درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The hadiths regarding the event of Return ( Rajʻat ) have only gained a significant number in later hadith collections, which have even dedicated a chapter to them. The present study aims to identify, using a descriptive-analytical method, some factors that have led to the disparity in the number of hadiths on Rajʻat between earlier and later centuries by comparing earlier and later hadith sources. The results include: Hadith errors such as discrepancies in the transmission of a hadith from earlier to later sources, and the misjudgment of considering multiple chains that lead to a single direct narrator; adherence to the literal meanings of words at the expense of common understanding; fallacies such as repeated counting of hadiths, fragmenting a single hadith and presenting it as multiple ones, counting non-authentic reports, mixing topics, deviating from the subject, and circular reasoning. The reliance on the latter abundance of hadiths presents a challenge to Sunni scholars, who has been created by the Shia theologians and hadith scholars themselves. The benefit of this study lies in recognizing this challenge, ultimately leading to a more robust defense of the belief in Rajʻat .

A well-known saying in Nahj al-Balāghah attributed to Imam Ali (AS) states that feminine morality is distinguished from and at times conflicts with masculine morality. According to this saying, the three traits of arrogance, fear, and stinginess are considered the worst vices for men and the best virtues for women. If this statement holds true, it implies the existence of two different moral systems for women and men, which is inconsistent with certain moral teachings of the Quran. Past commentators on Nahj al-Balāghah , influenced by the prevailing beliefs of their time, accepted the content of this statement as correct and passed over it without much scrutiny. However, contemporary interpreters and commentators have sought to defend the validity of this saying by either changing the meanings of these traits or limiting their scope. Nonetheless, these defenses often raise multiple issues and create new problems instead of resolving the existing ones. Therefore, the author examines and analyzes this alleged hadith, assessing its validity from a different perspective. To do this, the author first reviews the sources where this saying is mentioned for the first time and conducts a textual analysis of their chains of narration. Then, the intrinsic meaning of the hadith is analyzed, and the strength of its arguments is evaluated. In the next step, based on biological findings that some commentators have utilized, the claim of distinction is scrutinized. Finally, the difficulties that this saying faces from both an intra-religious and an ethical perspective are articulated, and its credibility is challenged.

Among the favorite topics between Orientalists is the controversial issue of Taqīyya between Shi'a and Sunni. Etan Kohlberg, a renowned scholar who research about Shi'a, has addressed this topic in two articles. His discussion includes a range of narrative and historical issues, such as the position of Taqīyya among the fundamentals of belief in the Imamiyya School and the impact of this doctrine on Shi'a hadiths, such as the concealment of teachings and contradiction of narrations. Kohlberg analyzes that the sanctity of employing Taqīyya in some religious practices stems from the Shi'a Imams' sense of discrimination seeking. This descriptive-analytical article aims to focus on Etan Kohlberg's first article while incorporating some content from his second article to provide a comprehensive discussion on the topic of Taqīyya. Firstly, criticisms of Kohlberg's descriptive approach from opponents are reviewed and subsequently challenged. Overall, it is concluded that, contrary to Kohlberg's opinion, there is no contradiction in the Imamiyya approach to the principle of Taqīyya. Compliance or non-compliance with Taqīyya is dependent on the circumstances and is contingent upon the benefits and harms, which Kohlberg has overlooked.

The jurisprudential commandment on ʻĀshūrā day’s fasting has caused controversy and disagreement among Shia scholars considering the existence of two categories of narrations in the hadith books. This research aims to analyze and validating the two types of narrations on fasting on ʻĀshūrā using descriptive-analytical-critical methodology. The findings indicate that according to the criterion presented by the impeccable Imams regarding innovation, the narrations permitting fasting on ʻĀshūrā were based on taqīyyah (dissimulation). Additionally, the Sunni narrations seem to be fabricated regarding the presence of courtiers as narrators and conflicting content. Although the narrations prohibiting fasting on ʻĀshūrā have weak sanad, they are stronger in terms of prohibition. The significant behavior of Kulaynī in relying only on the narrations of prohibition indicates a lack of credibility in the narrations permitting fasting on ʻĀshūrā. The narrations of prohibition are acceptable and confirm the sanctity of fasting on the day of ʻĀshūrā due to their consistency with the tradition transmitted from the Imams.