Third Stage: From the Early Minor Occultation to the Early Major Occultation

Contrary to what might be expected, with the end of the era of the Imams’ presence and the beginning of the Occultation period, the attention of the Shia community towards hadith, its preservation, narration, and compilation, increased, while rational inquiries and content analysis decreased compared to the years of the Imams’ presence. As a result, theological and Usuli discussions were more commonly pursued in the form of narrations. The dominant atmosphere of this period was in the hands of the hadith-oriented trend, a trend that some Akhbari scholars of the 11th and 12th centuries considered themselves the continuers of. Some of the prominent figures of this trend, who were mostly Iranian and from the city of Qom, are listed below in order of their death dates: Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni al-Razi (d. 329 AH), the author of the invaluable compendium al-Kafi; Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Musa ibn Babuwayh al-Qummi, known as al-Saduq I (d. 329 AH); Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Qummi, known as Ibn al-Walid (d. 343 AH); Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Qummi, known as Ibn Quluwayh (d. 368 AH), the author of Kamil al-Ziyarat; and Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Musa ibn Babuwayh, known as Shaykh al-Saduq (circa 306–381 AH), the author of the book Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih.

Usuli Discussions During the Third Stage

During this stage, although the volume of books containing Usuli topics increased, as the science of Usul flourished among the Sunnis, especially after the emergence of Ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (150–204 AH) and the growing popularity of methods that diverged from the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt among them, Shia Usul in this period took on a critical tone, appearing in the form of critiques of Sunni Usuli foundations. As a result, this stage saw a significant increase in the number of books written to critique and refute the Usuli foundations of the Sunnis. However, no work aimed at systematically refining and elaborating the science of Usul based on Shia principles was recorded.

For example, the number of books that historians have documented on the subject of qiyas (analogy) shows that Shia scholars’ efforts to refute analogy intensified from the late third century and throughout the fourth century. Among the writers who authored works on this subject are Abdullah ibn Ja’far al-Himyari (d. circa 310 AH)¹, a contemporary of al-Kulayni; Abu Sahl al-Nawbakhti (d. 311 AH), who wrote a book titled Ibtal al-Qiyas²; Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Muhammad al-Alawi al-Zubari (318–376 AH), who also authored a book refuting analogy³; and Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Zubayri, who wrote a book titled al-Istifadah fi al-Tu’un ‘ala al-Awa’il wa al-Radd ‘ala Ashab al-Ijtihad wa al-Qiyas⁴. Another author, Muhammad ibn al-Junayd al-Katib al-Iskafi (d. 381 AH)⁵, wrote a book titled Kashf al-Tanwi’ wa al-Ilbas ‘ala Aghmar al-Shia fi Amr al-Qiyas⁶.

The topic of abrogation (naskh) also continued to attract the attention of Shia authors, and during this stage, books titled al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh were attributed to some figures, including Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi (alive in 307 AH)⁷, Abd al-Aziz ibn Yahya al-Jaludi (d. 332 AH)⁸, and Muhammad ibn Abbas, known as Ibn Hajjaj (alive in 328 AH)⁹.

One of the topics that attracted the attention of the Sunnis during this period, and even before, following al-Shafi’i in his al-Risala, was the discussion of solitary reports (khabar al-wahid). In the books of biographies and catalogues, many works on this subject are attributed to Sunni scholars, indicating that it was a common principle among them. Some of these scholars include Abu Musa Isa ibn Aban al-Baghdadi (d. 221 AH)¹⁰, Abu Sulayman Dawud ibn Ali al-Zahiri al-Isfahani (202–270 AH)¹¹, Abu Muhammad Qasim ibn Muhammad al-Umawi (circa 220–276 AH)¹², and Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Musa al-Qummi (d. 305 AH)¹³. Among the Shia, however, no negative or rejecting position on this matter is seen; on the contrary, in the list of works attributed to Abu Muhammad Hasan ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti (d. circa 310 AH)—who was the nephew of Abu Sahl al-Nawbakhti—there is explicit mention of a “book on solitary reports and acting upon them”¹⁴. It seems that he was the first Shia to write on this topic. From these indications, it can be inferred that in Shia circles of that time, the prevailing atmosphere was one that accepted the authority of solitary reports, and this atmosphere persisted until the time of Shaykh al-Mufid.

Historical sources have reported on treatises titled al-Khassoos wal-‘Umum (The Specific and the General), which may have been Usuli in nature, such as the book al-Khusoos wal-‘Umum wal-Asma’ wal-Ahkam authored by Abu Sahl Isma’il ibn Ali al-Nawbakhti (237–311 AH)¹⁵, and the book al-Khusoos wal-‘Umum authored by Abu Muhammad Hasan ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti (d. circa 310 AH)¹⁶. Al-Shafi’i discussed this topic in his book al-Risala, although his content is more jurisprudential and exegetical than Usuli¹⁷. After him, books under the same title were also seen among the Sunnis, written by figures such as Abu Sulayman Dawud ibn Ali al-Zahiri al-Isfahani (202–270 AH)¹⁸ and Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Ahmad al-Marwazi (d. 340 AH)¹⁹.

The prominent figure of this period, who has the most works attributed to him in the field of Usul, is Abu Sahl Isma’il ibn Ali ibn Ishaq al-Nawbakhti (237–311 AH). He was the leader of the Shia theologians in Baghdad and the foremost figure of the illustrious Nawbakhti family during his time²⁰. Numerous books are attributed to him, some of which appear to be related to the science of Usul: al-Khusoos wal-‘Umum wal-Asma’ wal-Ahkam, Naqd ‘ala Mas’ala Isa ibn Aban fi al-Ijtihad²¹, Naqd Risalat al-Shafi’i, Ibtal al-Qiyas and Naqdh Ijtihad al-Ray’ ‘ala Ibn al-Rawandi²². As is evident, most of these books (the last four mentioned) are critiques of the Sunni principles, and it seems that the most important among them is the critique of the book al-Risalah by al-Shafi‘i, which appears to be the first Shia critique of al-Shafi‘i’s work.

Key Figures in the Formation of the Codification Period | The Intellectual Minority of the Third Stage

Alongside the dominant hadith-oriented trend, there were also prominent jurists during this period who took a different and innovative path in the realm of jurisprudence, laying the groundwork for the Codification of Usul al-Fiqh period. Here, we will mention three individuals who shared the common characteristic of utilizing reason in the field of legal derivation:

1. Abu Muhammad Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Aqil al-‘Ummani

He was one of the distinguished jurists and theologians of the Imami school, a contemporary of al-Kulayni²³, and the first person to refine jurisprudence by incorporating reasoning and contemplation into the process of derivation²⁴. Without resorting to qiyas, preference (istihsan), or independent reasoning (ijtihad) based on personal opinion, he opened the door to deriving legal branches based on general principles derived from the Quran and Sunnah and moved beyond the literal confines of religious texts²⁵. Shaykh al-Mufid greatly praised him²⁶, and later jurists were keen to transmit and record his views²⁷. While no independent Usuli book authored by him has been documented, it is not unlikely that his famous jurisprudential work Al-Mustamsak bi Habl Aal al-Rusul —which has not survived—contained discussions on Usul²⁸. He did not believe in the intrinsic validity of solitary reports, which suggests that he opposed the dominant hadith-oriented trend of his time.

2. Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Abdulrahman ibn Qiba al-Razi (d. before 329 AH)

He was a powerful theologian, highly esteemed and well-regarded for his beliefs and methodology²⁹. Initially a Mu’tazili, he later embraced Shia Islam and became an advocate of Imamate³⁰. Although no specific Usuli book is explicitly attributed to him, he is known for raising an objection against the epistemic validity of conjecture, famously known as “Ibn Qibah’s Doubt,” which is discussed and critiqued in Shia Usuli works under the topic of the validity of indicators (hujjiyat al-amaraat)³¹. In summary, this objection argues that the validity of indicators, especially solitary reports, is rationally impossible. From this objection, we can infer that Ibn Qiba employed a rational and argumentative approach in jurisprudence, contrary to the dominant hadith-oriented trend of the third stage. Thus, his Usuli views are considered close to those of Ibn Abi Aqil al-‘Ummani, Shaykh al-Mufid, and their followers in the codification period. Interestingly, the oldest scholarly opinion that can be found in Shia Usuli books is this very objection he raised.

3. Abu Ali Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Junayd al-Katib al-Iskafi (d. after 360 AH)

He was a prominent figure among the Imami scholars, described as a trustworthy, significant, and prolific author³². He was a controversial and polarizing figure. Among his extensive list of works, which are mostly jurisprudential, there are some that could be considered Usuli, including al-Faskh ‘ala Man Ajaza al-Naskh Lima Tamm Nafa’uhu wa Jamula Shar’uhu, Kashf al-Tamwih wal-Ilbas ‘ala Aghmar al-Shia fi Amr al-Qiyas (Exposing the Deception and Concealment Concerning Analogy among the Ignorant and Novice Shia), Izhar Ma Satarahu Ahl al-Inad min al-Riwaya ‘an A’immat al-‘Itrah fi Amr al-Ijtihad (Revealing What the Opponents Concealed from the Narrations of the Imams of the Prophet’s Household Regarding Ijtihad)³³, al-Ifham li Usul al-Ahkam (Understanding the Principles of Rulings), and Istikhrāj al-Murad min Mukhtalif al-Khitab (Extracting the Intended Meaning from Different Texts)³⁴.

Shaykh al-Mufid³⁵ and Shaykh al-Tusi³⁶ accused him of practicing qiyas, and Najashi also reported this from his “trustworthy elders”³⁷. This accusation caused his works to be neglected and not trusted during the codification period³⁸.

Reconciling these high praises with the accusations made by prominent scholars is somewhat challenging. None of his works have survived, so it is difficult to make a fair and definitive judgment. However, understanding some points about him might be insightful:

1. It is unclear whether the analogy Ibn al-Junayd was accused of practicing was of the invalid type or the type of analogy that is considered valid in contemporary Usuli schools, such as “analogy of a fortiori” (qiyas al-awlawiyya), “analogy based on a stated cause” (qiyas mansus al-‘illah), or “analogy after definitively identifying the reason for a ruling” (tanqih al-manat). The science of Usul at that time—as evidenced by the summary of the book Tadhkira—was not advanced enough to clearly distinguish between these types. The title that Ibn al-Junayd gave to his book Kashf al-Tamwih wal-Ilbas ‘ala Aghmar al-Shia fi Amr al-Qiyas clearly indicates that he claimed a more precise understanding of analogy compared to his contemporaries and distinguished between its valid and invalid forms. The title of this book translates as “Exposing the Deception and Concealment Regarding Analogy among the Ignorant and Novice Shia.”
2. As mentioned earlier, from the number of books written on analogy during the third stage of the formation period, especially from the second half of the third century and throughout the fourth century, it can be understood that the Shia community of that time was highly sensitive to the issue of analogy and rejected its practice in any form. This could have facilitated the accusation of practicing analogy.
3. There are nearly 500 narrations concerning the invalidity of analogy, and many books—especially during that period—were written by Imami scholars against analogy, making it almost a doctrinal necessity. Is it possible that a figure like Ibn al-Junayd, with all his renowned works and writings, could have been unaware of this matter and recklessly practiced analogy?
4. It should also not be overlooked that the titles Ibn al-Junayd chose for his books suggest a sharp and biting pen against his opponents, which might have been a contributing factor to the lack of favor shown to him by the Shia community of that time³⁹.

1. Mawsu’at Tabaqat al-Fuqaha, vol. 4, p. 236, quoting from al-A’lam, vol. 4, p. 76.
2. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 32; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 49.
3. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 442.
4. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 220. The date of his death is unknown.
5. Al-Dhari’ah ila Tasaneef al-Shia, vol. 2, p. 22.
6. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 387.
7. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 260; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 152.
8. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 242.
9. Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 228.
10. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 258.
11. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 272.
12. Mawsu’at Tabaqat al-Fuqaha, vol. 4, p. 441.
13. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 260.
14. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 65.
15. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 32; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 49.
16. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 63.
17. Al-Risala, p. 56.
18. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 272.
19. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 266.
20. In his Rijal, p. 31, al-Najashi describes his greatness as follows: “He had grandeur in both worldly and religious matters, akin to ministers in the grandeur of scribes.”
21. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 32; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 49.
22. These last three books are mentioned in Ibn al-Nadim’s al-Fihrist, p. 225. It is worth noting that in Sheikh Tusi’s al-Fihrist, p. 49, citing Ibn al-Nadim, there is an error where it is written as “Critique of the Matter of al-Shafi‘i.
23. His name is recorded in Rijal al-Najashi, p. 48, and in Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, pp. 106 and 283, where he is referred to as Al-Hasan ibn Isa, known as Abu Ali, known as Ibn Abi Aqil al-‘Ummani.
24. Mawsu’at Tabaqat al-Fuqaha, vol. 4, p. 145.
25. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 48.
26. Mawsu’at Tabaqat al-Fuqaha, vol. 4, p. 145.
27. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 48.
28. Shaykh al-Tusi describes his book as “large” in al-Fihrist, pp. 107 and 283, indicating it was a comprehensive work. In Mawsu’at Tabaqat al-Fuqaha, vol. 4, p. 145, it is mentioned: “This book did not reach us, but it was available to Ibn Idris al-Hilli (d. 598 AH) and to Allamah al-Hilli (d. 726 AH), who quoted from it in his book Mukhtalaf al-Shia. Recently, a book titled Hayat Ibn Abi Aqil al-‘Ummani wa Fiqhu-hu was published through the efforts of Ayatollah Golpayegani’s Center for Fiqh Studies.
29. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 375.
30. Al-Tusi in al-Fihrist, p. 207.
31. This objection is cited in works such as Ma’arij al-Usul, p. 141; Ma’alim al-Din, p. 189; Al-Qawanin, vol. 1, p. 432; Faraid al-Usul, vol. 1, p. 40.
32. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 385. He adds: “I heard from some of my teachers that he had wealth and a sword belonging to the Sahib al-Amr (peace be upon him), which he bequeathed to his maidservant and which disappeared after him.” Sayyid Bahr al-Ulum, in al-Fawa’id al-Rijaliyya, vol. 3, p. 221—defending Ibn al-Junayd against the accusation of analogy—writes: “What Najashi and Allamah have said about the sword and wealth indicates that he was an agent (wakil) of the Imam of the time (a).”
33. Rijal al-Najashi, pp. 387-388. In al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 246, the title of the first book is recorded as: al-Faskh ‘ala Man Ajaza al-Naskh Lima Tamm Nafa’uhu wa Jamula Shar’uhu.
34. Al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, p. 246; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 209.
35. The expressions used by Shaykh al-Mufid are generally severe; he writes in al-Masa’il al-Saghaniyya, pp. 58-59: “As for his reliance on analogy in legal rulings and his preference for the opinions of Abu Hanifa and other Sunni jurists without any basis from the truthful Imams (a), we vehemently rejected it. This is why a group of our scholars disregarded him, abandoned him, and no one paid attention to his writings or words.” He also states in al-Masa’il al-Sarwiyya, p. 76: “As for the books of Abu Ali ibn al-Junayd, he filled them with rulings based on conjecture and used the rejected analogy of the opponents, mixing what was transmitted from the Imams (a) with his own opinions, without separating one from the other.”
36. Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 209.
37. Rijal al-Najashi, p. 388.
38. Shaykh al-Mufid, Al-Masa’il al-Saghaniyya, p. 59; Al-Fihrist by Shaykh al-Tusi, p. 209.
39. This is similar to what happened with Ibn Idris al-Hilli.