You are on page 1of 22

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and

African Studies
http://journals.cambridge.org/BSO
Additional services for Bulletin

of the School of
Oriental and African Studies:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Early Shiite hermeneutics and the dating of Kitb


Sulaym ibn Qays
Robert Gleave
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies / Volume 78 / Issue 01 / February 2015, pp
83 - 103
DOI: 10.1017/S0041977X15000038, Published online: 17 March 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0041977X15000038


How to cite this article:
Robert Gleave (2015). Early Shiite hermeneutics and the dating of Kitb Sulaym ibn
Qays. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 78, pp 83-103
doi:10.1017/S0041977X15000038
Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/BSO, IP address: 128.122.149.154 on 18 Mar 2015

Bulletin of SOAS, 78, 1 (2015), 83103. SOAS, University of London, 2015.


doi:10.1017/S0041977X15000038

Early Shiite hermeneutics and the dating of Kitb


Sulaym ibn Qays
Robert Gleave1
University of Exeter
r.gleave@exeter.ac.uk

Abstract
The Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays, a collection of sayings attributed to Al b. Ab
T lib, was supposedly collected by the (otherwise unknown) Sulaym b.
Qays al-Hill (d. 76/678); the work is generally recognized as an important source for early Sh thought. There has been much debate, both within the Sh tradition and outside of it, over when its contents reached their
current form and how representative they were of Sh views in the early
centuries of Islam. Here, I take one passage from the Kitb Sulaym and set
it against the development of early Muslim hermeneutics in an attempt to
establish a tentative dating for this passage. The result is a dating between
late eighth century CE (second century AH) and the early ninth century CE
(early third century AH), roughly contemporary with, and perhaps
postdating the revolutionary hermeneutic work of Muhammad b. Idrs
al-Shfi (d. 204/820). This conclusion tallies, to some extent, with an
analysis of the reports various isnds.
Keywords: Shiism, Legal hermeneutics, Abrogation, Al b. Ab T lib

Introduction
In the introduction to The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam, Gerald
Hawting gives a brief account of his critical historical methodology, concluding
with the words:
Although to some it may seem that the following pages are mainly critical
and deconstructive . . . the message is not intended to be negative. On the
contrary, it is hoped that it furthers . . . more historically persuasive
approaches to the emergence of Islam as a religion.2

1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Mellon Islamic Studies Seminar,
University of Chicago, when I was visiting professor there, JanuaryMarch 2013. I
am grateful to the wonderful faculty and students of the departments of Divinity,
NELC and History of the University for hosting me with such hospitality. I am also
grateful to Professors Todd Lawson, Devin Stewart and Tahera Qutbuddin who acted
as discussants at the seminar, and made some pertinent suggestions which, I hope,
have improved the argument presented here. I also thank Mohammed Ali
Amir-Moezzi, who read an earlier version, giving very useful feedback, and the
BSOAS anonymous reader who saved me from some errors in presentation and argument.
2 G.R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (Cambridge, 1999), 19.

84

ROBERT GLEAVE

Hawtings important and impressive contribution to the study of early Islam is


sometimes viewed as primarily destructive, as he picks through the sources,
questioning their reliability. Such a characterization would, I think, be unjust:
Hawting, if I understand him correctly, aims to be constructive aiming to
develop a historically persuasive account from the available evidence. When
contemporary historical records are scarce (as with the emergence of Islam),
the historians task is to triangulate the evidence and propose credible accounts
of historical processes. If subsequent scholarship produces persuasive accounts
of the evidence, then one version is replaced by another. The crucial point is that
the account is, methodologically speaking, open to revision. Attempting to work
within Hawtings method, I present here the analysis and tentative dating of a
short passage found in a collection of early Sh hadth reports.
In its present published form, the Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays consists of ninetyone reports attributed to the first Sh Imam, Al b. Ab T lib (d. 40/661) and
transmitted through his disciple, Sulaym b. Qays al-Hill (d. 76/678). Sulaym
had, in turn, entrusted the book to Abn b. Ab Ayysh (d. c. 138/7556)
who is, according to the works exordium (muftatih), responsible for its dissemination. The process whereby the work survived the persecution of the Sha
under the famously cruel Umayyad governor of Iraq, al-H ajjj (d. 95/714) and
gained its current form is described in the muftatih. Abn invited Sulaym to
escape oppression and to leave Iraq for the city of Nawbandegn in southern
Fars. When Sulaym arrived, he proceeded to transmit to Abn reports from
Imam Al, the Companions of the Prophet and the early Imams, including
reports from Salmn al-Fris, Mudh b. Jabal and Ab Dharr. Abn was commanded not to pass on the work to anyone outside of trusted individuals (man
tathiqu bihi ka-thiqatika bi-nafsika those whom you trust as you trust yourself). One month before his death, Abn gave the book to his pupil Umar b.
Udhayna (d. c. 169/784), demonstrating its accuracy by saying that he had not
only read it back to Sulaym; he had also read it to the fourth Imam Al b.
al-H usayn al-Sajjd (d. 94/712). The Imam, on hearing the recitation, stated
Sulaym speaks the truth; these are the hadth we know.3 Furthermore, its contents had also been confirmed by the famous al-H asan al-Basr (d. 110/728). It is
this work, transmitted through Sulaym, Abn and Umar, which allegedly
formed the text of the Kitb Sulaym, and from which the manuscript tradition
of the collection developed. These manuscripts form the basis for the various
modern published editions of the Kitb Sulaym. The first edition was published
in 1361 AH (1942) in Najaf and was based on a manuscript supposedly belonging to the great Safavid hadth expert al-H urr al-mil (d. 1104/1693). The most
recent edition is a worthy publication by Muhammad Bqir al-Ansr al-Zanjn,
published in Qum in 1415 AH (1995) in three volumes with continuous page
numbering between the volumes. The set comprises a lengthy introduction (volume 1) in which the internal Sh debate as to the works history and authenticity are introduced; a text, constructed on the basis of fourteen manuscripts
(volume 2) and a very useful set of indexes (volume 3). The number of reports

3 Sulaym b. Qays al-Hill, Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays ed. Muhammad Bqir al-Ansr
al-Zanjn (Qum, 1415), II, 564.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

85

within the Kitb Sulaym is not consistent across the manuscript tradition, and the
various editions reflect this; I shall use the numbering from the latest Ansr edition. The reports themselves have many variants and versions, and Ansr gives
the transmission variants in his copious footnotes. I shall use the text in this edition as my principal source in the analysis below, though at times the variant
versions of the report are enlightening (and referred to in the footnotes).
The Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays (also referred to as the Asl Sulaym, and the Kitb
al-Saqfa in subsequent Sh tradition) has been the subject of some dispute
within the tradition, and has received a recent flourish of scholarly comment
in the secondary literature. Within the Sh tradition, the debate primarily concerns the authoritativeness of the work (that is, whether it can be trusted as a
source of doctrine).4 Part of the argument for the works doctrinal authority
is, of course, linked to its authenticity and correct attribution. Consequently,
scholars within the Imm tradition have investigated the evidence supporting
(or contradicting) the claims which the work makes for itself in its muftatih.
There are, however, separate and discrete questions to be addressed when discussing the authenticity of Kitb Sulaym, and these are rarely distinguished by
writers within the tradition. First, there is the issue of whether or not the material
is attributable to Al; then there are questions concerning individual reports
within the work and whether any can be individually traced back to Sulaym,
and beyond him to Imam Al; then there are the issues of when and how this
material was collected, and the extent of editing which occurred either during
or before the process of collection in a single volume entitled Kitb Sulaym
or some other locution. There are those within the Imm tradition who are
not willing to concede authenticity on any of these levels;5 there are many
who have trusted the work and considered it a sound source of religious doctrine;6 and there are various possible positions between these two extremes.
Western scholarship, from Goldziher onwards, has been almost unanimously
sceptical concerning the work.7 Recently Modarressi has stated that the work
is early (and in that sense it is an authentic expression of early Sh thought),
but not traceable to Al through Sulaym. Modarressi dates it to the period before
Abns death (that is, before 138/7556), and speculates that perhaps he is
responsible for its contents. The person of Sulaym b. Qays, however, is, for
Modarressi, a fiction, invented to give the anti-Umayyad critique an early provenance. For him, the material in the Kitb Sulaym in its current form represents
4 These are given full coverage by Ansr: Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, I, 10148.
5 Ibn al-Ghadir (d. 411/1020) and his rejection of the books authenticity is the best
known case. The debate is catalogued thoroughly by Ansr in his introduction. See
Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, I, 155200 (editors introduction).
6 Those who support its authenticity and its significance are listed by Ansr, Kitb
Sulaym, I, 10614, the last of whom was the famous Ayatallh Shihb al-Dn
al-Marash (d. 1990).
7 The earliest expression of scepticism is Goldzihers categorization of the Kitb Sulaym,
and other early Sh literature as pseudo-evidential, and saying that the Sha are even
more prone than orthodox Islam itself to refer back to apocryphal books. See I.
Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, Halle 188890, II, 1011 and Muslim Studies
(trans. C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, London 19689, II, 234). See also Moktar
Djebli, Sulaym b. K ays in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition.

86

ROBERT GLEAVE

the views of rank and file Kufan Sha in the (late) Umayyad period. Though the
text has been subject to addition and emendation over time (occasionally
unorthodox content has been corrected), Modarressi argues, at least part of
the original text can be restored.8 A similar position has been adopted by
Dakake.9 Amir-Moezzi, in a thorough bibliographical note, is a little less
hasty than Modarressi to dismiss the early history as a total fabrication; on
the other hand, he is less sanguine about the possibility of recovering the original
text since the alterations have effectively made the original unrecoverable.10
Modarressi considers the insertions and interpolations to be easily recognizable;11 Amir-Moezzi considers it difficult, perhaps impossible, to recover the
original text, such is the volume of accretions and alterations.12
Given that the work as a whole is problematic (or at least viewed as so), a
productive (though certainly time-consuming) approach might be to explore
the history of individual elements of the Kitb Sulaym, in order to build up a
picture of the development of the material within the book before its collection.
Crone has begun such an enterprise with her examination of the twenty-third
report within the Kitb Sulaym.13 She concludes the report is a fabrication, as
indicated by not only the anachronistic references to the Black Banners of the
Abbsids but also the Hashimite form of Shiism advocated in the text. She
opts for a composition date of sometime between the Abbsids coming to
power and 762, but in any case not after the 780s.14 As a tentative continuation of this approach, I have selected the first portion of the tenth report in
which Imam Al is asked by Sulaym about the opinions current amongst the
people concerning the interpretation of the Quran and the transmission of reports
from the Prophet (min tasfr al-qurn wa-min al-riwya an al-nab).15 The
report (or a version of it) is not only to be found within the Kitb Sulaym.
Variants can also be located in other early sources such as al-Kulayns
8 Hossein Modarressi, Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shite
Literature Volume 1 (Oxford, 2003), 826. Modarressi views this as the oldest surviving
Shite book.
9 Massi Maria Dakake, Love, loyalty and faith: defining the boundaries of the early
Shiite community, PhD dissertation, Princeton, 2000, 34656.
10 Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Note bibliographique sur le Kitb Sulaym b. Qays,
le plus ancien ouvrage shiite existent, in M.A. Amir-Moezzi, M.M. Bar-Asher and
S. Hopkins (eds), Le shisme Immte quarante ans aprs. Hommages Etan
Kohlberg (Paris, 2009), 3348. Amir-Moezzi has an extended examination in his Le
Coran Silencieux et le Coran parlant (Paris, 2011), 2762; with an English summary:
The silent Quran and the speaking Quran: history and scriptures through the study of
some ancient texts, Studia Islamica 108, 2013, 14374 (the Kitb Sulaym is discussed,
pp. 1469).
11 Modaressi, Tradition and Survival, 86.
12 Amir-Moezzi, Note bibliographique, 40.
13 P. Crone, Mawl and the Prophets family: an early Shite view, in Monique Bernards
and John Nawas (eds), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Leiden,
2005), 16794.
14 Crone, Mawl, 179.
15 For reasons that become clear below, I view the tenth report in the current edition of
Kitb Sulaym as a composite report, consisting of (at least) two separate reports. In
the following analysis, the report refers not to the whole of the tenth report, but
only to this first section.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

87

(d. 329/939) al-Kf, Ibn Bbawayhs (d. 381/991) al-Khisl and the Kitb
Tuhaf al-Uql of Ibn Shaba al-H arrn (fl. fourth/tenth century), always attributed to Sulaym, and transmitted through Abn. In the following analysis, I make
reference to these variants of the report, together with a version in the surviving
fragment of the Mukhtasar ithbt al-raja of al-Fadl b. Shdhn (d. 260/874).16
A version of the report makes an appearance in the Nahj al-Balgha (originally
collected by al-Sharf al-Rad (d. 406/1015)) as sermon 201 of Imam Al,
though there is extensive abbreviation and also some embellishment in that version.17 A textual analysis of the report, alongside its variants, set against the
early history of Muslim hermeneutics, enables us to propose, tentatively, a composition date for this part of the tenth report of Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays.

Kitb Sulaym ibn Qays: Report ten (First part)


In report 10 of the recent Ansr edition of Kitb Sulaym, Imam Al is asked
about the differences in transmission and Quranic interpretation found amongst
the people.18 In response, he lists the four (and only four) types of transmitter he
has identified. These I have named the hypocrite, the presumptuous, the mistaken and the reliable, and in the report each is given a short description of
their characteristics. These descriptions are significant for, as we shall see,
they presume a certain level of hermeneutic awareness. Only the fourth (the
16 Muhammad b. Yaqb al-Kulayn, al-Kf ed. Al Akbar Ghaffr (Tehran, 1363 Sh), I,
624; Ibn Bbawayh, al-Khisl ed. Al Akbar Ghaffr (Qum, 1403 AH), 2557; al-Fadl
b. Shdhn, Mukhtasar ithbt al-raja, ed. Bsim al-Msaw, printed in the journal
Turthun, XV, 193223 the report is found on pp. 20106; Ibn Shaba al-H arrn,
Tuhaf al-Uql ed. Al Akbar Ghaffr (Qum, 1404 AH), 1936. Below, I refer to them
for variants by the initials: Kulayn: K; Ibn Bbawayh: IB; Al-Fadl b. Shdhn: F;
and alH arrn: H . Tamima Bayhom-Daou has analysed the version found in
Kulayns al-Kf in her doctoral thesis, completed under the supervision of Professor
Hawting: The Imm Sh conception of the knowledge of the Imm and the sources
of religious doctrine in the formative period: from Hishm b. al-H akam to Kuln,
unpublished PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, 1996, 2009. Her dating of the report there, and in her contribution to this volume, is based primarily on treating the report as an integral whole; I prefer to distinguish
between this early section and the reports later, more extensive, section, as they draw on
quite different sources. There are some differences between the Kulayn version and that
found in the Kitb Sulaym which I refer to below. The Sh tradition also saw them as
detachable (hence, the various versions, including the Nahj al-Balgha, in which only
the first section is presented).
17 I will not here discuss in detail the Nahj al-Balgha variant (al-Sharf al-Rad, Nahj
al-Balgha, ed. Muhammad Abdh (Qum 1412 AH), II, 18991, no. 310); though it
is undoubtedly a version of this report, it shows extensive signs of adjustment and updating; this is important for the dating of the Nahj al-Balagha (a topic for another occasion),
but it does not shed much light on the history of the report within the Kitb Sulaym.
18 I have already discussed this report briefly in R. Gleave, Islam and Literalism: Literal
Meaning and Interpretation in Islamic Legal Theory (Edinburgh, 2011), 12830. This
article is, to an extent, a development of the arguments presented there. In addition to
the alternative translation of Bayhom-Daou found in this volume, and the translation
of the Kulayn version of the report in her PhD thesis, we have a French translation of
part of the report by Amir-Moezzi (Le Coran silencieux et le Coran parlant (Paris,
2011), 413).

88

ROBERT GLEAVE

reliable) can be trusted to transmit the reports; only this fourth type has mastery
of the hermeneutic skills necessary to ensure accurate transmission. The first part
of the report ends with a general summary of the hermeneutic categories within
the speech of the Prophet, which are (so Imam Al claims) identical with those
of Gods speech (i.e. the Quran). The second part of the tenth report tells of
Als relationship with the Prophet, and how he collected knowledge from
him; and also affirms Sulayms probity as a transmitter. The two parts were
probably originally separate and have been brought together within the Kitb
Sulaym. The first part of the report constitutes for al-Sharf al-Rad in the
Nahj al-Balgha, a separate integral unit which can be cited on its own merits
and does not need the second part found in the Kitb Sulaym version in order to
make a doctrinal contribution.
The version of this report in the Kitb Sulaym begins:
[Sulaym relates:] I said to Al, O Prince of believers, I have heard from
Salmn, Miqdd and Ab Dharr about the interpretation of the Quran and
reporting from the Prophet.19 Then I heard from you a confirmation of
what I had heard from them. I saw amongst the people many things concerning the interpretation of the Quran and the hadths from the Prophet
which differ from what I have heard from you. You claim that these are
false (btil, or invalid).20 Do you think the people have being fabricating,
lying intentionally about the messenger of God, and have interpreted the
Quran according to their own opinion?
[Al] came over and said to me, You have asked, so understand the
answer. In the hands of the people there is both valid and invalid (haqqan
wa-btilan), truthfulness and falsity (sidqan wa-kidhban), abrogating and
abrogated (nsikhan wa-manskhan), general and particular (mman
), decisive and ambiguous (muhkaman wa-mutashbihan), preserwa-khssan
vation and whimsy (hifzan wa-wahman).21
It could be argued, at the very outset, that the concern for understanding the
Quran and the transmission of the Prophetic Sunna must stem from a time
when these two had been established as the prime and indubitable pair of
sources for legal deduction. The dating of this has been much debated, but central to their establishment as sources was, of course, Muhammad b. Idrs
al-Shfi (d. 204/820). Without wishing to enter into that particular debate,

19 F, K, and IB have the inserted phrase I have heard from Salmn . . . reporting from the
Prophet different from that which is in the hands of the people emphasizing the point
that these three early Companions, stalwarts of Als cause, are at odds in their tafsr and
riwya from the rest of the Muslim community. H abbreviates this section considerably
and this element is not present.
20 F, K and IB read all of it (kullahu) is false, once again emphasizing the clear difference
between the Sha and the rest of the communitys interpretations and transmissions of
the Prophets message.
21 Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, II, 6201.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

89

the focus on Quran and Sunna within this report would at least push a likely context for its emergence to the latter half of the eighth century CE.22
Turning to the reports text in detail, the listings of category pairs are a
common means of presenting the findings of hermeneutic reflection. Most of
the pairings given here were taken up within the later hermeneutic tradition
and given technical definitions: sidq/kidhb, nsikh/manskh, mm/khss
and muhkam/mutashbih.23 They are well known and regularly found located
together (often with supplements, such as zhir/btin, haqqa/majz and
mutlaq/muqayyad) in later tafsr and usl works. The muhkam/mutashbih
pairing is, of course Quranic (Q. 3:7);24 the notion of naskh is less explicitly
(or easily) traced within the Quran;25 and while the other terms exist within
the Quran, they do not appear as hermeneutic categories, either individually
or in pairs. I would argue that the collocation of the categories here, as a list
of pairings into which revelatory material can be placed, probably reflects a
mature hermeneutic science, rather than any rudimentary exegetical theory of
the first century AH. This apparent anachronism hints at the report being considerably later than the period of Sulaym. An examination of whether the terms
(either individually or in pairs) are used in a manner congruent with later conceptions of (say) abrogation and particularization also indicate a point of formulation sometime after the turn of the second century AH (late eighth century CE).
The claim that the Prophets message, like the understanding of the Quran, has
been misunderstood, warped, or fabricated, is a common motif in Sh argumentation, and (it could be argued) forms the basis of the Sh position concerning the
22 On the establishment of Quran and Sunna as the two principal sources of law, and the
controversy around this establishment, see (among the many secondary source discussions): Z.I. Ansari, Juristic terminology before Shfi: a semantic analysis with special
reference to Kfa, Arabica 19, 1972, 255300; G.H.A. Juynboll, Some new ideas on
the development of sunna as a technical term in Early Islam, Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam 10, 1987, 97118; G. Hawting, The role of Qurn and H adth
in the legal controversy about the rights of a divorced woman during her waiting period
(Idda), BSOAS 52/2, 1989, 43045; J. Burton, Law and exegesis: the penalty for adultery in Islam, in G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef (eds), Approaches to the
Qurn (London, 1993), 26984; J. Lowry, Does Shfi have a theory of four sources
of law?, in B. Weiss (ed.), Studies in Islamic Legal Theory (Leiden, 2002), 2350.
23 One could also argue that the haqq/btil pairing was hermeneutic since it is found regularly in the Quran (Q. 2:42; 3:71; 8:8; 17:81; possibly 7:118); they do not, however,
appear to be categories for facilitating textual interpretation as such, but are rather general
categories relating to religious truth. The pairing (or one or the other terms) was, of
course, incorporated into fiqh and other sciences, though not so universally (btil, for
example, is often paired with sahh for valid/invalid). For more on pairs and pairing
in the Quran, see S. Schmidtke, Pairs and pairing, in Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.),
Encyclopaedia of the Qurn (Leiden, 200106), IV, 19.
24 L. Kinberg, Muhkamt and Mutashabiht (Koran 3/7), implication of a Qurnic pair of
terms in medieval exegesis, Arabica 35, 1988, 14372; S. Syamsuddin, Muhkam and
Mutashbih: an analytical study of al-T abars and al-Zamakhshars interpretations of Q.
3:7, Journal of Quranic Studies, 1/1, 1999, 6379; Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Quranic
hermeneutics: the views of al-T abar and Ibn Kathr, in Andrew Rippin (ed.),
Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurn (Oxford, 1988), 4662;
Gleave, Islam and Literalism, 689.
25 See J. Burton, The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation (Edinburgh,
1990), 81121.

90

ROBERT GLEAVE

deviant direction taken by the early Muslim community. Even the Prophet himself
knew about his message being changed by some of his supposed followers:
During the Prophets time, there were lies spread about him, such that
when he rose to give a sermon amongst them and said, O people. The
untruth told about me has increased. He who tells an untruth about me,
intentionally, will occupy his own place in the fire. Then there was
also untruth told about him after his death.
Here, the way in which one can avoid misrepresenting the Prophets message is
to be found through distinguishing between the various hermeneutic categories
listed above.
Al lists four hadth transmitter types: hypocrite, presumptuous, mistaken
and reliable. One could see the whole system of transmitter categorization as fitting in with a developing science of hadth criticism, something which only really became widespread after al-Shfi.26 Early lists of transmitter categories
establish abstract qualities of the transmitter combined with an assessment of
whether their hadth can ever be trusted. Clearly the categorization scheme in
Kitb Sulaym is part of a Sh polemic against their opponents, foregrounding
the notion of a single true transmitter of the Prophets Sunna. It becomes, then,
another expression of the Sh election motif and the total rejection of their
opponents positions. For this polemic to be maximally effective, however, it
presents itself as a twist on the existing categorization scheme, indicating
again a ninth-century CE development.27
When we focus on the exegetical theory which the report assumes, the obvious qualities of a trustworthy memory are supplemented by other qualities. As
will become clear, reliable transmitters should be able to understand and assess
the significance of the material they are transmitting. It is in the description of
these exegetical skills that the report reveals a hermeneutic science assumed
in the background.
Imam Al begins his description of the various categories with the statement:
The transmitters (muhaddithn) are four: only four individual types of
people who will bring you reports there is not a fifth.28
26 Al-Shfi himself lists the qualities of an acceptable transmitter (Muhammad b. Idrs
al-Shfi, al-Risla ed. Ahmad Shkir (Cairo, 1940), 370, para. 1001, and in relation
to comparing the reliability of transmitter, 4089, para. 12512). J. Lowry, Early
Islamic Legal Theory: The Risla of Muhammad ibn Idrs al-Shfi (Leiden, 2007),
1934. Listing the qualities of a reliable transmitter is one thing, setting up a categorization schema for hadth transmitters is, most likely, a later embellishment of the science.
27 The list in Ibn Ab H tim al-Rzs Taqdima, for example, was composed up to a century
after al-Shfi, and consists of a fivefold classification scheme. All except one category
of transmitter have their hadth accepted (though with varying degrees of reliability) in
contrast to the Kitb Sulaym, where only one category is acceptable. See E. Dickinson,
The Development of Early Sunnite Hadth Criticism: The Taqdima of Ibn Ab H atim
al-Rz (240/854327/938) (Leiden, 2001), 934.
28 It is tempting to see the emphatically explicit refusal to explore the possibility of a fifth
category as a rejection of the emerging fivefold categorization (such as that found in Ibn
Ab H tim). See above n. 27.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

91

The description of the first category the hypocrite is almost entirely polemic,
and clearly aimed at the opponents of the Sha:
He is a man who is a hypocrite, who is outwardly faithful, acting out his
Islam. He does not shun evil, nor does he restrain himself with regard to
sinning such that he intentionally lies about the Prophet. If the Muslims
knew he was a deceitful (kadhdhb) hypocrite, they would not accept anything from him, and would not affirm him as honest. But, they say, This is
a companion of the Prophet. He saw him, and listened to him and he does
not lie, and does not consider it permitted to lie about the Messenger.29
God has informed you about the hypocrites with what he said, and he
described them as he did. God said When you look at them, their bodies
enthral you, and when they speak, you listen to their words (Q. 63:4).
After [the Prophet], they are still present and have drawn close to the leaders of error, the ones who summon people to the fire with falsehood, lies,
hypocrisy and slander. They made them officers and judges over the peoples necks, and through them, they have consumed of the world. Except
for those whom God has protected, people will only support the kings of
this world. This is the first of the four types.
The passage tells us little about hermeneutics, but instead references a host of
established Sh themes: the rejection of the Companions of the Prophet as
assumed reliable transmitters, the connection between these false witnesses
and political power after the Prophets death, and the notion of the ones protected by God (the Imams and perhaps their Sha also) who are set apart
from the people (al-ns perhaps a reference to the non-Sha though this
is not the only possible interpretation). The target need not necessarily be the
Umayyads, though they would appear the most likely immediate candidate:
the repudiation could, though, be general and apply to all those who distort
the Prophets message. It is sentiments such as these which, most probably, persuade Modarressi to classify the Kitb Sulaym as an anti-Umayyad polemic.30
The second type of transmitter is described thus:
Another man hears something from the Prophet, but does not memorize it
exactly, and makes a personal presumption about it[s meaning] (wahama
fihi). He does not intend to lie whilst the [report] is in his hands; he transmits it and bases his actions on it, saying I heard this from the Messenger
of God. However, if the Muslims knew he had made this presumption
concerning it, they would not have accepted [it]. If he himself knew he
had made this presumption about it, he would [also] have discarded it.
29 F, K, H and IB add here the sentence They took from him, whilst not knowing his situation/character (akhadh anhu wa-hum l yarifn hlahu), which I take to be an indication that the people accept the word of a sahb without enquiring or investigating his
character that is, an insertion of the standard isnd critical criterion of adla for the
transmitter.
30 Modarressi, Tradition and Survival, 82.

92

ROBERT GLEAVE

Here, the transmitter fails to memorize the report exactly (al wajhihi as it
is or perhaps as it should be memorized), but instead presumes he knows
what it means and therefore presents his own version of its meaning (his own
wahm). He does this in an unthinking manner, unlike the hypocrite; and if he
had realized he was presenting it inaccurately he would have rejected it, as
would the Muslims if they had known. The implication here is that there is
no blame attached to him, but his report is to be rejected. There is a preference
for precise verbal transmission (rather than transmission of the assumed meaning
of the Prophets statement), but it is possible that someone who can accurately
understand the meaning of the report (i.e. without inserting his own wahm into
the transmission) may be able to transmit it in an acceptable form. It is possible,
from the above description, that a meaning-related transmission which compromises the precise wording of the report could still be a transmission al wajhihi. The presentation prefigures, of course, the pairing of lafz/manaw
(verbal/meaning-based) transmission, though the terminology is not used. I
return to this distinction below.
It is in the discussion of the third transmitter type that abrogation comes to the
fore. This transmitter, it appears, does not take note of the occurrence of abrogation (naskh):
The third man hears the Prophet order a thing, and then he forbids it, and
he [the transmitter] does not know. Or he hears him forbid a thing and then
order it, and does not know. He preserves (hafiza) the manskh but does
not preserve the nsikh, but if he had known it was manskh, he would
have rejected (rafada) it. If the Muslims had known it was manskh
when they heard it, then they would have rejected it.31
Exactly what the transmitter does not know is not clear, but from the context, it
seems most likely that he does not know of the Prophets later order (or prohibition) and hears only the first. It is possible that what is meant here is a more
radical misunderstanding of the process of naskh namely that he hears both
order and the prohibition but takes the first because he does not understand
the procedure of abrogation, preserving the manskh rather than the nsikh. If
he had known it was manskh (i.e. if he had known how naskh operates), he
would have rejected it. In either case, there is a clear assumption of a developed
notion of abrogation: a later ruling abrogates an earlier ruling; the earlier ruling
is rejected (rafada). Rejected is, perhaps, stronger than al-Shfis left/abandoned (taraka), and may reflect a polemic edge to the rejected ruling.32
There is no indication here that the Sunna could abrogate the Quran (or vice
versa), and perhaps an implicit rejection of this mode of naskh: the Sunna is portrayed as only abrogating the Sunna. This view (that there is no inter-source
abrogation), as is well-known, was advocated by al-Shfi, and was apparently
31 Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, II, 623.
32 Al-Shfi, Risala, 122, para. 361, may not reflect a fully established terminology for
abrogation when he writes man nasakha taraka fardahu. Ibn Ab H tim, al-Jarh
wa-al-tadl (Cairo, 1979), I, 10 uses taraka for the rejection of the weak transmitters
hadth.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

93

viewed as novel when he proposed it.33 There is no explicit reference to one distinction which became central to later theories of naskh: that between text and
ruling. In later writings of legal theory (usl al-fiqh) the abrogation of the ruling
but not the text was entertained as a possible mode of naskh. This idea was not
fully exploited by al-Shfi, though there are indications that he accepted the
possible naskh of the text, but not of the ruling.34 In Kitb Sulaym the text
and ruling appear bound up and, if identified as manskh, are to be rejected
together. For the Muslims who hear the report, on the other hand, it is not so
clear whether it is the ruling they are rejecting or the report containing it. The
phrase concerning their possible reaction (If the Muslims had known it was
manskh. . .) is ambiguous.35 The distinction does not appear as a universally
assumed element of naskh in the presentations of either al-Shfi or Kitb
Sulaym, perhaps indicating they are working with the same, proto-hermeneutic
assumptions. In sum, then, the discourse of the naskh process described in
this report in the Kitb Sulaym reflects the debate as it stood at the time of
al-Shfi, sharing some (though not all) of the emerging technical terminology
of Muslim hermeneutics.
The last transmitter type, whose reports alone are to be trusted, is one who
memorizes (or preserves) a saying exactly as it should be (hafiza m samia
al wajhihi), and does not add to or omit anything from what he has heard:

33 See John Burton, Those are the high flying cranes, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15,
1970, 250; al-Shfi is understood to hold the possibly solitary view (Lowry, Early
Islamic Legal Theory, 90) that only Quran can abrogate Quran, and Sunna abrogate
Sunna. Later usls, including Shfis, were quite accepting of inter-source abrogation.
I would think that prolonging the debate around the dating of al-Shfis al-Risla (see
below n. 59, n. 60 and n. 61) would not be particularly productive without the discovery
of new sources from the third/ninth century. There are few who defend Calders more
radical redating now, the last being Christopher Melchert (Ch. Melchert, Qurnic abrogation across the ninth century: Shfi, Ab Ubayd, Muhsib and Ibn Qutaybah, in
Bernard G. Weiss (ed.), Studies in Islamic Legal Theory (Leiden, 2002), 7598). The
abridgement of the Risla by his pupil al-Buwayt in which sections of the Risla are
cited or referred to with no significant difference in terminology and theoretical structure
seem to make the redating to later in the third/ninth century extremely unlikely. See
Ahmed El-Shamsy and Aron Zysow, Al-Buwayts abridgment of al-Shfis Risla:
edition and translation, Islamic Law and Society 19/4, 2012, 32755.
34 See Burton, Sources, 1568 regarding the number of sucklings required to establish a
marriage bar. Burton, it could be argued, is trying to map (perhaps too forcefully) the
structure of later naskh theories (here naskh al-tilwa dn al-hukm) onto al-Shfis theory. The notion does not, I would argue, play a significant role in al-Shfis Risla. See
below n. 45.
35 It could, of course, be argued that the discussion of texts being abrogated rather than rulings (bound up with naskh al-hukm bidn al-tilwa the abrogation of the rulings but
not recitation) is only relevant for Quranic passages and not, as is the focus here,
Prophetic reports. It is not clear from the version in Kitb Sulaym whether the report
of the abrogated Prophetic ruling or the ruling contained within the report is rejected
(rafada) the text could be read in either way: hafiza al-manskh wa-lam yahfaz
al-nsikh, fa-law alima annahu manskh la-rafadahu wa-law alima al-muslimna
annahu manskh idh samihu l rafadhu. For the transmitter himself, it would seem
the earlier ruling is rejected; for the Muslims, it might be argued they reject both the
report and the ruling contained within it.

94

ROBERT GLEAVE

The fourth man does not lie about God, nor does he lie about the Prophet,
hating lying out of fear for God and in order to exalt Gods messenger; he
is not mistaken.36 Rather, he preserves what he hears as it should be (al
wajhihi); he brings it just as he heard it; he does not add anything, nor does
he take anything away. He preserves37 the abrogating from the abrogated,
and acts on the abrogating, and discards the abrogated.38
The lafz/manaw distinction is, once again, the most obvious reference here,
though the terminology is not used. It is possible that al wajhihi (as it is,
as it should be) does not mean precise verbatim transmission, but in a way
that perfectly preserves the meaning or some such locution. However, the
rest of the description, including the phrase he brings it just as he heard it;
he does not add anything, nor does he take anything away, would indicate,
as in the description of the second type, a preference for lafz transmission.
As already mentioned, the requirement to transmit verbatim rather than by meaning seems to have been a minority position at the time of al-Shfi. Al-Shfi
has some concerns about it, but he does not dwell on it at length. Indeed, the
debate expressed throughout his al-Risala around the ability of reports of limited
transmission (ahd) to act as proof is not so much around the wording/meaning
debate (there is an implicit acceptance of wording variants being non-fatal to the
epistemological chances of a report). Rather it concerns an acceptance that
reports of limited transmission may fail to reach one type of certainty, but
have sufficient probative force to be used as legal sources.39 That absolute certainty as to precise wording was not a requirement for utility in the later hadth
sciences is well known40 and the lafz/manaw distinction appears to have been
fully discussed (and occasionally problematized) only later in the development
of that science.41 The lafz/manaw discussion is not entirely absent from
al-Shfis discussion, however, though the discussion is naturally rather
36 lam yawham. K reads he does not forget it; IB has he is not inattentive, though these
appear as orthographic variants (lam yansahu; lam yashu). The Nahj al-Balgha reads
he is not mistaken (lam yaham). H has he is not deluded ( yatawahham) nor does
he forget, combining the two variants.
37 K and IB record known (alima) here rather than preserves (hafiza) indicating he
knows the difference between the abrogating and the abrogated. In the Nahj
al-Balgh, the process of adjustment to the established theory of naskh is complete:
He preserved the abrogating and acts on it, and preserves the abrogated, but avoids it
( janabahu) (Al-Sharf al-Rad, Nahj al-Balgha, II, 190).
38 Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, II, 623.
39 See Jonathan Brown. Did the Prophet say it or not? The literal, historical and effective
truth of Hadiths in Sunni Islam, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 139, 2009,
25985.
40 Wael Hallaq, The authenticity of prophetic Hadith: a pseudo-problem, Studia Islamica,
90, 1999, 7590.
41 Juynboll writes that the mutawtir lafz and mutawtir manaw distinction was only
fully exploited in the hadth sciences from the time of Ibn al-S alh al-Shahrazr (d.
643/1245) when it was defined precisely what the term [mutawtir] actually stood
for. . .. The introduction of the terminology may be late, of course, but this does not
mean that the lafz/manaw distinction was not known (and expressed implicitly or
even explicitly) at some earlier date. G. Juynboll, (Re)appraisal of some terms in
H adth science, Islamic Law and Society, 8, 2003, 327.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

95

rudimentary compared to the sophistication of the later tradition. For example,


al-Shfi expresses some concern that a transmitter summarizing a report
might change meaning:
[The hadth transmitter] should know what might change the meaning of
the report from the wording, and that he should be someone who transmit
the report according to the words just as he heard [them] ( yuadd
al-hadth bi-hurfihi ka-m samia).42
The categories of lafz and man, though, are not fully worked out in his
al-Risla, and in other places al-Shfi indicates that transmission which retains
context, even if it is non-verbatim, is preferable to accurate verbal transmission
which ignores context and thereby distorts meaning.43
The insistence on lafz transmission in the Kitb Sulaym appears, then, as an
implicit criticism of (and reaction to) the opinion of the majority who allow
manaw transmission. However, the report does not contain the technical terminology which later became standard, and this may indicate the report predates
the wholesale incorporation of the terminology (and perhaps also the concepts)
of lafz and man into the analysis of juristic thought. Once again, a late eighth
or early ninth century CE context is the most natural one for explaining the
hermeneutic assumptions within the report.
This fourth reliable transmitter type also has other characteristics: he knows
the abrogating and the abrogated, and acts on the former, discarding the latter.
This is the characteristic which is lacking in the second transmitter type (referred
to and discussed above). When analysing the ideal type of transmitter being constructed here, the individual is portrayed as knowing not only that a later ruling
abrogates an earlier ruling (i.e. he is familiar with the theory of naskh); he also
knows how to identify which reports abrogate and which are abrogated, and he
preserves only the nsikh. This skill is not simply a matter of knowing the relative dates of the reports; it requires the transmitter to recognize that the two
reports cannot possibly be reconciled and are in direct contradiction. For
naskh to be operative, the two orders under examination need to address precisely the same legal subject such that accepting one means the rejection of the
other. To carry out this identification process requires a certain level of hermeneutic skill, and it was a lack of this skill (rather than a faulty memory or any
mendacity) which made the second transmitter type unacceptable. It is, then,
presented as a decisive criterion for the acceptability of a transmitter, and establishes that his transmissions are acceptable in contrast to the second and third
types.
Furthermore, the phrase He preserves the abrogating from [or instead of, or
out of] the abrogated, (hafiza al-nsikh min al-manskh) implies that the

42 Al-Shfi, Risla, 370, para 1001. The rest of this paragraph combines a stipulation for
verbatim transmission with a full understanding of meaning both being prerequisites for
sound transmission. This is, effectively, the same position as that argued for in the Kitb
Sulaym report.
43 See Lowry, Early Islamic Legal Theory, 127.

96

ROBERT GLEAVE

nsikh is preserved and the manskh is not.44 The final phrase of this description
maintains that the manskh is to be rejected/discarded (wa-rafada al-manskh).
The idea that there is no need to preserve the abrogated Sunna is not tackled in
later usl with quite the same precision as that relating to the abrogated Quran.
The abrogated elements of the Quran, of course, have ritual importance as elements of Gods revelation, but have no legal relevance. With regard to the
Sunna, the discussion was probably not as pressing since very little of the
Sunna was (in later terminology) qat al-wurd (of certain provenance).45
The transmitter here does not even bother to remember the abrogated, because
the purpose of the transmitter is not to record everything the Prophet said, but
only to record that which is legally relevant. The transmitter, with his knowledge
of naskh, becomes the gatekeeper to the Sunna in that he knows what to preserve
and what to reject. He has the qualities, then, of a jurist rather than a simple
transmitter. As with the lafz/manaw distinction, the report rejects a mainstream
position in this case, it was the division between jurists and hadth transmitters
which was becoming more widely recognized in the late eighth century.46 The
report is clearly participating in a debate which emerged much later then the
seventh century CE.
In the closing paragraph of this first section of the report, three scriptural category pairings are said, by Al, to apply to both elements of revelation, the
Quran and the Sunna: nsikh/manskh, mm/khss and muhkam/mutashbih.
There is no engagement with the thorny issue of whether the Quran can abrogate
the Sunna referenced above or the equally widely discussed idea that the two
sources can particularize each other (which al-Shfi discussed in detail in
al-Risla). Nevertheless, the pairings and an established theory (though not
fully expressed) underlying them are implied here. Overall, there is a recognition
that these categories need to be employed in order to understand what God
and the Prophet mean in their statements. The mm/khss distinction receives
particular treatment:
The orders of the Prophet and his prohibitions are like the Quran with
abrogating and abrogated, general and particular, decisive and ambiguous.
The speech which comes from the Prophet is of two types. There is the
44 It could mean that they are kept separate from one another, or that the manskh is not
discarded as such, but is no longer considered relevant (but why then contrast it with
the preservation of the abrogated?); hafaza min is perhaps an unusual construction; the
variant in K and IB of alima min is certainly more natural, and would indicate to distinguish one thing from another.
45 The naskh process was always a matter of juristic opinion, and was hardly demonstrated
with such a level of certainty that the proposed abrogated hadth could be discarded and
forgotten. It is, after all, rulings which are abrogated and not texts, and there was rarely
going to be consensus that a report from the Prophet need not even be remembered: see
W. Hallaq, A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunn usl al-fiqh
(Cambridge, 1997), 69.
46 I.e. that the two parties of ashb al-ray and the ashb al-hadth were nascent in the
mid-eighth century, and fully developed by the mid-ninth century as separate parties
(with al-Shfi attempting to steer a middle course between them). C. Melchert,
Traditionist-jurisprudents and the framing of Islamic law, Islamic Law and
Society, 8, 2001, 383406.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

97

particular speech and general speech, like the Quran.47 One who does not
comprehend48 what God means by it, or what the Messenger of God
means by it, [simply] hears [the speech].49
From this rather scant description, identifying whether a statement of the Prophet
or God is general or particular is central to recognizing the intended meaning. If
one is unable to recognize this (and simply hears the speech), then the meaning drawn from the statement will not be the same as the intended meaning.50
The hermeneutic apparatus to make sense of this statement is relatively developed: there is a meaning which a text has in and of itself (its literal meaning,
for want of a better term), and this literal meaning may be different from the
intended meaning; to gain access to the former (literal meaning), one needs
a knowledge of the language (this is what those who simply hear understand
by the statement); to gain access to the latter one needs an interpretative skill:
the ability to distinguish the mm from the khss. The passage ends with a
dig at some of the companions (a recurrent Sh theme) who did not always
understand what the Prophet was saying:
Not all the Companions of the Messenger used to ask him questions, and
understand. There were amongst them some who asked but did not seek to
understand so much so that they used to love it when a stranger or a bedouin used to come and ask the Prophet [a question] so that they might hear
[the answer] from him.51
The first part of the statement is a simple rejection of the innate ability of the
companions to understand the Prophets message, and represents a clear element
of Sh polemic in the text. The second part, referencing the visit of the Bedouin
or stranger, is possibly a continuation of this polemic tone, as the Companions
could not understand the Prophets words, and perhaps were too embarrassed to
ask for clarification. Consequently, they were pleased when someone else asked,
and they avoided revealing their ignorance. It could be interpreted as exhibiting
the belief amongst the early grammarians that the language of scripture (hadth
included) was to be understood as an instantiation of the perfect Arabic language, and hence ambiguities and difficulties can be solved through reference
to this linguistic corpus. The companions liked it when a bedouin came to
ask the Prophet questions, as they would be able to hear him converse with
the Prophet and perhaps later ask him what the Prophet meant. The bedouin
47 F, IB and K all insert a Quranic quote here, saying, God says in his book, What the
messenger brings you, take it, and what he prohibits you, prohibit it. (Q. 59:7). For
a full discussion of the early development of the mm/khss distinction, up to and
including al-Shfi, see H. Tillschneider, Die Entstehung der juristischen
Hermeneutik (usl al-fiqh) im fruhen Islam (Wurzburg, 2006).
48 lam yarif F, K and IB have an addition and does not know (lam yadri); H has instead
the insertion and does not know (lam yalam).
49 Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, II, 623.
50 m an bihi Allh wa-m an bihi rusl Allh H makes this explicit: he preserves/
remembers [the report] but he does not understand [it] (lam yafham).
51 Sulaym b. Qays, Kitb Sulaym, II, 624.

98

ROBERT GLEAVE

and the Prophet shared the same linguistic code. The rather dim-witted companions were not blessed with total competence in this ability. An alternative interpretation might be that the bedouin lacked the timidity of the companions when
faced with a prophetic statement they did not understand. Under either interpretation, however, the portrayal of the companions is generally negative. While
these assumptions became standard grammatical doctrine in later years, the linguistic self-awareness required to carry out such an analysis was really only
developing very late in the Umayyad period, and reached the level of maturity
displayed in this passage from Kitb Sulaym only in the early Abbsid period.52
It is of course possible that the description here is a veiled polemic. Perhaps,
only the Imam fulfils the criteria of this fourth transmitter type, and the Imam
(according to some Sh doctrines) has complete knowledge of the Sunna.
The Imam, then, can discard elements of the Sunna without the fear that his
judgement as to them being abrogated is potentially incorrect. I would consider
such a reading as possible, but unlikely to have been part of the original formulation, as the text appears to be exhorting Sulaym to be choosy about whose
reports he selects. If this meant only those transmitted through Al, one
would have expected a more straightforward way of expressing this notion.
Furthermore, the emergence of the Imam as the ultimate arbiter of the correct
interpretation of the Prophets Sunna took some time to develop in Sh (particularly Imm) thought, and really only became established as mainstream in
the late ninth century.
If the basic message of the report is that only the Imams can transmit the
Prophets Sunna since only they have knowledge of these categories, then
Al is, effectively, putting himself precisely in this role of a companion who
always understood what the Prophet meant. Al could distinguish the general
from the particular and the abrogating from the abrogated, and perhaps the implication here is that the other companions could not. It would seem that Al (and
by implication perhaps the Imams after him) are to be viewed as the archetypal
perfect transmitters of the Prophets Sunna. But even if this is so, there is no
indication in the report that the ability to transmit perfectly is exclusively held
by the Imams. Indeed reliable transmission seems to consist of (first) a technical
(and hence learnable) skill (to remember words as they are spoken), and (second) an intellectual ability (knowledge of the Arabic language and being able
to distinguish the general from the specific). The strictly behavioural criterion
(i.e. moral probity or adla), which became a central element in ilm al-rijl,
is only hinted at here (viz. the transmitter acts on the basis of the abrogating
and not the abrogated, and hence he acts in conformity with the law). There
is no indication in the report that some sort of divine knowledge, exclusively
available to the chosen Imams, is necessary to transmit the Sunna reliably. As
I have argued elsewhere, the need to present the Imams hermeneutical tools
as available for the general community of Sh exegetes is a relatively late
development, perhaps coinciding with the period of lesser occultation.53
52 Gleave, Islam and Literalism, 6393.
53 See R. Gleave, Early Sh hermeneutics: the exegetical techniques attributed to the
Sh Imams, in K. Bauer (ed.), Aims, Methods and Contexts of Quranic Exegesis
(2nd/8th9th/15th c.) (London, 2013), 14172.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

99

In sum, then, the reliable transmitter in this report is more than simply someone who can memorize the words he hears faultlessly: he has exegetical skills,
such as his ability to recognize the processes of abrogation and particularization
occurring. Indeed, this ability is what distinguishes him from the other transmitter types, who either mendaciously warp the Prophets words, or simply fail to
understand them. In the report, the ideal transmitter is also an accomplished exegete. The establishment of an intellectual justification for community members
other than the Imams being authoritative exegetes is traditionally viewed as a
ghayba development (i.e. late ninth, early tenth century). If, as I have argued,
this element of the report is best dated as emerging in the late eighth/early
ninth century (based on its level of hermeneutic sophistication), then the report
becomes indirect evidence for the attempted establishment of an alternative
religious authority source (what might be called the proto-ulam amongst
the Sha) in the period immediately following the Ismaili schism.54 From the
perspective represented by this report, the Imams certainly have these exegetical
skills, but they do not necessarily have exclusive claim over them; and if
others can acquire them, then they cannot just transmit the Sunna but must
also offer its correct interpretation. The tension between scholarly authority
and that of the Imam, which became a prevalent theme in later Sh jurisprudence and theology, is nascent (perhaps latent) here in the report in the Kitb
Sulaym b. Qays.
The content of the first section of the tenth report appears, then, as a rather
audacious attempt to attribute to Al knowledge and mastery of exegetical techniques and a level of hermeneutic sophistication which came into existence in
the late eighth/early ninth century. Having said that, there are points in the
text where the fit between the use of technical terminology and concepts within
later Muslim hermeneutic understanding and those found in the report is not perfect. This perhaps indicates that the appropriate context in which to view the
report is the early formative period of hermeneutic thinking in the Muslim religious sciences (namely the late eighth and early ninth century CE), rather than the
fully flourished theoretical awareness one finds in tenth-century works of tafsr
and usl al-fiqh.

The reports isnd


Isnd analysis is an exacting, and at times a rather inconclusive exercise.
Nonetheless, it is worth examining whether anything relevant to the dating of
the report can be learned from the isnds available for this report. If one uses
every available isnd from every available source, then one has a total of fourteen isnds attached to segments of variants of report 10 in the Kitb Sulaym b.
Qays. The various isnds of the report are shown in Figure 1.55

54 For example of the rijl portrayed as differing from the Imams, and attempting to establish for themselves a separate scholarly authority, see L. Takim, The Heirs of the
Prophet: Charisma and Religious Authority in Shiite Islam (Albany, 2006), 959.
55 These are conveniently gathered by Ansr. Kitb Sulaym, III, 97074.

100
ROBERT GLEAVE

Figure 1. The isnds of the report in the Kitb Sulaym b. Qays

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

101

Following the methodology of Juynboll (itself a disputed approach to isnd


analysis),56 it would appear that Ibn Udhayna (death date not known, but a companion of either or both Imams al-S diq (d. 148/765) and Kzim (d. 182/798)) is
the common link, which would fit with the account of his reception and then
distribution of the Kitb Sulaym from Abn (d. c. 138/7556) outlined in the
introduction. If we are to credit Ibn Udhayna with the reports circulation, this
would be some forty to fifty years earlier than the dating, arrived at in the
above analysis, based on the reports matn. The two isnds which branch off
from Abn (found in collections by al-Karjik (d. 449/1057) and al-H askaf
(d. 551/115657)) should probably be seen as dives ( pace Juynboll), since
Ibn Udhayna is considered weak.57 H ammd b. s (d. 209/8245 or 208/
8234) possibly acts as a secondary common link: he provided al-Fadl b.
Shdhn, al-Kulayn (d. 329/941) and Ibn Bbawayh (d. 381/991) with the
embellishments noted in the footnotes above. The problem with such an analysis
is that al-Fadl does not count Ibn Udhayna as one of his transmitters, preferring
to go with the less popular, but rival third link of Ibrhm b. Umar al-Yamn
(who, according to many Sh isnds relates Imams al-S diq (d. 148/765) and
Kzim (d. 182/798), as well as from Sulaym directly). H ammd b. s could
be the actual common link, and Ibn Udhayna is an apparent common link, in
that he provides us with the earliest three versions of the report (al-Fadl b.
Shdhn, al-Kulayn and Ibn Bbawayh) and it is only later that Ibn Udhayna
is made to spawn the versions of al-H askaf, al-Numn (d. 360/971) and
al-Kashsh (d. c. 340/951). A further complication is al-S affrs (d. 290/903)
isnd found in Basir al-Darajt, a work which predates both al-Kulayn
and Ibn Bbawayh. Though here, it could be argued that his citation is of
only a few lines from the middle section of the report and not the report as a
whole: the citation is partial and does not relate to the hermeneutic first section
discussed above, and so can be disregarded in isnd analysis. The real difficulty
is the version found in the Nahj al-Balgha which, as already mentioned, without an isnd, bears a resemblance to the other versions examined here, but
shows extensive rewording and textual adjustment in order to ensure it conforms
more obviously with later notions of mm/khss and nsikh/manskh.
In the end, though, I am not sure the isnd analysis facilitates even an
approximate dating. It could, perhaps, provide some indication of the original
circulation of the report by H ammd b. s, who was abandoned by a later generation of hadth specialists in favour of Umar ibn Udhayna as the primary
source of the report. If H ammd is responsible, then his dates (i.e. d. 209/
8245 or 208/8234) would fit with the matn analysis carried out above. But
the result does seem, to me at least, rather speculative.

56 G.H.A. Juynbolls extensive study of isnds often makes for a challenging read. For an
overview of his method, see his General overview in his Encyclopaedia of Canonical
Hadith (Leiden, 2007), xviixxxii.
57 A dive is an attempt to circumvent a weak transmitter in an isnd by leap-frogging him
and providing an entirely new chain from someone nearer to the supposed source. See
Juynboll, Encyclopaedia of Canonical Hadith, xxiixxiii.

102

ROBERT GLEAVE

Conclusions
From the above, a tentative history of the report in question is proposed, from
initial circulation in the early ninth century (or at the earliest, the late eighth century), attributed to Sulaym, and subsequently inserted into al-Fadl b. Shdhns
Mukhtasar ithbt al-raja. This would make the reports origins slightly later
than report 23 (in Ansrs edition), if Crones dating is accepted. Initial
circulation was followed by minor adjustments before inclusion in alKulayns al-Kf and Ibn Bbawayhs al-Khisl. The variants tend to show a
greater level of agreement amongst al-Fadl b. Shdhn, al-Kulayn and Ibn
Bbawayh and in most cases, these versions show signs of updating to fit
in with doctrinal developments (in, for example, the theories of naskh, mm/
khss and the evaluation of the transmitters skills). This would indicate that
the Kitb Sulaym predates these versions.
Isnd analysis could indicate that some of this activity (perhaps the initial
circulation, more likely the pre-Kulayn textual adjustment) was associated
with H ammd b. s. After the occultation, the text is subjected to extensive
rewording as the Sh doctrine (particular legal hermeneutics) stabilizes, with
its eventual format being included in al-Sharf al-Rads Nahj al-Balgha.
The primary evidence within this historical sketch is, then, that the hermeneutic awareness found within the report indicates its formulation at, or perhaps
just before the revolutionary work of al-Shfi. This can be gauged by numerous
elements. First, there is the assumption that Quran and Sunna are the only
sources of law a position which is intimately associated with al-Shfi, notwithstanding the attempt to backdate it to earlier jurists. Second, there is the phenomenon of category pairings being listed together, as a sort of summary of the
state of the revelatory corpus. Listing the available exegetical tools in this manner reveals a degree of hermeneutic awareness which one finds in embryonic
form in the writings attributed to al-Shfi and, in particular, in his the Kitb
al-Umm.58 This might push the reports initial circulation further into the
ninth century, but this would, perhaps, be too speculative. It should be noted
that I am not, here, arguing that mm and khss as technical terms, and as a
pair, were only evident from al-Shfi onward. I concur with Lowry that they
were probably paired sometime in the late eighth century, and entered the juristic
vocabulary then.59 Rather, my argument is that the listing of these hermeneutic
categories together, as a sort of tool box for the exegete, shows a level of interpretative self-awareness that is most likely to have emerged contemporary with
(and arguably after the impact of) the work of al-Shafi. If these texts of
al-Shafi can be securely dated to his lifetime (contra Calders suspicions of
58 Al-Shafi in his Kitb al-Umm produces short lists of hermeneutic categories (see, for
example, Muhammad b. Idrs al-Shfi, Kitb al-Umm (Beirut, 1403), VII, 16, 92,
289 and 360). Though there is no list in the Risla, the collocation of sections examining
the pairings (not just mm/khss but nass/ jumla also) would seem to imply a bracketing
of these techniques. The listing receives more thorough coverage (and integration into an
overall legal theory) in the tenth century see for example Ab Bakr al-Jass s, al-Fusl
fi usl al-ahkm (Istanbul, 1994), I, 129, and his Ahkm al-Qurn (Beirut, 1995), I, 71.
59 J. Lowry, The legal hermeneutics of al-Shfi and Ibn Qutayba: a reconsideration,
Islamic Law and Society, 11, 2004, 78.

EARLY SHIITE HERMENEUTICS AND THE DATING OF KITB SULAYM IBN QAYS

103

organic growth),60 then this report shows a similar (and perhaps even higher)
level of hermeneutic sophistication. Hence the most appropriate context against
which to understand the report is the late eighth/early ninth century CE, contemporaneous with (or perhaps a little later than) the challenge posed by al-Shfis
new hermeneutics.61 Second, there is the understanding demonstrated within the
report of the hermeneutic mechanisms associated with these terms. Here, there
are similarities with the interpretative currency of the tenth century, but also
more than a little disjuncture. For example, the earlier versions of the report
(Kitb Sulaym, al-Fadl, al-Kulayn, Ibn Bbawayh) indicate an understanding
of naskh in which the manskh is viewed as useless and hence not preserved
by the transmitter. This position contrasts with later theory which consistently
holds (across the various schools) that the manskh is preserved but cannot
form the basis for action. This would indicate that in this early form, the report
at least pre-dates the flourishing of legal theory in the tenth century. This and
other phrasings which might indicate deviation from standard hermeneutic practice are cleaned up in the version present in the Nahj al-Balgha.
If this version of the historical development of the report is accepted (even
with minor adjustments), then there is an interesting corollary. The report
seems to indicate that the activity of accurately preserving the Prophets
Sunna requires not just technical skills of memorization, but also the ability to
recognize the legal significance of the material being preserved. This is why
the fourth reliable transmitter type not only remembers verbatim what was
said, but also is able to distinguish the nsikh from the manskh and the
mm from the khss. Whilst the Imam may be the only true transmitter of
the material implied here, it is not obvious and the mastery of the hermeneutic
mechanisms described seems generally available to those who correctly apply
themselves to the task. Al-Shfi himself recognizes that the transmitter does
not merely transmit the material he should be fully cognizant of what he transmits (qilan lim yuhaddithu bihi); he should know what changes the meaning
of the report from its wording. That is, he should both transmit it word for word,
and he should know what it means. This view, unusual as it seems for the time,
is congruent with the transmitter described in the report. The report, then, shows
signs of an embryonic authority theory for a scholarly elite separate from (and
perhaps in competition with) the Imams themselves. This doctrinal development, normally associated with the ghayba period might, on the evidence of
this report, have been initiated in the period immediately following the death
of Imam Jafar al-S diq in the early Abbsid period.62

60 See Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1993), 7685 and
23344.
61 In saying this, I am arguing that I am not entirely convinced by Hallaqs relegation of
al-Shafis immediate importance in his article Was al-Shfi the master architect of
Islamic jurisprudence?, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 25, 1993,
587605.
62 This confirms, to an extent, some of the conclusions of Etan Kohlberg (in his Imam and
community in the pre-Ghayba period, in S.A. Arjomand (ed.), Authority and Political
Culture in Shiism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), particularly
pp.358; Takim, The Heirs of the Prophet, 78109.

You might also like