Isnād analysis

The first tradition can be traced back to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī's (d. 290/902–3) Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī is also known as Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. Farrūkh. He was a companion of the eleventh Shī’ite Imam al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī and one of the shaykhs of renowned Shī’ite ḥadīth collector Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī. Al-Ṣaffār was a resident of Qum, considered to be a prolific writer, and classified as a trustworthy (thiqa) person.Footnote ⁴⁷ His work Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt is known to be one of the oldest Shī’ite collections and was written in praise of the Prophet and the Shī’ite Imāms. According to Āghā Buzurg Ṭahrānī the book was later abridged and this abridged version is called Mukhtaṣar al-Baṣāʾir. Later on, Shaykh Ḥasan b. Sulaymān al-ḤillīFootnote ⁴⁸ selected some traditions from the abridged version for his famous book entitled Muntakhab al-Baṣāʾir, which first mentioned the concept of al-rajʿā.Footnote ⁴⁹

In the tradition, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir ostensibly informs his audience about the collation of the Qur’ān by the Imāms:

1. 1. Al-Ṣaffār's Version (S1):

Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī (250/864–329/941) is known to be the most important ḥadīth collector of the Shī’ite faith and the book is considered the most authentic ḥadīth collection.Footnote ⁵² He recorded a variant of the tradition in his al-Kāfi fī ʿIlm al-Dīn:

1. 2. Al-Kulaynī's version (K1):

There is a third version of the tradition mentioned in Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt. The text of the tradition resembles the other two versions (although it is shorter), but the isnād is very different save the existence of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn in it:

1. 3. Al-Ṣaffār's version (S2):

Upon first glance, one notices that there are three versions of the tradition mentioned in the works Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt fī Faḍāʾil Āl Muḥammad and al-Kāfī fī ʿIlm al-Dīn, which were written in the third and fourth Islamic centuries.

The asānīd of S1 and K1 are almost identical, but despite the similarities, the version that is reported in K1's sanad seems peculiar, as before it reaches al-Kulaynī it goes through two Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayns whose identities are not mentioned, thus giving the impression that there is an irregularity in the sanad. However, I have demonstrated elsewhereFootnote ⁵⁷ that this apparent irregularity occurs due to a typological error and in fact al-Kulaynī's informant is Muḥammad b. al-Yaḥyā, who was a favourite informant of his.

After Muḥammad b. al-Yaḥyā the two asānīd (S1 and K1) merge at Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 262/875), who seems to be a partial common link (pcl) for this group. He was a highly revered Kūfī scholar and has been praised greatly in both Rijāl al-Najāshī and al-Ṭūsī‘s al-Fihrist. Najāshi considered him a great Shī’ite scholar who authored books on various subjects. He was also a prolific transmitter and has been graded as thiqa.Footnote ⁵⁸ According to al-Hilālī, he was a companion of three Shī’ite Imāms: Imām al-Jawād, Imām al-Hādī and Imām al-ʿAskarī. Further, al-Hilālī feels obliged to mention that he was different from his father, Muḥammad b. abī Zaynab al-Khaṭṭāb, who was an “infamously damned” man.Footnote ⁵⁹ Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb was a contemporary of both Muḥammad b. YaḥyāFootnote ⁶⁰ and al-Ṣaffār (d. 290/202–903), thus it is highly probable that Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb was the one who distributed tradition K1. Although Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā was a Qummī scholar, there was extensive interaction between Qum and Kūfa at the time as both were major Shī’ite centres of knowledge and scholars very often travelled back and forth between the two cities.Footnote ⁶¹

Therefore, we can trace the tradition to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb, the common link, who lived in the third Islamic century in Kūfa. Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb either fabricated the tradition or learned it from another source and genuinely disseminated it. As for the first possibility, the isnād-cum-matn method prompts the question: Is there is any reason why Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb would have invented the tradition? Biographical books do not suggest any reason for him to take such a course of action. One possibility, however, is that as a devout Shī’ite he wanted to boost the reputation of ʿAlī b. abī Ṭālib through the fabrication of this tradition. As has been mentioned above, such a tradition would have implied significant political and religious gains for ʿAlī and his followers, and one might always argue that the fabrication of traditions on the subject must have been a very tempting enterprise for the Shī’ite scholars. Having said that, unless it is substantiated such an assumption remains the result of bias and the burden of proof is on the scholars who come up with such allegations.

Further, the identities of the remaining transmitters in the sanad significantly weaken the possibility that Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb invented the tradition. His source, Muḥammad b. Sinān (d. 220/835) was a very well-known reporter to the Shī’ite scholars. He was a mawlā (client) of ʿAmr b. al-Ḥamīq al-Khāzāʿī,Footnote ⁶² who was allegedly involved in the rebellion against the third caliph ʿUthmān that resulted in his assassination.Footnote ⁶³ Both al-Ṭūsī and al-NajāshīFootnote ⁶⁴ give a very negative account of him and consider him weak, unreliable and extremist (ghālī). Although Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) clears him of all the accusationsFootnote ⁶⁵ there remains a controversy around his personality. Muḥammad b. Sinān narrates the tradition from ʿAmmār b. Marwān,Footnote ⁶⁶ who was known to be the mawlā of Banū Thawbān. There is not much information regarding ʿAmmār b. Marwān in the biography books despite his frequent appearance in the asānīd of many traditions. According to al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā mostly report traditions from him and he reports from Muḥammad b. Sinān.Footnote ⁶⁷

ʿAmmār b. Marwān narrates the tradition from al-Munakhkhal b. Jamīl.Footnote ⁶⁸ He was from Kūfa and had a book on tafsīr. He narrates from Abū ʿAbdallāh and Abū al-Ḥasan. The majority of rijāl scholars consider him weak and of extremist tendencies (ghālī).Footnote ⁶⁹ Footnote ⁷⁰ However, al-Ṭūsī was neutral on the issue and did not pass any judgment about him.Footnote ⁷¹ Finally, al-Munakhkhal b. Jamīl narrates it from Jābir b. Yazīd (d. 127/745), who was a disciple of Abū Jaʿfar and Jaʿfar al Ṣādiq.

Since Muḥammad b. Sinān was a controversial personality it is difficult to carry on with the isnād analysis after him. As he was accused of being a ghālī, it makes it more likely that he fabricated the tradition or at best was inclined to be careless regarding the reliability of transmitters when collecting traditions that revere the status of the Imāms. On the other hand, al-Mufīd's assurance about his reliability might help us to lift the controversy around him. But, at this stage, it is best not to stray into more controversial areas.

As for the third version (S2) of the same tradition, its matn resembles the previous two versions yet the isnād significantly differs after Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn. The transmission goes as a single strand through al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb and ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī and then again reaches the fifth Imām, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir (d. 114/733). In comparison to the previous two versions, there are significantly fewer transmitters involved in this chain of transmission. As we have covered Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb when we treated the previous two versions, we can begin with examining al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb.

The information regarding al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb is limited as he is a rather unknown personality to Shī’ite scholars. His name was mentioned in the few Shī’ite traditions that were reported through al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb. He was certainly not one of the individuals who very often appeared in the Shī’ite asānīd. Nevertheless, some traditions in which al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb narrates can be found through an examination of major Shī’ite works. This includes 17 traditions in Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, 11 traditions in al-Kāfī, and two narrations in Man Lā Yahḍuruhu al-Faqīh,Footnote ⁷² written by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Bābawayh (d. 381/991), one of the most important ḥadīth collectors in the Shī’ite faith. Further, Ibn Bābawayh narrates one tradition through al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb in his book entitled al-Amālī Footnote ⁷³ which is a collection of lecture notes recorded by his students, two traditions in al-Khisāl Footnote ⁷⁴ Footnote ⁷⁵ and finally two more traditions in Ibn Bābawayh's Maʿānī al-Akhbār.Footnote ⁷⁶ Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413/1022) narrates two traditions through al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb in his al-Ikhtiṣāṣ.Footnote ⁷⁷ In addition, al-Ṭūsī mentions seven traditions in his Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām,Footnote ⁷⁸ and six traditions in al-Istibṣār fī-mā Ikhtalaf min al-Akhbār Footnote ⁷⁹ that were transmitted through al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb. Finally, Muḥammad Muḥsin b. Shāh Murtaḍā Fayḍ al-Kāshānī's (d. 1091/1680) celebrated compilation al-Wāfī also mentions 15 traditions that contain the name al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb in their asānīd.Footnote ⁸⁰

Perhaps his lack of frequent appearance in the asānīd was the main reason why there was no interest in al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb by the early Shī’ite scholars and, consequently, there is no direct information about him in the early sources. The only information we may attain about al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb is indirectly, when he is mentioned in the articles about his informants and reporters in the early rijāl works. In these works, by studying Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī we can determine that al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb is usually mentioned when he transmits traditions from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī.Footnote ⁸¹

In the traditions where al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb appears in the asānīd, most of the time Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb reports from him and al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb reports from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī. Thus the sanad is not unprecedented. However, lack of information about al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb makes it very difficult to examine the sanad adequately. The sanad of this version could have been stronger if al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb were excluded, as the other transmitters were well-known individuals and often transmitted traditions through the same paths.

In this regard, the last person in the chain of transmission before it reaches Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir is ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī, who was a prominent Shī’ite transmitter. In Rijāl al-Najāshī, ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī is also mentioned with additional titles: al-Ghaffār b. Ḥabīb and al-Ṭāʾī.Footnote ⁸² He was from Jaziyyah (ahli Jaziyya) a village between two rivers, presumably Tigris and Euphrates (qarya bi-al-Nahrayn).Footnote ⁸³ He reports from Abū ʿAbdallāh, the sixth Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (83/702–148/765), and was rated as thiqa. Al-Najāshī also informs about the usual chains of transmission through which reports from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī were transmitted. One of the transmission paths includes: “Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn (Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb) narrated to us (ḥaddathanā), he said: Al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb narrated to us (ḥaddathanā), from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār in his book”.Footnote ⁸⁴

There is adequate information in al-Najāshī's brief paragraph to figure out that ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī lived in Iraq, a village in Mesopotamia called Jāziya, and he was a contemporary of the son of the fifth Imām Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir. Therefore it is possible that he saw al-Bāqir himself and reported the tradition from him. Although his date of death is not available, since he was a contemporary of the fifth and the sixth Imāms, we may try to deduce the possible time period in which he lived. The fifth Imām al-Bāqir died in year 114 and reportedly served as an Imām for 19 years before he was poisoned. In order for al-Jāzī to be able to report from al-Bāqir he should have been at a reasonable age, perhaps between 15 and 25 years old. Since he only narrates one tradition from Abū Jaʿfar, we might assume that he was very young during Abū Jaʿfar's period of Imāmat.

As he also witnessed the period of Imāmat of the sixth Imām and reported many traditions from him, we may assume that he was at the peak of his career at this time and lived through most of the period of the Imāmat of al-Ṣādiq, which spanned 34 years. Since he did not narrate traditions from the seventh Imām Mūsā b. Jaʿfar al-Kāẓim (128–183/745–799) one may assume that he died towards the end of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq's life. Therefore it might be feasible to accept Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq's date of death 148, as roughly also al-Jāzī ‘s date of death.Footnote ⁸⁵ However, he may also have survived through some parts of the period of the Imāmat of al-Kāẓim but was too old or sick to travel and attend the gatherings of al-Kāẓim in order to collect traditions from him. Nevertheless, he may have continued to receive students in his house and to teach them traditions.

He should have been roughly in his 60s or 70s when he died, so considering the untimely death of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq perhaps it is more reasonable to assume that he died a few years later than al-Ṣādiq, around year 155. We also know the date of death of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb, which is 262/875. At this juncture, despite the lack of information about al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb, it appears that through the isnād-cum-matn method it might be possible to find out if he lived at a time when he could have transmitted the tradition from al-Jāzī to Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb. Considering the fact that Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb was a companion of three Shī’ite Imāms: Imām al-Jawād, Imām al-Hādī and Imām al-Askarī,Footnote ⁸⁶ he must have had a considerably long life. He was perhaps in his 70s or 80s when he died. If we assume he died around 70 years old, he would have been born around year 192.

Consequently, al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb should have been born at least in year 140 and perhaps died around 210 so that Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb could have met him. Although it might be physically possible that al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb transmitted the tradition, there are other issues to consider. For example, there is only one instance in the entire Shī’ite ḥadīth corpus in which ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī reports a tradition from Abū Jaʿfar. He reports all the remaining traditions from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. This might cast some doubt regarding the authenticity of the tradition, but a possible explanation is that he was very young during the period of the Imāmat of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and therefore only heard a few traditions from him, among which only this one found its way into the ḥadīth books.

In addition, it is strange that this tradition was only recorded by al-Ṣaffār. It does not appear in any other major Shī’ite sources; is it possible that al-Ṣaffār fabricated it? In order to establish this we need to find evidence and/or motive, but we have not encountered any information that suggests he might have fabricated the tradition. Even if it was only recorded by al-Ṣaffār, this does not necessarily mean that the version was fabricated.

Therefore, we can trace the tradition to Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb, who was also the pcl of the previous two versions of the traditions. Again, according to the isnād-cum-matn method there is no reason not to trace it back to al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb who seems to be the source of the version. Al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb transmitted a number of traditions in major Shī’ite collections but he was an unknown personality, and this casts doubt about the reliability of the tradition. It is physically possible for him to have received the tradition from ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī; nevertheless perhaps it is more prudent to pause at al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb and date the version to year 210, al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb's estimated date of death.

Matn analysis

We have three very short versions of the tradition; therefore it might be difficult to extract enough information from the texts to help date the tradition. The mutūn are in the statement format, which initially gives the impression that the Imāms (al-awṣiyā’) collated the Qur’ān in its entirety. However, there is a possibility of an alternative reading of jamʿ, as especially in the early periods, the word jamʿ meant knowing the Qur’ān by heart. If that is the case, the tradition refers not to the collation of the Qur’ān but to its true and definitive understanding which no one can claim to have. In this group of variants this reading of jamʿ seems to be more plausible, especially considering that K1's text includes the wording ʿindahu jamīʿ al-Qur’ān (he possesses the collection of the Qurʾān).

At first sight, despite the shortness of the two versions, there are visible differences between them. In al-Ṣaffār's version the pronoun hu is added to the word anna which is then followed by the word jamaʿa; however in al-Kulaynī's version the word anna stands alone and is followed by ʿindahu jamīʿ. In addition, in S1 and in S2 kullahu is accusative while in K1 kullihi is genitive.

The matn of K1 seems to be the result of transmission errors. Jamīʿ al-Qur’ān kulluhu is a doubling. Jamīʿ al-Qurʾān and al-Qurʾān kulluhu mean the same and jamīʿ and kull together do not make sense; thus it is possibly the result of transmission errors. For instance, a copyist wrote jamīʿ instead of jamaʿa or read it from the manuscript he was copying, because the word was not well legible and he (or a later copyist) inserted ʿinda in order to make the sentence more comprehensible. Another guess is that someone purposely changed the original wording, placed the word ʿinda between anna and hu and changed jamaʿa to jamīʿ. In any case, version K1 seems to be corrupt, and the corruption is probably due to Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā or al-Kulaynī.

Despite the differences, there are undeniable similarities between the two variants. The two versions are clearly interdependent, which gives the impression that they were reported from the same source. Aside from noting the common source, matn analysis does not have much to offer in taking us further than the source that we have identified: Muḥammad b. Sinān. The matn analysis only reveals that al-Ṣaffār and al-Kulaynī had different sources, which as we demonstrated above reach Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb and then finally go back to Muḥammad b. Sinān. Therefore, the earliest date to which we can trace the two versions is 220, the date Muḥammad b. Sinān died.

As for the third version (S2), we may say that it is very similar to the other two versions but looks more complete in the sense that it briefly gives information about the context in which Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir uttered the statement regarding the collection of the Qur’ān. An unknown man asked him about it and he gave a terse answer. In this version (S2) the word yaddaʿī is replaced by the word yaqūl. In addition, the words “ẓāhir” and “bāṭin” do not exist in version S2 but the word kullu (kullahu) is used.

Since the pcl for these versions is Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb, one might argue that he invented this seemingly more complete version to strengthen the version that he already possessed. However, the question remains whether S2 is more complete: Although it might seem so owing to its proper introduction, the way the statement was uttered misses certain information such as the words “ẓāhir” and “bāṭin”. Had Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb wanted to put together a more complete version he would surely have included these crucial pieces of information. Perhaps he could have also included some other details to “perfect” this version. Therefore, the evidence from matn analysis suggests that the version can be traced back to Ibn abī al-Khaṭṭāb's source al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb, whose date of death is roughly around year 210.

This date is earlier than the date we reached when we examined the two other versions, which could be traced to year 220. At this stage, we might ask if it is possible to go beyond the date we have at hand and trace the versions to earlier than year 210. Despite the nuances in the versions, their structure is similar as in all of them the statement starts with the expression Mā yastaṭīʿu aḥadun. Also, they all have the expression ghayr al-awṣiyā’ and other similar words, as a result of which one might argue that the versions are interdependent and must come from a common source. We can now try to find out who this source might have been.

The intersection point for the versions is Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb and therefore we might single him out as the usual suspect. But did he forge the three versions? In the light of the study we carried out above, it is highly unlikely; he does not seem to have any personal input and he probably simply transmitted them. This is obvious from the differences between versions S1, K1 and S2. Had he fabricated them, common sense dictates that he could have rather merged them into a single tradition with a more seamless isnād. Or, he could have kept the versions but made sure they did not omit any details that were given in the others. Further, he could have removed problematic people in the chains, especially someone like al-Naḍr b. Shuʿayb.

Upon ruling out this possibility, we might look for other possibilities for the common source. Until the chain of narration reaches Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir, there is no intersection point for the versions that we have grouped into two. Our search for a connection between the two groups’ transmitters proved fruitless. In other words, aside from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb there is no connection between the groups of transmitters as they do not appear in any sanad together; hence we might conclude that the only intersection point for the versions is Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir, who might be the real source for the versions. If this is correct, with the help of the isnād-cum-matn method the tradition could be traced back to year 114, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir's date of death.

Could that be possible? There seems to be no other explanation for the two groups of versions that are interdependent. There must be a source for the versions (S1, K1 and S2) and if it was not Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. abī al-Khaṭṭāb, it could only have been Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir. There are other findings that may confirm this possibility. For instance, the fact that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124) spread narrations about the collection of the Qurʾān by Abū Bakr (ʿUmar was also involved in this project) and ʿUthmān.Footnote ⁸⁷ Obviously, the issue of the correct Qurʾān was heatedly contentious at the turn of the first Islamic century. However, we may perhaps reach a more convincing conclusion after examining the remaining variants.

Isnād analysis

Al-Ṣaffār's sanad (S3) goes through one of his preferred reporters Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, from him to al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb, from him to ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām, from him to a renowned companion Jābir, and then finally reaches Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir himself. Al-Kulaynī's sanad (K2) is identical to al-Ṣaffar's sanad, save that it does not go through al-Ṣaffār. Instead Kulaynī receives it from his informant Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-ʿAṭṭār, and through him it reaches Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. It seems that for one reason or another al-Kulaynī did not copy the tradition from al-Ṣaffār despite al-Ṣaffār being al-Kulaynī's shaykh; instead he received it from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā.

As we have mentioned earlier, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā was a favourite informant of al-Kulaynī and al-Kulaynī reported a great number of traditions from him. In the majority of cases, al-Kulaynī reports from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā, and the transmission goes through Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā in between and al-Kulaynī in the end. There is no reason to doubt that al-Kulaynī narrated the tradition from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā as he was al-Kulaynī's contemporary and lived in the vicinity of al-Kulaynī.

After Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā, both versions merge at Aḥmad b. Muḥammad and continue as a single strand. Therefore, we may provisionally conclude that the partial common link for this group was Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. There are several Aḥmad b. Muḥammads mentioned in the rijāl books who lived in al-Kulaynī's time or shortly before his time and could have reported the tradition to al-Kulaynī. In the majority of cases, al-Kulaynī (or his informers) did not mention which Aḥmad b. Muḥammad transmitted the tradition. Hence, it could have been difficult to carry out an isnād analysis. But an examination of al-Najāshī's Rijāl reveals that among them, only Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā reported traditions from al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb who is in the upper position of the isnād at hand. Thus, we can narrow down the possibilities to these two people: Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh was a renowned scholar from the famous al-Ashʿarī tribe, based in Qum. According to biographical works he was a very trustworthy person and authored several books. He reported from the “third Ḥasan”Footnote ⁹² or the 10^th Imām ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ḥādi (214/829–254/868).

Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā (d. 274/887) was an even more prominent scholar, again from the al-Ashʿarī tribe. His kunya (teknonym) was Abū Jaʿfar. He was first based in Qum and then emigrated to al-Kūfa. He also authored several books.Footnote ⁹³

It is almost impossible to distinguish which Aḥmad b. Muḥammad transmitted the tradition to al-Ṣaffār and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā. They were both contemporaries of al-Ṣaffār and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā and resided in Qum. Neither al-Ṣaffār nor al-Kulaynī usually specifies who they referred to when they wrote Aḥmad b. Muḥammad in asānīd. However, al-Ṭūsī in his al-Fihrist states that Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā transmitted traditions from Maḥbūb and he does not mention Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh or any other Aḥmad b. Muḥammad as a transmitter of Maḥbūb's (also called al-Zarrād) traditions.Footnote ⁹⁴ Al-Ṭūsī reaches his conclusion through examining the usual transmission path of Maḥbūb's traditions.

In addition, when al-Ṭūsī discusses ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām, he again mentions Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā as one of the people through whom al-Miqdām's traditions were transmitted. This further strengthens the view that the tradition was transmitted through Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā. This view was also held by a seventeenth-century Iranian scholar, Muṣṭafā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Tafrishī (d. 1030/1621), in his work Naqd al-Rijāl.Footnote ⁹⁵

There was no obstacle for any of them to have transmitted the tradition, and we lack compelling evidence about whether it was Ibn ʿUbaydallāh or Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā. It does not make much difference, for the isnād analysis, which of them reported the tradition. We do not know the date of death of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh, but his contemporary Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Ashʿarī died around 274. Therefore we can conclude according to the isnād analysis that, at any rate, this tradition was available during the third quarter of the third century.

Is it possible to trace the tradition to an earlier source? According to the isnād-cum-matn method this might be possible. First, there is no reason to doubt that the tradition was transmitted either by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā or ʿUbaydallāh. Second, evidence from the rijāl sources backs up the possibility that either of them could have transmitted the tradition.

Third, both scholars could have transmitted traditions from al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb (d. 224/838); therefore, we may trace the tradition to him, the source of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb's kunya (teknonym) was Abū ʿAlī and he was a mawlā of Bajīla,Footnote ⁹⁶ based in al-Kūfa. He reported from the eighth Imām ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā (148/766–203/819) and from six companions of the sixth Imām.Footnote ⁹⁷ There is no significant age gap between him and both of the Aḥmad b. Muḥammads. Further, although they were Qummī scholars, it was very common for the scholars of the time to travel back and forth between Qum and al-Kūfa, which were major Shī’ite learning centres. Hence we can conclude that al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb was the source for the tradition and consequently, the tradition can be traced to the last years of al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb.

The person before al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb is ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām Thābit al-Ḥaddād (d. 172) who was a Kūfī scholar and mawlā of Banū ʿAjl,Footnote ⁹⁸ a clan of Bakr b. Wā’il.Footnote ⁹⁹ He reported traditions from the fourth, fifth and sixth Imāms,Footnote ¹⁰⁰ as well as Sunnī traditions.Footnote ¹⁰¹ Al-Ṭūsī mentions that his kunya was Maymūn abū Miqdām, and that he narrated traditions from the fifth Imām through Jābir.Footnote ¹⁰² However, some of al-Ṭūsī's assertions were contested by al-Khū’ī as he rejected the idea that ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām reported from the fourth Imām, on the ground that there is no sanad in which ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām reports a tradition from him. He further argues that he was not a companion of the fourth Imām but only of the fifth and the sixth Imāms.Footnote ¹⁰³ Al-Khū’ī also argued against the kunya Maymūn abū Miqdām; he believed that this was al-Ṭūsī's error as al-Miqdām did not use this kunya. His proof is that al-Najāshī does not mention this kunya in his Rijāl. Al-Khū’ī's argument certainly makes sense as there is no tradition in which ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām reports from the fourth Imām.Footnote ¹⁰⁴

Another important issue regarding ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām is the confusion regarding his name. The tenth and eleventh-century prominent Shī’ite scholar Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ghaḍā’irī, in his Rijāl, states the name as ʿUmar b. abī al-Miqdām, referring to ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Al-Tafrishī concludes in his Naqd al-Rijāl that ʿUmar b. abī al-Miqdām and ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām were the same person.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ However, this information is rejected by al-Mīlānī who, upon examining all the rijāl works, concludes that there was no person by the name of ʿUmar b. abī al-Miqdām and no asānīd mention this name. Therefore, al-Mīlānī postulates that al-Tafrishī must have confused ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām Thābit with ʿAmr abī al-Miqdām b. Harm (ha-ra-mim) who is an unknown person.Footnote ¹⁰⁸

According to Sunnī sources, Ibn abī al-Miqdām was an extremist Shī’ite who cursed the companions of the Prophet, including the first three caliphs, and went as far as to consider them apostates. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal reports that ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām displayed a particular hatred towards the third caliph ʿUthmān and cursed him.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Ibn abī al-Miqdām died in 172, theoretically making it possible for al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb to have received the tradition from him. However, according to the isnād-cum-matn method, since we do not have any affirmative evidence through an isnād analysis it is not possible to trace the tradition to Ibn abī al-Miqdām and date it to the time period in which he lived.

The sanad then reaches Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī (d. 127/744–45 or 128/745–46) who was a Kūfī scholar and very well-known to both Shī’ite and Sunnī scholars of hadīth. He was a companion of the fifth and the sixth Imāms and extensively narrated traditions from both of them. He influenced both Shī’ite and Sunnī scholars of his time as many of the prominent early Abbasid era scholars studied with him and reported traditions from him, albeit they opposed his Shī’ite views.Footnote ¹¹⁰ His kunya was Abū ʿAbdallāh and/or Abū Muḥammad.Footnote ¹¹¹ Al-Najāshī expressed negative views regarding the merits of Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī and mentioned that a number of people who have reported from him are disparaged and undermined, such as ʿAmr b. Shimr, Mufaḍḍal b. Ṣāliḥ, Munakhkhal b. Jamīl and Yūsuf b. Yaʿqūb.Footnote ¹¹² On the other hand, al-Ṭūsī refrains from passing any judgment about him and only gives general information about his works and usual paths of transmission.Footnote ¹¹³

There have been mixed views regarding the reliability of Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī both in Shī’ite and Sunnī sources due to his “esoteric views”.Footnote ¹¹⁴ He was also accused of being the second head of Muqhīriyya, a Shī’ite extremist sect founded by Muqhīra b. Saʿīd al-Bajalī (d. 119). However, according to Modarressi, this allegation was false since there were indications that he remained faithful to the fifth and sixth Imāms.Footnote ¹¹⁵ Further, al-Ḥasan b. Mūsā al-NawbakhtīFootnote ¹¹⁶ (d. between 300/912–310/922), a renowned Shī’ite scholar and theologian who resided in Baghdad, in his only surviving work Kitāb Firaq al-Shīʿa Footnote ¹¹⁷ argued that the extremist views associated with Jābir b. al-Juʿfī were false. This is because they were attributed to him after his death (in 127 or 128) by some of the followers of ʿAbdallāh b. Muʿāwiya al-Ṭālibī (d. 129 or 131), who developed extremist ideas after ʿAbdallāh b. Muʿāwiya al-Ṭālibī's death and attributed these ideas to Jābir b. al-Juʿfī.Footnote ¹¹⁸

The evidence for either view is not conclusive. Nevertheless, although his grading as a transmitter by the Muslim biographers is not much of a concern for isnād analysis, his rumoured ghālī tendencies should be taken into consideration, as they may indicate a motivation for him to fabricate the tradition. But since there is no certainty on the issue, this information on its own is not enough to reach a conclusion. At this stage, it is best to move on with matn analysis and see if we can get an earlier result. The isnād analysis of the tradition indicates that this tradition can only be traced back to the first quarter of the third century, al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb's date of death, 224.

Matn analysis

We have two versions for this tradition, the first of which is from al-Ṣaffār and the second from al-Kulaynī. Both mutūn give an account of a statement allegedly made by the fifth Imām, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir, regarding the collection and preservation of the Qur’ān by ʿAlī and the following Imāms. Although Abū Jaʿfar did not witness the collection of the Qur’ān by ʿAlī, he had access to the people who could have informed him about the event. In addition, since the mutūn are also about the preservation of the Qur’ān by ‘al-A’imma’, (the Imāms) it is possible but cannot be proven that he was in possession of the copy at the time as he was considered to be the fifth Imām.

The mutūn of the two versions at hand (S3 and K2) are slightly longer than the versions that we treated in the previous section and seem to contain more information; they are especially significant in that the name of ʿAlī b. abī Ṭālib as a collector of the Qur’ān is explicitly mentioned. Similarly to the previous versions (S1 and K1), both are in the statement format, therefore giving a general testimony of the event that includes the collection of the Qur’ān by ʿAlī and its preservation by the later Imāms. In this sense, aside from S2's different format in which the context of the statement was given, the structure of all five versions that we have examined so far is the same.

The mutūn of S3 and K2 seem to be identical save minor differences. They both begin with pronoun mā and continue with the same statement, except K2 uses the word iddaʿā instead of yaqūlu. Then S3 continues as an active sentence with the use of anzala Allāhu illā, while at this stage K2 turns into a passive sentence and uses unzila illā. In addition, S3 uses anzala instead of nazzala. Aside from these, there are no significant differences between the two versions.

The statement was obviously made in defensive form; perhaps someone questioned the Imām regarding the other compilations of the Qur’ān and in reply, he issued a strong statement against those who “claim” that they have collected the Qur’ān, and accused them of being great liars (kaddhābun). It might be also in the context of general claims about the collection of the Qur’ān by the first three caliphs. Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir felt obliged to counter these claims and to issue a bold statement, so as a result he uttered this tradition.

Whatever the context, the initial examination indicates that the versions are certainly interdependent as the structures are strikingly similar. The two versions seem to stem from a master version and it is likely that the few variations occurred when Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā or Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh transmitted the tradition to al-Ṣaffār and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā. It is also probable that Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā or Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh paraphrased his version when he reported the tradition, or the recorders al-Ṣaffār and Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā edited the tradition upon receiving it. Consequently, the initial analysis of the versions proves the existence of a common link, who was most likely Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā or alternatively Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh. These are possibilities and we can only come to a conclusion upon examining the mutūn in detail.

An important point to consider at this junction is that all five versions begin with the Arabic particle mā, which is used as a negation. This is yet another strong indication that there was a single source for all these versions and since the versions intersect at Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī, one could conclude that it was he who forged and/or disseminated the versions. Considering his controversial personality and alleged ghālī tendencies this is not inconceivable. However, we still have a version that skips Jābir and reaches the fifth Imām through ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī, preventing us from reaching such a conclusion.

The other problematic issue is that apart from the version that goes through ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī, there are two different traditions and four versions that seem very similar to each other and were reported by the same person, Jābir. If this was an original statement of Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir, there are two possible explanations for how it happened that Jābir managed to report the two similar traditions from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir: First, there were two occasions on which Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir made the statement and Jābir was present on both occasions, hence managing to report two different traditions on the issue. This seems rather implausible; considering that there were not many traditions on the issue and most of the existing traditions were reported by Jābir, it is unlikely that he would be present on both of the occasions when Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir made the statements. Moreover, the differences between the versions are so minimal that it would not have been necessary to record both of them separately. Having said that, one should bear in mind that Jābir was one of the first Shī’ites and Muslim scholars who authored a tafsīr work;Footnote ¹¹⁹ thus it would be normal for him to show interest in traditions regarding the Qur’ān and to collect them.

As we have seen, the striking similarities in the mutūn of the variants indicate that there is a strong possibility that the variants were derived from each other. This leads us to consider a second possibility: Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir made the statement on only one occasion and Jābir was present when the event took place. He reported the tradition to two people (ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām and al-Munakhkhal) at different times and therefore his memory failed him on either occasion, resulting in two different variants which are thought to be different traditions. Although this scenario is not improbable, we have evidence that Jābir was among the few early scholars who wrote down the traditions that he receivedFootnote ¹²⁰ and therefore, it is likely that he would have transmitted them from his records, not from his memory. Especially considering the vast number of traditions that he possessed, this makes more sense since it would have been difficult for him to recall all the traditions that he had.

The third possibility is that someone in the transmission line tampered with Jābir's original report by adding to it. If this is the case, the isnād-cum-matn method might be able to identify this person. In order to do so we should find out which version(s) were corrupted. A quick examination of the asānīd of the variants would rule out the possibility of corruption in variants S1, S2 and K1 which we have called group one. The evidence for this conclusion is the sanad of S2, which goes through a different transmission line and gives us reasonable confidence to argue that it would have been more difficult to corrupt this version since we have two different sanad paths for variants S1, S2 and K1.

The comparison of the mutūn of the two groups of variants (S1, S2, K1 and S3, K2) backs up this finding, since the mutūn of the first group are more concise and do not carry any offensive statement; rather they are informative. The mutūn of the second group, however, are obviously aimed at accusing and insulting individuals who claimed to have collected the Qur’ān and hence carry a strong sectarian undertone. Therefore, evidence from both isnād and matn analysis points to the variants of group two. The asānīd of variants S3 and K2 go through a single transmission line, therefore making them more vulnerable to tampering by transmitters. At this point, we can study the transmitters in the isnād in order to identify a possible culprit for the corruption.

As we have examined above, there are two people in the chain of narration who might have had the motivation to tamper with the tradition and may be considered suspects: Jābir and ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām. Among these two, the chances of Jābir tampering with the tradition remain slim since he also transmitted what we considered the master version; it is unlikely that he transmitted both the original and the corrupted version. If he had such an objective, he could have kept the master version to himself and disseminated the version that he had tampered with. Disseminating two versions that have an almost identical structure would have been embarrassing for him as his students would have immediately noticed the striking similarities between the two versions and figured out that at least one, if not both of them, was corrupted. Furthermore, as we have covered above, allegations that he was an extremist remain inconclusive; therefore we cannot be sure if he had the motivation to produce a tampered version of the tradition.

On the other hand, there is no doubt regarding the motivation of ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām who openly expressed his enmity towards the companions and showed a special hatred towards the third caliph ʿUthmān who is widely accepted as the person who commissioned the collection of the official version of the Qur’ān. Is it possible that ʿAmr heard the tradition from Jābir and changed it to use it in his campaign against ʿUthmān? Jābir was a very prominent scholar of his time and, as we have discussed earlier, it was not uncommon practice for the extremists to attribute their ideas to himFootnote ¹²¹ after his death, perhaps in order to legitimise them. Consequently, it is very likely that ʿAmr b. abī al-Miqdām was the one who tampered with the tradition due to his extremist views. This view can be further enforced by the fact that only the variants that come through ʿAmr contain the name of ʿAlī as the “collector” of the Qur’ān; all the other variants refer to the Imāms in general. Therefore, it is probable that ʿAmr also inserted ʿAlī's name into the text, thereby giving the word jamaʿa the meaning of the collection/collation of the Qur’ān and countering the traditions that are about ʿUthmān's collection/collation of the Qur’ān.

Nevertheless, the similarities between the texts of S1, S2, S3, K1 and K2 strengthen our earlier conclusion that the traditions are interdependent and can be dated back to Abū Jaʿfar and his date of death, 114.

Isnād Analysis

Alī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī received the tradition from Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad. There is not much information about Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad in rijāl works; he is thought to be an unknown person. The only information we have about him is that he was a disciple of the tenth Imām, ʿAlī al-Hādī al-Naqī (212 or 214/827 or 217/830–254/868)Footnote ¹²⁸ and that he reports several traditions in Tafsīr al-Qummī. Although there is not much information about him, since we know that he was a disciple of Imām al-Hādī, we may say that it was possible for al-Qummī to receive the tradition from him and include it in his book. Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad received the tradition from ʿAbd al-Karīm b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm who is also an unknown person.Footnote ¹²⁹ He only appears in Tafsīr al-Qummī and reports 15 traditions from Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī, and Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad reports traditions from him.

The next person in the chain of narration is Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī, whose full name was Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm b. Mūsā Abū Jaʿfar al-Qurashī. His nickname (laqab) was Abū Samīna and he was a nephew of Khallād al-Maqrī’. Al-Qurashī initially resided in Kūfa but then moved to Qum. He was believed to be a disciple of the eighth Imām, ʿAlī Riḍā.Footnote ¹³⁰ Al-Najāshī considered him very weak, corrupt in his faith and an unscrupulous person. He was also accused of being a ghālī.Footnote ¹³¹

However, al-Khū’ī mentions the possibility that two different personalities have been united under the name of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm b. Mūsā abū Jaʿfar al-Qurayshī. He argues that it is probable that the nickname Abū Samīna belonged to some other person who was undoubtedly a weak and unscrupulous person but for some reason was confused with Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī; therefore those traits were falsely attributed to him.Footnote ¹³² Al-Khū’ī's argument casts doubt on the allegation that Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī was an extremist. Still, even if we accept al-Khū’ī's argument, there are two other problematic individuals in the chain of narration before it reaches Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl. We may continue examining the remaining two people in the chain as al-Ṣaffār's version also goes through Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl and Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī before reaching Abū Jaʿfar.

Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl b. Ghazwān b. Jarīr was a Kūfī scholar who authored several books and was also a prolific ḥadīth transmitter. He was well regarded in both Sunnī and Shī’ite sources and considered thiqa. He died in 194/807 or 195/808.Footnote ¹³³ Footnote ¹³⁴ He was believed to be a disciple of the sixth Imām and was a client of the tribe Banū Ḍabbah.Footnote ¹³⁵ Despite the problematic issues regarding Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī we have the information that he was a disciple of the eighth Imām who lived between years 148 and 203, and therefore it is possible for Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qurashī to have met and received the tradition from Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl b. Ghazwān who died in year 194. The last person in the sanad, before it reaches Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir, is Abū Ḥamza Thābit b. Dīnār al-Thumālī. He was a Kūfī client of al-Muḥallab b. abī Ṣufra and a very prominent scholar and ḥadīth transmitter.Footnote ¹³⁶ He was a disciple of three Shī’ite Imāms: ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Al-Thumālī authored several books, including a book on the exegesis of the Qur’ān, and died in 148–150 ah Footnote ¹³⁷ He was reportedly praised by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and highly esteemed among Shī’ite scholars. The biographical information confirms that it is possible for Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl to have received the tradition from Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī and for Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī to have received it from Muḥammad al-Bāqir. As for al-Ṣaffār's version, he apparently received the tradition from ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmir b. ʿImrān. There is no information about him in the classical rijal works; al-Khū’ī is the only scholar who mentions him brieflyFootnote ¹³⁸ and this does not include information regarding his date of death or place of activity.

ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmir b. ʿImrān received the tradition from Aḥmad b. abī ʿAbdallāh al-Barqī who was a Qummī scholar, the son of Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Barqī. He was also a contemporary of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. abī Ḥammād, who died around the second quarter of the third century, as al-Najāshī mentions that when ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. abī Ḥammād visited Qum, he stayed in the house of Aḥmad b. abī ʿAbdallāh al-Barqī.Footnote ¹³⁹ He was also a disciple of the ninth and tenth Imāms and a very prominent Shī’ite scholar of his time who authored a number of books, most importantly al-Maḥāsin.Footnote ¹⁴⁰ Footnote ¹⁴¹ In addition, Al-Barqī, who died in 274/888 or 280/894, was a shaykh of ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Qummī.

Although we do not know much about ʿAbdallāh b. ʿĀmir, with the help of the information provided above we may conclude that there was not a significant time gap between al-Ṣaffār and Aḥmad b. abī ʿAbdallāh al-Barqī and thus it is possible for ʿAbdallāh b. Āmir to have seen both of them and transmit the tradition.

Al-Barqī apparently received the tradition from al-Ḥasan b. ʿUthmān who was also an unknown person. Al-Ḥasan b. ʿUthmān received the tradition from Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl who, as we have noted above, died in 194/807 or 195/808. Although al-Ḥasan b. ʿUthmān is an unknown person and we do not have any information regarding him, it is still possible for him to have transmitted the tradition. This is based on the conclusion that there was no significant time gap between al-Barqī and Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl; one person would have been enough to connect the two to each other. From Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl, the transmission line goes through Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī and reaches Abū Jaʿfar.

Matn Analysis

The texts of both versions are very short; they contain similar themes and some similar wording which gives the impression that they are interdependent. However, they are not identical in the sense that there are signs of paraphrasing in the texts. They both begin with particle mā but al-Ṣaffār's version contains an additional pronoun (man) and states that the collators of the Qur’ān were al-awṣiyā’u, while al-Qummī's version states that the collator of the Qur’ān was wasiyyu Muḥammadin. At first sight, the differences between the two variants might be a manifestation of the oral transmission process, indicating that although the variants come from the same source, they underwent changes when transmitted orally. These changes are usually natural and part of a healthy process of transmission.

However, the phrase wasiyyu Muḥammadin indicates an important difference; it specifically refers to ʿAlī b. abī Ṭālib as the collator of the Qur’ān. Such an allusion also suggests that jamaʿa al-Qur’ān refers to the physical collection of the Qur’ān. Nevertheless, we have other variants (K1, S1, S2 and S4) which state that the collators of the Qur’ān were al-awṣiyā’u. It may be possible that the occurrence of wasiyyu Muḥammadin was an error and was intended to refer to all the Imāms. But it is more likely that wasiyyu Muḥammadin indicates one of the transmitters’ attempt to give priority to ʿAlī in the physical collection of the Qur’an.

As the texts are very short we cannot say much about them, but it is obvious that they are interdependent and presumably were paraphrased during either the recording or oral transmission process. Therefore, through examining the texts we can trace the variants to a common source, or in this specific case to a partial common link, who was Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl. Then, through him via Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī, it reaches Abū Jaʿfar. Upon examination of the last two variants (Q1 and S4) it becomes clear that Abū Jaʿfar is both the common link and source for these seven variants and there are four pcls: Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl, Jābir b. Yazīḍ al-Juʿfī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā or Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿUbaydallāh, and Ibn abī Khaṭṭāb.

Although these two variants (Q1 and S4) are short, they are very helpful in the evaluation of this complex of traditions. The mutūn of K1, S1, S2 and S4 mention only al-awṣiyāʾ. According to the asānīd, these texts go back to three different transmitters from Abū Jaʿfar (ʿAbd al-Ghaffār al-Jāzī, Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī, and Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī). This seems to be the original version of Abū Jaʿfar's statement wherein the words jamaʿa al-Qurʾān kullahu ẓāhirahu wa-bāṭinahu ghayru al-awṣiyāʾ indicate not that the collection is comparable to that accomplished by Zayd b. Thābit, but rather refer to a complete knowledge of the text and its correct understanding.

In K2 and S3 of the Abū Jaʿfar complex, ʿAlī is added to al-awṣiyāʾ and Q1 even replaces al-awṣiyāʾ with waṣiyyu Muḥammadin, i.e. ʿAlī. These changes must be ascribed to one of the transmitters after Jābir b. Yazīd in the case of S3 and K2, and in Q1, to one of the transmitters after Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl, who tried to give ʿAlī the priority among al-awṣiyāʾ in the “collection” (perhaps in its literal meaning) and preservation of the Qurʾān. But this was probably not the original statement of Abū Jaʿfar. As a result of the study of the ḥadīth clusters that are attributed to Abū Jaʿfar we have established three independent chains of transmission that reach Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Bāqir, which makes him both the common link and the source of the traditions. Abū Jaʿfar resided in Madīna and therefore we may say that the traditions were in circulation in year 114, in Madīna.