|
error. Thus by this reasoning there should remain no need to verify the worth of any of the traditions contained within the four books even when, according to some, there exists no valid chain between the three Muhammads and the usul arba'ah mi'ah as is the case with some of the Masha'ikh of the compilers of the four books.11
It can be said of this claim as stated by al-Sayyid Muhammad Tabataba'i12 in Mafatih al-Usul that, "the testimony of al-Kulayni as to the authentic nature of what he has recorded in al-Kafi, just as there exists a possibility that he has stated this through his knowledge and certainty of the issuance of the traditions from the Imams, in which case it would be permissible to adhere to them based on the authority of the report of a just person, there also exists a possibility that his statement is an expression of his personal conviction based on his ability as an expert of the traditions to discern the authentic from the non-authentic. In this case it would not be proper to adhere to those traditions without scrutiny, since the methodology adopted by al-Kulayni in discerning the traditions may not be valid as far as we are concerned and so will not be a proof on his likes (i.e. other researchers) as is apparent from the actions of other scholars [by scrutinising of the traditions contained in the four books]. And since there is no preference for the first possibility it becomes necessary to discern the worth of the traditions [independently]."
Although both of the points are strong in establishing the worth of the traditions contained within the four books yet there is enough criticism of both the points to cause sufficient doubt in relation to at least some of the traditions and since these few traditions are not specified, caution will have to be observed in regards to all of them.
Another discussion is of the meaning of the word authentic tradition (sahih). The term has been subject to development from the time of the four books to the time of 'Allamah al-Hilli. Thus it can be said that whatever al-Kulayni considered as authentic may not be authentic by modern standards. However this argument can easily be defeated by the fact that whatever al-Kulayni let us say understood as authentic is permissible to adhere to by the reasoning that it was endorsed in the era of legislation and was commonly acknowledge as valid in the era of the minor occultation irrespective as to how it may be categorised by modern terminology. This is unless it can be proven that the likes of al-Kulayni and those that came after him introduced the term authentic in a particular meaning which did not exist prior to them nor did they receive the seal of approval either directly from the Imam or through his specific ambassadors during the minor occultation or by other means of ascertaining the approval or endorsement of the Imam (as).
|
|
