Regarding the narration naming the 12 and the other narration of the tablet with names, here is some input from an ex Shia who researched them.
A- Regarding Al Barqis narration which names the 12 in Al Kafi:
There are two isnads listed here, however both of them revert back to the same individual narrator, Ahmad b. Abi `Abdilllah Muhammad al-Barqi. Historically there was some doubt about his reporting, even to the point he had been for a time exiled from Qum for it. He was however later re-admitted to the city with the shaykh who had so exiled him repenting of this action, and so generally he is regarded to have been a trustworthy narrator by them. We have in our possession today his book of hadith – al-Mahasin.
What is of relevance to this discussion here is that the above hadith can in fact be found in said book. However, as we will see, there are some very key differences in the version he himself reports in his own book, and the version which al-Kulayni would record in al-Kafi, again purporting to be coming from al-Barqi himself (plus the intermediaries after him until it reaches al-Kulayni) in the chain.
In the text in al-Mahasin, the tradition reads as follows:
عنه، عن أبيه، عن أبى هاشم الجعفري رفع الحديث قال: قال أبو عبد الله (ع)، دخل أمير المؤمنين (صلوات الله عليه) المسجد ومعه الحسن (ع) فدخل رجل، فسلم عليه، فرد عليه شبيها بسلامه، فقال: يا أمير المؤمنين جئت أسألك فقال: سل، قال: أخبرني عن الرجل إذا نام أين تكون روحه؟ - وعن المولود الذى يشبه أباه كيف يكون؟ - وعن الذكر والنسيان كيف يكونان؟ - قال: فنظر أمير المؤمنين (ع) إلى الحسن (ع) فقال: أجبه، فقال الحسن: إن الرجل إذا نام فان روحه متعلقة بالريح، والريح متعلقة بالهواء، فإذا أراد الله أن يقبض روحه جذب الهواء الريح، وجذبت الريح الروح، وإذا أراد الله أن يردها في مكانها جذبت الروح الريح، وجذبت الريح الهواء، فعادت إلى مكانها، وأما المولود الذى يشبه أباه، فان الرجل أذا واقع أهله بقلب ساكن وبدن غير مضطرب وقعت النطفة في الرحم، فيشبه الولد أباه، وإذا واقعها بقلب شاغل وبدن مضطرب، فوقعت النطفة في الرحم، فان وقعت على عرق من عروق أعمامه يشبه الولد أعمامه، وإن وقعت على عرق من عروق أخواله يشبه الولد أخواله، وأما الذكر والنسيان، فان القلب في حق، والحق مطبق عليه، فإذا أراد الله أن يذكر القلب سقط الطبق، فذكر، فقال الرجل: " أشهد أن لا إلا الله وحده لا شريك له، وأشهد أن محمدا عبده ورسوله، وأشهد أن أباك أمير المؤمنين وصى محمد حقا حقا، ولم أزل أقوله، وأشهد أنك وصيه، وأشهد أن الحسين وصيك، حتى أتى على آخرهم "، فقال: قلت لابي عبد الله (ع): فمن كان الرجل؟ - قال: الخضر (ع)
As is clear, the two versions have some very major differences. Again, this is not a case of a single narration being reported from multiple chains by different people with some variations in their reporting. The latter is not entirely uncommon or unexpected as different people can remember things differently. This is a single narration going back to a single person, where the version found in his own book is substantially different from the version purportedly reported through him and then suceeding intermediaries later on. As to those differences:
The isnad of the Kafi version goes from al-Barqi to Abu Hashim to al-Jawad. The earlier Mahasin version however goes from al-Barqi to his father to Abu Hashim and then becomes marfu` (missing a number of intermediary links) to Imam Sadiq عليه السلام. Apparently then, the first version’s isnad has been cleaned up somewhat to appear more solid. Abu Hashim could not have narrated directly from as-Sadiq عليه السلام directly of course (nor is that being claimed as such in the Mahasin version anyway), so instead the hadith is attributed to the Twelver Imam who would have been contemporaneous to him, that is, Muhammad al-Jawad. The Kafi version skips the intermediary narrator between al-Barqi and Abu Hashim, most likely simply as an oversight, though it could possibly also due to the questions that have surrounded al-Barqi’s father for some in terms of his own reliability.
The Kafi version has a largely more developed dramatic narrative (with one exception, see below), describing in greater detail the location, the narrative dialogue and events. Also in contrast the Kafi version ends off with Imam al-Hasan عليه السلام apparently not knowing who the questioner had been and so his father telling him, while in the Mahasin version it is the unnamed narrator from as-Sadiq عليه السلام who is asking of the questioner’s identity.
One narrative detail though lacking from the Kafi version is the actual answers to the three questions posed. However, it is retained in other versions which we will mention shortly.
The greatest difference of course is that in the Kafi version, twelve Imams are listed and eleven explicitly named while in the earlier Mahasin version (whose compilation would have dated to before the set formation of a specifically Twelver belief) only the Imams up to al-Husayn عليه السلام are named, with the rest only stated generally (“until he came to the last of them”). How this injection of names occurred is fairly easy to understand. The Mahasin version says that al-Khidr named all of them. To a later Twelver, that would mean he must have named the twelve Imams which he himself believed in. So, in his mind by then filling in that detail, he would not have been being dishonest or lying, he simply would have been filling in what he believed al-Khidr عليه السلام would have actually said. This of course though robs the narration of having any argumentative proof for the Twelver belief of today.
It should also be noted that there are a couple more versions of the hadith in addition to the one cited in al-Kafi - all of them going back to al-Barqi - specifically the Kitab al-Ghayba of al-Nu`mani and the Tafsir al-Qummi of `Ali b. Ibrahim. Of course, the earliest citation of the hadith would still be the one found in al-Mahasin, Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi's very own book. However, the earliest pro-Twelver version would be the one found in `Ali b. Ibrahim's Tafsir al-Qummi.
If this is the case (as it appears so), the hadith originally found in al-Barqi's al-Mahsain could not have been altered (in that it becomes pro-Twelver) later than the time of `Ali b. Ibrahim. The thing is that `Ali b. Ibrahim is listed as an intermediary narrator between al-Kulayni (the compiler of al-Kafi) and al-Barqi and his own tafsir does not mention the isnad (i.e. saying that he got it from al-Barqi). So, the hadith was evidently changed to conform to the Twelver view at some point between al-Barqi and by the time it reached `Ali b. Ibrahim (who himself could have possibly changed it for all we know).
This is a clear demonstration how earlier, more general and non-Twelver specific hadiths had undergone a revision to then fit in with the later theology, and how this can have happened even in a case where the isnad of a narration would (by Twelver standards) be considered solid and unassailable. It – and other narrations of this sort –then calls into question other such explicitly Twelver reports where we might not have the priviledge of comparing an earlier recension of them. One has to ask that if such narrations (explicitly pro-Twelver with their specific line of Imams) were truly in circulation prior to the death of al-`Askari and formation of the Twelver sect, why then was there such a need to alter reports like the above to “prove” the theology?
The main narrator Abu Hashim Dawud b. al-Qasim al-Ja`fari, he also narrates this narration elsewhere where he clearly seems to have no idea who the Imams are.
فروى سعد بن عبد الله الاشعري، قال حدثني أبو هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري، قال: كنت عند أبي الحسن العسكري عليه السلام وقت وفاة إبنه أبي جعفر، وقد كان أشار إليه ودل عليه وإني لافكر في نفسي وأقول هذه قصة [ أبي ] إبراهيم عليه السلام وقصة إسماعيل فأقبل علي أبو الحسن عليه السلام وقال: نعم يا أبا هاشم بدا لله في أبي جعفر وصير مكانه أبا محمد كما بدا له في إسماعيل بعدما دل عليه أبو عبد الله عليه السلام ونصبه وهو كما حدثتك نفسك وإن كره المبطلون، أبو محمد ابني الخلف من بعدي، عنده ما تحتاجونه إليه، ومعه آلة الامامة والحمد لله
so basically, Abu Hashim himself had thought that Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali al-Hadi was going to be the next Imam until he predeceased his father. at which time “bada” is explained to have occurred.
now, had he narrated from al-Jawad a hadith naming all the twelve Imams prior to that, why would he have thought any of this?
B- Regarding the narration of the tablet and names.
[He said: I entered upon Fatima عليها السلام and in her hands was a tablet with the names of the deputies (awsiya’) from her descendants. I counted twelve [in total], the last of whom was the Qa’im عليه السلام. Three of them [from her children] were Muhammad, and three of them were `Ali. (al-Kafi)]
Notice how they add [from her children] to the translation to try to “fix” it. so is it twelve Imams from her descendants, so thirteen Imams, or is that three of the Imams are named ‘Ali, which doesn’t fit their belief?
-end quote-
81 Replies
11094 Views
September 21, 2015, 09:54:36 PM