Al-Hādī and the Musnad Imam Zayd
An interesting excerpt from the Introduction by Imam Rassi Society (IRS) for the translation of Kitab Al Akham concerning the discrepancies between some narrations within the Musnad Zayd and the positions of the Ahlul Bayt according to Imam Yahya Al Hadi (Peace be upon them all):
If the dear reader can recall, we cited the statement of Sayyid Majīddīn al-Mu’ayyadi in his Lawāmi’ al-Anwār in which he said that the two most authentic books were the Aḥkām and the Musnad of Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace. It is important to note that the relationship between these two texts reflects both confirmation and contradiction.
As a preface to this discussion, it is necessary to first highlight the significance of the Musnad Imam Zayd. The Musnad Imam Zayd, also known as the Majmū’ al-Fiqh, was said to have been compiled by a student of Imam Zayd named Abu Khālid ‘Amr b. Khālid al-Wāsiṭī (d. 150 AH). Although, most traditionalists of the Generality held him to be an unreliable narrator of hadith, he was nonetheless relied upon by the imams of Ahl al-Bayt. There seems to not have been any criticism of him in the books of the Ahl al-Bayt, and Imam al-Hādi even related from him in the Aḥkām. That being the case, his attribution of the Musnad Imam Zayd to Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali goes relatively unchallenged outside of Sunni circles though 13th century Sunni traditionalist and biographer, Ḥāfiẓ Jamāluddīn al-Mizzī, acknowledged in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl that Abu Khālid narrated from Imam Zayd and composed a compilation (naskha) from him.
This compilation, the Musnad Imam Zayd, contains various reports on the authority of Imam Zayd from his father from his grandfather from ‘Ali from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Therefore, such short chain of narrators demonstrates the chronological primacy of this text. It is held as being the first book of hadith related to jurisprudence since it pre-empted the earliest book of Sunni jurisprudential narrated traditions, the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Mālik, by several decades. The book is also said to contain the recorded judgements of Imam ‘Ali and Imam Zayd, upon them be peace.
A. An overview
As we said earlier, we find that there tends to be a sense of agreement and disagreement between Imam al-Hādī and the Musnad Imam Zayd. We will first look at the relationship of agreement between the texts. The instances of agreement can be divided into those which agree implicitly and those which agree explicitly. An example of a report in the Aḥkām that can be found directly in the Musnad is the wording of the testimony of faith that is declared during the prayer. In the Musnad Imam Zayd, it says:
Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, used to say in the testimony of faith after the first two units: “Bismillāhi wa Billāhi wa alḥamdulillāhi wal-asmāʾu al-ḥusnā kulluhā lillāh. Ashhadu an lā ilāha illā Allāhu waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu wa ashhadu anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa rasūluhu.” (Tr. “In the Name of Allah and in Allah! All Praise is due to Allah! The most beautiful Names belong to Allah! I testify that there is no god but Allah, the One in which there is no partner! I testify that Muhammad is His Messenger and Slave.”)
Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, cites this wording in his Aḥkām and says that his father and grandfather related this from Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. The imam was also quoted in the Muntakhab as ascribing the same wording of the testimony of faith to Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace.
As for an example of the implicit conformity between what is related in the Musnad Imam Zayd and the Aḥkām, Imam al-Hādī relates in the section dealing with the declaration of Allah’s greatness that Imam ‘Ali recited it from the end of the dawn prayer on the day of ‘Arafat to the last day of Tashrīq. However, he did not attribute such report to Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. Yet, the following is reported in the Musnad:
Zayd b. ‘Ali related to me [i.e. Abu Khālid] from his father—his grandfather—‘Ali, upon them be peace, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said to him: ((O ‘Ali, declare Allah’s greatness at the end of the dawn prayer on the day of ‘Arafat until the late noon prayer on the last day of Tashrīq)).
In this case, there is harmony between the two texts although Imam al-Hādī had not referenced Imam Zayd, upon him be peace.
Although in most cases there is agreement, what is of more interest to us is the contradictory relationship that exists between the two texts. Similar to the instances of implicit and explicit agreements, there are examples of implicit and explicit contradictions. By the term ‘implicit’ contradiction, we mean those contradictions in which Imam al-Hādī passes a judgement contrary to what is narrated in the Musnad without referencing the report itself or attributing it with falsehood. By the term ‘explicit,’ we mean a contradiction in which a report from the Musnad is clearly attributed with falsehood.
As for an example of an implicit disagreement between the judgements in the Aḥkām and the narrations in the Musnad, there is a judgement regarding the recitation of the supplication, known as the qunūt, in the prayer. In the Aḥkām, Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, declares:
According to us, the qunūt is after the bowing; we do not hold to the view that it is before it. According to us, there is nothing after the qunūt except the declaration of Allah’s greatness and the descending to prostrate.
In this, he simply states the judgement without referencing that contradictory reports exist to justify the opposite. Yet, in the Musnad Imam Zayd, the following is reported:
Zayd b. ‘Ali related to me from his father—his grandfather—‘Ali, upon them be peace, used to recite the qunūt in the dawn prayer before the bowing and in the witr prayer after the bowing. Then, in Kufa, he recited the qunūt in the witr prayer before the bowing.
Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, used to recite the qunūt in the dawn and witr prayers before the bowing.
In this example, Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, passed a judgement contrary to what was narrated from Imam Zayd on the authority of his forefathers to ‘Ali, upon them be peace, without referencing the report.
There are several instances within the Aḥkām in which Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, explicitly attributes falsehood to reports that appear in the Musnad Imam Zayd. An example of this is the question as to whether one can sell an umm walad. The following is narrated in the Musnad:
Zayd b. ‘Ali related to me from his father—his grandfather—‘Ali, upon them be peace, that he permitted the sale of ummahāt al-awlād (plural of umm walad). He used to say: “If her master dies while she has a child from him, she would be free from his share because the child owns a share from her. If she does not have a child, she is sold.”
Therefore, according to the Musnad, Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace, permitted the umm walad to be sold. However, Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, related in his Aḥkām:
As for what the riffraff (hamaaj) narrate in which the Commander of Believers, upon him be peace, permitted the sale of them [i.e. umm walad], it is not truthfully from him nor would anyone who knew him attribute that to him. Regarding that, my father related to me that his father was asked about the sale of the umm walad and he said: “This is impermissible, nor can one pass such judgement on them. As for what the people of ignorance narrated from the Commander of the Believers, upon him be peace, one does not accept that from them, and it is not truthfully attributed to him.”
Thus, we see that not only does al-Hādī not permit the selling of the umm walad, but he also attributes fabrication to the report in which Imam ‘Ali was reported to say otherwise. Also, he denigrates those who narrated such report as ‘riffraff (hamaaj)!’ This Arabic word denotes one who is foolish, stupid and dishonourable. The same judgement regarding the report is repeated in the Muntakhab where he was asked about the permissibility of selling an umm walad. He replied by saying: “Others hold to that view and narrate it from ‘Ali b. Abī Ṭālib, upon him be peace. But it is not authentically attributed to him according to us. Rather, it is a lie and falsehood attributed to him.”
There is another instance of contradiction between the two texts that deserves attention. In the Aḥkām, Imam al-Hādī passed the judgement that the purification dues are to be paid from the wealth of orphans. He justified his judgement by citing a report in which Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace, was reported to have taken the purification dues from the wealth of the children of Abu Rāfiʿ. However, a contrary report is narrated in the Musnad Imam Zayd. The report is as follows:
I [i.e. Abu Khālid] asked Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, about the wealth of the orphan and whether the purification dues are collected from it. He replied: “No.” I said: “Verily, the progeny of the sons of Abī Rāfiʿ narrate from ‘Ali that he used to take the purification dues from their wealth.” He replied: “We, the Ahl al-Bayt, object to that.”
In this report, not only did Imam Zayd reject the judgement, but he also stated that the collective Ahl al-Bayt objected to the report. On one hand, we have Imam al-Hādī who narrates Imam ‘Ali’s judgement through the Ahl al-Bayt and on the other hand, we have Imam Zayd who objects to such on the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Another interesting relationship that exists between the two texts that neither reflects agreement nor disagreement is that of the existence of reports from Imam Zayd in the Aḥkām that do not appear in the Musnad. An example of this can be seen in the following report in the Aḥkām:
It has reached us on the authority of Zayd b. ‘Ali from his fathers that ‘Ali b. Abi Ṭālib, upon him be peace, said: “Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, ascended the pulpit and said: ((O people! Verily, Gabriel came to me, stood before me and said: O Muhammad! Whoever reaches the month of Ramadan and does not seek forgiveness and dies will enter the Hellfire; Allah will curse him. Say: Ameen.)) And I said: Ameen. Then he said: Whoever encounters a just imam and does not seek forgiveness for him, Allah will curse him. Say: Ameen. And I said: Ameen. Then he said: Whoever encounters his parents and does not seek forgiveness for them, Allah will curse him. Say: Ameen. And I said: Ameen.”).
This report, although related from Imam Zayd in the Aḥkām, has not been related in the Musnad Imam Zayd either in its entirety or abbreviated form.
B. Analysis of the responses to the discrepancies
The discrepancies that exist between these two texts have generally garnered more attention from the opponents of the Hadawi madhhab than from the proponents. For example, in his works, Imam Muḥammad b. ‘Ali ash-Shawkānī (d. 1255), a former Hadawi who became amongst its harshest critics, highlighted the differences between what is narrated in the Musnad and the judgements of al-Hādī. Similarly, Amir Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl aṣ-Ṣan‘ānī (d. 1182) dedicated a lot of ink towards refuting the Hadawi madhhab by juxtaposing the reports and judgements in the Musnad against Imam al-Hādī’s rulings.
The proponents of al-Hādī have traditionally responded to these discrepancies by either ignoring them or seeking to reconcile between them by the use of ta’wīl, or a variant interpretation. None of them have ever breached the possibility of ascribing weakness or fabrication to the conflicting narrations in the Musnad. There has almost been a hallowed sanctity given to the Musnad Imam Zayd insomuch that even the staunchest Hadawi would never deny its complete authenticity despite the statements of al-Hādī himself. We will now critically examine these traditional responses to the discrepancies.
The first response attempts to ignore the contradictions between the Musnad and the Aḥkām by relegating the differences to independent scholarly effort (ijtihād). That is to say that any discrepancy between the two is seen as being a result of the exercise of free and uninhibited thought. They say: “Imam Zayd said this, and Imam al-Hādī said that. Neither one is infallible, so one is free to take whichever opinion one likes.” Consequently, one imam of Ahl al-Bayt is presented as differing from another in judgements due to the freedom Islam affords to difference of opinion and disagreement.
We say that this response is wholly unsatisfactory because it seeks to gloss over the fact that these differing judgements are based on conflicting narrations between the two. All are assumed to be attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt; but, if they disagree in matters related to the permissible and prohibited, it creates the theological quagmire we referenced earlier. It also contradicts the cited statements that the Ahl al-Bayt do not disagree. In the examples of contradictions, we mentioned in the previous section, there are clear statements and narrated reports in one book, which are at odds with what is narrated in the other book. With such clear and glaring inconsistencies, one is either forced to accept one or the other; however, one cannot accept both.
Even if one says that al-Hādī’s falsifying a report in the Musnad is a result of his own scholarly ijtihād, we reply by saying that such response does not negate the root of the problem. This is because the root of the problem, as we said, is not in the difference in judgements but rather in the difference in the attribution of such judgements to Imam ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt. Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, falsified the report because it was at variance with what was related to him; it was not the result of his own personal ijtihād.
The second traditional response to the contradictions between the judgements of Imam al-Hādī and the Musnad employs the use of ta’wīl in order to reconcile the two. This method involves interpreting one text to conform to the other. In this way, one is able to seemingly maintain the authenticity of both without sacrificing the integrity of either.
We say that this response is also untenable for two reasons. The first reason is that although ta’wīl is an attempt to reconcile two contradictory narrations, it can only effectively be utilised when there is ambiguity in the text to allow for such a variant interpretation. That is to say that when the text allows for ta’wīl due to its vagueness, one is free to use it. However, when such vagueness is not apparent from the text, one cannot use ta’wīl. For example, in the case of the kinds of manslaughter, Imam al-Hādī relates in the Aḥkām that there are only two types: intentional and unintentional. Also, he categorically denies the existence of a third type. He quotes from his grandfather, Imam al-Qāsim Rassi, upon him be peace:
“It is narrated that ‘Ali, upon him be peace, said that ‘almost intentional’ is that which was committed by a staff and projected with a large stone. But this is not authentically attributed to him according to us.”
However, in the Musnad Imam Zayd, the following is related from Abu Khālid:
Zayd b. ‘Ali related to me from his father—his grandfather—‘Ali, upon them be peace, said: “Intentional killing is with a sword and iron, almost intentional killing is with a stone and staff, and unintentional killing is when the killer does not intend to kill another but does so mistakenly.”
Thus, it is evident that one text posits that there are only two types of manslaughter without a third, and the other text states that there are three types. Furthermore, the text that says that there are three attributes the statement to the Commander of Believers, ‘Ali b. Abi Ṭālib, upon him be peace, and the other text attributes falsehood to such report. This leaves no room for a variant interpretation; there are either two types of manslaughter or three. There is no ambiguity between these two extremes, as both are very clear in their denotation. We therefore say that although the ta’wīl approach may be able to explain away some inconsistencies, the gap between the two extremes are so vast in many other cases that variant interpretation just becomes an exercise in futility.
The second reason why the ta’wīl method proves to be unsatisfactory in attempting to reconcile these texts is that such pursuit completely ignores those instances in which others understood there to be irreconcilable differences between the two views. That is to say that if we attempt to present the view that there is no disharmony between what is narrated from Imam Zayd and the judgements of Imam al-Hādī, we would have to disregard the statements of those imams and scholars who have acknowledged the disagreement between the rulings of the two imams.
For example, regarding the aforementioned issue of whether the purification dues are paid on an orphan’s wealth, two different views are attributed to the two imams. In his Sharḥ at-Tajrīd, Imam al-Mu’ayyad Billah, upon him be peace, related that Imam al-Hādī held to the view that the purification dues are extracted from the orphan’s wealth. He similarly related a contrary view from Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. Their contrary views were highlighted without attempting to reconcile them as the same view. It should also be noted that this issue is regarding a religious obligation, and two differing views regarding a religious obligation is not a light matter.
C. An alternative response to the discrepancies
Given all of the above, it should be quite evident to the reader that Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, was completely unaware of the Musnad Imam Zayd. Such assertion, of course, creates a series of uncomfortable questions that must be addressed. First, if it is affirmed that Imam al-Hādī was ignorant of the Musnad Imam Zayd as a text and it was said to have been compiled about a hundred years prior to Imam al-Hādī, one is forced to ask: Where did the text come from? Second, if it is affirmed that Imam al-Hādī circulated among the scholars and authorities of the Ahl al-Bayt of his time, why had he not heard about this compilation or referred to it in his judgements? Third, how was he able to confidently claim the consensus of Ahl al-Bayt regarding those issues for which contrary was narrated in the Musnad? Fourth, why and how does Imam al-Hādī explicitly declare the reports found in the Musnad as not authentically attributed to Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace? Fifth, why and how does Imam al-Hādī narrate some reports from Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon him be peace, in his Aḥkām that can be found in the Musnad, yet attribute falsehood to other reports that can be found in the same book? Sixth, why and how does he similarly relate reports from the compiler of the Musnad, Abu Khālid al-Wāsiṭī, yet attribute falsehood to other reports found in the latter’s book? Seventh, why and how does Imam al-Hādī relate traditions from Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, that do not appear in the Musnad? Eighth, why and how does Imam al-Hādī pass judgements contrary to the explicit reports found in the Musnad? Ninth, why and how does Imam al-Hādī ascribe foolishness and stupidity to the one who related a report that appears in the Musnad Imam Zayd by referring to such person as hamaaj? Tenth, why is it that the Musnad had not reached Yemen from Iraq until centuries after al-Hādī?
It is the translator’s humble opinion that the conclusion of all of the aforementioned questions makes it plausible that some of the Musnad Imam Zayd have been subjected to forgery and interpolation. Although such view may not be considered ‘orthodox’ in Zaydi circles, it is nonetheless the most satisfactory way that one can address the discrepancies that exist between the texts.
This should not be considered far-fetched, as the imams of Ahl al-Bayt often alluded to the fact that words and statements have been falsely attributed to them by both enemies and partisans alike. Sayyid Imam al-Qāsim b. ‘Ali al-Ayāni, upon him be peace, related that when it was perceived that there was a disagreement between Imams ‘Abdullah b. al-Hasan and Ja‘far b. Muhammad, upon them be peace, the latter said:
“By Allah and by this edifice to which I direct myself! I have been lied upon; our doctrine (al-madhhab) is the same!”
Not only does Imam Ja‘far b. Muhammad, upon him be peace, acknowledge that lies were attributed to him, but he also affirms that there are no disagreements in the doctrine of Ahl al-Bayt.
A similar statement was made by the son of Imam al-Qāsim b. ‘Ali, Sayyid Imam al-Hussein b. al-Qāsim al-Ayāni (d. 404 AH), upon him be peace, said in his Mukhtaṣar al-Aḥkām:
Not everything that has been narrated from Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, is truthfully attributed to him due to the small number of reliable people and long period of time. Insomuch that during my own lifetime, I have heard false narrations attributed to me, which I never said or did! Perhaps, even Allah’s allies (awliyāʾ) may hear such and attribute truthfulness to it while living around the same time. How much more so is the case with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, who lived a longer period of time ago?
Therefore, we suggest that even the Musnad Imam Zayd may have had forged traditions and reports inserted between her two covers not unlike other texts. Additionally, we say that such may have taken place at the hands of the Kufans in Iraq, as there are certain peculiarities that point to Iraq. Various ‘signposts’ support this assertion which we would like to briefly touch upon.
I. The nullification of the ritual ablution due to laughter in the prayer
First, in his Aḥkām, Imam al-Hādī, upon him be peace, makes reference to whether laughter during the prayer invalidates the ritual ablution or not. He states regarding this issue:
“Regarding what the Iraqis say—that is, laughter interrupts the prayer and invalidates the ritual ablution—we do not say what they say nor do we ascribe to their view.”
He clearly states that it is the view of ‘the Iraqis’ that laughter during the prayer invalidates the ritual ablution. This is a reference to the Hanafis, as they are generally regarded as the ‘Kufans’ in particular, and ‘the scholars of Iraq’ in general since the Hanafi base of scholarship was in Iraq. Also, it is well known that Imam Abu Hanifa held to the view that laughter invalidates the ritual ablution.
Consequently, in the Musnad, Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, is recorded to have said that laughter during the prayer invalidates the ritual ablution. The report is as follows:
Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon him be peace, said: “One can resume the prayer after the performance of these three actions [i.e. nosebleeds, vomit and flatulence]. However, there are three actions for which one cannot resume the prayer: urination, defecation and laughing. They nullify the ritual ablution and the prayer.”
It is plausible that this ruling was interpolated and falsely attributed to Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, in Kufa. This is because in another place in the Musnad, the following report appears from Abu Khālid:
I asked Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, about that which nullifies the ritual ablution. He replied: “Urination, defecation, flatulence, nosebleeds, vomiting, pus, pus with blood and sleep in a reclining position.”
In this latter report, no mention is made of laughing during the prayer; although it mentions urination and defecation as in the previous report. One may argue that the reason it does not mention laughter in the prayer is because all of the other actions mentioned as nullifiers of the ablution occur outside of the prayer. However, we respond by saying that the questioner asked about nullifiers of the ablution in general without specifying whether they take place outside the prayer or during it. It would have therefore been appropriate for Imam Zayd to have mentioned laughter during the prayer; but, he did not.
II. The Tarāwīḥ prayer
The Tarāwīḥ prayer is a voluntary congregational prayer prayed in the mosques during the month of Ramadan. This prayer has universal acceptance among the scholars and jurists of the Generality, although some of their jurists hold to the view that praying this prayer alone in one’s home is preferable. A contrary view is said to be held by the imams of Ahl al-Bayt insomuch that they apparently considered the practice an innovation.
It is narrated in Al-Jāmiʿ al-Kāfī that Sayyid Imam al-Hasan b. Yahya b. al-Hussein b. Zayd b. ‘Ali (d. 260 AH), upon them be peace, said:
The consensus of the Progeny of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, is that the Tarāwīḥ prayer is not from the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, nor that of the Commander of Believers [i.e. ‘Ali b. Abi Ṭālib]. Rather, ‘Ali b. Abi Ṭālib used to prohibit that. According to them, it is better to pray it individually. Similar is the case with the other sunnah prayers, except the obligatory prayers which are better to pray in congregation.
According to this reference, it is the consensus of the imams of Ahl al-Bayt, upon them be peace, that the Tarāwīḥ prayer is an innovation that was not practiced by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, nor Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace. Furthermore, it is stated that Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace, used to forbid the practice. Let the reader also take note that this statement was recorded from the great grandson of Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, who was held as an authority in Kufa. So, if the Tarāwīḥ prayer was something advocated by his ancestors, he would know.
A similar statement is made in the same book on the authority of al-Qumisi:
I asked al-Qāsim bin Ibrāhīm, upon him be peace, about standing in voluntary congregational prayer during Ramadan, and he said: “It is unknown.” He narrated on the authority of ‘Ali, upon him be peace, that he used to prohibit that.
‘Abdullah b. al-Hasan, upon him be peace, used to pray with his family in his house during the nights of Ramadan like one would pray Tarāwīḥ in the mosques.
Although there is no reference to the Tarāwīḥ prayer in the Aḥkām, Imam al-Hādī was asked about it in one of his treatises known as Jawāb Masā’il Abi-Qāsim ar-Rāzi. In it, he vociferously forbade it as an innovation that has no support among the Prophetic Descendants, upon them be peace.
Regardless, the following is narrated in the Musnad:
Zayd b. ‘Ali narrated on the authority of his father—his grandfather—‘Ali, upon him be peace, that he commanded that the one who stands in prayer with the people during Ramadan and pray twenty units should give the final salutations after every two units. He should take a break (yarāwih) after four units so one is free to relieve oneself and repeat the ritual ablution. He should pray the witr prayer at the last part of the night before leaving.
This is a quite apparent reference to the Tarāwīḥ prayer. Many scholars and commentators have tried to reconcile this report with the explicit prohibition of the practice in other sources. Even I, in my zeal to resolve the apparent contradiction, employed the use of ta’wīl to maintain the integrity of the report yet condemn the prayer in my article “The Tarāwīḥ Prayer: Praiseworthy Sunnah or Blameworthy Innovation?” At that time, I was unwilling to entertain the possibility that the report was fabricated and falsely attributed to Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace, despite evidence to the contrary. However, all such attempts at reconciliation prove to be unsatisfactory for the reasons we will mention.
As for the report’s explicit support for the Tarāwīḥ prayer, the dear reader should note the following about the contents of the report. One, the report begins by saying that Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace, ‘commanded’ the actions that are mentioned subsequently regarding the prayer. This command in the Arabic language can either denote an actual imperative, recommendation or permission as is known in the sciences of the fundamentals of jurisprudence. Two, it mentions that one should ‘stand in prayer with the people.’ This cannot be interpreted to refer to other than the congregational prayer because the same phrase is used to denote the congregational prayer in other narrated traditions. Three, the phrase ‘with the people’ is not restricted to one’s family because the word ‘family’ was not used. Four, the report explicitly mentions Ramadan and no other occasion for which this specific prayer is to be performed. Five, the report mentions that twenty units are to be prayed in this particular prayer. Six, the Arabic word for ‘take a break’ (yarāwih) is the word from which the name Tarāwīḥ is derived. All of that notwithstanding, those who hold to the textual integrity of the Musnad Imam Zayd as well as maintain that the text is accurately and authentically attributed to Imams ‘Ali and Zayd, upon them be peace, have no grounds to condemn or dissuade anyone from praying the Tarāwīḥ prayer in congregation. Such discouragement would run counter to an explicit report in the Musnad.
Our assertion that the report in the Musnad is an explicit endorsement of Tarāwīḥ is shared by some imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, upon them be peace. For example, Sayyid Imam Yahya b. Hamza (d. 749 AH), upon him be peace, said in his Al-Intiṣār ʿala ʿUlamā al-Amṣār:
“This view which we have chosen regarding it [i.e. the Tarāwīḥ prayer] being a sunnah during the nights of Ramadan has been narrated from Zayd b. ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah b. al-Hasan and ‘Abdullah b. Musa b. Ja‘far.”
As is evident, Imam Yahya b. Hamza, upon him be peace, even recognised and acknowledged that Imam Zayd related a narration in support of the Tarāwīḥ prayer. This leaves no room for doubt and uncertainty regarding the explicitness of the report in the Musnad Imam Zayd and its endorsement for the Tarāwīḥ prayer, as we know it.
We have reason to believe that this report in the Musnad is an example of a Kufan forgery. First, as we mentioned, the Tarāwīḥ prayer was regarded by the earliest imams of Ahl al-Bayt as an innovation. In addition to that which we related from Al-Jāmiʿ al-Kāfī, there are also very explicit statements from prominent imams from the Prophetic Household that declare the practice as an innovation. It should be noted that, according to the same reference, the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt was said to be reached regarding its invalidity. It should also be noted that despite Imam Yahya b. Hamza’s reference to the practice being endorsed by Imam ‘Abdullah b. al-Hasan, the reference from Al-Jāmiʿ al-Kāfī records him as praying in his house as opposed to praying Tarāwīḥ in the mosque. Second, according to the reference from the same book, Imam al-Hasan b. Yahya b. al-Hussein b. Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, expressly denied the Tarāwīḥ prayer’s attribution to Imam ‘Ali, upon him be peace. This is significant because the aforementioned imam was the great grandson of Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. If he knew of his great grandfather’s attribution of the practice to ‘Ali, it is unlikely that he would negate the import of the report which narrates such practice. Instead, he affirms that such was not the Sunnah of the Prophet nor that of Imam ‘Ali, upon them be peace. Third, the same imam reports that ‘Ali, upon him be peace, used to prohibit such practice; however, the report in the Musnad says that he ‘commanded’ it. Such stark contrast between the two reports indicates that the reporter of one was completely unaware of the other or that one disregarded the other. Fourth, the manner in which the Tarāwīḥ prayer is said to be prayed in the Musnad as well as the number of units matches that which was narrated from Kufan authority, Imam Abu Hanifa, as well as the other jurists of the Generality.
III. Reference to Abu Ḥanīfa in the Musnad
There is a sole reference to Abu Hanifa in the Musnad that deserves our attention. Of course, he is regarded as the ‘founder’ of the Hanafi madhhab as he occupied the position of a prominent scholar of Kufa. Although the primary sources of his madhhab are from his two students known as Qadi Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani, the madhhab was named after him and similarly attributed to Kufa, Iraq. As for the reference to him in the Musnad, it is as follows:
Abu Khālid said: “When Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon them be peace, arrived in Kufa, he hid himself in the house of ‘Abdullah b. az-Zubayr [al-Asadi]. When [the news of such] came to Abu Hanifa, he spoke to Mu‘awiya b. Ishaq as-Salmi, Naṣr b. Khuzayma al-‘Abbasi and Sa‘id b. Khuthaym, and they all visited Imam Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon him be peace. They said [i.e. to Zayd b. ‘Ali]: Here is one of the scholars of Kufa [i.e. referring to Abu Hanifa]. Zayd b. ‘Ali, upon him be peace, asked him: ‘What is the key to prayer? How does one initiate it? What is the opening of prayer? What is that which makes certain things prohibited in it (taḥrīmuha) and what is that which makes those things permissible again (taḥlīluha)?’
Abu Hanifa replied: ‘The key to prayer is ritual purity. That which makes certain things prohibited in it is the declaration of Allāhu Akbar, and that which makes those things permissible again is the final salutations (at-taslīm). The initiation of the prayer is the declaration of Allāhu Akbar because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, used to initiate the prayer by declaring Allāhu Akbar and would raise his hands. The opening of the prayer is: Glory and Praise be to You, O Allah! And blessed be Your Name! You are the Almighty and Exalted! And there is no God other than You! This is because it is narrated that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, used to recite this opening in the prayer.’ Zayd, upon him be peace, was amazed by this from him.
We say that this passage in the Musnad alludes to a possible Kufan insertion. There are some striking features in it that supports this assertion. It is well known that Imam Abu Hanifa an-Nuʿmān b. Thābit was a student of Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. Moreover, it is also known that he held Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, in high regard. Therefore, it would make sense that a student would want to seek out his teacher.
However, what is noticeable is the prominence given to Abu Hanifa in this passage. In it, Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, asks him a series of questions to which he answers all of them satisfactorily to the point that Imam Zayd is ‘amazed’ at his responses. Indeed, the majority of the report contains the words of Abu Hanifa, not Imam Zayd. Furthermore, Imam Zayd, upon him be peace, had other well-known students. Yet, Abu Hanifa is given precedence over all other students in the Musnad insomuch that similar is not said or related about any other student; this report is unique in this sense. We say that the reason for this is that it is a possible Kufan interpolation.
It should therefore not be surprising to the reader that because of the precedence given to Abu Hanifa in particular and his Kufan school in general in parts of the Musnad, the book was translated into Urdu by Deobandi scholar and mufti, Maulana Muhammad Ashraf of Pakistan.
In conclusion, we say that the Musnad Imam Zayd, although a great book in terms of its significance, has nonetheless suffered from interpolation. We cannot accurately say when or how it happened; however, it should suffice the reader to know that our assertion is shared by Imams al-Qāsim Rassi and al-Hādi, upon them be peace. In their works, principally in the Aḥkām of al-Hādi, some traditions and reports found in the Musnad are attributed with falsehood and fabrication. It should therefore not be considered ‘improper’ or ‘unorthodox’ for us to say the same thing that the imams said.