾa, the Four Hundred Codices. While
some scholars believe these were written by a range of writers beginning with the com-
panions of Imam ʿAli and continuing through the companions of the Eleventh Imam
(Ibn Shahr Aષ shuષ b 1961, 39), others claimed that 400 codices were written only by 400
figures who were all companions of Imam S૎aષdiq (T૎abrisı ષ 1996, 2:200; Muh૎ aqqiq al‐
H૎ illı ષ 1985, 1:26). With emergence of Jaʿfari school, and in response to the vast quantity
of hadith passed on from previous generations, this wave of compilation focused on the
teachings of Imam S૎aષdiq and gave rise to a kind of reformation among the Imaષmiyya in
the sphere of hadith. Consequently, the hadith works of the companions of Imam S૎aષdiq
left a significant influence on Imaષmıષ culture.
Regarding the writing style of the early sources (us૎uષ l), we have limited evidence.
Shaikh T૎uષ sı ષ in the fifth/eleventh century considered them to be comparable to arranged
books (mus૎annafs) (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 25), but we know that most of the writings of third/
ninth century and before were brief and unarranged. When scholars such as T૎uષ sı ષ speak
about some kind of arrangement in those periods, they mean that a book was focused
on a particular topic. We know, for example, that the Kitaષb al‐s૎alaષt of H૎ arı zષ Sijistaષnı ષ
(Najaષshı ષ 1987, 145) was devoted to the topic of prayer. Two bibliographic resources
prepared in fifth/eleventh century by T૎uષ sı ષ and Najaષshı ષ cover a huge quantity of such
early writings compiled by the companions of Imam S૎aષdiq as well as other Imams. In
spite of the fact that the major part of these writings has been lost, a large part of their
content is included is Shiʿite Four Books and other hadith collections.
 SHIʿISM 287

Of the huge number of these early writings recorded in bibliographies, a few works
attributed to companions of the Imams is available in a collection named al‐Us૎uષl al‐sitta
ʿ ashar or the Sixteen Books, and some are included totally or partially in Qurb al‐isnaષd of
ʿAbdullaષh ibn Jaʿfar al‐H૎ imyarıષ (1992) and Mustat૎rafaષt al‐saraષʾir of Ibn Idrısષ (1990, 549ff.).
In the third/ninth century we see the first attempt of Imaષmıષ scholars to integrate the
hadith books and to prepare comprehensive works which sometimes received the title
al‐Jaષmiʿ and were sometimes called simply kutub (the books). The collection made by
S૎afwaષn ibn Yah૎ yaષ, one of the companions of Imams Kaષz૎im and Rid૎aષ, was a pioneering
work in this regard (Ibn Nadı m ષ 1971, 278; T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 110; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 197).
S૎afwaષn’s younger colleague Ah૎ mad ibn Abı ષ Nas૎r al‐Bazant ı૎ ષ (d. 222/837) was also a
pioneer in writing a Jaષmiʿ (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 19; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 75), which was quoted by Ibn
Idrı sષ (1990, 97ff.), and of which copies were available at least until the sixth/tenth
century. Another famous figure in that period is H૎ asan ibn Mah૎ buષ b (d. 224/839), who
applied an innovative method of compilation to his al‐Mashikha by arranging it
according to the personality of the transmitters (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 47). Some scholars such as
Muh૎ ammad ibn Abı ષ ʿUmaiyr (d. 217/832), H૎ asan ibn Fad૎d૎aષl (d. 224/839), and also
al‐Bazant ı૎ ષ contributed to another genre of hadith compilations known as al‐Nawaષdir
(rarities) which gathered unusual hadiths from the standpoint of content or isnaષd (see
T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 19, 48; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 36, 75).
In the first half of the third/ninth century, an important development was a compi-
lation of topical monographs by H૎ usain ibn Saʿı dષ Ahwaષzı .ષ The collection was the first
reference book for Shiʿi hadith until that time and was formed of 30 chapters, each on a
topic, mostly in jurisprudence but also in theology, ethics, and exegesis (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 58;
Najaષshı ષ 1987, 58–60). The only chapter of the book that remains extant is the text
edited as an independent work under the title of Kitaષb al‐zuhd (The Books of Ascetics)
published in Qom, 1399/1979 CE.
Another parallel effort was a project of Muh૎ ammad ibn Khaષlid Barqı ,ષ a scholar of
Qom, who compiled a large and comprehensive collection of hadith in which the share
of theological and ethical hadith was greater than legal hadith, and which included
chapters on cosmology, dream interpretation, health care, geography, and history. Ibn
Nadı m ષ reports that this collection, known as al‐Mah૎aષsin, was completed by his son
Ah૎ mad (Ibn Nadı m ષ 1971, 276–277). Although it is listed as a work of Ah૎ mad Barqı ષ in
current bibliographies (T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 20; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 76), the isnaષds of the work itself
confirm Ibn Nadı m ષ ’s claim. Some sections of the book are preserved in an edition by
Muh૎ addith Urmawı ષ (al‐Barqı ષ 1952).

The Four Books

Compilations of hadith by Imaષmı ષ scholars in the early centuries, and the wave of com-
prehensive collections in the middle of the third/ninth century, laid the groundwork for
the Shiʿi canonical collections known as al‐Kutub al‐arbaʿ a, or the Four Books: multi‐
volume collections of hadith in which hadith reports were critically sifted and arranged
by subject to allow convenient access to existing hadiths in any field. While these might
seem roughly comparable in authority to the Six Books of Sunni hadith, in fact such a
comparison may be misleading. Unlike the books of the Sunni canon – especially the
288 AHMAD PAKATCHI

two S૎ah૎ıhષ ૎s of Bukhaષrı ષ and Muslim – it is not common among the Shiʿa to consider the
Four Books to be above criticism and, in fact, Imaષmıષ scholars did not hesitate to criticize
many hadiths included in the Four Books. Mainstream Imaષmıષ scholars considered
the Four Books only “relatively more” trustworthy than other hadith collections. It is
therefore not considered a radical position for a critic to subject hadiths within these
canons to scrutiny.
The pioneering collection was al‐Kaષfıષ, authored by Muh૎ ammad ibn Yaʿquષ b Kulaynı ષ
(d. 329/941), a scholar from the city of Rayy (near today’s Tehran) who spent a part of
his life in Baghdad. Kulaynı ષ was the leader of Shiʿi community in Rayy (Najaષshı ષ 1987,
377), although the nearby city of Qom was the educational centre of Imaષmiyya in
central Iran. Thus, the most influential Shiʿi hadith collection did not emerge from Qom.
The importance of al‐Kaષfıષ for Imaષmıષs might be roughly compared to the place of the
S૎ah૎ıhષ ૎ of Bukhaષrı ષ for Sunnis. Over the centuries, its circulation was vast and it was
transmitted in numerous manuscripts and eventually published in several editions. The
two first volumes, known as Us૎uષ l al‐kaષfıષ, contain hadiths in the fields of theology and
ethics, the following five volumes known as Furuષ ʿ al‐kaષfıષ, cover a series of topics in all
fields of jurisprudence, and the final volume, known as Rawd૎a al‐kaષfıષ (the garden of
Kaષfıષ), contains a miscellany. There are several commentaries on al‐Kaષfıષ, especially on
the Us૎uષ l (see T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983, 13:94–100, 14:26–28). After al‐Kaષfıષ was compiled in the
first of the fourth/tenth century, T૎uષ sı ષ and Najaષshı ’ષ s bibliographies take note of a great
number of other compilations in Qom and the cities of Iraq, indicating that the pace of
hadith compilation in Imaષmıષ circles was feverish despite the fact that no new work could
compete with al‐Kaષfıષ. However, only a small number of these works have survived.
The period of the Four Books, the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries, begins
with the absence of Imams and ends with the relative fixation of the Imaષmıષ school
through emergence of the school of Shaykh T૎uષ sı .ષ Because they lived close to the time of
the last Imam, H૎ asan al‐ʿAskarı ષ (d. 260/874), the greatest preoccupation of hadith
scholars in this period was the issue of the Imam’s absence, and many surviving works
of that period reflect this preoccupation, including al‐Imaષma wa al‐tabs૎ira of ʿAlı ષ ibn
Baષbawayh (d. 329/941). One of the other themes of compilations in this period was
strengthening the relationships inside the Imaષmıષ community at the time of the Imam’s
absence; in this regard we have works such as al‐Tamh૎is૎ of Ibn Hammaષm al‐Iskaષfı ષ
(d. 336/947) concerning the ways of refreshment of Shiʿa against troubles and passions
(ed. Qom, Madarasa al‐Imam al‐Mahdi, n.d.). Works such as al‐Jaષmiʿ of Muh૎ ammad ibn
Walı dષ (d. 343/954), an influential scholar of Qom and the greatest master of
Muh૎ ammad ibn Baષbawayh (Najaષshı ષ 1987, 383), show that other scholars also sought
to prepare comprehensive collections, although neither Ibn Walı dષ ’s word, nor the lost
works mentioned in bibliographies was able to rival al‐Kaષfıષ.
During the second half of fourth/tenth century, hadith circles of Iran and Iraq were
at the peak of their activity and produced a vast range of works in a considerable variety
of genres and subjects. We see this variety not only in bibliographies of lost works but
also in works to which we still have access, like those of Muh૎ ammad ibn Baષbawayh
(d. 381/991). This master, who played such a significant role in hadith of Imaષmiyya,
came to be known as the archetypical Imaષmıષ traditionist and the chief representative of
the early Imaષmıષ traditionist school. Ibn Baષbawayh’s most important work was Man laષ
 SHIʿISM 289

yah૎d૎uruhu al‐faqıષh, which became the second of the four canonical hadith works. The
title literally means “who has no access to a jurist,” indicating the function of the book
as a teach‐yourself reference for Imaષmıષ traditionist believers aimed at Imaષmıષs living in
Central Asia without access to knowledgeable clerics. The work is a complete series of
chapters on Imaષmıષ jurisprudence set within the framework of hadith. Thus the author
offers non‐scholarly readers all the decrees of religion by means of a body of hadiths
and without explicit jurisprudential judgments (see Ibn Baષbawayh 1986, 1:12; for
commentaries see T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983, 14:94–95).
We are told that Ibn Baષbawayh wrote another comprehensive hadith work two or three
times larger entitled Madıષnat al‐ʿ ilm (the city of knowledge) of which there are no known
surviving manuscripts (see T૎uષ sı ષ 1937, 185; Najaષshı ષ 1987, 389). H૎ usayn ibn ʿAbd al‐
S૎amad al‐ʿAષ milı ષ one of the famous Imaષmıષ figures of Lebanon in the tenth/sixteenth
century, mentions Madıષnat al‐ʿ ilm and includes it with the other canonical hadith works,
speaking of five books of the Imaષmiyya (H૎ usain ibn ʿAbd as૎‐S૎amad 1981, 85).
In his canonical collection, Ibn Baષbawayh restricted himself to hadith with Imaષmıષ
isnaષds, but in topical monographs he operated under no such restraints and used a great
many hadith with Sunni isnaષds as well. This is the case in works such as al‐Tawh૎ıdષ in
theology (ed. Tehran, 1387/1967); al‐Khis૎aષl, literally the habits, mainly including
ethical instructions (ed. Qom, 1362 Sh/1983); Maʿ aષnıષ al‐akhbaષr, including the com-
mentary on complicated hadiths using other explanatory hadiths (ed. Qom, 1361
Sh/1982); ʿUyuષ n akhbaષr al‐rid૎aષ, containing some records about Imam Rid૎aષ, or narrated
from him (ed. Najaf, 1390/1970); Kamaષl al‐dıષn, about the issues concerning the Twelfth
Imam (ed. Tehran, 1390/1970); ʿ Ilal al‐sharaષʾiʿ , on the causes of cosmic events or
juristic decrees (ed. Najaf, 1385/1966); and Thawaષb al‐aʿ maષl, about the rewards of good
deeds (ed. Najaf, 1392/1972).
Apart from Ibn Baષbawayh, other works preserved from this period include Kaષmil
al‐ziyaષraષt of Ibn Quષ lawayh Qumı ષ (d. 367/978), about the pilgrimage to holy shrines
of  Imams (ed. Qom, 1417/1996); al‐Ghayba of Ibn Abı ષ Zainab al‐Nuʿmaષnı ષ about
the Twelfth Imam and events of the apocalypse (ed. Tehran, 1397/1977); Muqtad૎ab
al‐athar of Ibn ʿAyyaષsh al‐Jawharı ષ including narrated arguments proving the right-
fulness of Twelve Imams (ed. Qom, 1379/1959); Kifaષya al‐athar of Khazzaષz Qumı ષ on
the same subject and of the same generation (ed. Qom, 1410/1989); T૎ibb al‐aʾimma of
ʿAbd Allaષh and H૎ usayn sons of Bast a૎ ષm, including hadiths on medicine and health
care (ed. Najaf, 1385/1965); and a series of brief works of Jaʿfar ibn Ah૎ mad ibn Raષzı ,ષ
especially a work entitled Jaષmiʿ al‐ah૎ aષdıષth, all published in one volume (ed. Tehran,
1369/1950).
In the late fourth/tenth century, Sharı fષ al‐Rad૎ı ષ (d. 406/1015) compiled his brilliant
work, the Nahj al‐balaષgha, containing sermons, letters, and aphorisms of Imam ʿAli.
Although for many readers outside the Imaષmıષ sphere the Nahj al‐balaષgha is seen as bel-
letristic or ethical in content, among the Shiʿa the book has been counted among hadith
works. Although the hadiths in this collection are totally free from isnaષds and are aimed
at a popular Shiʿa audience, and not at scholars, it has often been reckoned the most
important Imaષmıષ source of hadith, and in recent centuries it has been called “the
brother of the Qurʾan” (T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983, 14:111). Popular readers have sometimes taken
Imam ʿAli himself to be the author of the book. Despite the absence of isnaષds and
290 AHMAD PAKATCHI

criticism of its authenticity, Nahj al‐balaષgha has been the most widespread hadith text
among the Shiʿa, with a huge number of manuscripts and many editions. No work of
hadith has been the subject of so many commentaries, with more than 100 commen-
taries by Shiʿa authors, as well as several commentaries by non‐Shiʿa scholars including
the well‐known commentary of the Muʿtaziı ષ scholar Ibn Abı ષ al‐H૎ adı dષ (ed. Cairo,
1379/1959 CE; for a bibliography of commentaries, see H૎ usaynı ષ Khat ı૎ bષ 1985, 1:202ff.).
In the fifth/eleventh century, theologians such as Shaykh al‐Mufı dષ and Sharı fષ al‐
Murtad૎aષ questioned the authority of hadiths transmitted by a single line of narrators
(akhbaષr aષh૎aષd) and seriously weakened the position of traditionists in Imaષmıષ circles. These
scholars did not oppose hadith in principle but were skeptical of its authority as a basis
for jurisprudential decrees. Thus Shaykh al‐Mufı dષ himself recited hadiths on theological
and ethical subjects compiled under titles of al‐Amaષlıષ, a miscellany including hadiths
with theological, historical, and ethical themes (ed. Qom, 1403/1983), and al‐
Mazaષr, concerning pilgrimage to Imams’ holy shrines (ed. Beirut, 1414/1993). In the
same generation, traditionist writers such as Ibn Shaષdhaષn Qumı ષ continued the process
of hadith compilation with works such as Miʾa manqaba, concerning the 100 virtues of
Imam ʿAli (ed. Qom, 1407/1987).
Although hadith compilation was a common concern of traditionists and theolo-
gians, it was not until the middle decades of the fifth/eleventh century that the two
approaches were integrated by the great reformer of the Imaષmıષ school, al‐T૎uષ sı ,ષ who
received the title of Shaikh al‐t૎aʾષ ifa (the master of the community). Al‐T૎uષ sı ,ષ an Iranian
scholar residing in Iraq, defended the authenticity of single‐strand hadiths and made
considerable reforms in the application of hadith to Imaષmıષ jurisprudence. Such reform
required special attention to hadiths relevant to jurisprudence, and this is what al‐T૎uષ sı ષ
aimed at in two hadith collections which rank third and fourth among the Four Books.
His Tahdhıષb al‐ah૎kaષm, which extends to 10 volumes, is the largest Imaષmıષ hadith collection
focused on jurisprudential traditions. The goal of the author was to propose a full account
of what early Imaષmıષ resources had contained on every one of the chapters of jurispru-
dence (ed. Najaf, 1379/1959). Another book, al‐Istibs૎arષ , in four volumes, is focused only
on contradictory hadiths and is intended to be used as a tool for judgment on these con-
troversies (ed. Najaf, 1375–6/1956–7). Both the books have been the subject of glosses
and commentaries from the eleventh/seventeenth century until present (T૎ihraષnı ષ 1983,
13:83–87, 156–159). Apart from these two collections, al‐T૎uષ sı ષ composed other hadith
works including al‐Ghayba, on subjects related to the absence of the Twelfth Imam
(ed. Najaf, 1323/1905), and al‐Amaષli, a hadith miscellany (ed. Baghdad, 1384/1964).

Imaષmı ષ Hadith After the Four Books

The compilation of hadith declined after the time of al‐T૎uષ sı ,ષ although in the course of
fifth/eleventh–sixth/twelfth centuries we come across narrowly focused compilations
of hadiths earning isnaષds. Surviving examples of such efforts include al‐Arbaʿ ıષn, by Abuષ
Saʿı dષ Nı sષ haષpuષ rı ષ (d. c. 485/1092), a selection of 40 hadiths (Pakatchi 2006, 181);
Bishaષra al‐Mus૎ta૎ faષ, by ʿImaષd al‐Dı n ષ T૎abarı ષ (living 553/1158), about the issues of
Imamate (ed. Najaf, 1383/1963); Qis૎as૎ al‐anbiyaષʾ, by Qutb al‐Dı n ષ Raષwandı ષ
(d. 573/1177), including the stories of the prophets (ed. Mashad, 1409/1989); al‐Nawaષdir,
 SHIʿISM 291

ષ Raષwandı ષ (sixth century) as a hadith miscellany (ed. Najaf, 1370); Fad૎l

by D૎ iyaષʾ al‐Dı n
al‐Kuષ fa, by Muh૎ ammad ibn Jaʿfar Mashhadı ષ (d. Beirut, Daષr al‐Murtad૎aષ, n.d.), about the
virtues of the ancient city of Kufa (ed. Bairut, Daષr al‐Murtad૎aષ, n.d.); al‐Mazaષr al‐kabıષr,
by the same author, about the pilgrimage to the Imams’ holy shrines (ed. Qom,
1419/1998); and a selection of 40 hadiths, al‐Arbaʿ ıષn, by Muntajab al‐Dı n ષ Raષzı ષ (living
600/1204) (ed. Qom, 1408/1988). All these works and some lost works listed in bibli-
ography of Muntajab al‐dı n ષ of the traditionist school reflect the isnaષd tradition of the
early centuries (Pakatchi 2006, 167–227).
During the same period, we find some monographs without isnaષd, or with occasional
minimalist isnaષds. To this category belong works such as ʿUyuષ n al‐muʿ jizaષt, attributed to
H૎ usayn ibn ʿAbd al‐Wahhaષb (fifth century), regarding the miracles of the Imams (ed.
Najaf, 1369/1950); Rawd૎a al‐waʿ iz૎ınષ , by Fattaષl Nı sષ haષpuષ rı ષ (d. 508/1114), including
narratives useful for preaching (ed. Najaf, 1386/1966); al‐ih૎tijaષj, of Abuષ Mans૎uષ r
T૎abrisı ષ (d. c. 560/1165), containing a great range of debates of the Prophet and the
Imams (ed. Najaf, 1386/1966); al‐Daʿ awaષt, by Qutb al‐Dı n ષ Raષwandı ષ (d. 573/1177),
including the supplications narrated from Imams (ed. Qom, 1407/1987); al‐Kharaષʾij
wa‐l‐jaraષʾih૎, by the same author, including the miracles of the Prophet and Imams (ed.
Qom, 1407/1987); Manaષqib ʿ alıષ ibn abıષ taષlib, by Ibn Shahr Aષ shuષ b Sarawı ષ (d. 588/1192),
about the virtues of the household of Abuષ T૎aષlib the father of Imam ʿAli and Ancestor of
all Imams (ed. Najaf, 1376/1957); al‐Fad૎aષʾil, by Shaષdhaષn ibn Jabraʾı lષ (living 593/1197),
containing narrative of the virtues of the Imams (ed. Najaf, 1381/1961); al‐Thaષqib fi‐l‐
manaષqib, by Nas૎ı rષ al‐Dı n
ષ ibn H૎ amza T૎uષ sı ષ (d. c. 600/1204), with the same subject (ed.
Qom, 1412/1992); and Makaષrim al‐akhlaષq, by H૎ asan ibn Fad૎l T૎abrisı ષ (sixth century),
including some narratives on morals and lifestyle for believers (ed. Beirut, 1392/1972).
After the Mongol invasions, Imaષmıષ hadith circles entered a period of decadence, especially
in Iran. The isnaષd tradition was largely forgotten, and books that cited hadiths in the middle
Islamic centuries paid little attention to issues of documentation. From the viewpoint of doc-
umentation, the hadith works along these centuries can be divided into four classes:

1. We have rare examples from Syria and Lebanon which try to conserve the old isnaષd
tradition, among which we can point out to works like the selection of 40 hadiths,
ષ al‐H૎ alabı ષ (d. 639/1241–1242) (ed. Qom, 1405/1985),
al‐Arbaʿ ıષn, by Muh૎ yi al‐Dı n
and another collection with the same title and subject by Muh૎ ammad ibn Makkı ષ
al‐Shahı dષ al‐Awwal (d. 786/1384) (ed. Qom, 1407/1987).
2. The second class is made up of works reliable in documentation and showing their
references but with limited mention of isnaષds. Among these we can count all the
works of Rad૎i al‐Dı n ષ ibn T૎aષwuષ s (d. 664/1266) (Kohlberg 1992), ʿAlı ષ ibn Yuષ nus
al‐Bayaષd૎ı ષ (d. 877/1472) in al‐S૎iraષt ૎ al‐Mustaqıષm (ed. Najaf, 1384/1964), and
H૎ asan ibn Sulaimaષn al‐H૎ illı ષ (ninth century) in al‐Muh૎tad૎ar (ed. Najaf, 1424/2003),
and Mukhtas૎ar bas૎aષʾir ad‐darajaષt (Najaf, 1369/1950).
3. The third class is works which sometimes show their references but which are not
thorough in documentation, of which we can name the works of Ibn Namaષ al‐H૎ illı ષ
(d. 645/1247), such as Muthıષr al-Ah૎zaષn, about the sacrifice of Imam H૎ usayn (ed.
Najaf, 1369/1950); Kashf al‐ghumma by ʿAlı ષ ibn ʿIsષ aષ al‐Irbilı ષ (d. 693/1294), about
life and virtues of Imams (ed. Tabriz, 1381/1961); and Mishkaષt al‐Anwaષr, by ʿAlı ષ
ibn H૎ asan T૎abrisı ષ (seventh century), an ethical handbook (ed. Najaf, 1385/1965).
292 AHMAD PAKATCHI

4. The fourth class is made up of works without any references and without docu-
mentation, generally focused on morals and supplications. Among these we can
mention works of Ibn Fahd al‐H૎ illı ષ (d. 841/1437) such as al‐Tah૎s૎ınષ (ed. Qom,
ષ
1406/1986) and ʿ Udda ad‐daષʿ ıષ (ed. Qom, 1407/1987) as well as works of Ibraષhı m
al‐Kafʿamı ષ (d. 905/1500) such as al‐Mis૎baષh૎ (ed. Beirut, 1403/1983).
From the time of high activity in the H૎ illa school, a movement to compile a new gen-
eration of hadith collections began in Imaષmıષ circles which aimed to gather the hadiths
narrated in early resources and make them easier to access. The starting point for such
a movement may be a lost work of ʿAllaષma al‐H૎ illı ષ (d. 726/1326) the most influential
leader of the H૎ illa school. This was a comprehensive work containing all hadiths with
degree of s૎ah૎ıhષ ૎ or h૎asan, entitled ad‐Durr wa‐l‐marjaષn fıષ ah૎aષdıષth al‐s૎ih૎aષh૎ wa‐l‐h૎isaષn
(ʿAllaષma al‐H૎ illı ષ 1996, 110). Another work of this kind later made by H૎ asan ibn Zayn
ષ al‐ʿAષ milı ષ (d. 1011/1602) entitled Muntaqa al‐Jumaષn, in three volumes (ed. Qom,
al‐Dı n
1362 Sh/1983 AH), laid the foundation for larger works in the time of Safavid Dynasty
in Iran. Late Imaષmıષ hadith collections include some very large encyclopedic works such
as al‐Waષfıષ, by Fayd૎ Kaષshaષnı ષ (d. 1091/1680), edited in 26 volumes (Isfahan, 1365
Sh/1946); Wasaષʾil al‐shıષʿ a, by al‐H૎ urr al‐ʿAષ milı ષ (d. 1104/1693), edited in 30 volumes
(ed. Qom, 1409/1989), both limited to hadiths with juristic content; Bih૎aષr al‐anwaષr, by
Muh૎ ammad Baષqir Majlisı ષ (d. 1111/1699), including hadiths in all subjects and edited
in 110 volumes (Beirut, 1403/1983); ʿAwaષlim al‐ʿ uluષ m, by ʿAbd Allaષh al‐Bah૎ raષnı ષ
(d.  1130/1718), also covering all subjects, in 23 volumes (Qom, 1405/1985); and
Mustadrak al‐wasaષʾil, by H૎ usayn Nuષ rı ષ (d. 1320/1902), a supplement to Wasaષʾil al‐shıષʿ a,
edited in 18 volumes (Qom, 1408/1987). The most recent work is Jaષmiʿ ah૎aષdıષth al‐shıષʿ a,
by Seyyed H૎ osein Boruષ jerdı ષ (d. 1383/1963), a contemporary effort at compiling a com-
prehensive arrangement of juristic hadiths, edited in 25 volumes (Qom, 1399/1979).
Finally, a huge project for publishing minor unpublished manuscripts in the field of
Imaષmıષ hadith, a series with the general title Mıષraષth‐e h૎adıષthıષ‐ye shıષʿ eh, edited by Mahdi
Mehrı zષ ı ષ and ʿAlı ષ S૎adraષyı ષ Khoyı ,ષ began to be published from 1377/1998. Since the
inception of the project, more than 20 volumes have appeared.
The efforts of Imaષmıષ scholars to compile hadiths from early sources and to make
them accessible for practical use continue to the present. In the age of digital libraries,
we find comprehensive software collections such as Maktaba ahl al‐bait (last release 2.0,
Qom, 1391 Sh/2012) and Jaષmiʿ al‐ah૎aષdıષth of the Noor Institution (last release 3.5,
Qom, 1392 Sh/2013). The latter is a reliable resource for bibliography of all primary
Imaષmıષ hadith resources and also contains full text of the contents.

References

Abuષ Nuʿaym al‐Isbah૎ aષnıષ, Ah૎mad ibn ʿAbd
Allaષh. 1932–1938. H૎ ilyat al‐awliyaષʾ
wa‐tabaqaષt al‐as૎fiyaષʾ, 10 vols. Cairo: Daષr
al‐Kitaષb al‐ʿArabı .ષ
ʿAllaષma al‐H૎ illıષ, H૎ asan. 1417[1996].
Khulaષs૎a al‐aqwaષl, edited by J. Qayyumi.
Qom: an‐Nashr al‐Islamıષ.
Ansari, Hasan. 2011. Barrasıષhaષ‐ye
taષrıષkhıષ. Tehran: Ketaષbkhaષne‐ye Majles.
al‐ʿAskarıષ, Imam H૎ asan, attr. 1989. Tafsıષr.
Qom. Imam Mahdi School.
al‐Barqıષ, Ah૎ mad b. Muh૎ ammad ibn Khaષlid.
1952. al‐Mah૎asષ in, edited by Muh૎ addith
Urmawıષ. Tehran: Daષr al‐Kitaષb al‐Islaષmiyya.

al‐Bukhaષrıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1407[1987].
al‐S૎ah૎ıhષ ૎ , edited by M. Dıષb al‐Bughaષ, Beirut:
Daષr Ibn Kathıષr.
Fayd૎ Kaષshaષnıષ, Muh૎ ammad Muh૎ sin. 1986.
al‐Waષfıષ, Isfahan: Amıષr al‐Muʾminıષn
Library.
Haj‐Manuchehri, F. 2013. “Arzyaષbı ‐ષ ye aષthaષr‐e
mansuષ b be Emaષm Rez૏aષ.” In Abʿ aષd‐e
shakhsiyyat va zendegi‐ye h૎az૏rat‐e Emaષm
Rez૏aષ, edited A. Pakatchi. Tehran:
ISU Press.
H૎ imyarıષ, ʿAbd Allaષh. 1413[1992]. Qurb
al‐Isnaષd. Qom: Aષ l al‐Bait.
H૎ usayn ibn ʿAbd al‐S૎amad. 1401[1981].
Wus૎uષl al‐Akhyaષr, edited by A. Kuhkamari.
Qom: Majmaʿ al‐Dhakhaષʾir al‐Islaષmiyya.
H૎ usaynıષ Khat૎ı bષ , ʿAbd al‐Zahraષʾ. 1405[1985].
Mas૎aષdir Nahj al‐Balaષgha. Beirut: Daષr
al‐Ad૎waષʾ.
Ibn Baષbawayh, Muh૎ ammad. 1385[1966].
ʿ Ilal al‐sharaષʾ iʿ . Najaf: Haidariyya.
Ibn Baષbawayh, Muh૎ ammad. 1404/1984.
ʿ Uyuષn akhbaષr al‐Rid૎aષ. Beirut: Aʿlamı .ષ
Ibn Baષbawayh, Muh૎ ammad. 1406[1986].
Man laષ yah૎ d૎uruhu al‐faqıષh, edited by H.A
ʿlamıષ. Beirut: Aʿlamıષ.
Ibn Daષwuષ d al‐H૎ illıષ, H૎ asan. 1392[1972].
al‐Rijaષl. Najaf: Haydariyya.
Ibn Ghad૎aષʾirıષ, Ah૎ mad. 1422[2001]. al‐Rijaષl,
edited by M.R. Jalali. Qom. Daષr al‐H૎ adith.
Ibn Idrıષs, Muh૎ ammad. 1411[1990].
Mustat૎rafaષt al‐saraષʾ ir.
Qom: an‐Nashr al‐Islaષmıષ.
Ibn Nadıષm, Muh૎ ammad. 1971. al‐Fihrist,
edited by R. Tajaddod. Tehran: Asadi.
Ibn Shahr Aષ shuષ b, Muh૎ ammad. 1376[1957].
Manaષqib Aષ li Abıષ T૎ aષlib. Najaf: Haidariyya.
Ibn Shahr Aષ shuષ b, Muh૎ ammad. 1380[1961].
Maʿ aષlim al‐ʿ ulamaષʾ . Najaf: Haidariyya.
Ibn Shuʿba, H૎ asan. 1997. Tuh૎af al‐ʿ uquષl,
edited by A.A. Ghaffari. Tehran: S૎aduષ q.
Istaraષbaષdıષ, Muh૎ ammad Amıષn, 1424[2003].
al‐Fawaષʾ id al‐madaniyya, edited by R.
Rahmati. Qom: an‐Nashr al‐Islaષmıષ.
Kashshıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1969. Maʿ rifa al‐rijaષl,
Revised by T૎ uષ sıષ, edited by H. Mustafavi.
Mashad: Ferdowsi University.
SHIʿISM 293
Khodayari, Alinaqi. 2012. Aષ thaષr‐e mansuષ b be
Emaષm S૎aષdeq." In Abʿ aષd‐e shakhsiyyat va
zendegi‐ye Emaષm S૎aષdeq, edited by A.
Pakatchi. Tehran: ISU Press.
Kohlberg, E. 1992. A Medieval Muslim
Scholar at Work: Ibn Tawus and his Library,
Leiden: Brill.
Kulaynı ,ષ Muh૎ ammad. 1391[1971]. al‐Kaષfıષ,
edited by A.A. Ghaffari. Tehran: Daષr
al‐Kutub al‐Islaષmiyya.
Muh૎ aqqiq al‐H૎ illıષ, Jaʿfar. 1985. al‐Muʿ tabar,
edited by N. Makaષrim Shiraષzıષ. Qom: Sayyid
al‐Shuhadaષ Institute.
Murtad૎aષ, ʿAlı .ષ 1415[1994]. al‐Intis૎aષr. Qom:
an‐Nashr al‐Islaષmıષ.
Muslim ibn H૎ ajjaષj. 1955–1956. al‐S૎ah૎ıhષ ૎, edited
by M.F. Abd al‐Baqi. Cairo: Isa al‐Babi.
Najaષshıષ, Ah૎ mad. 1407[1987]. al‐Rijaષl,
edited by M. Shubairi. Qom: an‐Nashr
al‐Islaષmı .ષ
Nuષ rıષ, H૎ usain. 1408[1987]. Mustadrak
al‐wasaષ’il, Qom: Aષ l al‐Bait.
Pakatchi, Ah૎ mad. 2006. Makaષteb‐e feqh‐e
Emaષmıષ‐ye I raષ ષ n. Tehran: ISU Press.
Pakatchi, Ah૎ mad. 2009. Mabaષh૎ithıષ dar ʿ ilal
al‐h૎adıષth. Tehran: ISU Press.
Qazvı n ષ ıષ Raષzıષ, ʿAbd al‐Jalı lષ . 1980. Naqd૎, edited
by J. Muh૎ addith. Tehran: Intishaષraષt‐i
Anjuman‐i Aષ s઻aષr‐i Millı .ષ
Qummı ,ષ Abuષ al‐Qaષsim. 1303 [1886].
Muhadhdhab al‐Qawaષnıષn. [Tehran?: n.p.].
Lithograph.
al‐Risaષla al‐Dhahabiyya. 1982. Attributed to
Imam Rid૎aષ, edited by M.M. Najaf. Qom.
Khayyam Printing.
S૎affaષr, Muh૎ ammad. 1404[1984]. Bas૎aʾષ ir
ad‐Darajaષt. Tehran: Aʿlamı .ષ
Sezgin, Fuat. 1967–. Geschichte des arabischen
Schrifttums. Leiden: Brill.
al‐Shahıષd al‐Thaષnıષ, Zain al‐Dı n ષ . 1408[1988].
al‐Riʿ aષya fıષ ʿ ilm al‐Diraષya, edited by A.M.A
Baqqaષl. Qom. Marʿashıષ.
Shakuri, Javad. 2010. “Naqd‐e sanadı ‐ષ ye
resaષle(h)‐ye z઴ahabiyyeh.” In T૎ ibb ar‐Rez૏aષ
(Proceedings of the first Scientific‐Reseach
Oriented Congress of Imam Rid૎aષ’s
Medicine). Mashhad.
294 AHMAD PAKATCHI
al‐Sharı fષ al‐Rad૎ı ,ષ Muh૎ ammad. 1387[1967].
Nahj al‐Balaષgha, edited by S૎ubh૎ ı ષ S૎aષlih૎ .
Beirut: Daષr al‐Kitaષb al‐Lubnaષnıષ.
Shushtarı ,ષ Moh૎ ammad Taqıષ. 1401[1981].
al‐Akhbaષr ad‐Dakhıષla, edited by A.A.
Ghaffari. Tehran: S૎aduષ q.
Sulamı ,ષ Muh૎ ammad ibn al‐H૎ usayn. 1970.
H૎ aqaષʾ iq al‐tafsıષr, In Exégèse coranique et
langage mystique, edited by P. Nwyia.
Beirut: Dar el‐Machreq.
T૎ abrisıષ, Fad૎l. 1417/1996. Iʿ laષm al‐Waraષ. Qom:
Aષ l al‐Bait.
T૎ ihraષnıષ, Muh૎ ammad Muh૎ sin. 1403[1983].
al‐Dharıષʿ a. Beirut: Daષr al‐Ad૎waષʾ.
Further Reading
Buckley, Ron P. 1998. “On the origins of Shı ʿષ i
Hadı tષ h.” Muslim World 88: 165–184. DOI:
1 0.1111/j.1478‐1913.1998.tb03653.x.
Discusses the emergence of a distinctive
Shiʿite body of hadith.
Gleave, Robert. 2007. Scripturalist Islam: The
History and Doctrines of the Akhbaષrıષ Shıષʿ ıષ
School. Leiden: Brill. Explores seventeenth‐
and eighteenth‐century controversies over
hadith among Shiʿites.
Tirmidhıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1357–.[1938]–.
al‐Sunan, edited by A.M. Shakir. Cairo:
Mustafa al‐Babi.
T૎ uષ sıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1937. al‐Fihrist, edited by
Bah૎ r al‐ʿUluષ m. Najaf: al‐Murtad૎awiyya.
T૎ uષ sıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1383[1964]. al‐Tibyaષn,
edited by. A.H. Qas૎ı rષ ʿAષ milıષ. Najaf:
al‐Nuʿmaષn.
T૎ uષ sıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1403[1983]. al‐Rasaષʾ il
al‐ʿ Ashr, edited by R. Ostadi. Qom: Jamaષʿa
al‐Mudarrisıષn.
T૎ uષ sıષ, Muh૎ ammad. 1985. Tahdhıષb al‐Ah૎kaષm,
edited by H. Musawi Kharsan. Tehran: Daષr
al‐Kutub al‐Islaષmiyya.
Kohlberg, Etan. 1983. “Shiʿi Hadith.” In Arabic
Literature to The End of Umayyad Period, edited
by A.F.L. Beeston, 299–307. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. A good general
entry point for the study of Shiʿi hadith.
Newman, A.J. 2013. The Formative Period of
Twelver Shiʿ ism: Hadith as Discourse Between
Qum and Baghdad. Abingdon: Routledge.
An analysis of early Shiʿite collections of
hadith.
V. Modernity