۱.
Due to the significance of hadith in Islamic sciences such as jurisprudence, exegesis, theology, and history, its understanding requires the application of proper principles of hadith interpretation. This paper aims to provide a methodical understanding of the hadith: "It is not permissible for anyone to marry two of the children of Fāṭimah (SA) simultaneously" in light of the Qur’an, with a focus on the perspectives of Shaykh Yūsuf Baḥrānī, an Akhbārī scholar, and Wahid Behbahani, a Uṣūlī scholar. Research indicates that no independent study has yet been conducted on this subject. This hadith forms the basis of the Akhbārī ruling on the prohibition of marrying two women from the descendants of the Prophet simultaneously, while Uṣūlīs have deemed such marriage disliked (Makrūh). After examining the chain of narration (Isnād) and text (Matn) of the hadith, and comparing it with the Qur’an using a descriptive-analytical method, it was found that Shaykh Yūsuf Baḥrānī considers the Isnād authentic and believes that the text, based on its apparent meaning, indicates prohibition. Consequently, marrying two women from the descendants of the Prophet simultaneously is considered haram. On the other hand, Wahid Behbahani maintains that such marriage is not prohibited. By tracing the historical development of the prohibition, beginning with Shaykh Ja’far Baḥrānī and later Shaykh Ḥurr ʻĀmilī, and comparing Shaykh Yūsuf Baḥrānī’s view with that of Wahid Behbahani, the author concludes that: "The Isnād of the hadith is weak; considering the contextual indicators and the distinction between hardship and harm, the Matn does not indicate prohibition." Therefore, it can be argued that Wahid Behbahani’s perspective is more consistent with the Qur’an and established scholarly principles.
۲.
The study of the so-called Khabarī attributes has long been a subject of investigation among Muslim scholars. Accordingly, based on certain Qurʾanic verses and narrations, God is described by the attribute of "Face" ( Wajh ), and according to some narrations, He is also described by the attribute of "Form" ( Ṣūrah ). Reliance on the literal meanings of these two attributes gives rise to ambiguities such as anthropomorphism ( Tajsīm ) and assimilation ( Tashbīḥ ). Therefore, examining exegetical and hadith-commentarial theories is necessary in order to clarify a view consistent with the principles of divine unity ( Tawḥīd ). In this regard, hadith commentators of the two intellectual traditions of Salafism and Imami Shiʿism, in accordance with their distinct doctrinal foundations, have offered explanations of these two attributes. Clarifying and critically evaluating these views is essential for identifying the correct position concerning the divine attributes. For this reason, the present study examines the attributes of "Form" and "Face" in the Qurʾan and narrations, with a focus on the perspectives of Salafi and Imami hadith commentators. Adopting a comparative approach, it analyzes and critiques the exegetical and hadith-commentarial views of Sunni, Salafi, and Shiʿi scholars, and seeks to identify the sound interpretation of these two attributes. The findings indicate that Salafis, by accepting the apparent meaning of the text in the narration "God created Adam in His form" ( Khalaqa Allāhu Ādama ʿalā Ṣūratih ), refer the pronoun "His form" ( Ṣūratih ) to God and, based on the principle of adherence to the literal meaning, regard the "Face of God" as visible on the Day of Resurrection. In contrast, Imami commentators, relying on an interpretive approach, understand "Form" as the manifestation of divine attributes in the human being, and interpret "Face" either as the luminous reality of the Prophet or as the divine essence without any literal, corporeal meaning. Consequently, the perspective of Imami hadith commentators is more consistent with Qurʾanic- and Sunnah-based principles of divine unity, whereas the literalist Salafi approach leads to numerous rational challenges, such as anthropomorphism and assimilation.
۳.
The account of the martyrdom of Ḥusayn (AS) in al-Masʿūdī’s Murūjal-Dhahab (d. 346 AH) holds a special place among extant ʿĀshūrāʾ sources due to both its antiquity and the author’s stature in Islamic historiography. Part of al-Masʿūdī ’s report reflects the concise narrations of earlier authorities, while another part contains solitary reports found only in his transmission. An analysis of these unique reports, constituting the central problem of this study, shows that some of them suffer from textual inconsistencies and conflict with established historical and transmitted accounts. Nevertheless, these reports influenced later historians’ narratives. Hence, al-Masʿūdī’s Maqtal is at once a valuable source and a subject of caution and scrutiny. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach, this article seeks to clarify al-Masʿūdī ’s method and perspective in narrating the events of ʿĀshūrāʾ and, through comparison of his unique reports with other historical and narrative sources, to evaluate their content reliability. The findings show that assessing al-Masʿūdī ’s solitary narrations is only possible through historical-narrative analysis; without such scrutiny, parts of ʿĀshūrāʾ literature remain confused and ambiguous. Accordingly, this study reexamines and evaluates these unique reports.
۴.
The occultation of Imam al-Mahdī (AS) is a key issue in Mahdavi thought, for which various reasons have been stated in Shia narrative sources. In an article entitled " al-Ghaybah ʻinda al-Shīʻah al-Ithnā ʻAsharīyyah wa Asbābuhā; Dirāsatun Taḥlīlīyyatun Naqdīyyah " written by Ṭāriq ibn Saʻīd ibn ʻAbdullāh al-Qaḥṭānī, " it is claimed, by adhering to these very narrations, that Shia narrations regarding the reason for the occultation are unreliable, contradictory, and irreconcilable. The present study, with the aim of responding to the doubts raised in the aforementioned article regarding the reason for the occultation of Imam al-Mahdī (AS) and using the descriptive-analytical method, first, while stating the claim made, examines the authenticity of the narrations' chains of transmission based on two approaches: "Narrator-centric and evidence-centric authentication." It demonstrates that, with the exception of one narration, the rest are capable of being considered authentic and sound. Then, by examining their implications, it concludes that since all the reasons for the occultation mentioned in the narrations are of the nature of incomplete causes (causa sine qua non) and not complete causes, therefore, a semantic reconciliation can be made between them, and there is no need to prioritize them over each other. In this way, we can consider some of them as the cause of the occurrence of the occultation and others as the cause of the continuation of the occultation, or consider one of the causes as the principle and the rest as its branches.
۵.
The tradition of writing commentaries on Nahj al-Balāgha is a mirror reflecting the intellectual, political, and social transformations of Islamic societies. Despite numerous bibliographic studies, a systematic analysis of this trajectory in relation to its discursive contexts remains absent. Employing the "Social history of knowledge" approach and drawing on Skinner’s contextual hermeneutic method, this study investigates the metamorphosis of this tradition during the neglected period from the fall of the Safavids to the eve of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.The findings indicate that this trajectory experienced two clearly distinct stages. First, the "Period of stagnation," (post-Safavid to the eve of the Constitutional era) during which, under the dominance of Akhbārism and political despotism, Nahjal-Balāgha shifted from a comprehensive text to a "Mirror for princes," serving the function of "Consolidating power" and advising rulers; second, the "Period of renaissance," (from the Constitutional era to the Revolution) in which, with the emergence of the Samarra School and the encounter with modernity, an "Epistemic rupture" occurred. In this era, Nahj al-Balāgha became a tool for the "Delegitimization of despotism" and the "Foundation of political theology." Methodologically, there was also a fundamental shift from "Sequential-lexical commentary" to "Systematic analysis" aimed at extracting a coherent intellectual school from Nahj al-Balāgha . The study concludes that developments in commentary writing constitute a key indicator for tracing the transition of Shiʿi thought from "Individual ethics" to "Political jurisprudence" in the modern period.
۶.
Faḍl ibn Shādhān Nīshābūrī (d. 260 AH/874 AD), who resided in Neishabur and was among the companions of Imam Riḍā (AS), severely criticized Dualism (Thanawīyyah), Trinitarianism (Tathlīthīyyah), Murjiʻah, Khawārij, Ahl al-Hadith, Mu'tazilah, Zaidiyyah, Waqifiyyah, and Isma'iliyyah in his refutations. His refutations indicate the active presence of these theological groups in Neishabur. Therefore, the opponents and audience of Imam Riḍā (AS) upon his arrival in Neishabur were four groups: Zanadiqa (dualists and Manichaeans) and Thanawīyyah (dualists); Trinitarians; groups of the Caliphate school; and branches of Shi'ism. Imam Riḍā (AS), by reporting three Hadiths of Silsilat al-Dhahab – "Shafaqat" (compassion), "Faith" and "Ḥiṣn" (fortress) – to thousands of Nīshābūrīans , identified all those beliefs and religions as misguided and unstable. He sought to highlight the discourse of Shi'i thought. Undoubtedly, the selection of these Hadiths at that historical juncture arose from the exigencies of the time and habitat. In addition to theoretical-cognitive functions, Imam Riḍā (AS) presented at least four miracles and charismatic acts to establish his own legitimacy and that of the Shi'i school: "Planting a healing almond tree; determining the Qibla (direction of prayer) of Neishabur; causing a spring to flow; and healing an injured person." The author of these lines, by library-based collection of the aforementioned data and presenting it in an analytical-descriptive manner, has endeavored to provide a documented and insightful article.
