دانشگاه کاشان حدیث پژوهی 2008-6547 17 2 2025 11 22 Defending the Authenticity and Credibility of the Historical Hadith Tradition of Qaḍīb Mamshūq دفاع از اصالت و اعتبار روایت تاریخی حدیث قضیب ممشوق 161 200 114440 10.22052/hadith.2024.254032.1416 FA حسین ستار دانشیار گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران سکینه انصاری کارشناس‌ارشد گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران Journal Article 2024 01 16 Introduction The historical tradition of Qaḍīb Mumshūq, which refers to Prophet Muhammad’s demand for retribution during the final days of his life, is among the ethically oriented reports in the Prophetic sīra. This account, transmitted in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources, has over the centuries—particularly in modern times—been subjected to serious critiques of its chain of transmission, textual content, jurisprudential implications, and theological foundations. The earliest well-known critique was offered by Ibn al-Jawzī, followed by other critics who, citing the weakness of transmitters such as ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibn Idrīs and the incompatibility of the content of the report with jurisprudential principles and the doctrine of prophetic infallibility, have judged it to be fabricated or weak. The present study, while acknowledging that this report belongs to the category of akhbār muntaqila (reports transmitted from Sunni sources into Shiʿi tradition), seeks to defend the authenticity and validity of its core tradition, arguing that the criticisms raised—especially when distinguishing between the ethical and jurisprudential aspects of the account—can be adequately addressed. Materials and Methods This research employs a descriptive-analytical method with a library-based approach. Its primary aim is to evaluate and critique the arguments of the detractors and subsequently defend the credibility of the Qaḍīb Mamshūq tradition, with particular focus on Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s transmission in al-Amālī. The research corpus consists of primary hadith and historical sources from both Sunni and Shiʿi traditions (notably al-Amālī of al-Ṣadūq, al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, and the works of critics such as Ibn al-Jawzī and contemporary scholars). The sample under study is the Qaḍīb Mamshūq tradition itself and the critiques associated with it. Data collection tools include extraction of information from primary texts and secondary studies. The analytical method proceeds as follows: first, the transmission history of the tradition in Shiʿi and Sunni sources is briefly outlined. Next, critiques of the chain of transmission (particularly concerning al-Ṭabarānī and al-Amālī) and textual critiques (such as conflicts with jurisprudential rules of retribution and the foundations of infallibility) are systematically identified and categorized. In the subsequent stage, through comparative isnād analysis, the chain of transmission in al-Ṣadūq’s al-Amālī—which lacks transmitters accused of fabrication such as ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibn Idrīs—is examined through rijāl evaluation, and its strength is demonstrated. Finally, by means of content analysis and lexical study of key terms such as “qiṣāṣ,” and by distinguishing historical-ethical perspectives from purely jurisprudential ones, the textual critiques are addressed. An exploration of the motives of certain critics also forms part of this analysis. Results and findings The findings of this study can be presented in two domains: chain of transmission (isnād) and textual/content analysis. Findings pertaining to Isnād: Examination shows that the main critique of Sunni scholars (such as Ibn al-Jawzī) is directed at al-Ṭabarānī’s chain, which includes ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibn Idrīs—a transmitter accused of fabrication. However, the chain of the same report in Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s al-Amālī follows a different and more reliable path: Muḥammad Ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ṭālaqānī → Muḥammad Ibn Ḥamdān al-Ṣaydalānī → Muḥammad Ibn Muslimah al-Wāsiṭī → Yazīd Ibn Hārūn → Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ → Abū Qalābah (ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Zayd al-Jarmī) → Ibn ʿAbbās. Rijāl analysis of this chain indicates that its transmitters are largely trustworthy figures within Sunni tradition, and Shiʿi rijāl authorities have not raised serious objections against them. Therefore, the judgment of weakness or fabrication applied to al-Ṭabarānī’s chain cannot be extended to the distinct and earlier transmission of Shaykh al-Ṣadūq. Findings from Textual and Content Analysis: In response to content-based critiques, the findings demonstrate: Distinction between Ethics and Jurisprudence: The core of the defensive argument lies in separating the ethical-pedagogical dimension of the tradition from jurisprudential inference. The Prophet, at the height of piety and sensitivity toward ḥuqūq al-nās (the rights of others), sought to remove even the slightest trace of unintended harm, even though Islamic law does not impose retribution (qiṣāṣ) for unintentional acts or striking with a staff. This conduct reflects the Prophet’s “exalted character” (khuluq ʿaẓīm), not a legal ruling. Supporting this view is the fact that al-Ṣadūq did not include this report in his jurisprudential works such as Man lā yaḥḍuruhu al-faqīh. Analysis of the Term “Qiṣāṣ”: The usage of qiṣāṣ in this tradition corresponds to its lexical meaning (pursuit, retaliation, or compensation for an act), rather than its technical juridical sense (specific corporal punishment). Internal textual indicators—such as references to “retribution in the Hereafter” and the request for a substitute to undergo retribution—support this lexical interpretation. Implicit Acceptance by Scholars: The citation of passages from this tradition by numerous classical and contemporary Shiʿi jurists (such as Ayatollah Nāʾīnī, al-Khūʾī, and Makārim Shīrāzī) in various jurisprudential and ethical discussions indicates their implicit acceptance of the report’s credibility, or at least the absence of any definitive conflict with foundational principles. Positive Transmitted Reports: Although this tradition qualifies as a khabar muntaqal (a report transmitted from Sunni sources into Shiʿi tradition), it belongs to the category of sound and acceptable transmitted reports. Its shared transmission across traditions strengthens rather than weakens its credibility. Conclusion Based on the isnād and textual analyses presented, it can be concluded that the Qaḍīb Mamshūq tradition—at least in Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s transmission—possesses a defensible degree of credibility. The isnād critiques are primarily directed at other transmissions (such as that of al-Ṭabarānī), while the chain in al-Amālī demonstrates relative reliability. On the other hand, the major textual critiques are resolved when one considers the fundamental distinction between the Prophet’s ethical conduct and jurisprudential inferences, as well as through a lexical interpretation of the key term qiṣāṣ. This tradition, rather than serving as a jurisprudential precedent, symbolizes the Prophet’s utmost sensitivity and piety regarding the rights of others, and his effort to clear his conscience even of unintended effects. Accordingly, it may be accepted as a credible historical-ethical report, and its positive transmission from Sunni to Shiʿi sources can be regarded as a sign of shared values in honoring the Prophetic sīra. ازجمله گزارش‌های تاریخی در سیرۀ اخلاقی پیامبر عظیم‌الشأن2 در حق‌الناس، روایتی تاریخی است که به حدیث قضیب ممشوق شهرت یافته است. این روایت نقلی است در قصاص‌خواهی پیامبر2 در آخرین روزهای عمرشان در مسجدالنبی و تقاضای قصاص ازطرف یکی از صحابه به‌سبب وارد کردن ضربه‌ای غیرعامدانه ازسوی رسول‌الله بدو.پس از نقل مکرر آن در طی قرون گذشته، این سخن در دورۀ اخیر مورد بررسی و نقد جدی‌تری قرار گرفته؛ هرچند نقدی از آن را در دوران گذشته اولین‌بار ابن‌جوزی به دست داده است. روایت یادشده پس از نقد سندی و متنی و کلامی و فقهی و اخیراً نقد روایت‌شناسی و نیز پیگیری روایت در اخبار منتقله مورد توجه منتقدان قرار گرفته است. مقالۀ پیش رو با نگاهی انتقادی به نقدهای سندی و متنی روایت یادشده، هم سند روایت را قابل قبول/صحیح دانسته و هم تنافی آن را با قواعد فقهی مسلم فریقین و نیز مبانی کلامی مردود دانسته و از اعتبار این سخن که بیش از فقه بر اخلاق والای پیامبر/خلق عظیم مبتنی است دفاع می‌کند. به دیگر سخن، این حدیث در باب اخلاق قابل استناد و ارزیابی است نه فقه و بین این دو فاصله و تمایز است. سیرۀ پیامبر2 رفتاری اخلاقی است که جنبۀ فقهی لزوماً در آن مورد توجه نیست. بااین‌حال این نوشتار مدعی است که این روایت ازجمله روایات منتقلۀ مثبت/صواب است و منتقله بودن سبب ضعف آن نمی‌شود که هیچ، به‌سبب تلقی به قبول آن در فریقین باعث تقویت آن می‌شود.

https://s-hadith.kashanu.ac.ir/article_114440_3361ae646415ebc1d8c36a7fe61df314.pdf