Evaluation of the narrations of Yunus bin Zabyan in al-Kafi based on source recovery Journal Article

Abstract:

Introduction The presence of traditions attributed to individuals considered highly unreliable by rijalists in Shi'a hadith collections, particularly in canonical works like al-Kāfī Kāfī, raises the question of how such traditions found their way into these compilations. One such figure is Yūnus ibn Ẓibyān. Despite being a companion of Imam Sadiq (as) , rijalists have labeled Yūnus as a liar, a demented (mukhtalit) , an exaggerator, and a fabricator of hadiths. He was even cursed by Imam Riḍa (as) and, in short, is deemed unreliable by rijalists. Our hypothesis regarding the inclusion of Yūnus ibn Ẓibyān's traditions in al-Kāfī is that Kulayni relied on reputable Shi'a sources when transmitting these traditions. Based on this hypothesis, this article aims to identify how these traditions made their own way into al-Kāfī by retrieving the written sources of Yūnus's traditions. Materials and methods From Yūnus ibn Ẓibyān, around 20 hadiths have been reported in al-Kāfī, all of which transmited directly from Imam Sadiq (as). To recover the written sources of Yūnus's traditions in al-Kāfī, we follow five marks: The first and second persons in the isnad (chain of transmission) are mostly kulayni’s authorizing teachers (mashayikh-e ijaze) and were responsible for transmitting the books of their predecessors to him. Kulayni has rarely transmited a hadith directly from the books of these two people. The common compound (taḥwīlī) isnads of al-Kāfī, which connect two layers of transmitters, indicate this and the reception of the tradition from the third transmitters’ book through the word "jamī'an" (all together). In the ṭarīqs (line of transmitters) which bibliographers have reported to their own books, if the name of the author of the book and the person after him is the same as the two last persons in the isnad of the hadith, it can be strongly suggested that the book was the original source of the hadith. Therefore, if the entire ṭarīq to that book is the same as the isnad of the hadith up to Kulayni or his authorizing teachers, it shows that Kulayni brought the hadith directly from that book in al-Kāfī. If this similarity is not found, considering that most of the transmitters present in the isnads of al-Kāfī are the authors of books, there is an intermediary in the transmission; that is, the tradition has been transmitted from one source to subsequent sources until it finally reached Kulayni. Most of these intermediaries are identified by referring to the tariqs found in the bibliographies and the repetition of isnads. The frequent repetition of an identical isnad that reaches the author of a book can be an indication of the ṭarīq to that book. If an isnad is not in accordance with the ṭarīqs found in the bibliographies or is not repeated many times in al-Kāfī, it is not possible to indicate how the hadith was transmitted, whether orally or in written form. Comparing the content of the hadiths with the subjects of the books of transmitters in the chain of transmission can help us discover the sources of the hadith. Results and findings First of all, based on the ṭarīqs to Yūnus’ book in bibliographies and other evidence, it becomes clear that all of the traditions attributed to Yūnus in al-Kāfī have been transmitted through intermediaries, and that Kulayni has not directly quoted from the book of Yūnus itself. The traditions of Yūnus in al-Kāfī have been transmitted from the following 13 individuals, listed in order of the number of traditions: Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad al-Minqari (6 traditions) Khaybari ibn Ali al-Ţaḥān (3 traditions) Abdallah ibn Qasim al-Ḥaḍramī (2 traditions) Muhammad ibn Sinan (1 tradition) Mundhir ibn Yazid (1 tradition) al-Shaybāni (1 tradition) Muhammad ibn Ziyad (1 tradition) Jamil ibn Darrāj (1 tradition) Umar ibn Abd al-'Aziz (1 tradition) Isa ibn Sulayman al-Nakhās (1 tradition) Mufaḍḍal ibn Umar (1 tradition) Manṣūr ibn Yūnus (1 tradition) Isma'il ibn Jabir (1 tradition) None of these 13 immediate transmitters of Yūnus are mentioned in the ṭarīq to the book of Yūnus, nor have they transmitted a large number of traditions fromhim. Consequently, according to the fourth mark of recovery, the quality of the transmission of hadith from Yūnus to them is not clear. In the recovery of the sources of Yūnus' traditions in al-Kāfī, it was found that Kulayni obtained his traditions from 14 written sources: three traditions each from the books of 'Isa ibn Hisham and 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz; two traditions each from the books of Muhammad ibn Abi 'Umayr, Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Washsha’, Muhammad ibn Sinan, and Bakr ibn Ṣāliḥ; and one tradition each from the books of Husayn ibn Sa'id al-Ahwazi, Qasim ibn Muhammad al-Jawhari, Muhammad ibn 'Urmah, 'Abdallah ibn Qasim al-Ḥaḍrami, 'Ali ibn Ma'bad, Abusumaynah, Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Barmaki, and Manṣur ibn Yūnus. Of these sources, the books of 'Ubays, Ibn Abi 'Umayr, Washsha', and Husayn ibn Sa'id are among the well-known and reliable sources of the Imamiyah. Ibn Sinan, Abusumaynah, and Ibn 'Urmah are also reported to have had well-known books; however, only some of them are considered reliable, and the ṭarīqs to these reliable books are mentioned in the bibliographies. Kulayni's chains of transmission to them are the same as the reliable ṭarīqs. However, the other sources of Kulayni cannot be considered to have such a reputation Conclusion Half of the fourteen written sources used by Kulayni in transmitting the traditions of Yūnus can be considered among the reliable sources that were referred to by Shi'a hadith scholars. Based on the available evidence, some reasons can also be guessed about the other half of the sources, which indicate their importance at least for Kulayni himself. These reasons include the transmission of the book by individuals who were strict in accepting hadith, such as Aḥmad al-Ash'ari; the existence of a correct copy of the book in Kulayni's possession; and the existence of the same content of the book in other reliable books. On the whole, it can be said that the existence of a tradition in reliable written sources was one of the main criteria for the acceptance of hadith by early hadith scholars such as Kulayni, even if the transmitter of the tradition did not have an appropriate position before rijalists.