Talk:Kitab al-Kafi

Authenticity of the Al-Kafi

The authenticity of the Al-Kafi has only been disputed by Shaykh Suduk and contemporary Shi`a scholars. If we look at the classical shi`a scholars, the avst majority of them declared al-Kafi to be Sahih.

This is alluded by the author of the text himself when he states:

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها يؤدي فرض الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’” al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

Following this, he said:

وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.” al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 9 [Tehran]

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

وقد جمع رحمه الله في موسوعته هذه ما صح لديه من أحاديث الأئمة الهداة عليهم السلام

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt included in the introduction.

Furthermore, Āyat Allāh Abū Ţālib al-Tajlīl al-Tabrīzī, author of the famous booklet translated as ‘Spurious Arguments about the Shia,’ confirms this declaration of al-Kulaynī in the introduction to his book known as Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāwī.

He writes about al-Kulaynī and his al-Kāfī:

وقد صرح في مقدمته بصحة أحاديثه حيث قال وقلت تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام . . . . إلى أن قال وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, when he said: ‘Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as)…’ to: ‘Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.’” Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

This declaration of al-Kulaynī was so influential in history that it even led a group of Ithnā’ `Asharī Shī`ī scholars to use it as an argument for their belief in the immaculacy of the contents of al-Kāfī. Among them is al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), a major Shī`ī scholar of that group and an expert in the field of narrations, who staunchly believed in the correctness of all the narrations in al-Kāfī.

He states about the declaration of al-Kulaynī cited above:

وهو صريح أيضا في الشهادة بصحة أحاديث كتابه لوجوه منها قوله بالآثار الصحيحة ومعلوم أنه لم يذكر فيه قاعدة يميز بها الصحيح عن غيره لو كان فيه غير صحيح ولا كان اصطلاح المتأخرين موجودا في زمانه قطعا كما يأتي فعلم أن كل ما فيه صحيح باصطلاح القدماء بمعنى الثابت عن المعصوم بالقرائن القطعية أو التواتر

“This is also an explicit declaration of authenticity of the narrations in his book due to various points.

One of these points is: His statement: ‘Authentic narrations.’ It is well-known that neither did he mention a rule that distinguishes the rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] narration from the other categories in (the book), even if there is a non-şaĥīĥ narration in it, nor were the terminologies of the later scholars absolutely present during his time, as it will be further explained.

Thus, it is known that all the narrations in it are correct [şaĥīĥ] by the terminology of the early scholars, with the meaning of being proven from the infallible on the basis of categorical indications or consecutiveness.” Khātimat Tafşīl Wasā’il al-Shī`a ilá Taĥşīl Masā’il al-Sharī`a, of al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), volume 30, page 196 [Qum]

Note: What al-Ĥurr means by “the terminology of later scholars” are the terminologies introduced with the categorization of narrations, in terms of their authenticity, that was not invented until the end of the 7th Islamic century. Before this categorization, the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars viewed the narrations to be either şaĥīĥ or not şaĥīĥ. This will be further elaborated in this writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.194.3 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Diacritics

I did a big bunch of cleanup on this, and in the process I normalized spellings to consistently be using the diacritics, since they already dominated in the article. If the more bare forms are what editorial consensus at this article would prefer, feel free to switch to those, but please do it consistently from top to bottom, instead of the confusing mess I found which was veering back and forth between conflicting transliteration approaches.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)