Apologies again for the long time since the last post – my excuse is inlaws and a trip abroad! Anyway, it seems that in general, people are less interested in the usul itself, only in its usage in determining rulings. With this in mind, I will return to fiqh istidlali (derivation of rulings) as I started, and where the most enthusiasm was. In previous blogs, I concentrated on Ayatullah Saanei’s works, due to their focus on contemporary issues. However, I think that it is important also to look at the great Ayatullah Khui, especially when discussing the derivation of fiqh rulings. His work is the culmination of years of research and one of a few of its kind, with over 40 volumes explaining his rulings. It is now so renowned that other scholars use it in their discussions. Syed Fadlallah, for example, uses it in his bahth kharij lessons, which I had the opportunity to attend. He reads parts of Syed Khui’s rulings, and then puts forward his point of view.
Regardless, I have decided to continue on my theme of contemporary issues and am going to look at a part of his work on Taqlid. Just a quick aside: the volume on taqlid is 370 pages long (that is the length of the commentary and reasoning of only a couple of pages worth of rulings!). On page 186, he discusses one of the conditions for becoming a mujtahid: being a man.
His derivation of this condition begins with reference to a narration by Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal who said:
Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Be careful that some of you do not bring others to trial in front of the people of injustice; instead, head the man* among you who knows…”
Wasa-`il al-Shi’a 27:13/Chapters of the pages on Judges, Chapter 1, Page 5.
(* = rajul [Arabic])
He discusses the chain of narration by starting with the final member of the chain Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal. When discussing chains of narration, the first port of call is always the scholars of rijal in the past: in particular, Najashi and Shaykh Tusi.
In Najashi’s rijal book (188/501), he considers Abu Khadija to be trustworthy. Shaykh Tusi in his Fahrast (his rijal book 79/327), considers him to be a weak narrator of hadith but according to Allama, he considers him trustworthy in another place. In addition, Abu Khadija is in one of the narrators of Ibn Qawlawayh’s Kamil al-Ziyarat, which is considered as a sufficient condition to be trustworthy (I can go into further detail as to why most Shi’i scholars consider this to be the case if anyone is interested). Now, when faced with potentially contradicting opinions on Abu Khadija, Ayatullah Khui considers the following options as to the timing of the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi:
Either the time of Shaykh Tusi’s consideration of Abu Khadija as weak and trustworthy was at the same time. In such a case, we could not consider either to be an authority, and we would be left with Najashi’s opinion of Abu Khadija being trustworthy.
Alternatively, if the consideration of Abu Khadija as trustworthy came after Shaykh Tusi’s previous opinion of him being weak, then his final opinion of trusworthiness is later is a relinquishing of his previous opinion.
Finally, if Shaykh Tusi’s opinion of Abu Khadija as weak came after his view of Abu Khadija as trustworthy, then it is again a relinquishment of his previous view, and against the view of Najashi.
As you cannot tell the order, there are doubts about his opinion of weakness, as you cannot be sure of the final position (the only one where Shaykh Tusi’s final view matters and is of weakness). Therefore, you cannot rely on the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi and you return to the opinion of trustworthiness of Najashi and others.
He does not consider there to be any issue with the rest of the chain of narration.
In the next blog, I will focus on the remainder of his derivation.
