Chapter 4: The place of the Ṣaḥīfa al-Sajjādiyya
In Muslim Tradition: An Analysis Into Authenticity
This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section deals with the Ṣaḥīfa as a textual production by focusing on the historical background of the Ṣaḥīfa, tracing its origins and transmissions.
The second section will undertake a critical study of the Ṣaḥīfa’s authenticity, attempting to apply both traditional Islamic and contemporary Western methods.
Furthermore, this will entail a linguistic analysis of the Ṣaḥīfa, examining their forms and literary aspects, such as their styles, language and the use of intertextuality and allusion to other sources. This will be done in order to evaluate whether the Ṣaḥīfa may or may not be placed within a specific time period and attributed to an author.
The third section will be examining the text specifically through a traditional evaluation, also considering the matan and sanad, and opinions expressed concerning the Ṣaḥīfa.
1.1 Background of the Ṣaḥīfat al-Sajjādiyya
According to Shīʿi tradition, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn had collected his supplications and taught them to his children, especially Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 120/738)
and Zayd (d. 122/740). In later times the text became widely disseminated among the Shīʿa of all persuasions. The specialists in the science of ḥadīth, such as Al-Najāshī and Al-Khū’i, maintain that the text is mutawātir;
in other words, it was generally known from earliest times and has been handed down by numerous chains of transmission, while its authenticity has never been questioned. In fact, Ibn Shahrāshūb (d.588/1192) refers to the popular view according to Shīʿi belief that after the advent of Islam, the Ṣaḥīfa was amongst the earliest composed works, after the writings of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and Salmān al-Fārsī, Abūdharr al-Ghaffārī, Asbagh b. Nabāta, ʿUbaydallāh b. Abī Rāfīʿ, all from the first/sixth century.
Traditionally, in the opinion of the majority of Shīʿi scholars, from the early era to the contemporary, it has been upheld that the Ṣaḥīfa traces its roots back to ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn and has been known during the ages by the honorifics. During the years Shīʿa scholars have unanimously agreed, without denial, that the Ṣaḥīfa traces its roots back to Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, the different opinions may be due to the different collections of prayers the scholars have collected.
However, according to Chittick’s translation, the arrangement of the text allows to draw a certain distinction between the fifty-four supplications, which make the main body of the text, and the additional supplications which make up the fourteen addenda (including the prayers for the days of the week) and the fifteen munajāt or ‘whispered prayers’. He maintains that the original fifty-four supplications show an undeniable freshness and unity of theme and style, while the latter, especially the munajāt, add a certain orderliness and self-conscious artistry which may suggest the hand of an editor.
The addenda are said to have been collected and added to the text by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Makkī, known as al-Shaḥīd al-Awwal (the ‘first martyr’), the famous author of Al-Lumʿat al-Dimishqīyya in
jurisprudence (fiqh) who was killed in Aleppo in 786/1384. The fifteen munajāt have been added to several modern editions of the Ṣaḥīfa and seem to have been brought to the attention of the main body of the Shī‛a by ‛Allāma Muḥammad Bāqir Majlisī (d. 1109/1698), author of the monumental compilation of Shī‛ī ḥadīth, Biḥar al-Anwār.
Over the years many scholars have written about the Ṣaḥīfa and numerous commentaries have been written, Buzurg Ṭihrānī lists them in the Dharīʿa to be close to seventy, with one of the earlier commentators being ʿAllāmah al-Ḥīllī (d.726/1325)and Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (d. 1109/1698).
2.1 Authenticity of Text
As with any classical document or text not being free from and exempted from the critique and analysis concerning its historical reliability, particularly in light of modern scholarship, a study of the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa is inescapable. Questions concerning the authenticity of the text, which have also been put to the body of early Arabic poetry, started early, and in ʿUmayyad times at the latest and have continued since.
To undertake a serious study and analysis of the relative historical reliability of the individual supplications found in all the versions of the Ṣaḥīfa, would be a study of great proportions, an undertaking which would certainly fall outside the scope of this study, as it alone may equal independent research in itself. However, for the sake of our study we have attempted a serious analysis into the subject without necessarily expending critical examination and investigation. The study of the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa may be undertaken in a number of ways. To begin with, we have chosen a study of the semantic meanings and usages of the word Ṣaḥīfa, in order to evaluate the historical meanings of the word and identify what they indicate to.
This is followed by a linguistic analysis of the text in order to assess the possible similarities and differences in the manner of the author’s deployment of language and use of allusion and reference. Furthermore, an attempt will also be made here to look at any possible significant and characteristic or thematic usages that may be specific to the text. An analysis of this kind, for a text of this nature, is significant as it may be one of the few alternatives besides the traditional analysis to candidate for critical examination. Such an analysis may possibly be able to place the Ṣaḥīfa within a certain time frame, together with traditional analysis. Moreover, this kind of analysis may indicate any specific usage that may direct towards indicating authorship. The last part of this section, deals with how traditional Islamic scholarship has evaluated and transmitted texts. Together with an analysis and application with reference to the Ṣaḥīfa, a brief overview will be given concerning the sciences (ʿilm al-ḥadīth and ʿilm al-rijāl) developed for evaluating texts. For the object of our study and analysis, as for the Ṣaḥīfa, reference will be made to the text established by al-Shaḥīd al-Awwal translated by Chittick.
2.2 Semantic meanings and usage of the word Ṣaḥīfa
According to Ibn Manzūr (d. 711/1311) the word ṣaḥīfa is meant to be something that is written upon.
Al-Zuhrī (d. 742/1341) maintains that
muṣḥaf (pl. of ṣaḥīfa, other forms of the plural are saḥā‘if, suḥufun and suḥfun) is a collection of that which is ‘written between two covers’, similarly Al-Jawharī (d. ca 860/1456) refers to the word ṣaḥīfa to mean book.
According to Lane (d. 1876) ṣaḥīfa is something written on paper or skin, it may also mean a book or a volume, a letter or an epistle, something synonymous with kitāb (book).
Watt gives it a similar meaning, he however adds that it may be applied especially to fragments of the Qur’ān or Ḥadīth or any other document of a solemn nature, whence finally are the written ṣaḥifa themselves.
An example of the early usage of the word can be found from the Qur’ān:
“...and this is in the books (ṣuḥuf) of the earliest (revelation), the books of Abraham and Moses”
Another example of the early usage of the word may be demonstrated according to Ibn Hanbal
(d. 241/855) and Ibn Māja
(d. 272/886), when the Prophet, just before his death asked for a ṣaḥīfa for writing upon at his dictation.
From the above there seems to be concurrence regarding the meaning of ṣaḥīfa to be something that is written, either in a book form or otherwise, from the classical to the contemporary era. Watt further maintains that the term (ṣaḥīfa) appears contemporaneously with the advent of Islam, but must evidently have existed before then.
The appended word ‘Sajjādiyya’ to Ṣaḥīfa in the title of the text makes reference to one of the agnomen or titles of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, meaning ‘the one who frequently prostrates’. This kind of usage is common when making reference to possession or ownership in the Arabic language, particularly in view of authorship and attribution of a document to its writer. E.g. an epistle or letter attributed to a person called Jaʿfar may be given the title Risāla Jaʿfariyya.
2.3 Linguistic Analysis
A close reading of the Ṣaḥīfa, will expose differences in the language and style used by the author. However, what is common is that the author makes constant reference and allusion to the verses of the Qur’ān and the ḥadīth. As the text is punctuated with ḥadīth and verses, it is in many places throughout that such references are acknowledged.
We find in the Ṣaḥīfa examples of this kind as it is a frequent address for reference to the verses of the Qur’ān and ḥadīth as well, both directly and in allusion. Whereas such sources are of course employed in other prayer manuals,
in the Ṣaḥīfa we find that such usage demonstrates knowledge and familiarity of an intimate nature to the sources, being one of the hallmark features characterising it. The language and style of the Ṣaḥīfa is generally Qur’ānic, or drawn from the Qur’ān and ḥadīth, it may have been for this reason the Ṣaḥīfa is also known as Ukht al-Qur’ān (The sister of the Qur’ān).
The following are some examples where this can be seen; Chittick illustrates one such instance regarding the theme of the predominance of God’s mercy. He sets the scene of the worshipper, when faced with the reality of both the mercy and wrath of God, he does everything to seek out the one and avoid the other. This theme is constant in devotional literature
but particular in the Ṣaḥīfa. The pattern for this is set in the wellknown supplication of the Prophet saying; ‘I seek refuge in Thy good pleasure from Thy displeasure and in Thy pardon from Thy punishment. I seek refuge in Thee from Thee.’
Here the worshipper prays to God for protection against God Himself, as there is in reality no other threat of significance. God is He who pardons and punishes, He who’s pleasure and displeasure is earned. What is more is that the supplicant can be confident that God’s mercy will eventually overcome, since God’s Essence is mercy, and His wrath only accidental. Mention of God’s predominating mercy is found in the Qur’ān
as being all embracing, however no such suggestion is made that His wrath is so universal. Allusion to these Qur’ānic and ḥadīth sources can be found in several places within the Ṣaḥīfa, such as in ‘His Supplication in Seeking Asylum with God’:
O God, if Thou willest, Thou wilt pardon us through Thy bounty and if Thou willest, Thou wilt chastise us through Thy justice…
…and grant us sanctuary from Thy chastisement through Thy forbearance, for none of us has the endurance for Thy justice and none of us can reach deliverance without Thy pardon!
Another example of a similar allusion can be found in ‘His Supplication on the Day of Sacrifice and on Friday’:
O God, nothing repels Thy wrath but Thy clemency, nothing repels Thy displeasure but Thy pardon, nothing grants sanctuary from Thy punishment but Thy mercy, and nothing will deliver me from Thee except pleading to Thee before Thee…
This is further illustrated in ‘His Supplication against that which he Feared and Dreaded’, this verse is almost identical with the one found in ‘His Supplication on the Day of Sacrifice and on Friday’:
My God, nothing repels Thy wrath but Thy clemency, nothing delivers me from Thy punishment but Thy pardon, nothing rescues from Thee but Thy mercy and pleading to Thee!
A language similar to that of the Ṣaḥīfa can be found in the prayers ascribed to the legendary Ḥaṣan al-Baṣrī (d.110/728) who has come to be known as one of the first mystics.
A closer reading of the prayers attributed to Haṣan al-Baṣrī would reveal certain similarities to the Ṣaḥīfa, such as allusion, reference and use of expression. This could be due to the fact, amongst other things, that both personalities were of a high spiritual standing, and interestingly also that the language employed in the Ṣaḥīfa, when compared, is suggestive of being from the same early period. There are many additional examples to draw from which would be found in the thematic study in the subsequent chapter of this thesis.
2.4 Sajʿ in the Ṣaḥīfat al-Sajjādiyya
Another distinguishing linguistic feature the author employs is the recurrent employment of sajʿor Arabic rhyme. In addition to demonstrating exceptional proficiency in composition and rhetoric, the sajʿ adds to the element of eloquence to the text. The author may also have had the readers in mind as this may have been due to ease for the readers to memorise some
of the supplications and to harmonise the flow of the text. However, there are places where this sajʿ is breached:
Lā yamlukūna ta’khīran ʿammā qaddamahum ilayhi Wa la yastaṭī‛ūna taqadduman ilā ma akhkharahum ʿanhu.
In the above example of the Ṣaḥīfa taken from the first supplication, the verb lā yamlikūna is rhymed with la yastaṭī‛ūna. The verbal noun ta’khīran is immediately followed by the verb qaddamaha, which is on the same morphological scale as ta’khīr (akhkhara -ta‘khīr / qaddama - taqdīm). However, after the verb yastaṭī‛ūna the verbal noun taqadduman is used instead of taqdīm, which rhymes which ta’khīr and is from the same morphological scale as the verb akhkhara, which immediately follows taqaddum. This change in the choice of words is designed to change the meaning of the supplication. The rhyme is then applied again in the remaining lines of the supplication.
It is a correct and acceptable form but one that seems to have appeared in later writings when Arabic etymology (al-ishtiqāq) developed. Most early Arabic dictionaries do not have these forms.
What is interesting is that this may raise the question whether the examples are frequent enough to indicate that the work, the whole body or parts, may be of a later period, different to what is popularly believed? It may not be the place here, for the sake of brevity and conciseness, to undertake a detailed and comprehensive study for such an analysis. What can be said is that word substitution may have taken place during transmission, which may be very likely, since it is claimed that the Ṣaḥīfa was transmitted textually, it is not clear whether the original text contained the diacritical points and vowels or not. It is possible that the scribes of later copies later inserted these vowels.
However, if this may tantamount to the text being manufactured or contrived and also from a different time period is difficult to envisage, as the ‘errors’ would be too conspicuous and blatant not to have been avoided and noticed. Furthermore, if it may be a case of manufacturing, the question arises why the text were not attributed to any of the later Imams, such as Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (d.148/765) or ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā (d.202/818), who were historically more renowned and attribution to whom may have been less challenging? This is a question that may remain unanswered.
Moreover, what may be maintained is that changes in the forms of the actual words, as long as not damaging the body of the text and changing the meaning, would not equal to questioning the integrity of the work. A reference related to this can be found in al-Kāfī in ‘The Book of Excellence of Knowledge’ regarding the quoting of books and traditions, and adhering to them. Muḥammad b. Māʿsūm enquired from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imam Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq):
“I hear the tradition from you and then (when quoting it to others) I add to it and subtract something from it.” The Imam replied, “It does not matter if you intend to convey the meaning of the tradition”
Reference to a similar narration is also found in al-Kāfī, this time from Dāwud b. Farqad who asked the same:
I hear the words and then intend to relate them as I have heard from you, but I cannot recall your words. The Imam enquired of me; “Do you deliberately change my words?” I replied; “No not at all!” The Imam further enquired;
“Do you intend to convey my meaning?” I replied; “Certainly!” At this the Imam observed; “Then it does not matter.”
Apart from the above words discussed, there are other points that can be made regarding the language and grammatical construction of the Ṣaḥīfa. We shall only make reference to such points later in this thesis when they contribute to our interpretation of the central questions of this study.
2.5 Authenticity of Early Arabic Poetry
Although, as mentioned earlier, such discussions concerning authenticity have always taken place, the debate was once again brought to light after doubts were cast concerning the authenticity of early Arabic poetry by Ṭaḥa Ḥusayn and Margoliouth in the 1920’s. The propositions of both these scholars, which were put forward independently are described by Jones (1992) to be quite flawed, and he describes the counter arguments propounded by the their opponents to be better.
The debate however drew to a close, not least because of the epilogue to Arberry’s The Seven Odes, in which the arguments were set out, analysed and rebutted.
Understandably it would not be the place here to discuss the whole body of arguments for or against concerning the discussion of authenticity of early Arabic poetry, as it would make the discussion extensive and take it outside our bounds. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that perceptive scholars as they are called by Jones, such as Gibb, who were not even directly involved in the debate would forward a succinct case in favour of authenticity and had this to say (Arabic Literature p. 21):
… it would have been impossible for the rāwīs of the eighth century, if they had nothing behind them but the undoubtedly genuine productions of the seventh, to have imagined the markedly different poetry of the pre-Islamic age, and to have invented all its particular local and personal diversities.
While it may very seldom be possible to provide objective evidence for the authenticity of any given poem with complete certitude, nevertheless (and notwithstanding all possible sources of error, verbal modification, or rearrangement) there can be no doubt that the commonly accepted nucleus of poems ascribed to the poets of the sixth century is a faithful reproduction of their poetic output and technique, and thus substantially authentic. Most, indeed, of what must have been an immense volume of poetry has perished, but what survives includes, at least, all those works which have been most highly esteemed by every generation of native critics.
Before entering the final part in our study of authenticity, which is the Traditional Analysis, an evaluation of the issues of linguistic analysis may give rise to some interesting matters to questions discussed in the sections concerning Arabic rhyme and Arabic poetry. Moreover, an assessment of the linguistic analysis of the Ṣaḥīfa with regard to allusion, reference and use of language draws the picture of an author with an intimate familiarity to and knowledge of the sources (Qur’ān and the sunna).
Chittick, in his words, when in the process of comparing and contrasting the Ṣaḥīfa and the personality of ‛Alī b. al-Ḥusayn “with a text which expresses the highest aspirations of the Muslim souls”,
says:
…if the author of the Ṣahīfat al-kāmila was not Imam Zayn al-‛Ābidīn, he – or they – would in any case have to have been a spiritual authority of equal rank.
It may well be appropriate here to say that such a familiarity appears to be quite coherent and in character with the personality of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, who is considered largely by the majority of the body of Muslim scholars to be held in the highest esteem. Further reference to his personality will be given subsequently in the biography.
3.1 Traditional Analysis
Traditional Islamic scholarship has evaluated texts and transmitted documents in two ways: first by a critical study of the chain of transmitters of the text, or what is known as the ṣanad.
Secondly, by a critical study of the subject matter of the text, what is known as the matan. Moreover, if the chain itself is believed to be interrupted or broken (munqati‛) the authenticity of the tradition or text will be questioned. If the subject-matter of the text or the matan is found to be contradicting the Qur’ān and other authenticated ḥadīth, or ʿaql (reason), or if the language is not believed to be from the period in which the narration or text is supposed to have originated, it will not be accepted as authentic.
Ḥadīth scholars have further divided the authentic report or the saḥiḥ into two main categories: the mutawātir (multiple successive transmissions) and the āḥād (single transmission) or khabar al-wāḥid.
The use of this terminology and methodology is not restricted to Ḥadīth Criticism only; it is commonly and frequently applied to other fields as well.
For example, in Arabic linguistics and lexicography the ṣanad played a very significant role in the study of words and their meanings. According to Suyūtī (d.910/1505), any meaning of a word would not be accepted until certain conditions were fulfilled.
Furthermore, ‛ʿ Abū al-Faḍl, expresses a similar opinion from the Lumaʿi-l adilla of Ibn al-Anbarī to that of Suyūṭī, with the addition of the influence and implications on language and law.
From this it may be arrived to the fact that the study of the chain of transmitters was not limited to ḥadīth literature only.
Those who have written on the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa have claimed that their chains are mutawātir.
There are many chains that have been used to transmit the Ṣaḥīfa.
The most popular are those leading back directly to Muḥammad al-Bāqir b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and al-Shaḥīd al-Khālid Zayd b. ʿAlī also the son of Zayn al-‛Ābidīn. Zayd is said to have possessed a manuscript of the Ṣaḥīfa in his custody, which was later passed on to his children and to the children of ʿAbdullah b. al-Ḥasan al-Muthanna, as mentioned in the beginning of the manuscript.
There was yet another manuscript in the hands of Muḥammad al-Bāqir.
According to al-Abṭaḥī, in Majlisī’s account, the number of narrators in the chains of those who transmitted the Ṣaḥīfa
reached over fifty six thousand people
, this number is consistent with the view held by other scholars as well.
Furthermore, Chittick mentions a reference found in Mishkāt’s and Marʿashī’s introduction to the Ṣaḥīfa, that Majlisī’s father, Mullā Muḥammad Taqī Majlisī (d.1070/1659-60) counted all the chains of transmission by which he had received the Ṣaḥīfa to be more than a million.
What possibly could have been meant is the number of reporters in all of the chains.
The wording of the ṣanad itself suggests that the Ṣaḥīfa may have been transmitted both orally and as a written document. The narrator in the beginning of the chain uses the verb ḥaddathanā (‘he related to us’), which is an indicator that he is reporting directly from his sources as opposed to the words ʿan (from), which allows the possibility of indirect transmission.
Another verb used in the same ṣanad is akhbaranā (he informed us) which is a technical term used by narrators to indicate that they are transmitting from a written document.
The words qirā’atan ʿalayhi wa anā asmaʿ (he recited it to him while I was listening) also used in the chains explicitly suggests that the Ṣaḥīfa was being circulated and transmitted in written form.
Likewise, verbs such as samiʿtuha (I heard it) also suggest that the transmission of the Ṣaḥīfa is through unbroken chains.
Since there are hundreds of such chains used to transmit this work, discussing each chain individually will prove to be an exhausting task and a study of this magnitude, is perhaps more suitable in the fields of Tradition studies or Ḥadīth criticism. It is not the intention here to analyse all the chains and the biographies of fifty six thousand or more narrators who are believed to have transmitted this work since such a study has already been undertaken by others in the field of rijāl and ḥadīth studies.
The terms ṣaḥīfa seems to suggest that the text may have been written by the author himself and not merely attributed to him.
Regarding the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa, Chittick in his introduction, maintains that:
The opinion of the writer of these lines concerning the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa – admittedly based only upon an intimate acquaintance with the text gained through months spent in translation – is that the original fifty-four prayers go back to Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, that the addenda are nearly as trustworthy, and that the munajāt may have been worked upon by others.
But the Ṣaḥīfa in its larger forms probably contains a good deal of material from later authors.
Of course it may be difficult to identify exactly what would have convinced Chittick concerning the authenticity of the Ṣaḥīfa. However, it may be observed that what seems to be an additional factor -and perhaps the deciding factor- over and above his investigation and analysis, which may have led to give the identity of a ‘person’, it seems that the ‘intimate acquaintance’ gained with the text by spending months in translation, as mentioned above, may have given gave a ‘face’ to that person, the person and the face being that of ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn.
What many of those who work with and translate texts of various kinds might agree with, is that often an in-depth and close relationship may
gradually evolve towards the object of study, which in turn might allow the text to be viewed from ‘within’ rather than to be observed from the ‘outside’.
Traditionally, in the opinion of the Shīʿa at least, there has been no doubt concerning the integrity and authorship of the Ṣaḥīfa.
Although there is some disagreement among non-Shīʿa scholars regarding the authorship of the Ṣaḥīfa,
it is not maintained within the body of Shīʿa scholarship as mentioned, particularly in the minds of Shīʿa worshippers who use the prayer manual. For them, according to Howarth (1991, p.19) “the value of the book cannot be divorced from the history and personality of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn himself.”
He records an interesting incident in his thesis to illustrate this point as recounted by Naṣr: Henry Corbin, a noted Western scholar in Shīʿa studies, remarked once to the well-known Shīʿa scholar ʿAllāma Ṭabaṭabā’ī, the compiler of the renowned commentary of the Qur’ān, al-Mizān, that “Western scholars claim that ʿAlī is not the author of the Nahj al-balāgha.” The ʿAllāma “raised his head and answered in his usual gentle and calm manner”, and replied:
“For us whoever wrote the Nahj al-balāgha is ʿAlī, even if he lived a century ago.”
0%
Author: Mahmood G. Dhalla
