Tawthiq of a narrator on account of him being in the asanid of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi’s Tafsir
Tawthiq of a narrator on account of him being in the asanid of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi’s Tafsir
Regarding Tafsir al Qummi of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al Qummi, al Najjashi states:
Abu al Hassan al Qummi: Thiqah in hadith; thabt (reliable); mu’tamad (relied-upon); sahih al mazhab ((belonging to the sound school of law)… He has a work on tafsir[1].”[2]
Al Qummi states in the introduction to his Tafsir:
ونحن ذاكرون ومخبرون بما ينتهي إلينا، ورواه مشايخنا وثقاتنا عن الذين فرض الله طاعتهم
And we mention and inform (i.e., in this book) of that which has reached us and narrated by our teachers and reliable ones from those upon whom Allah has obligated their obedience.[3]
A number of latter-day scholars of the Imamiyyah regarded these words of al Qummi to imply that he made tawthiq (approbated) of every narrator that comes in the asanid of his work. I tried my utmost best to find the first person to express this principle and (eventually) came to the conclusion that al Hurr al ‘Amili was, in fact, the first to mention this. And although he did not state it as an independent principle, it can be argued that, despite the above, he is the first to allude to it and mention it in the course of his words. In his attempt to make tawthiq of Ibrahim ibn Hashim, the father of al Qummi, he states:
ويفهم توثيقه من تصحيح العلامة طرق الصدوق، ومن أول تفسير ولده علي بن إبراهيم حيث قال ونحن ذاكرون ومخبرون ما انتهى إلينا ورواه مشايخنا وثقاتنا عن الذين فرض الله طاعتهم.
His tawthiq is to be understood from al ‘Allamah’s authenticating al Saduq’s chains of narrations, as well as from the beginning of his son’s, ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi’s Tafsir wherein he states, “And we mention and inform (i.e., in this book) of that which has reached us and narrated by our teachers and reliable others from those upon whom Allah has obligated their obedience.”[4]
This is what was also understood by Bahr al ‘Ulum in his attempt to make tawthiq of ‘Ali al Qummi’s father, Ibrahim ibn Hashim, using this principle.[5]
The most famous person to employ this principle was al Khu’i who, based on it, made tawthiq of many narrators whom the works of narrator biographies’ do not even identify. With this, he significantly reduced the number of majhul (unknown) narrators in the biographical works of narrators and picked out a number of them and placed them in the ranks of reliable narrators!
Commenting on ‘Ali al Qummi’s previous words, al Khu’i stated:
في هذا الكلام دلالة ظاهرة على أنه لا يروي في كتابه هذا إلا عن ثقة
In these words, there is a clear indication that he only narrates from a thiqah in his book.
Commenting on the words of al Hurr al ‘Amili, al Khu’i stated:
إن ما استفاده في محله، فإن علي بن إبراهيم يريد بما ذكره إثبات صحة تفسيره، وأن رواياته ثابتة وصادرةٌ من المعصومين عليهم السلام، وأنها أتت إليه بواسطة المشايخ والثقات من الشيعة، وعلى ذلك فلا موجب لتخصيص التوثيق بمشايخه الذين يروي عنهم علي بن إبراهيم بلا واسطة كما زعمه بعضهم.
What al Hurr al ‘Amili inferred is correct. This is because ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim intended to establish the authenticity of his Tafsir with what he mentioned. Additionally, his narrations are well-established and come from the Infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam, and came to him via teachers and other reliable narrators of the Shia. Based on this, it is not necessary to restrict the tawthiq of only those teachers from whom ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates without an intermediary, as some of them have claimed.[6]
Al Khu’i’s claim can be extracted in the following manner: Everyone that is in the muttasil (contiguous) chains of Tafsir al Qummi—thereby excluding the marasil[7], or the narrations that are broken (contain inqita’)—he is a thiqah as long as he is not faced with contradictory evidence, even if we do not find his name being mentioned in the works of narrator evaluation.
As for the fact that “he is not faced with contradictory evidence,” I found it in al Khu’i’s statement, “A narrator will be deemed a thiqah by virtue of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim (al Qummi, the author of the Tafsir), or Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Qulawayh’s testifying to their reliability, except if he is faced with evidence to the contrary.”[8]
And he said, “All of the narrators of the Tafsir are reliable as long as someone else’s tad’if (of them) does not oppose it.”[9]
Of al Khu’i’s conditions is that the chain of narration in which the narrator (in question) is that it should end with the infallible (imam), as he stated under the biography of Sa’id ibn Muhammad, who is of the narrators’ of Tafsir al Qummi, “In any case, there is no benefit in mentioning him at all since this chain of narration does not end with one of the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam. Therefore, the general tawthiq which ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim mentioned in the beginning of his Tafsir does not include him.”[10]
In short, this principle is the undertaking of the latter, latter-day scholars. Even the latter-day scholars did not know of it, chief among them Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, since he never mentioned it. And he (also) did not make tawthiq of anybody using this principle in his book, Khulasat al Aqwal. In fact, I found the opposite. Regarding the most famous narrator of Tafsir ‘Ali al ‘Qummi, his (i.e., ‘Ali al Qummi’s father, Ibrahim ibn Hisham) father, he states:
لم أقف لأحد من أصحابنا على القول بالقدح فيه، ولا على تعديله بالتنصيص والروايات عنه كثيرة، والأرجح قبول قوله
I did not find a recorded statement of criticism against him nor a statement of ta’dil in his favour from any of our companions. And there are many narrations from him. The preponderant opinion is to accept his statement(s).[11]
Had al Hilli known of this principle, he would have alluded to ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim’s tawthiq of his father, or he would have mentioned the person who explicitly made tawthiq of him using this principle. However, he did not mention this, which proves it was not known in his time.
What further proves that al Hilli had no knowledge of this principle is his statement under the biography of al Hussain ibn Yazid al Nawfali:
عندي في روايته توقف لمجرد ما نقله عن القميين وعدم الظفر بتعديل الأصحاب له
According to me, judgement regarding his narration should be suspended simply for what he transmitted from the Qummis, and since there is no ta’dil of his from our companions.[12]
Al Hussain ibn Yazid is from the narrators of Tafsir al Qummi. Despite this, al Hilli states that the companions (i.e., the scholars of the Shia) do not have a statement of ta’dil in his favour. Had he known this principle, he would have suggested the tawthiq of al Qummi for al Hussain ibn Yazid. However, he did not do so.
A critique of this principle
This principle results in an opinion at variance with the more well-known opinion in the Imami school. Admitting that his opinion is at variance with the more well-known one, al Khu’i states:
الرواية على مسلك المشهور ضعيفة السند لأن في السند محمد بن أسلم وهو لم يوثق في الرجال , ولكن الرواية على مسلكنا معتبرة ؛ لأن محمد بن أسلم من رجال كامل الزيارة ومن رجال تفسير علي بن إبراهيم القمي وهم ثقات
The narration, according to the more well-known practice (Maslak) has a weak chain because it contains Muhammad ibn Aslam. His tawthiq (i.e., in the works of narrator criticism) was not made. However, the narration according to our practice (maslak) is valid because Muhammad ibn Aslam is among the narrators of Kamil al Ziyarat and Tafsir ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi. And they are (all) reliable.[13]
Kazim al Ha’iri thoroughly refuted what al Khu’i inferred from ‘Ali al Qummi’s words. He states:
As for him attempting to make tawthiq of all its narrators—by claiming that his purpose for mentioning what he did was to establish the authenticity of his Tafsir, and (the fact) that his narrations are established and come from the infallibles, and that they reached him via teachers and reliable ones of the Shia (as al Sayed al Khu’i mentioned)—this is incorrect. I do not know how he came to know this was his intention (in mentioning these words). Is it based on the generality of his words? Or, is it based on the explanation that if it is not the authentication of ahadith (i.e., that is implied), then deeming the immediate teachers reliable would be of no value? If he intended the latter, we would say, first of all, that there is no doubt that deeming the immediate teachers reliable does strengthen and bolster the narrations. And, secondly, the earlier scholars’ authentication of narrations is not always premised upon the tawthiq of narrators, as attested to by al Sayed al Khu’i in his Mujam. Perhaps, in his Tafsir, he adhered to narrating from his reliable teachers who only narrate authentic narrations. As for knowing definitively the fact that they authenticated the narrations on account of the reliability of their narrators, this is unknown.
If he intended the former, we say that the form of address “reaching us, and narrated by our teachers and reliable (others),” is only true in relation to the reliability of the immediate narrator. It does not unrestrictedly prove the reliability of every narrator.[14]
Muhammad al Sanad stated:
إن مقصودهما منها نفي الروايات الموضوعة و المدسوسة عما أخرجاه من روايات كتابيهما، لا أنها في صدد التوثيق لكل السند
Both[15] of their intentions from their statements is to exclude (the existence of) fabricated and fictitious narrations from what they include of narrations in their respective works, not with respect to the tawthiq of every single chain of narration.[16]
The intention of ‘Ali al Qummi in his introduction is to give credit to his book, nothing more. Al Fani al Asfahani states:
إن قوله [من مشايخنا وثقاتنا] ظاهر في إرادة إعطاء قيمة عليا لكتابه و أن رواياته صادرة عن الثقات الذين يركن إليهم ويعتمد عليهم
His statement, ‘from our teachers and reliable ones’ clearly indicates his intention to give his book credit, and to show that his narrations come from such reliable narrators that are relied and depended upon.
Then he states:
إن دعوى إرادة علي بن إبراهيم إعطاء قيمة لكتابه لا تعني وثاقة كل رواة كتابه إذ إنه يوجد مراتب عدة للقيمة…ودعوى استظهار توثيق كل الرواة من لفظ [ مشايخنا وثقاتنا ] بتقريب أنه بصدد إعطاء قيمة للكتاب غير متعينة لكفاية وثاقة المباشرين في ذلك بل الممدوحين لولا النص على وجود الثقات في الجملة
The claim that ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim intended to give his book credit does not necessarily mean that all of the narrators of his book are reliable. This is because there are different levels of (determining) value… And the claim that he desired to express the reliability of all narrators with the words “our teachers and reliable ones” is an approximate judgement (that was said) in the context of him attempting to give overall value to the book. It is a generic statement that need only indicate towards the reliability of his direct teachers and the (already) praised narrators (al mamduhin), had it not been for the text including (the word) ‘thiqat (reliable)’ in the sentence.
Thereafter, al Fani cited his evidence for this claim. Below is a synopsis of this evidence:
A number of narrators whose weakness has been documented appear in the folds of his book. And it is highly inconceivable that there exist such a significant number of narrators that are well-known for being weak which he was unaware of, especially considering he mentioned these words in his attempt to give credence to his book, such credence that is dependant upon investigating such reliable narrators whose reliability is agreed-upon… (He goes on to mention five of them).
A number of majhul, muhmalin (disregarded), and narrators about whom there is clearly a difference of opinion appear (in this book). It is also highly inconceivable that he came to know about their reliability in the books of narrator criticism, especially considering the fact that others, such as al Tusi and al Najjashi—who were closer to them in time—did not know. Also, despite the fact that their general practice is to investigate narrators like the aforementioned… (He then goes on to mention eight of them).
The fact that mursal, maqtu’, and other such narrations appear (in the book) that have no justification in being narrated in such high numbers proves that he himself was unaware of such omitted and majhul narrators… Unless of course he claims that he knows of the Ghayb (unknown) about them and that he did not mention them so as to preserve the trust of transmitting (this information)… (He then goes on to cite seven examples).
Then al Fani states:
These three issues become all the more important by noting the large number of weak narrators and how clearly their conditions are in this regard such that when inductive reasoning of this type increases, so too does the probabilistic value of such a baseless claim increase.
Al Fani ends his discussion with the following:
On my life, this matter is clearer than yesterday and clearer than the sun. With this, it is clear that the text of Ibn Ibrahim only indicates to the reliability of his direct teachers—assuming we do not also investigate this matter further, as you know of its explanation.[17]
I pursued the number of narrators that have been criticized in Tafsir ‘Ali al Qummi and found that they reached thirty-eight. These narrators range from being majhul, or cursed, or mat’un (criticized), or weak, or muhmal (disregarded).
It is possible to invalidate this principle from its very foundation, rather, the entire Tafsir can be invalidated when considering its narrator. In the beginning of this Tafsir we find the statement:
حدثني أبو الفضل العباس بن محمد بن القاسم بن حمزة بن موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام قال: حدثنا أبو الحسن علي بن إبراهيم القمي
Abu al Fadl al ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn Hamzah ibn Musa ibn Jafar ‘alayh al Salam narrated to me — Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi narrated to us
Now, who exactly is this al ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn al Qasim? Jafar al Subhani stated:
مع الأسف , إنه لم يوجد لراوي التفسير ( العباس بن محمد ) ذكر في الأصول الرجالية
Unfortunately, there is no mention of the Tafsir’s narrator, al ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad, in the primary sources of narrator criticism!”[18]
Kazim al Ha’iri stated, “There is no mention of him in the books of narrator criticism.”[19]
After disputing the method in which several books—including Tafsir al Qummi—reached the latter-day scholars, Muhammad Asif Muhsini stated:
على أن مثل التفسير الموجود المنسوب إلى القمي إشكال آخر وهو جهالة مدوّنه الذي جمع بين روايات تفسير القمي وروايات أبي الجارود الزيدي
However, the likes of the existing Tafsir attributed to al Qummi is another issue. That is the recorder’s unawareness of the fact that he collected the narrations of both Tafsir al Qummi and Abu al Jarud al Zaidi.[20]
How great is Sa’ib ‘Abdul Hamid’s statement:
كيف يغيب عن كتب الرجال رجل يروي مثل هذا التفسير الكبير الذي ضم عدة مئات من الأحاديث المنسوبة إلى أهل البيت عليهم السلام ؟ ! ومثل هذا المأخذ السندي لا يمكن إغفاله والإعراض عنه كليا
How can a person who narrates the likes of this great Tafsir—which includes hundreds of ahadith attributed to the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam—be absent from the books of narrator evaluation? It is not possible to ignore nor totally disregard this type of egregious defect in the chain of narration.[21]
Baqir al Ayrawani states:
إن القمي وإن كان له كتاب باسم التفسير ولا يمكن التشكيك بذلك باعتبار أن النجاشي والطوسي قد نصا على وجود التفسير المذكور وذكرا إليه طريقا صحيحا ولكننا نشكك في كون التفسير المتداول اليوم هو نفس تفسير القمي، ونحتمل عدم كونه للقمي رأسا أو لا أقل بعضه للقمي و البعض الآخر قد دس فيه
Al Qummi, even though he has a book in the name of a Tafsir—this cannot be doubted considering the fact that both al Najjashi and al Tusi have documented its existence and mentioned an authentic chain to it—however, we doubt whether the Tafsir that is available today is the same Tafsir al Qummi. It is possible that it is not entirely al Qummi’s, or, at the very least, it is partially al Qummi’s and partially somebody else’s (work) inserted into it.[22]
Muhammad Asif Muhsini states an important principle that applies to many books, including Tafsir al Qummi:
إن صحة الطريق إلى كتاب مؤلف أمر وصحة أنتساب النسخة الموجودة إليه أمر آخر , فإن الأول إخبار مجردٌ عن فلان عن فلان بأن فلاناً ألف كتاب كذا كما يظهر ذلك من جميع الإجازات و الإسناد في آخر بحار الأنوار وكذا من فهرستي الشيخ و النجاشي في معظم منقولاتهما . و الثاني بحث صغروي مصداقي و أن هذه النسخة الموجودة تأليف فلان من غير زيادة ونقيصة و بينهما بون بعيد
Authentically establishing the chain to the work of an author is one thing and authentically attributing the existent copy to him is another. The former merely involves relaying information from person to person such that so-and-so a person wrote such-and-such a book, as is evident in all ijazat (formal documented permissions to transmit), and the isnad at the end of Bihar al Anwar, and the two Fihrists of al Sheikh and al Najjashi in most of their transmissions.
The latter is a minor, corroborative study that proves that the existent copy (of the book) is the authorship of so-and-so without any additions or omissions. There is a significant difference between the two.[23]
It can be said to the claimant of this principle: “Establish the throne (first) and then chisel away at it (i.e., establish the proof first then deconstruct it).”
The printed Tafsir represents a concoction between Tafsir al Qummi and Tafsir Ziyad ibn al Mundhir Abi al Jarud al A’ma al Sarhub, the leader of the Jarudiyyah.[24] Al Kashshi states, “(He is) reprehensible. And there is no doubt in his reprehensibility. He was named Sarhub after a blind shaitan that lives in the ocean.”[25]
Jafar al Subhani stated:
إن الاعتماد على هذا التفسير بعد هذا الاختلاف مشكل جدا , خصوصا مع ما فيه من الشذوذ في المتون . وقد ذهب بعض أهل التحقيق إلى أن النسخة المطبوعة تختلف عما نقل عن ذلك التفسير في بعض الكتب , وعند ذلك لا يبقى اعتماد على هذا التوثيق الضمني أيضا , فلا يبقى اعتماد لا على السند ولا على المتن
Relying on this Tafsir after this difference of opinion is very problematic, especially considering the anomalies that exist in the text. Some expert scholars have the view that the printed copy is different to what was transmitted of this Tafsir in some (other) books. In such an instance, the implicit tawthiq also ceases to remain and, accordingly, relying on the sanad and matn is no longer tenable.[26]
Muslim al Dawari undertook to count the number of narrators specific to Tafsir Abi al Jarud and he found them to be 438. As al Dawari held, these narrators do not fall under the tawthiq of al Qummi.
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi is one of the leaders of the Akhbariyyah, as documented by al Astarabadi (d. 1033 A.H):
The leader of the Akhbari scholars and doyen of the venerable, ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim. He is Thiqat al Islam and Sheikh al Islam. He mentions Muhammad ibn Yaqub al Kulayni—may Allah sanctify their souls—in the beginning of his Tafsir. It is an authentic Tafsir that can be relied-upon in the Shari’ah since all of it is taken from the infallibles ‘alayhim al Salam.[27]
It is clear to us that ‘Ali al Qummi is a leader from the leaders of the Akhbariyyah, those who consider their books to be (completely) authentic and taken from an authentic primary works. Therefore, his words in the introduction—if reliable—represent the Akhbari methodology. This methodology (broadly) states that their books are accompanied by internal and external evidence through which their authenticity can be established, irrespective of the individual conditions of each isnad’s narrators.
The strange thing is that al Khu’i—an opponent of this methodology—accepted the tawthiq of the narrators of al Qummi and shunned the remaining books of the Akhbariyyah that mention similar words to al Qummi’s, as attested to in the listing of books in which the respective authors documented their authenticity in the section that speaks about the tawthiq of al Najjashi’s teachers!
Therefore, there is a clear contradiction in making a distinction between the work of al Qummi and the remaining works of the Akhbari methodology. It is an attempt to separate something which is (normally) associated with one another.
Finally (and how strange and farfetched of a deduction it is!), what Jafar al Subhani has stated:
In al Qummi’s chain of narration, there are those among the Ummuhat al Mu’minin (Mothers of the Believers) that are unreliable. So, take note![28]
It is quite strange that al Subhani writes the words “Umm al Mu’minin (Mother of the Believers)” with his pen and then he goes on to count them among those who are not to be relied upon!