Classical scholars: Qum vs Baghdad

تاريخ الفقه الإسلامي وأدواره للعلاّمة المحقّق الشيخ جعفر السبحاني , ص ٢٢٣

“History of the Islamic law and its stages” by Ayatullah Ja'fer Subhani, Page 223

ولا شكّ انّ الاِمامية تتبّرأ من الغلاة، إنّما الكلام في تحديد الغلو، فقد كان الرأي الرائج بين القمّيين نسبة السهو إلى النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - في الصلاة، وقد انتحل به الشيخ الصدوق وأُستاذه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد القمّي اعتماداً على الروايات الواردة في ذلك المجال.

كما زعموا انّ نسبة علم الغيب إلى النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - والاَئمّة (عليهم السلام) لا تخلو عن غلو، ولم يفرّقوا بين العلم الذاتي والعلم المكتسب.

وعلى كلّ تقدير كان هناك اختلاف بين المدرستين مدرسة قم ومدرسة بغداد.

وكان البغداديون يشنّون حملات شعواء على هوَلاء ويصفونهم

بالتقصير، كما انّهم يتّهمونهم بالغلو، قال الصدوق في «اعتقاداته»: وعلامة المفوضة والغلاة وأصنافهم نسبتهم مشايخ قم وعلمائهم إلى القول بالتقصير. ⁽¹⁾

ولما انتهت رئاسة الاِمامية إلى الشيخ المفيد ردّ عليهم ردّاً عنيفاً، وبذلك حقّق مذهب الاِمامية وأثبت دعائمه، ولا بأس بنقل هذه الوثيقة التاريخية عن الشيخ المفيد (قدس سره) .

يقول الشيخ المفيد في حقّ هوَلاء: لكن أصحابنا المتعلّقين بالاَخبار، أصحاب سلامة وبعد ذهن وقلّة فطنة، يمرون على وجوههم فيما سمعوه من الاَحاديث، ولا ينظرون في سندها، ولا يفرّقون بين حقّها وباطلها، ولا يفهمون ما يدخل عليهم في إثباتها، ولا يحصلون معاني ما يطلقونه منها. ⁽²⁾

نقل الشيخ المفيد آراء عن بعض المحدّثين بمالا يوافق مذهب الاِمامية، ولاَجل ذلك خطَّأهم ونسبهم إلى التقصير، قال: وقد سمعنا حكاية ظاهرة عن أبي جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد (رحمه الله) لم نجد لها دافعاً في التقصير، وهي ما حكي عنه أنّه قال: أوّل درجة في الغلو نفي السهو عن النبي والاِمام، فإن صحّت هذه الحكاية فهو مقصِّر مع أنّه من العلماء القمّيين ومشيختهم.

وقد وجدنا جماعة وردوا إلينا من قم يقصرون تقصيراً ظاهراً في الدين، وينزلون الاَئمّة عن مراتبهم، يزعمون انّهم كانوا، لا يعرفون كثيراً من الاَحكام الدينية حتى ينكت في قلوبهم

ويظهر من غير واحدة من كلمات الشيخ المفيد انّ مسلك الصدوق لم يكن مورد رضا شيخنا المفيد، فقد رفع إلى الشيخ وجود الاختلاف بين ما أثبته الشيخ أبو جعفر ابن بابويه في كتبه من الاَخبار المسندة عن الاَئمّة، وبين ما أثبته الشيخ أبو علي بن الجنيد (رحمه الله) في كتبه من المسائل الفقهية المجرّدة عن الاَسانيد.

ثمّ إنّ الشيخ يجيب عن السوَال ويقول: والذي رواه أبو جعفر(رحمه الله) فليس يجب العمل بجميعه إذا لم يكن ثابتاً من الطرق التي تعلّق بها قول الاَئمّة - عليهم السلام - ، إذ هي أخبار آحاد لا توجب علماً ولا عملاً، وروايتها عمّن يجوز عليه السهو والخلط، وإنّما روى أبو جعفر(رحمه الله) ما سمع، ونقل ما حفظ، ولم يضمن العهدة في ذلك.

وأصحاب الحديث ينقلون الغث والسمين، ولا يقتصرون في النقل على المعلوم، وليسوا بأصحاب نظر وتفتيش ولا فكر فيما يروونه وتمييز، فأخبارهم مختلطة، لا يتميز منها الصحيح من السقيم إلاّ بنظر في الاَُصول و اعتماد على النظر الذي يوصل إلى العلم بصحة المنقول. ⁽¹⁾

والسابر في تاريخ الحديث في القرن الرابع إلى أوائل القرن الخامس يقف على أنّه كان بين محدّثي مدرسة قم ومحدّثي مدرسة بغداد اختلاف بارز فيما يتعلّق بمقامات النبي والاَئمّة وعلومهم.

فالقمّيون كانوا يرمون خريجي مدرسة بغداد بالغلو لاَجل نفي السهو عن النبي والاَئمّة، كما انّ خريجي مدرسة بغداد يرمون القميين بالتقصير في حق الاَئمّة، وقد كان النزاع قائماً على قدم وساق، إلى أن طواه شيخنا المفيد عندما انتهت إليه رئاسة الاِمامية في الكلام والفقه، فقد حقّق المقال في العقائد في غير واحد من كتبه لا سيما أوائل المقالات وتصحيح الاعتقاد

There is no doubt that the Imami Shias completely dissociate from the Ghulat, but the issue is with regards to the definition (boundaries) of ghulu. So the prevalent view among the great qummi scholars was that the Prophet (pbuh) did occasionally forget during prayers. Shaikh Sadooq (ra) and his teacher Muhammad b. al Hasan b. al Walid (ra) professed by this view, due to the ahadith that have been transmitted in this regard. Similarly, they viewed the attribution of the knowledge of ghaib (unseen) to the Prophet or the Imams to be ghulu, regardless of whether the attribution is made in the sense that the knowledge of ghaib has been granted to them by Allah or that they have acquired it independently.

At any rate, there was disagreement between the schools of thought, of Qum and Baghdad. The baghdadi scholars used to make extremely scathing attacks on the scholars of Qum, accusing them of being muqassirs. Similarly the Qummi scholars used to accuse them of ghulu. Shaikh Sadooq stated in his book Al Iteqdat: 'The giveaway sign of the mufawwidah, ghulat and their likes is that they accuse the shuyukh and the scholars of Qum of being muqassirs.”.

And when the reigns of the Imami Shias ended in Shaikh Mufid's hands, he delivered a fatal blow to the scholars of Qum, thereby protecting the Imami religion and its pillars. It would be appropriate to share the following historical anecdote of Shaikh Mufid.

Shaikh Mufid states about the muhadithin of Qum (Tashih al Itqadat, page 38): “Our hadith scholars (such as Shaikh Kulaini, Shaikh Sadooq, Ali b. Ibrahim al Qummi etc) are gullible and foolish people, with very limited intellect. The ahadith just pass over their heads. They accept any hadith without looking at its sanad, or verifying if it is valid or invalid. They neither understand what is required to authenticate ahadith, nor the correct meaning of the hadith.”

Shaikh Mufid quoted the views of some of the muhadithin which were contrary to Imami beliefs, therefore he faulted them and labelled them muqassirs. (Tashih al Itqadat, page 66) “And we have heard a news, apparently about Shaikh Ibn al Walid, based on which it is impossible to not call him a muqassir. What we have heard is, that he said 'The first stage of ghulu is to deny that the Prophet and Imams can forget', now if this is true then without a shadow of doubt Shaikh Ibn al Walid is a muqassir, regardless of the fact that he is a great scholar and Shaikh of Qum.”

“And we also came across a group of scholars from Qum, who did strong and blatant taqsir in religion. They would lower the Imams (as) from their ranks by saying that the Imams were not aware of most of the Islamic laws until the ruling was inspired in their hearts (by Allah).”

And it is evident from more than one utterance of Shaikh Mufid that the ideology of Shaikh Sadooq was not acceptable to him. It is seen that when he was asked about the differences seen in the rulings of Shaikh Sadooq for which he had presented ahadith along with their isnad, and the rulings of Ibn al Junayd who had stated his rulings without listing the isnad (or properly quoting the ahadith), Shaikh Mufid replied (Masail al Sarawiya, page 222): “As for what Shaikh Sadooq has reported, so it is not obligatory to follow all of it because its authenticity is unestablished as those ahadith are ahaad (not mutawatir). Their reporter (Shaikh Sadooq) is someone who is liable to forget. He reports what he heard, and quotes what he remembers, but obviously does not provide a guarantee for it (that he did not forget or misquote anything). And the scholars of hadith (like Shaikh Sadooq, Shaikh Kulaini, Shaikh al Saffar etc) narrate the good and the bad (i.e. what is correct as well as what is incorrect), and do not suffice upon only reporting what is fully known to them. They lack any insight and the capability to investigate. They do not give a thought to what they narrate and do not distinguish/discern. Therefore their ahadith just contain all sorts of stuff (are a mixed bag). The correct ahadith can not be distinguished in them from the incorrect ones but by referring to the principles/fundamentals and by relying on a knowledgeable person who may provide knowledge about the reliability of the hadith.”

One who studies the history of hadith from the fourth century Hijri till the early period of the fifth century Hijri, would find that there was a huge disagreement between the schools of Qum and Baghdad, with regards to the rank of the Prophet and the Imams.

Thus the scholars of Qum used to accuse the baghdadis of ghulu due to their denial of the possibility of the Prophet or Imam forgetting something, while the Baghdadis used to accuse the Qummi scholars of taqsir. This dispute was ongoing, until ended by Shaikh Mufid when the leadership of the Imamis in the fields of jurisprudence and theology transferred to him. He authored on aqaid (beliefs/ideology) in more than one of his books, especially in 'Awail al Maqalat' and 'Tashih al Itqadat'.

Translator's note: In an earlier post (click here), the differences between the beliefs of the classical scholars and the modern scholars had been highlighted. However, the classical scholars were not a monolithic group. It must be noted, that the transfer of the base of Shia scholarship from Qum to Baghdad in the fifth century hijri is a critical point in Shi'ite history. This is the period which marks the 'modernisation' (deviation) of tashayyu from its core.

Baghdad was then the Islamic capital of the Abbasid government and the melting pot of scholars from all Islamic schools of thought. Thus the Baghdadi Shia scholars (such as Shaikh Mufid, Sharif al Murtada, Shaikh Tusi etc) would often study under the Baghdadi Mu'tailite scholars, as well as other 'Aami scholars. Hence the baghdadi shia scholars were very heavily influenced by the Mu'tazillah and other 'Aama, and this reflected in their beliefs as well as their fiqh.

In this post, a brief glimpse can be seen of how the baghdadi scholars used to attack the pious and righteous Qummi scholars, for the sake of defending their ghulu beliefs, by relying on mu'tazilite tactics of dismissing (or twisting) ahadith and attacking the ahlul hadith.