A Model of the Jurist Shaykh al-Ṣadūq: They Placed Their Weight at the Thresholds of His Weakness and His Lack of Scholarly Integrity
A model of a jurist (Shaykh al-Ṣadūq) upon whom they placed their full weight at the thresholds of his weakness and his lack of scholarly integrity, so that he would serve as an intermediary between them and the ‘itra (the Prophet’s family). He alters the narrations transmitted from the luminaries of the descendants of al-Ḥusayn—peace be upon them—according to what accords with his doctrine. Then the ‘itra is absent, playing no role among them! Whoever is in this state follows men, not the ‘itra!
One of the Imāmīs became angry when he cited a report from the book al-Ghayba by al-Nu‘mānī, rejoicing that he had produced an authentic report. I said to him:
“O learned one, al-Nu‘mānī—the original transmitter and author of the book—was not declared reliable, nor were those who narrated from him.”
Later, he brought me a narration he was pleased with from Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s book Kamāl al-Dīn, wanting to claim that its chain of transmission is sound. I said to him: “I will inform you briefly about Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, the mountain of memorization upon whom you all depend in much of your thinking, and the one who shaped you narratively in many of your fields of knowledge. If you still trust him after that brief account, I will doubt your fairness—and even your intellect!” Even Shaykh ‘Abbās al-Qummī said:
“It is my belief that were it not for him [i.e., al-Ṣadūq], the traces of the Ahl al-Bayt—peace be upon them—would have been effaced” (Hadiyyat al-Aḥbāb, p. 71).
And how could it be otherwise, when some have mentioned that his narrations in the Imāmī heritage exceed twenty thousand reports!
Shaykh al-Ṣadūq and the testimony of his own companions against him regarding alterations to narrations—so what if you knew that he sometimes transmits unique reports which his companions then treat as authoritative evidence in a number of issues!
Al-Majlisī the First says, commenting on a report transmitted by Shaykh al-Ṣadūq:
“What appears is that this corrupting addition is from al-Ṣadūq.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 4/106)
He also said regarding one of the reports:
“So reflect upon the corrupting alterations.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 3/191)
And he said about another report:
“What appears is that these alterations, which corrupt the understanding, occurred in order to drop the chain of transmission, and part of it fell out inadvertently. It is possible that this was from the copyists, though that is far-fetched.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 1/300)
Al-Majlisī’s dismissal of the possibility that this was the work of copyists is due to what is well known of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s practice of altering, manipulating, and adding to reports with additions that corrupt their meanings.
Muhammad Taqī al-Majlisī said regarding another report:
“What appears is that al-Ṣadūq took it from the book of al-Ḥalabī and made some corrupting alterations.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 1/390)
Al-Majlisī also says:
“When the author [i.e., al-Ṣadūq] altered the first expression, he neglected to alter what follows it, as often happens with him.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 11/233)
So reflect on his use of the word “often,” which indicates that this became a habit of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq in altering reports, texts, and manipulating them.
Al-Sīstānī—one of the contemporary Imāmīs—said:
“Whoever reviews al-Faqīh will find that it is al-Ṣadūq’s habit—may his secret be sanctified—to follow some narrations with words of his own, without a separating indication suggesting a difference, just as is also the case in al-Tahdhīb. Hence, the matter may become confused for the reader, who then counts his words as part of the narration.”
(Qāʿidat Lā Ḍarar wa Lā Ḍirār, p. 27)
— Al-Majlisī the First said:
“In any case, the alteration that comes from the author [i.e., al-Ṣadūq] corrupts the meaning and contradicts the reports and the statements of the companions.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 7/388)
— Al-Majlisī says:
“What appears is that he [i.e., al-Ṣadūq] transmitted it by meaning and omitted part of it.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 3/180)
Muhammad Taqī al-Majlisī also says—and this is a useful citation regarding badāʾ in relation to Ismāʿīl and those connected to al-Ṣadūq’s view about him, in the context of the visitation and salutation to Imam Mūsā al-Kāẓim:
“The author [meaning Shaykh al-Ṣadūq] omitted the phrase: ‘O He to whom badāʾ occurred from God,’ because he does not believe the report that was transmitted stating that badāʾ occurred to God regarding Ismāʿīl. The reports on badāʾ with us are mass-transmitted (mutawātir), and it is not possible to deny them so as to abandon this report because of it. Its meaning is that since the Imamate was in the eldest son after the father’s death, and since Ismāʿīl was the eldest of the sons, all the companions were awaiting him. When he died, it became apparent to them that he was not an Imam, so badāʾ was applied to him in consideration of its appearing to the people, for God’s knowledge never changes. Or his Imamate was in the Tablet of Erasure and Affirmation, and God erased and affirmed the Imamate of Mūsā—peace be upon him—for a benefit we do not know, just as happens in most matters that are erased, whether reports or rulings. Even if scholars know it, the common people do not, so omitting its mention was more appropriate.”
(Rawḍat al-Muttaqīn, 5/440–441)
Reflect on this to understand the reality of badāʾ, and to know that this negates the complete existence of an explicit designation of the Twelve before the Occultation on the tongue of the Messenger of God—may God’s blessings be upon him and his family. Consider how all the companions were awaiting the Imamate of Ismāʿīl after his father Jaʿfar, and connect this with the confusion of the leading Imāmī companions after the death of Imam al-Ṣādiq—peace be upon him—such as Hishām b. Sālim, Abū Baṣīr, and Muʾmin al-Ṭāq, among others, as reported in al-Kāfī, not knowing who their Imam was after their Imam. And consider how some cling to the statements of al-Ṣadūq to escape the predicament of badāʾ that shattered the explicit designation, while al-Ṣadūq merely introduces interpretations of his own regarding his companions’ narrations, altering them to rid himself of the objections of his opponents. Then reflect on how this proves our claim that reports after the era of the Occultation were fabricated.
And as al-Majlisī says, Shaykh ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī likewise says—after mentioning several possibilities for omitting that phrase concerning badāʾ:
“Or the author [i.e., al-Ṣadūq] omitted it, which is the more apparent, because he does not believe the report transmitted from al-Ṣādiq—peace be upon him—that he said: ‘Nothing manifested as badāʾ to God as it manifested to Him concerning my son Ismāʿīl.’”
(Marginal notes to the critical edition of Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, 2/601)
— The investigator Yūsuf al-Baḥrānī says regarding a narration he cited:
“What appears is that this interpretation is from the words of al-Ṣadūq, which he often inserts into the reports.”
(al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍira, 18/230)
Thus, Taqī al-Majlisī earlier says “often,” al-Baḥrānī here says “often/mostly,” and al-Sabzawārī says “often” with respect to Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s manipulation of reports. All of this leads to the conclusion that the narrations of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq—especially those in which he is unique—remain subject to serious scrutiny, particularly given his frequent polemics with his opponents, as you have seen. This was even acknowledged by al-Majlisī when Shaykh al-Ṣadūq narrated a report in his book al-Tawḥīd with his chain going back to al-Kulaynī, while the same report in al-Kāfī contradicts Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s version. Al-Majlisī then said:
“This report is taken from al-Kāfī, and in it are astonishing alterations that give rise to suspicion regarding al-Ṣadūq, and that he only did this in order to conform to the doctrine of the people of justice. In al-Kāfī it is as follows: ‘O questioner…’”
(Biḥār al-Anwār, 5/156)
So reflect on his statement that he altered the wording of the narration so that it would accord with the view of the people of justice rather than the people of determinism. This is because most of the teachers of the Qummīs and the Imāmīs at that time held views of anthropomorphism and determinism on the basis of those reports, a number of whose formulations Shaykh al-Ṣadūq altered toward justice. You have already seen the account of some researchers that Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s narrations in the Imāmī heritage exceed twenty thousand reports; altering meanings and texts along with that amounts to distortion and to changing the thought of an entire sect that was founded upon those reports.
— Likewise, the traditionist al-Nūrī al-Ṭabarsī says regarding Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s handling of texts:
“From some passages it appears that al-Ṣadūq—may God have mercy on him—used to abridge long reports and omit from them whatever his judgment led him to omit.”
(Mustadrak al-Wasāʾil, 11/171)
— The teacher of scholars, the investigator Asad Allāh al-Kāẓimī, said:
“In sum, the affair of al-Ṣadūq is extremely confused, and from his legal opinions one usually obtains neither knowledge nor even conjecture—unlike what is obtained from the opinions of the great pillars among the later scholars. The same applies to his declaring reports sound and preferring one over another… Some of the early scholars even criticized him for something like this in a ḥadīth he narrated concerning acting in fasting according to numerical calculation, which is astonishing coming from someone like him.”
(Kashf al-Qināʿ ʿan Wujūh Ḥujjiyyat al-Ijmāʿ, p. 213)
I say: This ḥadīth concerning numerical calculation was narrated by al-Ṣadūq in his book which he considered sound (Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, p. 170). Al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā objected to it, saying:
“As for this report, it is as though it were fabricated and arranged according to the doctrine of the advocates of numerical calculation, for it follows the order of their doctrine. Precautions were taken in it against points of criticism, and wording was employed that does not admit probability or interpretation. There is no proof in this report or in others like it in any case.”
(Rasāʾil al-Murtaḍā, 2/30)
I say: Likewise, in Imāmī reports we see narrations elaborated in detail about the virtuous among the descendants of al-Ḥusayn—peace be upon them—concerning matters unique to the Imāmīs, such as explicit designation, infallibility, the conditions of the Imams, and similar doctrines, elaborations crafted to guard against criticism and by which those lacking knowledge and verification are deceived. God is the One whose help is sought. This resembles what al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā criticized among his companions regarding the detailed “numerical” reports produced for that purpose in the most authoritative of their books.
— Al-Khwānsārī said:
“Among what is transmitted from our teacher, the erudite al-Baḥrānī—previously mentioned under the letter sīn—is that he said in some of his marginal notes on his book al-Bulgha: some of our shaykhs used to hesitate regarding the reliability of our shaykh al-Ṣadūq.”
(Rawḍāt al-Jannāt, 6/133)
Likewise, the eminent al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī described some of his contemporaries by saying:
“In sum, his condition [i.e., al-Ṣadūq’s] is too well known to be hidden; nevertheless, some contemporaries today hesitate to declare him reliable, and even deny it, due to the absence of an explicit statement to that effect.”
(al-Fawāʾid al-Ṭūsiyya, p. 7)
Al-Kalbāsī mentioned another reason for the lack of explicit authentication, apart from the absence of a clear statement by the early scholars:
“For although he was at the highest level of asceticism, worship, divine success, and felicity, precision in ḥadīth is another matter that requires proof. Likewise, what some scholars of rijāl have mentioned regarding al-Ṣadūq—whose uprightness is unanimously agreed upon—that some hesitated to accept his narrations, perhaps due to the lack of proof of his precision.”
(Samāʾ al-Maqāl fī ʿIlm al-Rijāl, 2/210)
This is an expected result for one whose state is marked by such confusion as you have observed—and will observe further, God willing. You have already seen the statement of al-Kujūrī:
“Likewise, al-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā—may God have mercy on him—said: al-Ṣadūq is a liar in this issue.”
(al-Khaṣāʾiṣ al-Fāṭimiyya, 2/245)
He meant the issue of affirming the Prophet’s forgetfulness, despite al-Ṣadūq claiming reports in this regard that allegedly could not be denied. Yet this did not prevent him from declaring him a liar. How much more so, then, when the matter goes beyond that to manipulation of texts and chains of transmission—this more strongly necessitates seeking the basis of his authentication from the Imāmī shaykhs themselves, as indicated in al-Baḥrānī’s words.
— Thus, inevitably, we say that it is a dark ḥadīth legacy, fashioned by those who are unqualified, while the ‘itra has been absent for twelve centuries. God is the One whose help is sought—until they return to making their own particular thinking the thinking of the ‘itra!
— Extracted from our study: “Shaykh al-Ṣadūq and the ḥadīth-related and scholarly instability in his methodology.”
May God grant you success.
O God, send prayers and peace upon Muḥammad and upon the family of Muḥammad
Translation of Ustadh Kadhim Al Zaydi (May Allah reward him)