Conflicts Between Jurists and Ghulat in the time of Imam al-Sadiq (a)

By Muhammad Baqir Malekian

Among the Shīʿa, two currents of thought are most prominent. One is the maʿārifī (gnostic) current, which is interested in issues of gnosis, not jurisprudence—as Muḥammad b. Sinān says:

من أراد المعضلات فإليّ، و من أراد الحلال و الحرام فعليه بالشيخ، يعني صفوان بن يحيى

Whosoever wants mu’ḍilāt [complicated narrations], come to me, and whosever wants the ḥalāl and the ḥarām should go to the Shaykh, meaning Ṣafwān b. Yaḥyā.1

Jābir b. Yazīd, Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, Mufaḍḍal b. ʿUmar, Muʿallā b. Khunays are part of this current. Though, of course, not everyone in it is the same. Meaning that Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, Mufaḍḍal and Muḥammad b. Sinān are all members of this current of thought, but with different rankings. Perhaps this current can be divided into an acceptable branch and a deviant branch. This is why the aḥādīth of some of these individuals can be seen a lot in the Four Books (kutub al-ʾarbaʿah) while the aḥādīth of the others are rare and few.2

One of the characteristics of this current is their claim of being linked to the great Shīʿī figures of the past, like Salmān Fārsī. They claim that they are the passage and continuation of the path of people such as Salmān Fārsī. Another characteristic of this current is their use of special terminology among themselves, such as: rukn, bāb, aṣḥāb sir etc.

The second major current of thought is the jurisprudential current. That is, the current that adheres to ḥadīth, knowledge-seeking, jurisprudence and Sharʿī issues. Muḥammad b. Muslim, Zurāra, Ṣafwān, Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, Bazanṭī are some of its well-known individuals.

These two movements had many quarrels, such that Kashshī says:

قال جميل: و كنّا نعرف أصحاب أبي الخطّاب ببغض هؤلاء رحمة الله عليهم.

Jamīl said: we used to identify the companions of Abū al-Khaṭṭāb by their hatred for these people [Zurāra and those like-minded], may God’s mercy be upon them.3

Many of the aḥādīth in condemnation of each current have been transmitted by the members of the other—and perhaps may have been created by them.

There has always been conflict and underhanded behaviour between the two currents. One example is the scheming against Mufaḍḍal b. ʿUmar where Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) was told that he keeps the company of unsavory individuals.

عن محمّد بن سنان أنّ عدّة من أهل الكوفة كتبوا إلى الصادق (ع) فقالوا: إنّ المفضّل يجالس الشطار و أصحاب الحمّام و قوماً يشربون الشراب، فينبغي أن تكتب إليه و تأمره ألا يجالسهم.

From Muḥammad b. Sinān: a number of the people of Kūfa wrote to al-Ṣādiq (a) and they said: al-Mufaḍḍal sits in the company of scoundrels, pigeon fanciers and people that drink alcohol, so it is imperative that you write to him and order him not to sit with them.4

The first current was accused of deviancy and ghulūww by the second, and the latter current was accused of taqṣīr (shortcoming) by the first. In fact, the term taqṣīr was the creation and result of these conflicts, and has no precedence before this, contrary to the term ghulūww which is a well-known term used in all time periods, by all groups. This first current continued in later periods also—that is, until the formation of the jurisprudential school of Najaf by Shaykh al-Ṭuṣī, which is a continuation of the jurisprudential current.5

Today, the popular (mashhūr) opinion is that the correct current is the jurisprudential one, and that the maʿārifī current are ghālī and deviant. Accordingly, the narrations that dispraise Zurāra and Muḥammad b. Muslim—which in the reports of Kashshī are more than those narrations dispraising Abū al-Khaṭṭāb—are not only rejected and non-factual, but Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā b. ʿUbayd has been accused because of his transmission of these narrations (those dispraising Zurāra).

In his gloss on Khulāṣat al-aqwāl, Shahīd al-Thānī says:

وبالجملة فقد ظهر اشتراك جميع الأخبار القادحة في إسنادها إلى محمّد بن عيسى، وهي قرينة عظيمة على مَيْل وانحراف منه على زرارة، مضافاً إلى ضعفه في نفسه. و قد قال السيّد جمال الدين ـ ونِعْمَ ما قال ـ: و لقد أَكْثَرَ محمّد بن عيسى من القول في زرارة حتّى لو كان بمقام عدالة كادت الظنون تسرع إليه بالتهمة

In general, it appears that all the blameworthy reports [of Zurāra] share Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā in their chains, and this is an important indication of his prejudice and inclination against Zurāra, in addition to his weakness in and of himself. Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn said—and how excellently he said—: And Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā always spoke [critically] about Zurāra, even if he was in a position of justice, suspicions almost rushed him to accusations.6

However, among the Nuṣayrī sect, the situation is different. The followers of this sect do not reject the narrations dispraising Zurāra and Muḥammad b. Muslim on one hand7, and attribute the narrations dispraising Abū al-Khaṭṭāb to taqiyya etc. What is interesting is that they consider a narration that is transmitted in dispraise of Abū al-Khaṭṭāb to be like the damaging of the ship in the story of Khiḍr (a) and Mūsā (a).8 This exact justification is transmitted under one of the narrations dispraising Zurāra in Rijāl al-Kashshī.9

For some time now, I have devoted my free time to editing the treatise of Al-Marātib wa al-Darj. This ghālī treatise contains narrations dispraising the jurists and defending Abū al-Khaṭṭāb. Indisputably, this treatise and any narration that is congruent with its contents is not acceptable for numerous reasons,10 but it is very beneficial to study this treatise to become more familiar with intra-sect conflicts.

Footnotes

  1. Rijāl al-Kashshī, no. 981.
  2. I have discussed this in detail in the second chapter of al-Ghulūww fī muṣṭalaḥ al-milal wa al-niḥal wa al-rijāl.
  3. Rijāl al-Kashshī, no. 220.
  4. Rijāl al-Kashshī, no. 592.
  5. Of course, the roots of the maʿārifī current can also be seen in this school, which is related to the non-deviant line of the maʿārifī current.
  6. Al-Mawsūʿa al-rijālīyya lil-ʿAllamāh al-Ḥillī (Khulāṣat al-aqwāl, v1), p. 497, footnote 2.
  7. These are some examples of the narrations transmitted in Nuṣayrī sources in dispraise of Shīʿa jurists: 

    a) Silsila turāth al-ʿAlawīyyīn, v6, p. 282:

    من أخذ من علم زرارة و أبي بصير و سدير و ابن أبي يعفور و محمّد بن مسلم و حنان بن سدير و الحکم بن أبي عقبة [کذا] و بريد العجلي … و من هو مثلهم فلا يقربن المسجد الحرام، ثمّ قرأ عليه السلام: «انما المشرکون نَجَسٌ فلا يقربوا المسجد الحرام» [توبه/۲۸[

    Whoever takes from the knowledge of Zurāra, Abī Baṣīr, Sudayr, Ibn Abī Yaʿfūr, Muḥammad b. Muslim, Ḥanān b. Sudayr, al-Ḥakam b. Abī ʿUqbah [sic] and Burayd al-ʿAjalī … and whoever is like them, do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque. Then he, upon him be peace, recited the verse: “Indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach the Sacred Mosque” (9:28)

    b) Silsila turāth al-ʿAlawīyyīn, v6, p. 136:

     «إِلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِينَ‏ بِفاحِشَةٍ مُبَيِّنَةٍ» قال عليه السلام: هي ولاية الطواغيت أي يأتي الضعيف بولاية زرارة و ابن أبي يعفور.

    [Regarding the verse] “…unless they commit a flagrant indecency” (65:1) he, upon him be peace, said: it is the guardianship of the tyrants, meaning that the weak ones come to the guardianship of Zurāra and Ibn Abī Yaʿfūr.

    c) Risāla al-miṣrīyya, p. 516:

    عن الصادق عليه السلام: الرهطِ المفسدونَ… فالضدُّ الكليُ كان المنصور المسمّى بالدوانيقي وبابه زرارة بن أعين، وذلك كما كان ظاهراً بعُمَر وبابهُ الأوّل ، وهو فرعون مصر وبابه هامان، وكلّ فرعون فهو الثاني وتمام التسعة مع المنصور: أبو بصير الثقفي لا الأسدي وأبو بكرٍ الخضرمي [کذا] ومحمّداً بن أبي يعفور [کذا] ومحمّد بن مسلم الثقفي وعامر بن جزاعة وكثير بيّاع النوى وبريدة [کذا] العجلي وحجر بن زائدة. ويدخلُ معهم: عيسى بن موسی بن عليّ بن عبد الله بن عبّاس.

    From al-Ṣādiq (a): the tribe of corrupters … so the total opposite was al-Manṣūr, who was called al-Dawānīqī, and his bāb (door/representative) Zurāra b. Aʿyan, as it was manifest in ʿUmar and his first bāb, and he is the Pharoah of Miṣr and his bāb is Hāmān, and every Pharoah for he is the second, and all the nine with al-Manṣūr: Abū Baṣīr al-Thaqafī, not al-Asadī, and Abū Bakr al-Khaḍramī [sic] and Muḥammadan b. Abī Yaʿfūr [sic] and Muḥammad b. Muslim al-Thaqafī and ʿĀmir b. Jazāʿah and Kathīr Bayyāʿ al-Nawā and Burayda [sic] al-ʿAjalī and Ḥajar b. Zāʾidah. And ʿĪsa b. Mūsā b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās is included with them.

    d) Al-Marātib wa al-Darj lil-Khuzāʿī, p. 49:

    أبو عبيدة و عمر بن العاص و معاوية و أبو هريرة و من قام مقامهم من أهل الرواية و الحديث مثل زرارة بن أعين و أبو بصير الثقفي و بريد العجلي و حنان بن سدير و هم الذين قاموا لأنفسهم الدعوة بالرواية و الحديث و إخبار عن رسول الله و مخالفة بعضهم لبعض في الفقه و التحريم و التحليل، و کل ذلک يحتجوا فيه بالرواية عن رسول الله صلی الله عليه وآله فقام بذلک الشرائع و الملل فصار أهل ذلک کلهم ظلم و ظلمة، و قد ذکرهم الله في کتابه العزيز فقال: «ظُلُماتٌ‏ بَعْضُها فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَراها» و قال في ذکر العارض: «فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهُ‏ عارِضاً مُسْتَقْبِلَ أَوْدِيَتِهِمْ»

    Also see: Ibn Shuʿba al-Ḥarrānī, Ḥaqāʾiq asrār al-dīn, p. 118, p. 128.

  8. Rijāl al-Kashshī, no. 221.
  9. Silsila turāth al-ʿAlawīyyīn, v11, p. 306.
  10. I have discussed this in detail in another note that I wrote about this treatise.