Jaʿfar al-Sadiq: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)

Line 19:

An erudite jurist of Medina, al-Sadiq was associated with a wide range of scholars. Abu Hanifa, and Malik b. Anas, among other prominent figures, are alleged to have heard hadith from him. Regarded as a reliable traditionalist in Sunni circles, he is cited in several isnads (chains of transmissions). Al-Sadiq is credited with the construction of a legal system called Ja’fari school of law, which Shi’ites follow. He is also seen as an eminent ascetic and is revered in Sufi circles. According to the alchemist Jabir al-Hayyan, al-Sadiq was also a teacher in alchemy.

==~~Bibliography~~==

==Biography ==

The most extensive biographical sources for Jaʿfar al-Sadiq are to be found amongst the various Shiʿite branches, though the exact date of his birth, or his accession to the [[imamate]] are uncertain. Most sources mention 83/702 for his birth <ref>though 80/699 and 86/705 are also recorded; e.g., Yaʿqubi, II, p. 458; Masʿudi, IV, p. 132; ʿAmeli, IV/2, p. 29.</ref> Similarly, the date when he became imam <ref>that is, the death of his father, the fifth imam, Muhammad al-Baqir</ref> is recorded as 117/735 in most sources.<ref>though 114/732 and 126/743 are also found in some sources; e.g., Ebn Qotayba, p., 215; ʿAmeli, IV/2, p. 3</ref> His death date is almost universally agreed to have been 148/765.

Line 40:

In legal matters, the corpus of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s statements form the major source of imami jurisprudence. He is presented as one who denounces the legal reasoning of his contemporaries. Personal opinion (raʾy), personal juristic reasoning (ejtehad), and analogical reasoning (qias) are roundly condemned as human attempts to impose conformity, regularity, and predictability onto the Shariʿa of God. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, in these statements, argues that God’s law is occasional and unpredictable, and that the servants’ duty is not to embark on reasoning in order to discover the law, but to submit to the inscrutable will of God as revealed by the imam. This position is most obviously seen in the various exchanges between Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and Abu Hanifa (q.v.), after whom the Hanafi school of Islamic law is named. Abu Hanifa supposedly studied with Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, but the reports recorded in imami Hadith collections do not portray him in a positive light. He is recorded as having employed analogical reasoning in his legal judgements, and Jaʿfar al-Sadiq is well known as one who rejected this approach. In one exchange Jaʿfar asked Abu Hanifa whether it is true that he uses qias. Abu Hanifa confirms this, to which Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies, “Do not use qias for the first to use qias was the Devil himself”.<ref>Kolayni, 1994, I, p. 58</ref> In another exchange, Abu Hanifa asked Jaʿfar al-Sadiq about temporary marriage (motʿa), and received the reply that this is what is referred to in the Quranic verse “For what you have enjoyed from them, give them their due as a duty” (4:24). Abu Hanifa replies “By God, I have never read this verse”.<ref>or alternatively “it is as if I had never read this verse”; see Horr Ameli, Wasaʾel, XXVIII, p. 8</ref> Reports such as this, where Abu Hanifa is bested by Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and exposed as of inferior intellect, are extremely common, and clearly function as part of an anti-Sunni (and more specifically, anti-Hanafi) polemic. References in imami literature to the relationships between Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and Malek b. Anas are less narrative, and Malek is normally portrayed simply as one who relates Hadith from Jaʿfar al-Sadiq.<ref>e.g., Ebn Babawayh, p. 128</ref> Non-imami Shiʿite sources, especially the Daʿa-ʾem al-Eslam of the Ismaʿil Qazi Noʿman, also contain reports of the legal opinions of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, along with those of his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In general, the reports here agree with those of the imami sources, and, according to Wilferd Madelung, provide a common legal source for the two Shiʿite groupings, and (more tantalizingly) a core of legal teaching which might be more assuredly traced back to Jaʿfar al-Sadiq himself.

Despite Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s emphasis on the imam’s supreme legal authority in the imami sources, there are also hints at a more devolved system of legal authority. Most famous amongst Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s saying in this regard is known as the Maqbula of Omar b. Hanzala. Ebn Hanzala was a disciple of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and is cited in the esnads as relating a number of sayings from his master, and through intermediaries from Imam al-Baqir. In the Maqbula, Ebn Hanzala asks how legal disputes within the community should be solved, and whether one should take such cases to the ruler (sultan) and his judges. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies in the negative, indicating that he considered at least the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates illegitimate. He describes the state apparatus as taghut (an idol or demon) in the Maqbula and says that those who take their disputes to the rulers and their judges get only soht.<ref>unlawful decision; Ebn Babawayh, Man la yahḏoroho al-faqih III, p. 3</ref> This is a common motif in subsequent imami juridical literature, as most jurists considered any state not led by the imam himself to be illegitimate, citing the Maqbula (amongst other reports from the imams) as evidence of this. In place of the state system, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq appears to recommend an informal, and unofficial system of justice for the Shiʿite community. The disputants, he claims, should turn to “those who relate our [i.e., the imams’] Hadiths.” The reason for this is that the imams have “made such a one a judge (hakem) over you.” Subsequent questions within the report prompt Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to list the means whereby a believer might choose between apparently equally qualified Hadith transmitters.<ref>see, for example, Tusi, VI, p. 218</ref> The report itself has been variously interpreted by subsequent imami scholars. Some considered it to confer general legal (and for some, political) authority upon the scholars after the occultation (ghayba) of the twelfth imam. Others considered Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to be referring solely to Hadith transmitters and not to the olamaʾ in general. Whichever interpretation one favors, however, it is clear that the ultimate legal authority of the imam, in this case Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, is to be tempered through his appointment of judges of the people in his place. While the imam has optimum community legal authority, he also may, when the need arises, appoint certain persons to act as judges in his stead. Whether this delegation applies only to the time of the imams’ presence, and whether it refers to all scholars or just one subset of the olamaʾ was the subject of much subsequent debate amongst the imamiya. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s words may have enabled the imamiya to develop an internal means of dispute resolution (and therefore avoid involvement in the judicial system of the ruling state). They did not, however, describe this alternative system in detail. That task was left to subsequent imami thinkers.

Despite Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s emphasis on the imam’s supreme legal authority in the imami sources, there are also hints at a more devolved system of legal authority. Most famous amongst Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s saying in this regard is known as the Maqbula of Omar b. Hanzala. Ebn Hanzala was a disciple of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and is cited in the esnads as relating a number of sayings from his master, and through intermediaries from Imam al-Baqir. In the Maqbula, Ebn Hanzala asks how legal disputes within the community should be solved, and whether one should take such cases to the ruler (sultan) and his judges. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies in the negative, indicating that he considered at least the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates illegitimate. He describes the state apparatus as taghut (an idol or demon) in the Maqbula and says that those who take their disputes to the rulers and their judges get only soht.<ref>unlawful decision; Ebn Babawayh, Man la yahḏoroho al-faqih III, p. 3</ref> This is a common motif in subsequent imami juridical literature, as most jurists considered any state not led by the imam himself to be illegitimate, citing the Maqbula (amongst other reports from the imams) as evidence of this. In place of the state system, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq appears to recommend an informal, and unofficial system of justice for the Shiʿite community. The disputants, he claims, should turn to “those who relate our [i.e., the imams’] Hadiths.” The reason for this is that the imams have “made such a one a judge (hakem) over you.” Subsequent questions within the report prompt Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to list the means whereby a believer might choose between apparently equally qualified Hadith transmitters.<ref>see, for example, Tusi, VI, p. 218</ref> The report itself has been variously interpreted by subsequent imami scholars. Some considered it to confer general legal (and for some, political) authority upon the scholars after the occultation (ghayba) of the twelfth imam. Others considered Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to be referring solely to Hadith transmitters and not to the olamaʾ (scholars) in general. Whichever interpretation one favors, however, it is clear that the ultimate legal authority of the imam, in this case Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, is to be tempered through his appointment of judges of the people in his place. While the imam has optimum community legal authority, he also may, when the need arises, appoint certain persons to act as judges in his stead. Whether this delegation applies only to the time of the imams’ presence, and whether it refers to all scholars or just one subset of the olamaʾ was the subject of much subsequent debate amongst the imamiya. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s words may have enabled the imamiya to develop an internal means of dispute resolution (and therefore avoid involvement in the judicial system of the ruling state). They did not, however, describe this alternative system in detail. That task was left to subsequent imami thinkers.

The variety of uses to which Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s name has been put, and the ideas and teachings which have been attributed to him, are significant not only because they establish him as an important figure in the history of early Islamic thought, but also because they demonstrate the malleability of his legacy. The works attributed to him may be of dubious authenticity, but they do establish his name at least as indicating a mastery of learning generally, and the Islamic sciences in particular. It is the manner in which his contribution has been recast and, at times, re-invented that enables him to be employed by writers in the different Islamic sciences as integral to their development.

Line 61:

*Moḥsen al-Amin Ḥosayni Ameli, Aʿyān al-šiʿa, ed. Hasan al-Amin, Beirut, 1962, IV/2, pp. 29-79.

*Abu’l-Hasan Alī b. Esmāʿīl Ašʿarī, Ketab maqālāt al-eslāmīyīn wa eḵtelāf al-moṣellīn, ed. Helmut Ritter, Cairo, 2000.

*Farhad Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge etc., 1990.

*[[Farhad Daftary]], The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge etc., 1990.

*Ebn al-Nadim, Ketab al-fehrest, ed. Reżā Tajaddod, Tehran, 1971; tr. Bayard Dodge as The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols., New York, 1979.

*Ebn Qotayba, Ketab al-maʿāref, ed. Ṯarwat ʿOkāša, Cairo, 1960.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 An erudite jurist of Medina, al-Sadiq was associated with a wide range of scholars. Abu Hanifa, and Malik b. Anas, among other prominent figures, are alleged to have heard hadith from him. Regarded as a reliable traditionalist in Sunni circles, he is cited in several isnads (chains of transmissions). Al-Sadiq is credited with the construction of a legal system called Ja’fari school of law, which Shi’ites follow. He is also seen as an eminent ascetic and is revered in Sufi circles. According to the alchemist Jabir al-Hayyan, al-Sadiq was also a teacher in alchemy.
-==Bibliography==
+==Biography ==
 The most extensive biographical sources for Jaʿfar al-Sadiq are to be found amongst the various Shiʿite branches, though the exact date of his birth, or his accession to the [[imamate]] are uncertain. Most sources mention 83/702 for his birth <ref>though 80/699 and 86/705 are also recorded; e.g., Yaʿqubi, II, p. 458; Masʿudi, IV, p. 132; ʿAmeli, IV/2, p. 29.</ref> Similarly, the date when he became imam <ref>that is, the death of his father, the fifth imam, Muhammad al-Baqir</ref> is recorded as 117/735 in most sources.<ref>though 114/732 and 126/743 are also found in some sources; e.g., Ebn Qotayba, p., 215; ʿAmeli, IV/2, p. 3</ref> His death date is almost universally agreed to have been 148/765.
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 In legal matters, the corpus of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s statements form the major source of imami jurisprudence. He is presented as one who denounces the legal reasoning of his contemporaries. Personal opinion (raʾy), personal juristic reasoning (ejtehad), and analogical reasoning (qias) are roundly condemned as human attempts to impose conformity, regularity, and predictability onto the Shariʿa of God. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, in these statements, argues that God’s law is occasional and unpredictable, and that the servants’ duty is not to embark on reasoning in order to discover the law, but to submit to the inscrutable will of God as revealed by the imam. This position is most obviously seen in the various exchanges between Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and Abu Hanifa (q.v.), after whom the Hanafi school of Islamic law is named. Abu Hanifa supposedly studied with Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, but the reports recorded in imami Hadith collections do not portray him in a positive light. He is recorded as having employed analogical reasoning in his legal judgements, and Jaʿfar al-Sadiq is well known as one who rejected this approach. In one exchange Jaʿfar asked Abu Hanifa whether it is true that he uses qias. Abu Hanifa confirms this, to which Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies, “Do not use qias for the first to use qias was the Devil himself”.<ref>Kolayni, 1994, I, p. 58</ref> In another exchange, Abu Hanifa asked Jaʿfar al-Sadiq about temporary marriage (motʿa), and received the reply that this is what is referred to in the Quranic verse “For what you have enjoyed from them, give them their due as a duty” (4:24). Abu Hanifa replies “By God, I have never read this verse”.<ref>or alternatively “it is as if I had never read this verse”; see Horr Ameli, Wasaʾel, XXVIII, p. 8</ref> Reports such as this, where Abu Hanifa is bested by Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and exposed as of inferior intellect, are extremely common, and clearly function as part of an anti-Sunni (and more specifically, anti-Hanafi) polemic. References in imami literature to the relationships between Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and Malek b. Anas are less narrative, and Malek is normally portrayed simply as one who relates Hadith from Jaʿfar al-Sadiq.<ref>e.g., Ebn Babawayh, p. 128</ref> Non-imami Shiʿite sources, especially the Daʿa-ʾem al-Eslam of the Ismaʿil Qazi Noʿman, also contain reports of the legal opinions of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, along with those of his father Muhammad al-Baqir. In general, the reports here agree with those of the imami sources, and, according to Wilferd Madelung, provide a common legal source for the two Shiʿite groupings, and (more tantalizingly) a core of legal teaching which might be more assuredly traced back to Jaʿfar al-Sadiq himself.
-Despite Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s emphasis on the imam’s supreme legal authority in the imami sources, there are also hints at a more devolved system of legal authority. Most famous amongst Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s saying in this regard is known as the Maqbula of Omar b. Hanzala. Ebn Hanzala was a disciple of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and is cited in the esnads as relating a number of sayings from his master, and through intermediaries from Imam al-Baqir. In the Maqbula, Ebn Hanzala asks how legal disputes within the community should be solved, and whether one should take such cases to the ruler (sultan) and his judges. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies in the negative, indicating that he considered at least the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates illegitimate. He describes the state apparatus as taghut (an idol or demon) in the Maqbula and says that those who take their disputes to the rulers and their judges get only soht.<ref>unlawful decision; Ebn Babawayh, Man la yahḏoroho al-faqih III, p. 3</ref> This is a common motif in subsequent imami juridical literature, as most jurists considered any state not led by the imam himself to be illegitimate, citing the Maqbula (amongst other reports from the imams) as evidence of this. In place of the state system, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq appears to recommend an informal, and unofficial system of justice for the Shiʿite community. The disputants, he claims, should turn to “those who relate our [i.e., the imams’] Hadiths.” The reason for this is that the imams have “made such a one a judge (hakem) over you.” Subsequent questions within the report prompt Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to list the means whereby a believer might choose between apparently equally qualified Hadith transmitters.<ref>see, for example, Tusi, VI, p. 218</ref> The report itself has been variously interpreted by subsequent imami scholars. Some considered it to confer general legal (and for some, political) authority upon the scholars after the occultation (ghayba) of the twelfth imam. Others considered Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to be referring solely to Hadith transmitters and not to the olamaʾ in general. Whichever interpretation one favors, however, it is clear that the ultimate legal authority of the imam, in this case Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, is to be tempered through his appointment of judges of the people in his place. While the imam has optimum community legal authority, he also may, when the need arises, appoint certain persons to act as judges in his stead. Whether this delegation applies only to the time of the imams’ presence, and whether it refers to all scholars or just one subset of the olamaʾ was the subject of much subsequent debate amongst the imamiya. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s words may have enabled the imamiya to develop an internal means of dispute resolution (and therefore avoid involvement in the judicial system of the ruling state). They did not, however, describe this alternative system in detail. That task was left to subsequent imami thinkers.
+Despite Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s emphasis on the imam’s supreme legal authority in the imami sources, there are also hints at a more devolved system of legal authority. Most famous amongst Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s saying in this regard is known as the Maqbula of Omar b. Hanzala. Ebn Hanzala was a disciple of Jaʿfar al-Sadiq and is cited in the esnads as relating a number of sayings from his master, and through intermediaries from Imam al-Baqir. In the Maqbula, Ebn Hanzala asks how legal disputes within the community should be solved, and whether one should take such cases to the ruler (sultan) and his judges. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq replies in the negative, indicating that he considered at least the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates illegitimate. He describes the state apparatus as taghut (an idol or demon) in the Maqbula and says that those who take their disputes to the rulers and their judges get only soht.<ref>unlawful decision; Ebn Babawayh, Man la yahḏoroho al-faqih III, p. 3</ref> This is a common motif in subsequent imami juridical literature, as most jurists considered any state not led by the imam himself to be illegitimate, citing the Maqbula (amongst other reports from the imams) as evidence of this. In place of the state system, Jaʿfar al-Sadiq appears to recommend an informal, and unofficial system of justice for the Shiʿite community. The disputants, he claims, should turn to “those who relate our [i.e., the imams’] Hadiths.” The reason for this is that the imams have “made such a one a judge (hakem) over you.” Subsequent questions within the report prompt Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to list the means whereby a believer might choose between apparently equally qualified Hadith transmitters.<ref>see, for example, Tusi, VI, p. 218</ref> The report itself has been variously interpreted by subsequent imami scholars. Some considered it to confer general legal (and for some, political) authority upon the scholars after the occultation (ghayba) of the twelfth imam. Others considered Jaʿfar al-Sadiq to be referring solely to Hadith transmitters and not to the olamaʾ (scholars) in general. Whichever interpretation one favors, however, it is clear that the ultimate legal authority of the imam, in this case Jaʿfar al-Sadiq, is to be tempered through his appointment of judges of the people in his place. While the imam has optimum community legal authority, he also may, when the need arises, appoint certain persons to act as judges in his stead. Whether this delegation applies only to the time of the imams’ presence, and whether it refers to all scholars or just one subset of the olamaʾ was the subject of much subsequent debate amongst the imamiya. Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s words may have enabled the imamiya to develop an internal means of dispute resolution (and therefore avoid involvement in the judicial system of the ruling state). They did not, however, describe this alternative system in detail. That task was left to subsequent imami thinkers.
 The variety of uses to which Jaʿfar al-Sadiq’s name has been put, and the ideas and teachings which have been attributed to him, are significant not only because they establish him as an important figure in the history of early Islamic thought, but also because they demonstrate the malleability of his legacy. The works attributed to him may be of dubious authenticity, but they do establish his name at least as indicating a mastery of learning generally, and the Islamic sciences in particular. It is the manner in which his contribution has been recast and, at times, re-invented that enables him to be employed by writers in the different Islamic sciences as integral to their development.
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 *Moḥsen al-Amin Ḥosayni Ameli, Aʿyān al-šiʿa, ed. Hasan al-Amin, Beirut, 1962, IV/2, pp. 29-79.
 *Abu’l-Hasan Alī b. Esmāʿīl Ašʿarī, Ketab maqālāt al-eslāmīyīn wa eḵtelāf al-moṣellīn, ed. Helmut Ritter, Cairo, 2000.
-*Farhad Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge etc., 1990.
+*[[Farhad Daftary]], The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge etc., 1990.
 *Ebn al-Nadim, Ketab al-fehrest, ed. Reżā Tajaddod, Tehran, 1971; tr. Bayard Dodge as The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols., New York, 1979.
 *Ebn Qotayba, Ketab al-maʿāref, ed. Ṯarwat ʿOkāša, Cairo, 1960.