|تعداد مشاهده مقاله
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله
Shaykh Ṣaddūq and his Al-I‘tiqādāt in the Safavid Era
|Journal of Safavid Studies
|دوره 1، شماره 2، دی 2022، صفحه 27-40 اصل مقاله (371.41 K)
|نوع مقاله: Research Article
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22108/ssj.2023.136811.1014
|Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
|Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Bābawayh al-Qumī (381 CE) is a prominent Shī‘ah scholar of the fourth century AH. Al-I‘tiqādāt, one of his prominent works, comprises of forty-five chapters. He has compiled the most important Shī‘ah beliefs evidenced with Qurānic verses and ḥadīths. The present study investigates the status of Shaykh Ṣaddūq and his Al-I‘tiqādāt in the Safavid era. The crux of this study is the analysis of impactful societal components which led to the circulation of Al-I'tiqādāt during the Safavid era. Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, the study seeks to answer the above question based on the available sources in the given era. Findings show that the cultural-religious policies determined by Shāh Ṭahmāsb, religious and educational institutions, as well as religious texts and teachings, were used to stabilize, institutionalize, and spread Shiism in Iranian society during the Safavid era, which resulted in a number of noble Shī‘ah Arabic works being rendered into Persian.
A number of noble Shī‘ah Arabic works were rendered into Persian when Shī‘ism grew in Iran and the Safavid government, especially Shāh Ṭahmāsb, established some cultural-religious policies in support of it. The rise of Shī‘ism in Iran and the support of the Safavid government, especially the cultural-religious policies determined by Shāh Ṭahmāsb, brought forth, of course, a number of noble Shī‘ah Arabic works to be rendered into Persian according to the status and profile of Shaykh Ṣaddūq, as well as the importance of his Al-I‘tiqādāt It should be noted that, however, the theological tradition existing in the Imāmiyya focused on belief discussions on the theological methods since Nāṣsir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī; and that of Ṣaddūq was not pursued. Ṣaddūq's book I'tiqādāt, which was based mainly on the Shī‘ah ḥadīth, was less appealing at that time. Although different a comparative examination of diverse commentaries in terms of ḥādī ‘Ashr is inappropriate for exploring Ṣaddūq's beliefs in the eighth and later centuries, it indicates that Ṣaddūq's beliefs were not well received. The main question of this study can be posed as what kind of propaganda and promotional capacity of society made Shaykh Ṣaddūq's I'tiqādāt important during the Safavid era? While reviewing the important teachings of Shaykh Ṣaddūq in the context of the Qurān and exaggeration, this article, therefore, addresses the revival of his school in the Safavid era and introduces the different translation versions of his book I'tiqādāt. This study has strived to review the attitudes toward Shaykh Abū Ja‘far Ṣaddūq in the Safavid era by examining his works, especially the teachings presented in the Al-I‘tiqādāt and also the bibliography of some of its translations-commentaries in the Safavid era.
Despite the extensive research in theological studies of Shaykh Ṣaddūq, Al-I‘tiqādāt has not been a subject for independent scientific research. Both Ja‘farīān (1992) and Ḥasan Bigī and Ṭahmāsibī-i Bildājī (2015) evaluated Al-I‘tiqādāt in two structural and content sections while they briefly introduce and examine aspects of this work.
An Overview on Shaykh Ṣaddūq in the Shī‘ah Society
Abū Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali Ibn Bābawīyah al-Qumī (923-991 CE) was a great Shī‘ah scholar in the fourth century AH who acquired the knowledge of two preceding eras in Qum which has turned to be the basis of Shī‘ah scholarship since the closing years of the first century to the fourth century. Shaykh Ṣaddūq's father, ‘Alī Ibn Al- Ḥusayn Ibn Bābawīyah, lived in Qum, and his son, Shaykh Ṣaddūq was abandoned to Ray, which was an important city at that time, and where he pursued Shī‘ism. Kulaynī (941 CE) and Ṣaddūq compiled ḥadīths in several books in Qum. Shaykh Ṣaddūq moved to Ray around 951 CE, and he was probably invited by some nobles of the Buyid dynasty (see Qāḍī Nūrallāh, 1377 HS: 2/325). His relationship—and that of his brother Ḥusayn—with the Buyid minister, Ṣāḥib Ibn ‘Ibād (995 CE) indicates that he was known as a representative of the community of Shia scholars. At times, Shaykh Ṣaddūq traveled to Khurāsān, Baghdād, and some other cities to collect ḥadīths and interacted with the Shī‘ah in different regions (see, Ibn Bābawīyah, 1435 AH: 53–59; Ibn Bābawīyah, 1418 AH: 109–120). Shaykh Ṣaddūq did not pursue Mu‘tazilah school in theology, which is why he is mainly different from the Shī‘ah scholars of 'Arabic 'Irāq, whose perspicuity had been rational since the middle of the second century AH. This trend was finally transferred to al-Shaykh al-Mufid and the next periods. Sunni scholars and their biographers have not mentioned much about him because he was living in Qum and probably in farther distance. Perhaps the exception is Abū Hayyan al-Tawhidī’s judgment of Abū Ja'far ibn Bābawīyah, of who says he had not seen a greater and more knowledgeable scholar among the Shī‘ah than him: I haven't met any Shī‘ah shaykh who is greater or more knowledgeable than him” (Tawḥīdī, 1419 AH: 7/165). Al-Khatib al-Baghdādi also calls him as “one of the Shī‘ah Shaykhs and the well-known Shī‘ah” who came to Baghdād. (Baghdādī, 1417 AH: 3/303, and also see: Shūshtarī, 1410 AH: 9/436).
The position that Ṣaddūq occupied within the Shī‘ah society has been very significant, but his works received little appreciation given that he was living in Iran as the representative of the Qum school, and gradually Shī‘ism was established in ‘Irāq. He has 231 books and treatises, most of which are unavailable today (Ibn Bābawīyah, 1418 AH: 168-204); and his few surviving works are substantial in Shī‘ah thought. Alike many of his works, Madīnah al-‘Ilm which was more comprehensive than Man Lā Yaḥḍarah al-Faqīh does not exist today. Al-Tawḥīd, Kamāl al-Dīn, and Ilal al-Shara'i are among his eminent works. Al-Khiṣāl and Ṣiffāt al-Shī‘ah explicate the identity of Shī‘ah religious ethics.
Evidently, the Shī‘ah scholarly community has little interest in ḥadīth from the sixth to the tenth centuries, and likely this is the reason why Ṣaddūq’s works received little interest. However, despite a number of difficulties, Ṣaddūq and his historical mentality is existent in the Shī‘ah society. Stabilizing the rational attitudes of the Shī‘ah alongside ḥadīth tendency in Qum and the combination of these two, of course, in a simple initial form are perhaps the most important impacts that Ṣaddūq exerted in the society. At the same time, he fought against exaggeration and wrote Ibṭāl al-Ghuluw wa al-Taqṣīr which has not survived. He also removed attributing simile and embodiment to the Shī‘ism and Shī‘ah Ḥadīths by writing Al-Tawḥīd. He was trying to establish the correspondence between reason and narrative in Shia, and it seems that his focus was naturally on the ḥadīths he tried to open a way between exaggeration and taqṣīr (dereliction). This balance later changed in favor of the rationalism of Baghdād until the Safavid period. Ṣaddūq also played an important role in the religious and moral education of Shī‘ah society, and he took a special role in the narrative-educational path and the promotion of Shī‘ah lifestyle by means of his works (see Mīr Raḍī and Ja‘farīyān, 1400 HS: 131-160).
Al-I‘tiqādāt is one of the important and extant works written by Ṣaddūq. It is worthy of note that writings i‘tiqādīah (as a genre) dates back to the third century when the people of ḥadīth and Sunnis collected such works, while Ṣaddūq was the first Shī‘ah author of this genre and this is still alive in present both among Sunni and Shī‘ah groups, often known as uṣūl-i i‘tiqādāt (pillars of beliefs) (see: Dirāyatī, 1390 HS). In fact, this genre, i.e., i‘tiqādīah need to be written in every epoch given the transformations that occur in every religion and ritual over time which are outcomes of intellectual crises and different religious disputes. It is possible to obtain the survey of such like evolution in the official beliefs of a religion by comparing these facts in the geographical latitude of religions throughout ages.
Verities of i‘tiqādīah are results of comprehensive treatises and theological works. Some of these works are detailed and documented, while some are brief, simply expressing opinions but unreasonable. Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt is worthy of consideration in this perspective, as well. It is a special treatise for the imāmī Shī‘ah, in which, as a prominent scholar of his time, Ṣaddūq tries to express documented and well-founded Shī‘ah beliefs by relying on the Qurān and ḥadīth – quoted from Ahl al-Bayt. It largely draws on the Qur'an, over two hundred references, which is rather surprising; and the number of ḥadīths is also voluminous. Besides, brief explanations presented by Shaykh Ṣaddūq at the beginning of each chapter and in explaining each topic are interesting. He has authorial expressions and has tried to explain the context of quoting verses and ḥadīths concerning beliefs which matter to us.
In terms of the type of topics, it can be said that Al-I‘tiqādāt is similar to the Sunni’s i‘tiqādīah in that time. Discussing the attributes of God, the heavens, the tablet (lawḥ), kursī, the acts of worshipers, issues related to death, the grave, the resurrection, and ḥawḍ-i kawthar, as well as wa‘d, wa‘īd, shifā‘at, justice, predestination, and free will are common in his works. But special Shī‘ah beliefs such as taqīyyah, badā, ‘iṣmat, and ‘aqīdah or belief in the offspring of Prophet (PBUH) are some other issues.
After Ṣaddūq, al-Shaykh al-Mufid (1022 CE) who was a student of Ṣaddūq in ḥadīth, wrote Taṣḥīḥ al- I‘tiqādāt o criticize Ṣaddūq’s opinions. The original name of this book is Jawābāt-i Abī Ja‘ far Qumī which was a critical writing. After Mufid, Sayyid Murtiḍā (1045 CE) wrote several detailed and concise books on beliefs. Similarly, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and a number of scholars in Aleppo also wrote books in this field, which did not conform to the style and context of Ṣaddūq's beliefs and ḥadīth, rather they were theological texts. He did not aim to criticize Ṣaddūq too. Writing sucha a genre widely prevailed during the lifetime of Murtiḍā and Ṭūsī and this continued until Nāṣir al-Dīn (1274 CE) and a number of scholars as a theological text. One of its Persian examples is a book that goes back to around 1301 CE and is a translation of Ghunbatah al-Nuzū‘ by Ibn Zuhrah (1118–1189 CE) as Mu‘taqid al- Imāmīyyah. Then, ḥādī ‘Ashr and its explanations continued during the 13th, 14th and 15th CCE centuries and even later. Writing iʿtiqādīyah continues during the Safavid period under names like iʿtiqādāt, or uṣūl al-dīn, and it was well supported by Safavid kings. We have small versions of iʿtiqādīyah written by prominent persons living in this period, such as Shaykh Bahāʾī and Majlisī, of which hundreds of copies have survived, and some have been rendered and explained.
The Significance of Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt in the Shī‘ah Society
Shaykh Ṣaddūq’s treatise is the first systematic and accurate belief text written for Shī‘ism regardless of several its narratives on i‘tiqādāt-i durust. In effect, Shaykh Ṣaddūq has written three treatises in this regard:
The first and most detailed one is the treatise Al-I‘tiqādāt.[i] The revised edition of this treatise was published by Muʾassisah-yi Imām al-Hādī. in Qum in 1432 AH. Majlisī names it ‘qāl al- Ṣaddūq fī Risālah al-‘aqāyid’ (Majlisī, 1419: 17/96).
The second text of Ṣaddūq in Al-I‘tiqādāt is a text entitled “Dīn al-Imāmīyyah” which is included in his book “Al-Amali”. This text is the one Shaykh Ṣaddūq presented to a group of Shiites in the city of NishAbūr on Friday (12th of Sha‘bān 368/March, 20, 979 CE) (Majlisī, 1419: 10/ 393-405).
The third iʿtiqādī text by Ṣaddūq is an introduction to Al-Hidayah (4-64), and he mentions tawhīd, nabūwat, imamate, and some discussions about faith, disbelief, piety, etc. There are common phrases in either of the texts, although there is a possibility to make a more accurate comparison. Al-I‘tiqādāt almost consists of discussions on beliefs, while the treatise presented to the Shī‘ah in Niyshābūr is fiqh according to the Shī‘ah fatwās except for the first few points. It also concludes with a discussion on moral and religious traditions. At the end of his treatise describing Imāmīyyah, he adds he will present this ‘essential’ text in more detail if he comes back to Niyshābūr again (Majlisī, 1419: 10/405).
In the introduction of Al-Hidāyah, Ṣaddūq mentions Al-I‘tiqādāt and quotes Ṣaddūq's words in the same treatise on the translation of Al-I‘tiqādāt at the end of the thirty-fifth chapter: "And the late Shaykh said I extracted this chapter from the book Al-Hidāyah. At the end of Al-I‘tiqādāt, he also writes: “And I took out from the research and quoted the news that was found in the statement of these verses with its documents and descriptions in Al-Tawhīd,” and thus he has pointed out to Al-Hidāyah and Al-Tawhīd in his Al-I‘tiqādāt.
In his Al-I‘tiqādāt, he promises to write an independent monographs about several topics mentioned in the same book. He says, for example, in the discussion about the soul: “And after this, I will compose a book about the soul, and I will explain its meanings in detail, God willing.” He has a similar sentence for the discussion of raj‘ah: “And after this, I will compose a book about the validity of raj‘ah, for which I will further discuss the occurrence and reasons of raj‘ah. God willing.” He had the same intention about ma‘ād as well: “And after this, we will state how resurrection occurs in a seprate book Ḥaqīqat-i Ma‘ād ‘alā Jaddah. God willing."
Regarding the extent to which Al-I‘tiqādāt has been received in the Shī‘ah society, it should be noted that Shaykh al-Mufīd’s Taṣḥīḥ-i I‘tiqādāt al-Imāmīyyah was criticized early in Baghdād, but it is acceptable that Ṣaddūq’s text and at least many of its beliefs have been accepted by the Shī‘ah in Qum for centuries. However, more sources should be searched for its feedback to obtain to what extent its validity was in later Shiite circles. For example, we can refer to the point that Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī (1230 CE) mentioned Imāmīyyah belief chapter on the issue of promises in Nukt al-Nahāyah (1/69-70). ‘Allāmah al-Ḥillī (1326 CE) has mentioned that Shaykh is ‘Al-Shaykh al-Musnaf al-Kabīr al-Mu‘aẓam al-Saddūq’, pointing out that he is an antecedent of Ṣaddūq in his writing about graces of Amīr al-Muʾminīn Shaykh Muntajib al-Dīn (Ḥillī, 1411 AH: 479). Nabāṭī named Saddūq as ‘Ālim al-Kabīr (a great scholar) (1384 AH: 2/171).
The earliest manuscript of Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt dates back to 1414 AD, which was used as a reference by Imām Hādī (PBUH) Institute now preserved at Āyatullāh Mar‘ashī Najafī Library (1945 CE). Another exists in Raḍwī library which belongs to 1434 AD, the other is available at the Āyatullāh Mar‘ashī Najafī which dates back to 1469 AD, and other versions come from 1477 AD, and few years later (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4/380). A few copies are left behind from the 17th AD century, and most of them belong to the 18th and 19th AD centuries and later. This issue undoubtedly has also been a measure of its credibility or circulation in Shī‘ah clusters.
As we have already said, every society necessarily needs to write an iʿtiqādīyah in diverse epochs. This is, however, essential to consult the ancient versions as a document and thus there are few copies of them. Evidently, those treatises and iʿtiqādīyahs which are written by some cautious scholars are alive over centuries. For example, ‘Allāmah Majlisī’s Iʿtiqādīyah which is available in a large number of copies (specifically 179 copies) over later periods (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4/416-425), just like Shaykh Bahāʾi, who 59 copies of his Iʿtiqādia treatise survived. (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4: 412-415). Many earlier scholars, such as Shaykh al-Tusi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, also have iʿtiqādīyah treatises. It seems that each of their treatises has been popular for a century or more.[ii]
Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt is, anyway, one of the most stable iʿtiqādīyah treatises, considering his position and importance, as well as its chronological age. There are 266 extant copies of this treatise, which is a very high number compared to some of the mentioned cases. This is understandable considering the chronological age of Shaykh Ṣaddūq. It was partially hadith-based approach has, of course, gained popularity compared to some purely theological treatises, as it could have been less popular for rationalists.
The school of Qum and the Problem of Exaggeration
It is possible to reflect on one point that Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt is based on the Qummi’s Shī‘ah beliefs. This attitude is based on the narratives that took place in this city more than two centuries before Ṣaddūq. Ṣaddūq adhered to the school of Qum, as he attempts to support the Qummi Shaykhs. Ṣaddūq talks about exaggeration and strongly denies it. He writes: “And the sign of the Mofaweza', Ghulat, and Asnaf communities of these rejected clans is to attribute the community of scholars and elders of Qum who fail to love Amīr al-Muʾminīn (PBUH) - even though these honorable people love him more than others. Here, Ṣaddūq tries to deny this accusation that the elders of Qum are guilty of fault and dislike for Amir al-Muʾminīn. In this case, Shaykh al-Mufīd generally denies the accusation of fault to the true scholars in his Taṣḥīḥ-i I‘tiqādāt al-Imāmīyyah, but he blames Qummis according to what was narrated from Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad Ibn Ḥasan Ibn Walīd - Ṣaddūq’s master, who said: "The first level of exaggeration is to negate the Prophet and the imām” (Shaykh Mufīd, 1413 AH: 135-136). We are also familiar with the positions of Shaykh Ṣaddūq regarding the triple testimonies (Ibn Bābawīyah, 1413 AH: 1/290, and see the Majlisī, 1410 Ah: 3/565-567) and we know that he has inherited a kind of anti-exaggeration trend in Qum that has continued even recently. In his opinion, his emphasis on sahw-i nabī is another example of his anti-exaggeration tendency, as he wrote: "The author of this book said: The Ghulat and the Mofaweza', may God curse them, deny sahw-i nabī, Ibn Bābawīyah 1413 AH: 1/359, and Majlisī has described these sentences and has presented the answers that others have given to Ṣaddūq (Majlisī, 1410 AH: 4/299). Majlisī quotes from his teacher Shaykh Bahāi: They often said that sahw-i nabī is primarily attributed to Ibn Bābawīyah rather than to the ma‘ṣūmīn (PBUH) (Ibid.: 4/303).
We know that Shaykh al-Mufid published Sahw-i al-Nabī in which Ṣaddūq was harshly and critically addressed. Ṣaddūq’s argument is based on a narrative that he brought to Man lā-Yaḥḍarah al-Faqīh, and as mentioned, he considered those who believe that the Prophet had no sahw as ghālī (Ibid., 30) and Mofaweza' based on it. Shaykh al-Mufid officially mentions Ṣaddūq as "Al-Shaykh" in the treatise mentioned - or attributed to him - and considers his narrative to be one of those which are not frequent, that is “narrated by al-nāṣibah and imitated by Shī‘ah”, and he rejected it in Rasālah-yi ‘Adam-i Sahw-i al-Nabī (18, 20). Shaykh Ṣaddūq is figuratively considered as a ḥashwīyah member in this treatise, and it is said that he’s not departed from exaggeration by believing in Sahw-i al-Nabī, but he is departed from "monotheism and Sharī‘ah " (Ibid.: 27). This should not cause us to think that Shaykh al-Mufīd has a tendency to exaggerate. On the contrary, he belongs to some cases, such as believing in some beliefs, such as ‘ālam-i ẓāhir or the fact that the imāms existed before the creation of Adam to the Ghulat's beliefs and Shī‘ah Akhbārīs or ḥashwīyah (see: Shaykh Mufīd, 1413: 80-84, and a footnote quoting from Al-Msāil al-Surūrīyah: kamā yadhhab ilayh al-Ḥashwīyah.)
At the same time, many others may consider some of the positions of the Qummi's people the same as those of Ghulat’s - mostly due to narrating some narrated by people such as Ṣaffār, whom Ibn al-Walīd (Ṣaddūq's master) was not willing to narrate - as Sayyid Murtiḍā (1142 CE) accuses all of Qummi's people to be suspicious and forced, except for Abū Ja‘far Ibn Bābawīyah (1405: 3/310). We know that these Ṣaddūq’s positions are mostly because he adhered to his teacher, Muḥammad Ibn Ḥasan Ibn al-Walīd, who was clearly against the Ghulat and the narratives that were inclined to their thoughts.
The Distortion of the Qurān
One of the points that shows the anti-exaggeration aspect in Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt treatise is that he defends the Qurān and strongly emphasizes that it is not distorted. Apparently, there is no doubt that the issue of distorting the Qurān was raised for the first time when Uthman gathered all copies of the Qurān and a number of the Prophet's companions opposed him, as well as that the problems mentioned were later continued as a taunt to Uthman by a number of Shiite scholars; and extremists or Ghulat raised the context of believing in distortion based on it; In addition, Ghulat also used it to attribute some issues to the Qurān - such as they included the name of Imām ‘Alī (PBUH) in some verses - and followed and emphasized this issue.
In his Al-I‘tiqādāt, Ṣaddūq strongly opposed the theory that the Qurān is distorted, and it seems this is both because he is loyal to the exoteric of religious sources, including the Qurān and ḥadīth, and also because he is motivated by confronting the Ghulat who discuss the Qurān being distorted, and we know that later, the Shī‘ah scholars attributed the distortion among the Shī‘ah to ḥashwīyah, as Ṭabarsī clarified it in the introduction to Majma‘ al-Bayān. Shaykh Ṣaddūq not only explicitly defends the accuracy of the Qurān in every aspect through chapters 30 to 33, but also an important part of his argumentative support is verses and especially the appearances of the verses on all topics, although it is sometimes emphasized and specified on interpretation in the sense of ‘specific examples’ for some verses that are mentioned in sayings of imāms. He has drawn on the Qurān in his Al-Tawḥīd (for some of its cases, see: An introduction to Al-I‘tiqādāt (2015: 156-158). He cited more than 200 Qurānic verses in Al-I‘tiqādāt. Undoubtedly, the intellectual waves created in Shiite society during the first three Islamic centuries have also been reflected in this city too. Foremost among these were the Ghulat beliefs, which were viewed with suspicion in the city, while the city itself was in some way accused of having some Ghalian visions, as Sayyid Murtiḍā accusation against the Qummi people clarifies that.
The debate on the distortion of the Qurān had its own supporters, and one of them was Muḥammad Taqī Majlisī during the Safavid era. In his Arabic commentary on Man lā-Yaḥḍarah al-Faqīh, he disagreed with the discussions on distortions of the Qurān: “I am surprised by Ṣaddūq, who says in his Al-I‘tiqādāt that this Qurān is the very same one God sent to Gabriel, and nothing has been added to or removed from it!” Muḥammad Taqī Majlisī adds: This is despite the fact that the news heard in private and public states something has been added to and reduced from it, and this has been ‘for the benefit of their corrupted religion’ (Majlisī, 1406 AH: 10/19-20).
Other Relations with Ṣaddūq
On the other hand, there have been conflicting opinions among the Shī‘ah scholars and among the Shī‘ah who lived in different cities because each of them was familiar with some aspects of the imāms' teachings during this period. The iʿtiqādīyah is naturally and basically written to avoid those differences of opinion for the Shī‘ah people who expected an elite scholar to express correct opinions. Anyway, it can be said that Ṣaddūq's treatise is a criterion to understand the Shī‘ah thought of Qum. What Mufīd asserted afterwards about this book and its beliefs is somewhat far from the school of Qum, while the Shī‘ah community of Qum and Baghdād had close relations with each other anyway. In this context, the approaches to interpreting the ḥadīths or even the analysis of some theological views were different, while beliefs were rooted on the same basis, and some people were mentally engaged by a number of the imāms' companions, despite the differences of opinion between them, which caused differences in moods. The Shiite scholars in Baghdād were also alike and influenced by Muʿtazilah, while Qum deviated from the hypocritical atmosphere, so all of these made for differences between Baghdād and Qum schools.
Shaykh al- Mufīd (1022 CE) was the first one who criticized Shaykh Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt, and thus he wrote the Taṣḥīḥ-i I‘tiqādāt al-Imāmīyyah. He used to criticize them by interpretations such as ‘statements by Abī Ja‘far. On the doctrine of intuition without investigation’ (Majlisī, n.d.: 58/79). In this regard, McDermott addresses the differences between Ṣaddūq's and Mufid's thoughts on various issues, (1363: 417-490). He has also mentioned the disagreements between Mufīd and Ṣaddūq in there. Overall, the narrative of Ṣaddūq's beliefs was unacceptable to the rationalists who appeared in later generations, and that was perhaps an important direction in which his beliefs were not well received. In fact, they did not take this book very seriously, both because of the cited ḥadīths and the simple and logical interpretations that Ṣaddūq presented.
The subsequent considerations about this book show that it has failed to seriously interest readers, except for the book written by Shaykh al-Mufid, and he has even criticized it more than describing it. His book was originally titled Jawābāt-i Abī Ja‘far al-Qummī, and then as Taṣḥīḥ-i I‘tiqādāt al-Imāmīyyah, which is also critical. Sayyid Murtiḍā had probably addressed Ṣaddūq in some of his criticisms. Including when he refers to the fact that “but some of our companions believe that the prophets are superior to the angels [...]” and he has considered the argument of some companions incorrect regarding the superiority of the prophets over the angels (see Majlisī, n.d: 57/288), which probably means Shaykh Ṣaddūq.
We are unable to include these topics in this introduction, and we know that the difference between the schools of Baghdād and Qum have been discussed and written in detail. We only strived to emphasize that Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt reflects thoughts that existed in Qum at that time and have spread to the city of Riy and some other central cities of Iran.
It should be also noted that one of the objectives for writing iʿtiqādīyah is to answer the common accusations made by the opponents, and Shaykh Ṣaddūq has exactly addressed that point in this treatise and specifies in cases such as similes and incarnations. Ṣaddūq pursued the same objective when he wrote Al-Tawhīd where he wished to answer the accusations of the Imāmiyya, and he also considered them to be followers of incarnations. This is the reason he explains an opinion in several cases of this treatise and denies its relation to the Imāmiyya. He writes:
“And anyone who says that God is like the bodies is an infidel, and anyone who attributes [believing in incarnation] to the Imāmīyyah in the matter of monotheism, is disapproved. And every ḥadīth whose content is not in accordance with the Holy Qurān is invalid. And if these news and ḥadīths which contradict the Qurānīc verses because of their exoteric meanings in the books of our scholars--God bless them--their meaning will be covered, hence we cannot rely on their exoteric meaning. The meanings of what some ignorant have imagined while reading – analogizing God to his creatures are similar to the meanings of those of the Qurānīc verses, which their exoteric meaning is not what God intended to convey.”
In another case, when he talks about the Imāmīyyah belief about divine will and providence in the sixth chapter, he writes at the end: "This is what we the believers believe regarding divine providence and will, not what our opponents believe in this regard out of enmity and grudge. and they call it inappropriately the atheist tribe and deniers of the Sharī‘ah of the Messenger of the Lord of the World.”
In another case, Shaykh Ṣaddūq strongly opposes with the idea that the Qurān is not distorted, and he completely denies that. Rather, he believes in excess and deficiency, and he denotes:” Whoever attributes that belief to us, and I say this is more than that, he is a liar.” He also rejects the deficiency of the Qurān just as strongly.
Reception of Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt in the Safavid period
The time interval between Shaykh Ṣaddūq (381 AH) and Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (460 AH) is two to three generations, but Shaykh al-Ṭūsī Al-I‘tiqādāt published in Al-Rasāʾil al-‘Ashr (1414 AH: 103-114) is a completely theological work in which a very small number of verses and narrations are cited, while the Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt is rarely theological. Its discussions on monotheism should be excluded because it is similar to the expressions in the religious principles written by Muʿtazilah. Its critical style is similar to their works, although it only indicates the attributes.
Interestingly in later decades, the Shī‘ah ḥadīth scholars were critical towards Ṣaddūq's beliefs given that he has brought forth some beliefs in this treatise (see: Majlisī, n.d: 17/99). Elsewhere, Majlisī opposes Ṣaddūq's beliefs (Majlisī, n.d: 10: 405). It should be noted that the Ṣaddūq’s book has been a criterion book despite all these circumstances, although it has been criticized in some cases. Ṣaddūq's style was very popular for Akhbārīs like the late Majlisī. They only liked to deal with the ḥadīth and present the same ḥadīths as the theological and jurisprudential texts. This method was followed by Shaykh Ṣaddūq. Majlisī (1698 CE) wrote: Ṣaddūq is “One of the elders of the past who followed the noble imāms’ works and didn't follow opinions and fantasies, so most of our companions say what he said and what his father said, May God be pleased with them both. The status of the text is quoted and Akhbarī (Majlisī, n.d: 10/405). See some of the statements of scholars in the Safavid period about him at (Ibn Bābawīyah, 1418 AH: 215-213).
Naturally, his book Al-I‘tiqādāt was well-received during period. One of the Akhbārīs in the late Safavid period, Sayyid Ni‘matullāh Jazāyrī (1700 CE), wrote a description of this book, which Iffindī mentioned (Riyadh: 5/256). Iffindī writes that Mulla Abdullah Shulistani, who was living in Sārī and he was a student of Muḥammad Bāqir Majlisī (Majlisī, n.d). Taqī Majlisī and Mullā Sadrā, wrote two Arabic and Persian descriptions on the Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt. He had seen the works of this scholar in Sārī held by his children (Iffindī, 1401 HS: 3/205). Āqā Buzurg also witnessed a description written by one of the scholars in the twelfth century under the name of Ibn Walīullāh al-Qazwīnī among the books of Nawwāb school in Mashhad. He supposes he has been Faḍlullāh Ibn Walīullāh Qazwīnī, but also found another copy dating to the 12th century (Al-Ṭihrānī, 1381 HS: 102/13) – that is likely, Ṣafī Ibn Walī al-Qazwīnī (Monzawī, 9/369).
There is another description of the Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt called Ḥal al-‘Aqāy'id composed by Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad Dārābī in the 11th century (for a comparative examination of these manuscripts see: Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 13/346). A version dated to 1654 AD is mentioned as a possible translation-description of the Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt in the list of Gawharshād (2/719). Al-Sharḥ al-I‘tiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq was introduced among works of Ḥasan Ibn Zayn al-Dīn al-‘Āmilī (son of Thānī), which is less known (See: Introduction to ‘Āmilī, 1418 AH).
Translations of Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt in the Safavid era
One of the indications that the book gained attention during the Safavid period is the emergence of several translation of the book. These translations were dedicated to the kings or some nobles and princes like many other books. Some of these books were dedicated to Shāh Ṭahmāsb and his sister Ṣulṭānam, and this shows that the Safavid king had tried to promote Shī‘ah education. Some of these translations are only translations, and some also follow a description, as follows:
Ḥāṣil al-Tarjumān, a translation by Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī, is one of the first translations that will be explained later.
Iʿtiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq, translated by Abū al-Fatḥ Ḥusaynī, was donated to Princess Mahin Bānū Ṣulṭānam. A copy of this book (10176) has survived, and other copies are also available (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4/395-396). In the introduction, he wrote:
“These are some words that are clear, and the words are simple to describe and the translation of the words and phrases from Al-I‘tiqādāt attributed to Shaykh al-Mujtahidīn and Ṣaddūq Al-Muḥdathīn, the great scholar of the early and late scholars, the leader of the first and last jurists, the supreme leader of the Nājīyyah, the leader of the Imāmīyyah, the most honorable of all the people and places, named Shaykh Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Ibn ʿAlī Ibn al-Ḥusayn Ibn Mūsā Ibn Bābawīyah al-Qummī - May God place him in the highest ranks with the prophets, the truthful ones, the martyrs, and the righteous, which I have organized and written a claimant for Abū al-Fatḥ Ḥusaynī, including the interpretation of the verses and the translation of the ḥadīths and narrations and applying the evidence to the claims, because of being indicated by Good news and Acknowledgment command of Nawwāab-i Mustatab, the princess of the world, the Qiblah and Qadwa of the people, the light of the garden of faith, and the light of the human and soul, the summation of the Nabūwat and Imamate family, the dynasty of innocence and purity, the sunshine of the royalty sky, and fortune of love of the greatness sky, The high moon of maturity, the high moon of the sky, the grace of the moon of the governmental house of justice and servitude, the best poem verse of a wisdom ode, Zuhrah, the children of Zahrā, daughter of Fāṭimah, Zahrā, The descendant lady of Khadījah, strengthening Sharī‘ah, the instructor of the Jafari religion and the Twelver nation, the honor of the worlds and the ruler of the sultans in the eyes of God Almighty, Her Highness Princess Mahīn, Ṣulṭānam, May God Almighty perpetuate the shadows of her authority and infallibility, and uphold her royal throne with her justified principles and her mercy until the appearance of Haḍrat Mahdī and meeting him, for the sake of the Prophet’s family and his pride [his honor] […]” (962).
He was satisfied with translating the book Al-I‘tiqādāt into Persian and solving his issues and reasons since the main purpose was here to mention the issues. This translation was then organized into thirty-four chapters again, like the original one, and who is going to investigate all the chapters. And this book was written on Thursday in the Jumada al-Thānī in the Dar Al-Irshād city in Ardabil by the weakest servants of God, the one who needs mostly the mercy of the rich king Shāhijan bin Haji Mohammad Sarkan in 962 Hijra" (1583 CE).
What was previously mentioned is very important regarding the importance and role of Sultanam in promoting Shiite books, as the translator mentioned her as "strengthening the Sharia" and "instructor of the Jafari religion." Other books have been authored and translated with being indicated by Good news of this lady, including a treatise on Al-I‘tiqādāt (18233) was written by Saif Abūl Hasan Sharif.[iii] In 1584, a treatise which is called Sultanam was written on the interpretation of the Kalimāt al-Taḥlīl by Sayyid ‘Azīzullāh Ḥusaynī, who was a teacher in Ardabīl city, and its copy is found in Raḍawī library (Al-Ṭihrānī, 1381 HS: 350/3). Sultanam has dedicated the book Khulāṣat al-Ad‘īyah wa a‘māl to Raḍawī library (Ibid.: 211/7). ‘Azīzullāh Ḥusaynī has written another theological treatise called Princess Sultanam that Iffindī has seen. This treatise was written in 1588 CE (Ibid.,: 14/85). The treatise Arkān al-Īmān was inquired by Sultanam in 1585 CE (see ‘Ayān al-Shī‘ah: 2/322).
Wasāil al-Nijāt dar Ma'rifat-i Al-I‘tiqādāt is another translation of the Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt, which was translated into Persian by the famous Shī‘ah translator in the 15th CE century, ‘Alī Ibn Ḥasan Zawwāre’ī, and Mar‘ashī has considered it as a literal translation. Two versions of it have been introduced, one is in the Āyatullāh Mar‘ashī-i Najafī Library (no. 2/3048), and the other one is in Waziri Library in Yazd (no. 3/2164).
Dated to 1508 AD, the translation of Iʿtiqādāt was carried out by an unknown translator, seemingly during pre-Ṭahmāsb and Shāh Ismail periods (1502-1524). A copy of this translation is available in Shaykh ‘Alī Ḥaydar Library in Mashhad (no. 13/1427) (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4/397).
Minhaj-al-Mu'minin was written by Abū Turab bin abi al-hassan Hosseini Azghadi in 1584 AD, includes Adiyah as well as day's and night's worships. The translation of the Ṣaddūq's Al-I‘tiqādāt is included at the end of this book. Its copies are available at the Fayḍīyah (no. 301) and the Āyatullāh Mar‘ashī-i Najafī Library (no. 5219) Libraries.
Meshraq Al-aqa'id Al-Saliha, written by Mohammad Saleh bin Masoud Dastgheib, goes back to the 17th century AD and was presented to Shāh Safi (domination 1629–1642). Two copies of this translation, numbers 10062 and 16487, are available in the Library, Museum, and Document Center of IRAN Parliament. In this treatise, he emphasizes the true Shia religion, Imāmiyya, which was the focus of all Muslims in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), and that some have changed this situation. He also adds the Al-‘Aqāid and Al-I‘tiqādāt were distorted during the Umayyad, Marwan, and ʿAbbāsid dynasties, when they advocated false ḥadīths and concealed truthful news contrary to the true religion". At the same time, the Shia scholars started to gather authentic ḥadīths as well as books that had been hidden for a long time until "Almighty God made the Shia powerful, the true religion was revealed, and the Shia were completely strengthened". The books hidden by the Shiite scholars from the people were not available until that time, and none of the scholars had discovered them to be popular among people; although our scholars, may God please them, didn't mention his books, the most inestimable servant of Allah's creation, Mohammad Saleh Al-Hussaini Al-Shīrāzī Ibn ‘Adududdin Masoud, known as dastghayb, attempted to make them famous, and he translated most of the explicit Akhbar, which indicate the leadership of the 12th imams from the Kutub al-Sitta, so that the elites and the common people could understand...”. He then praises Shāh Ṣafī and adds: “And thank God that the scholars do not express the right beliefs of Taqīyyah, and the beliefs that are declared by the scholars of the Najiya sect and the senior sheikhs of Shī‘ah Imāmiyya - may God be pleased with them. The editors have said that it is less possible for Iranian to intercede it, and opinions are the most important of all matters. That's why it came to my mind to edit the summary of Shia Al-I‘tiqādāt in Farsi, based on the words of the shaykh of Al-Taifah al-Mahqah Shaykhs, al-Shaykh Ibn Babawayh (peace be upon him), and authentic ḥadīths transmitted by the imams, because nobody is perfect at understanding Arabic, so they can correct their opinions by studying it. I started to write this treatise within four days, as God helped me after consulting with the great scholars and Istikhara to find God's will. It consists of thirty-five chapters and is named "Meshraq Al-aqa'id Al-Saliha". He also mentioned some of his other books and wrote a piece of poetry addressed to Shāh Ṣafī:
Farmāndah-yi ‘ālam īn shahanshāh/ kū ḥāmī-i dīn-i aḥmad āmad
Yik masʾalah nazd-i dhāt-i ashraf/ bar māl-i jahān sarāmad āmad
Īn ‘aqd laʾālī-i ‘qāyid/ Kih i‘ṭā-yi ilah sarmad āmad
Az ‘ālam-i tuḥfah bar salāṭīn/ az bandah-yi ū Muḥammad āmad.
Al-Sharḥ al- I‘tiqādāt, written by Ismā‘īl Ibn Muḥammad Bāqir Khātūnābādī (d. 1704 CE), offers a detailed explanation in 194 pages, the only copy of which is in the library of the Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, University of Tihrān, No. 595. In the introduction, he says that he explained parts of Al-I‘tiqādāt in Farsi, but seemingly it has been simply continued to be written in Arabic.
It should be noted that Sayyid Ni‘matullāh (d.1700 CE) also wrote a commentary on the Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt, which Āqā Buzurg quoted in his poems (Al-Ṭihrānī, 1381 HS: 102/13).
The mentioned cases were related to the Safavid era, but translating and commenting on Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt continued so that 24 translations and commentaries emerged from Ṣaddūq’s Al-I‘tiqādāt (see Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 4/379-380).
Ḥāṣil al-Tarjumān and its Translator
The present translation has been mentioned as Ḥāṣil al-Tarjumān as well as Minhāj-al-Muʾminīn in some cases, and also the translation of Iʿtiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq. It can be found that this book was presented to Shāh Ṭahmāsb in some cases, and to Shāh ‘Abbās II [which actually means Shāh ʿAbbās I] in some other cases. It has been translated by Muḥammad Mahdī Ibn Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Raḍawī in Mashhad. Referring to the translation of Iʿtiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq, and probably based on an earlier extant version (Shaykh Muḥammad Sulṭān’s School of al-Mutikalimīn in Tihrān), Āqā Buzurg (Al-Ṭihrānī, 1381 HS: 13/102, 26/268) asserts that he has written the book for Shāh ʿAbbās [here should also be Shāh ʿAbbās II] in 1667 CE. While we know this author had written the book Al-Za’iriyya in 1547 CE, and this is also mentioned by Agha Bozorg. Copies of the Tarjuma Iʿtiqādāt were also presented to Ṭahmāsb (1524-1576 CE) as mentioned. Āqā Buzurg mentioned him as a scholar contemporary to Ṭahmāsb in Ṭabaqāt-i A‘lam al-Shī‘ah (7/259) and mentioned his Al-Za’iriyya and translation of Al-I‘tiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq.
This translation does not have any copy which goes back to the 15th and 16th CE centuries, and the remaining copies go back to the 16th and 17th CE centuries. A copy goes back to 1660 CE, two university versions go back to 1693 and 1708 CE, and some copies are also undated. A total of 9 copies are in translation.
Except for Ḥāṣil al-Tarjumān, Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī, however, has another treatise called Al-Za’iriyya that was written in 1547 CE, which he also presented to Shāh Ṭahmāsb. The mentioned book teaches the rituals of pilgrimage. There are four copies of this book in Raḍawī Library, and other copies haven't been mentioned anywhere else. One of these four copies goes back to the end of the 16th century CE (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 17: 538). There is another book called Safinat, which is actually a collection written by a person named Muḥammad Mahdī Ibn Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Raḍawī (No. 8880) in the Library, Museum and Document Center of IRAN Parliament, which is linked to the intended person. This copy is introduced as “the copy which is written by several hand-writers, but most of them belong to the author of Ṣafīnah i.e., Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī” and one of them points to Sunday night, December, 26, 1688 (Parliament list, vol. 29, first part, p. 221). There is even a treatise written by the late Majlesi in the collection. Apparently, this collection has nothing to do with our author according to these dates. His fourth and last work is a description of the introduction of Al-Risālah al-Ja’farīyah entitled Sharh e Muzajī mukhtaṣarī bar dībāchah-yi risālah-yi al- Ja’farīyah and it has been said that “he was contemporary with Astarābādī, who has described Al-Risālah al-Ja’farīyah, has mentioned him contemporary scholar". It was written in 1547 CE. He also mentioned his Scholia on Al-Irshad in this description (Dirāyatī, 1390 HS: 19: 701). One of its copies is available in the Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Tihrān University, and two copies are available in the Āyatullāh Mar‘ashī-I Najafī Library, as well as one copy in the Library of Āyatullāh Gulpāyigānī.
Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī’s attempt is valuable because it was done during the Ṭahmāsb Era, and it also can be said that it is in line with cultural-religious actions that Shāh Ṭahmāsb personally supported. Books were written and translated during this period when the Shīʾah culture spread on a large scale for the first time. On the one hand, the main, prominent, and popular sources of Shīʾah had to be translated into Persian; new Books also had to be written on the other hand. Meanwhile, beliefs were a very important field, so translation was focused on because it was easier to translate books rather than to write new ones. People like Zāirīyyah had translated a lot of books as professional translators in that era and had tried to develop the Shī‘ah doctrines, especially in the beliefs and interpretation and history of Islam and Ahl al-Bayt. I have provided in this regard and Ṭahmāsb’s cultural and religious policies for the promotion of Shī‘ism.
Besides translations, Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī has authored Zāʾirīyyah (954) which has been dedicated to Shāh Ṭahmāsb. The aforementioned work concerns the decorum of pilgrimage. There are simply four manuscripts, one of which dates to the tenth century, at Raḍwī Library. Safīnah, his another work, appears in the Assembly. This manuscript is described “in several wordings, but they are almost penned by the author of Safīnah, Muḥammad Mahdī Ibn Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Raḍwī. Some of which are written in 1096 and another on Monday 3, Rabīʿ al-Awwal, 1100.
The treatise written by Majlisī is the reminiscence of the war. Considering these dates, there is apparently no relation between the war and the author. As explicated in the Ancient Manuscripts of Iran, the explanatory prologue for Al-Risālah al-Jaʿfarīyah known as Sharḥ-i Mujizī-i Mukhtaṣarī bar Dībājah-yi Al-Risālah al-Jaʿfarīyah, and also a Guide (Irshād) and it is conceived that he was a contemporary of Astar Ābādī (d. 954) -the commentary writer of al-Jaʿfarīyah- who has been named as an accomplished teacher (19:701). A manuscript is preserved at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Tihrān, two others are at the Library of Marʿashī and one is found at the Library of Gulpāyigānī.
Muḥammad Mahdī Raḍawī’s translation has similarly strived to provide a commentary rather than a translation. In numerous cases, Ṣaddūq refers to the Qurānic verses and hadīth when drawing on Imāmīyah beliefs on significant occasions, and he appreciates them briefly. The translator, however, comments on such Qurānic verses and hadith, appearing as a translation and commentary. Similarly, he provides definitions for the author’s diction. This is while he scarcely brings forth complementary notes, which are undistinguishable without being compared with the original text. In the fifteenth opening, not only does the translator provides a commentary, but a critical review. In discussing the replacement of religious brotherhood for natural brotherhood, which is against religious jurisprudence, the translator both supports and criticizes such a statement.
In comparing the translator’s equivalent for the first term explaining attributes of God, for instance, it becomes clear that there are commentaries complementing such like terms. Authors have mentioned the original term, which appeared in the beginning of the book, in footnotes for further comparative study.
The Safavid Era (907-1148 AH) is a peculiar period of Shīʿism. It is known as epoch for the revival of ancient Shīʿiah teachings. Though Shīʿism in Qum followed Akhbarī path but resisted exaggeration during the second to fourth centuries AH, the Shīʿism in Baghdād relied on primary religious sources such as the Qurān and hadīth from the fourth century AH onwards, while it also had a positive approach to reason and ijtihād alike that of ʿIrāqī intellectual systems. The ancient Akhbarī movement was revived to some extent in Qum when the Safavid dynasty dominated in Iran. Shaykh Abū Ja'far Ṣaddūq (991 CE) was the symbol of this movement, who was viewed with more respect this time. Iʿtiqādiat was the first and foremost books of Shīʿiah beliefs and it appeared in several editions, and translations, and some have written commentaries, as well. That's why authors believe that the Shīʿism was a common belief during the Safavid era mainly by the revival of Shaykh Ṣaddūq’s school (maktab) and the emblem of Shīʿiah local schools.
[i] Āqā Buzurg confused the second one with the first one in Al-Dharīʿa (226/2) and corrected it in volume 355/19. Unfortunately, this mistake was repeated in the list of manuscripts where there is a mention of beliefs of Ṣaddūq. Regarding Ṣaddūq’s beliefs, there is a description of the beliefs in the manuscripts' bibliography of Shaykh Ṣaddūq's works, pp. 27-54. Moshar has introduced 625 different editions of it into the list of Arabic books. The corrected version of this book was published in the Congress of Shaykh al-Mufid, which is currently used in the Jama'i Al-Ahadith CD. The revised version of Al-I‘tiqādāt was published by Imam Al-Hadi Institute (AS) in Qum in 2011 and 2015 AD, and it is the best edition of this book. This book has been translated at different times.
[ii] A two-volume collection of I'tiqādia treatises by Shia scholars dating to the 16th century AD was published as Aqidah al-Shia (Qum, 2015).
[iii] For more information about Sultanam, see Aḥsan al-Tawārīkh, vol. 3, pp. 1426–1427. The year he died is mentioned there, and there are explanations about that in the margin, and there is an order from Ṭahmāsb in 972, which ordered six Hafiz people to read the Qurān at his tomb in Qum (for this document, see Turbat-i Pākān, Ḥusayn Mudarrissī, 1/227-228). He was transferred to Karbala 23 years after his burial in Qum, and buried in a cellar he had built for himself (Turbat-i Pākān: 1/228). It's been stated in Tārīkh-i Alfi, 8/5687: Highly respected by the king and having complete authority in all property and wealth matters, the sister of king Tahmasap, Sultanam, tried to help him as much as possible. The Author of Tuḥfah Al –Azhar wrote about him: Among his daughters was Sultanam who was named Ṣaḥib al-Amr.
‘Allāmah Ḥillī, Ḥasan Ibn Yūsif (1411 AH). Kashf al-Yaqīn fī Faḍāʾil-i Amīr al- Muʾminīn. Tihrān: Wizārah al-Thiqāfah.
‘Āmilī, Jamāl al-Dīn Ḥasan Ibn Zayn al-Dīn (1418 AH). Ma‘ālim al-Dīn. Qum.
‘Āmilī, Nabāṭī, ‘Alī Ibn Muḥammad (1384 AH). Al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm ilā Mustaḥiqī al-Taqdīm. Najaf: Al-Maktabat al-Ḥiīdarīyah.
Anṣārī, Muḥammad Riḍā (2016 CE). ‘Aqīdah al-Shī‘ah. Qum: Dār al-Tafsīr.
Al-Ṭihrānī, Āqā Buzurg (1381 AH). Al-Dharī‘ah ilā Taṣānīf al-Shī‘ah. Qum: Ismā‘īlīān.
Ḍāmin Ibn Shadqam (1378 HS). Tuḥfah al-Azhār wa Zulāl al-Azhār fī Nasab Abnā al-Ayimmah al-Aṭhār. ed. Al-Jabūrī Salmān. Tihrān: Mīrāth-i Maktūb.
Dastghayb, Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Ibn Mas‘ūd (n.d) Mashāriq al-‘Aqāʾid al-Ṣāliḥah. Kitāb Khānah-yi Majlis 10062, 16487.
Dirāyatī, Muṣṭafā (1390 HS). Fihristgān-i Nuskhah-hā-yi Khaṭī-i Īrān. Tihrān: Kitāb Khānah-yi Majlis.
Fāḍil, Maḥmūd (1365 HS). Fihrist-i Nuskhah-hā-yi Khaṭī-i Kitāb Khānah-yi Masjid-i Gawharshād. Mashhad: Dānishgāh-i Firdawsī.
Ḥakīm, Muḥammad Ḥusayn (1390 HS). Fihrist-i Majlis (29). Tihrān: Kitāb Khānah-yi Majlis.
Ḥusaynī, Abū al-Fatḥ (n.d). Tarjumah-yi I‘tiqādāt-i Ṣaddūq (a manuscript). Kitāb-khānah-yi Shurā-yi Islāmī. 10176.
Ibn Bābawīyah, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn al- Ḥusayn (1435 AH). Al-I‘tiqādāt. ed. Muʾassisah-yi Imām al-Hādī.
Ibn Bābawīyah, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn al- Ḥusayn (1418 AH). Al-Hidāyah fī al-Uṣūl wa al-Furū‘. Qum: Muʾassisah-yi Imām Hādī.
Ibn Bābawīyah, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad Ibn ‘Alī Ibn al- Ḥusayn (1413 AH). Man lā-Yaḥḍarah al-Faqīh. Qum: Intishārāt-i Islāmī.
Iffindī, Mīrzā ‘Abdallāh (1401 HS). Rīāḍ al-‘Ulamā wa Ḥayāḍ al-Fuḍalā. Qum.
Khātūnābādī, Isma‘īl Ibn Muḥammad Bāqir (1116 CE). Sharḥ-i I‘tiqādāt. Kitāb Khānah-yi Dānishkadah-yi Ilāhīyāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān.
Khaṭīb-i Baghdādī, Aḥmad Ibn ‘Alī (1417 AH). Tārīkh-i Baghdād. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyyah
Mashshār, Khānbābā (1344 HS). Fihrist-i Kitāb-hā-yi Chāpī-i ‘Arabī. Tihrān.
Majlisī, Muḥammad Bāqir (n.d). Biḥār al-Anwār. Beirut: Dār al-Iḥyā al-Turāth al-‘Arabī.
Majlisī-i Awwal, Muḥammad Taqī (1410 AH). Lawāmi‘-i Ṣāḥibqarānī. Qum: Muʾassisah-yi Ismā‘īlīān.
Majlisī Awwal, Muḥammad Taqī (1406 AH). Rawḍah al-Muttaqīn. Qum: Muʾassisah-yi Kūshānpūr.
McDermott, Martin (1363 HS). Andīshah-hā-yi Kalāmī-i Shaykh Mufīd. Trans. Aḥmad Ārām. Tihrān: Muʾassisah-yi Muṭāli‘āt-i Islāmī-i Dānishgāh-i McGill wa Dānishgāh-i Tihrān.
Mīr Raḍī, Fātamah Sādāt, and Rasūl Ja‘farīyān (1400 HS). “Āthār-i Huwwīyat-sāz dar Jāmi‘ah-yi Shī‘ah-yi Nukhustīn. Majallah-yi Tārīkh-i Islām 22 .
Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī, Najm al-Dīn Ja‘far Ibn al-Ḥusayn (1412 AH). Nukt al-Nahāyah. Qum: Intishārāt-i Islāmī.
Munzawī, Aḥmad (1382 HS). Fihristwārah-yi Kitāb-hā-yi Fārsī. Tihrān: Markaz-i Dāyirah al-Ma‘ārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī.
Muddarissī Ṭabbāṭabbāī, Ḥusayn (1355 HS). Turbat-i Pākān. Qum.
Najjāshī, Aḥmad Ibn ‘Alī (1365 HS). Rijāl-i Najjāshī. Qum: Muʾassisah al-Nashr al-Islāmī.
Raḍawī, Muḥammad Mahdī Ibn Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (1401 AH). Ḥāṣil-i Tarjumān. Qum: Nashr-i Muwarrikh.
Raḍawī, Muḥammad Mahdī Ibn Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (n.d). Zāʾirīyah. Kitāb Khānah-yi Āstān-i Quds-i Raḍawī.
Rumlu, Ḥsan (1384 HS). Aḥsan al-Tawārīkh. ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥusayn Nawāī. Tihrān: Asāṭīr.
Shaykh Mufīd, Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Nu‘mān (1413 AH). Taṣḥīḥ-i I‘tiqādāt al-Imāmīyyah. Qum: Kongurah-yi Mufīd.
Shūshtarī, Qāḍī Nūrallāh (1377 HS). Majālis al-Muʾminīn. Tihrān: Islāmīyah.
Shūshtarī, Muḥammad Taqī (1410 AH). Qāmūs al-Rijāl. Qum: Muʾassisah al-Nashr al-Islāmī.
Shaykh Mufīd, Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Nu‘mān (1413 AH). Rasālah-yi ‘Adam-i Sahw-i al-Nabī. Kongurah-yi Mufīd.
Shaykh Mufīd, Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Nu‘mān (1413 AH). Rasālah-yi ‘Adam-i Sahw-i Nabawī. Kongurah-yi Mufīd.
ـــــــ (1405 AH). Rasāʾil al-Sharīf al-Murtiḍā. Qum: Dār al-Qurān al-Karīm
Tatūrī, Aḥmad Ibn Naṣrallāh (1382 HS). Tārīkh-i Alfī. Tihrān: Intishārāt-i ‘Ilmī wa Farhangī.
Tawḥīdī, Abū Ḥayyān (1419 AH). Al-Baṣāīr wa al-Dhakhāir. Beirut: Al-Ṣādir.
Ṭūsī, Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥasan (1414 AH). Al-Rasāʾil al-‘Ashr. Qum: Intishārāt-i Islāmī.
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 244
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 59