The Book Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid

 

We have already stated that someone has made casting some doubt about the attribution of the book titled Al-Ikhtisas to Shaikh al-Mufid an excuse for refusing to rely on what he narrates of the oppression to which al-Zahra’ (A.S.) was subjected and to refuse to attribute narrating it to al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him.

We say that after having taken into consideration what is said about Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, we have found such questions to be unreliable to cast doubt about the accuracy of attributing all of this to such a great man of knowledge. We are here briefly answering some of the issues which were raised about this book, so let us say the following:

 

1. There are many traditions in the book which start thus: “I was told by Ja`fer ibn al-Husain, the believer..., etc.,” so, some people thought that the book was written by this man!

But, mind you, there are many other traditions in the book which do not start with the name of this man but with the names of others, or they may add other individuals with the use of a conjunction pronoun. So, all of this contradicts the attribution of the book to the said individual.

 

2. Authors of encyclopedias, such as al-Najjashi’s Rijal, al-Tusi’s Fahrist and Ibn Shahr ashab’s Ma`alim al-`Ulem a’, do not refer to this book as being among those authored by al-Mufid.

The answer to this is that all these compilers did not mention all what al-Mufid had written. Rather, each author listed some of them, and Al-Ikhtisas is one book which they did not list. We will Insha-Allah discuss why they did not list it among his works.

 

3. The handwritten copies of this book contain a great deal of confusion: The book’s sermon in one copy is found at the end of all its pages in another!

The answer is that the pages of some copies may have become out of order, so the compilers put them together the best that they could.

 

4. Here is another question: “Muhammed ibn `Abd al-Rahman said..., etc.” “Who is this man?!”

The answer is derived from what the author himself says, as was customary among ancient authors, and not the statement of others who transmitted him, may Allah have mercy on him.

It is possible that this statement was written by some people as explanatory, then the copyists inserted it in the original through an inserious mistake which needs no proving. His choice of al-Mufid rather than anyone else was due to the reference to some of al-Mufid’s mentors in the book. It is said to him: “Just as these were his mentors, they were the mentors of others as well.” But there are in the book others who are not known to be al-Mufid’s mentors, that the book is al-Mufid’s, and that the other possibilities were not taken into consideration, and they are more numerous!

 

5. The book is formatted more like a collection of narratives most of which deal with the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. It does not follow its sequence, according to a logical and harmonious procedure, whereas al-Mufid is characterized by precision and innovation.

We say that this is not a fault in the book. The objective of some authors may be to write collections of narratives or something else. Al-Mufid himself is the writer of the book titled Al-Amali, a modern book which is also formatted like a collection of narratives. Shaikh al-Mufid’s precision and innovation do not have to manifest themselves in his modern books as is obvious. Regardless of this fact, the book is a selection by Shaikh al-Mufid of citations from the book titled Al-Ikhtisas by Ibn `Imran as we shall see.

 

6. There are researches in the book which are not in sync with al-Mufid’s views in all his books, nor does the general framework of the book itself indicate that it is authored by an intellectual such as Shaikh al-Mufid; rather, it is closer to the writing of a modernist such as Shaikh al-Saduq, for example.

The answer to this is already known from what we have already stated, that is, the objective may have been to safeguard some traditions within a collection of narratives as is the case with Al-Amali, for example, one of which was written by Shaikh al-Mufid. Add to this the possibility that the compilation of these traditions may have taken place before al-Mufid became an imam in tenets, fiq, etc.

The objective behind compiling them may not have been to put them together as a book artistically arranged which people handle and upon which they rely. Add to this the fact that the view relevant to the traditions or to the doctrine does not prohibit the importation of what may contradict it, such as the traditions which may agree therewith. A scholar is characterized by conforming to the rules of the research of hadith when he studies it and to also uphold all the restrictions and follow the procedures adhered to with regard to traditions and to transmitting and selecting them while assuming the role of a traditionist. For this reason, we find the traditionists narrating contradictory incidents in their books despite their adoption and acceptance of a particular group thereof, especially in the area of fiqh, and this can be seen from reviewing the books of al-Kulayni and al-Saduq as well as those of others.

We have seen how a scholar writes assuming the role of a traditionist, as is the case with al-Tusi, may Allah sanctify him, who wrote Al-Nihaya, which is a collection of narratives. A philosopher may write like those who introduce their ideas tot the public, as happened to Shaikh Nasar ad-Din al-Tusi in some of his letters. Or a traditionist may write like a philosopher, as happened to al-Fakhr al-Razi. A sufi may assume the role of a philosopher, as is the case with al-Ghazali, and those like them are quite few.

On the other hand, we say that some views may change as time goes by especially if a scholar holds a view and enjoys an intellectual vitality and treads the path of perfection in his awareness, intellect and knowledge. The degrees of an author’s awareness of certain considerations which he observes as he from time to time writes. Yet we shall mention that the contents of this book are selections by al-Mufid from another book.

 

7. Another observation is recorded about Al-Ikhtisas which is: the existence of fault or sometimes ambiguity in referring to some pronouns in it, or the existence of a large gap between the pronoun and what it denotes.

This point has been answered by saying that such is not confined only to this book but does exist in various ones such as Al-Kafi, Al-Tahthab and Al-Wasa’il as well.

This issue is rendered to various reasons; among them is that the author may come across a narrative, so he places it somewhere in his book, paying no attention to the necessity of reconsidering the sequence which is supposed to be observed in placing the pronoun and what it denotes between two narratives separated by a new tradition or a new statement.

 

8. One of their criticism about this book is that its author once quotes from books like those of al-Saduq, or from Basa’ir al-Darajat or from other Shaikhs.

If we discern the Shaikhs (mentors) whom he has quoted, we will find five of them to be mentors of al-Mufid and sixteen others for whom al-Mufid does not quote a single narrative except in his book titled Al-Ikhtisas. On the other hand, there are mentors of al-Mufid who enjoy a distinctive status, while there is not a single narration about them in Al-Ikhtisas, such as al-Ji`abi, Ahmed ibn Muhammed ibn al-Hassan ibn al-Walad, al-Sayrafi, and others.

The answer to this point is that the author of the book is apparently Ibn `Imran who was chosen by al-Mufid who quoted what he liked from him. The book’s sources are, then, the mentors of Ibn `Imran, not those of al-Mufid. There will be more to back this fact by the will of Allah Almighty.

 

SECOND: It is possible that the author of the book wrote it before he had many mentors. He, may Allah have mercy on him, may have selected all or some of its narratives from the books which he had with him, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

THIRD: The (critics) say that some of those quoted by the author of the book are not quoted by al-Mufid in his books. This cannot serve as evidence to deny his authorship of the book. He may in one place quote a mentor who was not quoted by his own other mentors. He may learn from new mentors, so he writes about them then leaves them to take other mentors for reasons varying along the passage of time according to conditions, circumstances and objectives.

Is there among the scholars of hadith anyone who preconditions the narrator to quote in all his book each and every mentor of his from whom he learned during his lengthy scholarly history?!

Having stated all the above, there are many copies of Al-Ikhtisas which are as follows:

 

1. The copy written from the one by Shaikh al-Hurr^[1] which has attributed the writing of the book to Shaikh al-Mufid without any ambiguity about its being written by him. The following had been written on it: The Book of Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, Muhammed ibn Muhammed ibn al-Nu`man, selected from Al-Ikhtisas by Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn `Imran.” At its conclusion, he wrote the following: “This is the complete text of the book Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify him.”

As regarding the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr himself, it was written on it that it was the property of Shaikh al-Hurr, may Allah have mercy on him, in 1087 A.H. The date of its writing is not known, and it is available at the Library of Ayatullah al-Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, in Najaf al-Ashraf (Iraq).

 

2. There is another copy at Library Spah Salar-Tehran with the date of its writing as 1118 A.H. Its scribe has written down saying that the book is abridged from Al-Ikhtisas by Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn `Imran. This statement is not different from what is written on the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr because what is meant by it is that Al-Ikhtisas itself if Ibn `Imran’s, and this does not contradict its abridged version to be Shaikh al-Mufid’s as well.

 

3. There is an old copy at the Library of the mausoleum of Imam al-Rida (A.S.) with the date of its writing indicated as 1055 A.H. After several pages, the following statement is written:

“This book is extracted from the book titled Al-Ikhtisas by Aba Ali, Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn Ahmed ibn `Imran, may Allah have mercy on him.”

This statement, too, does not contradict what is written on the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr himself for the same afore-mentioned reason, that is, Al-Ikhtisas itself is written by Ibn `Imran while its abridged version is Shaikh al-Mufid’s.

It seems that some of the pages of this copy are ahead of or following those of other versions, as it appears from observing it closely, and this happens for many reasons.

So, there is no objection to attributing the printed book, Al-Ikhtisas, which agrees with the first two editions, to Shaikh al-Mufid since he selected its contents from Ibn `Imran’s book, so much so that he sets out to select its precious legacies and jewels of narratives. The testimony to this is the fact that the book titled Al-Fusal al-Mukhtara, which is selections by al-Sharaf al-Radi from the contents of Al-`Uyan wal Mahasin by al-Mufid, is not counted among the works of al-Sharaf. Rather, its attribution to al-Mufid is more obvious and clear and is still counted among his works as is well known.