Issue 5, First Position: Examination of the Establishment of the Option for a Minor Girl
Session Sixteen
Issue 5 – First Position: Examination of the Establishment of the Option for a Minor Girl – Evidences for the Establishment of the Option (Conflicting Traditions) – Second Tradition – Discussion of the Chain of Transmission – The Objection of Muḥaqqiq Khūʾī – Response to the Objection of Muḥaqqiq Khūʾī – The Preferred View Regarding Yazīd al-Kunāsī
October 19, 2025
Summary of the Previous Session
The discussion concerned the arguments for the non-establishment of the option, or in other words the bindingness of the marriage contract that the father or paternal grandfather has concluded on behalf of a minor girl; we transmitted the tradition of Abū ʿUbaydah al-Ḥadhdhāʾ in the previous session and stated that, on an initial reading, the opening of the tradition indicates the establishment of the option and the absence of bindingness; however, in light of the closing of the tradition, we stated that the term “guardian” (walī) in the opening of the tradition is construed as referring to customary guardians and does not encompass the father and paternal grandfather. Therefore, the first tradition cannot establish, with respect to the subject of our discussion, the option and the absence of bindingness of the contract.
Second Tradition
The second tradition is the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī: “I said to Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him): When is it permissible for the father to marry off his daughter without consulting her?” Yazīd al-Kunāsī states: I said to Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him): at what point can the father marry off his daughter without seeking her view, but rather decide on his own and marry her to another? “He (peace be upon him) said: When she has passed nine years of age; but if he marries her off before she reaches nine years of age, she has the option when she reaches nine years of age.” The Imam (peace be upon him) said: once she has passed nine years of age, the father can marry her off to another without seeking the daughter’s view. But if he marries her off to another before she is nine years old, this daughter, upon reaching nine years of age, has the option and may rescind the contract and dissolve it. The approach to the argument from this tradition is that, according to the statement of Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him), if the daughter is married off to another before nine years of age, “she has the option when she reaches nine years of age”; this very clearly and plainly indicates the establishment of the option after reaching maturity. This is precisely the claim and the desired conclusion.
Examination of the Second Tradition
Regarding this tradition, there is discussion both concerning the chain of transmission and concerning the indication.
Discussion of the Chain of Transmission
There is disagreement as to whether this person is Yazīd al-Kunāsī or Buraid al-Kunāsī—that is, in some manuscripts, instead of Yazīd al-Kunāsī, Buraid al-Kunāsī appears. Buraid al-Kunāsī is unknown (majhūl); therefore, according to this possibility, the tradition is weak with respect to its chain of transmission. The other possibility, which receives more attention, is that it is Yazīd al-Kunāsī.
The Objection of Muḥaqqiq Khūʾī
Regarding Yazīd al-Kunāsī, the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī has raised an objection, by means of which he states that the chain of transmission of this tradition is weak. He states: in the books Tahdhīb and Istibṣār, Yazīd al-Kunāsī is mentioned. Najāshī, in his book of biographical evaluation (rijāl), mentions a person named Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ and, in describing him, states that he is a trustworthy Kūfan (Kūfī thiqah)—that is, he has affirmed his reliability. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, in his own book of rijāl, mentions Yazīd al-Kunāsī and states that he is named after a district in Kūfah called Kunāsah, but he has not affirmed his reliability. Therefore, on the one hand, Najāshī has affirmed the reliability of a person named Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ al-Kūfī; Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, too, has not affirmed the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī, but has made no mention whatsoever of Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ al-Kūfī—neither in al-Fihrist nor in his book of rijāl. When these two matters are placed together, an assurance is gained that these are one and the same person, whom Najāshī mentions under the designation Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ al-Kūfī and affirms as reliable, and whom Shaykh al-Ṭūsī mentions under the designation Yazīd al-Kunāsī without affirming his reliability. If we gain assurance that Yazīd al-Kunāsī is the very same as Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ, then Najāshī’s affirmation of the reliability of Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ in fact amounts to an affirmation of the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī as well. Thus, in the first step, the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī, by combining these two matters stated by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and Najāshī, concludes that these two are one and the same person, who has been referred to in the books under two designations; he then notes that Najāshī has affirmed the reliability of this very person. Therefore, on the basis of this matter, we can say that Yazīd al-Kunāsī is reliable (thiqah). However, the problem is that Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Barqī, who predates Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and, as the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī states, was more knowledgeable than him regarding the biographical scholars (aʿraf minhu bi-l-rijāl), since, chronologically, he was closer to the era of the narrators—his temporal distance from the era of the narrators of the traditions was shorter. Al-Barqī has mentioned both of these designations together—that is, he has provided a biographical account both for Yazīd al-Kunāsī and for Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ. The fact that al-Barqī has mentioned these two persons separately and provided a biographical account for each of them indicates the non-identity of these two persons—that is, they are two persons, not one. Therefore, if they are two persons, the affirmation of the reliability of Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ is of no benefit whatsoever for establishing the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī. If they had been one person, we could say that, since Najāshī affirmed the reliability of this single person under one name in a single book, then the other name and designation associated with this same person would necessarily also be reliable. However, given what al-Barqī has done, it becomes clear that these are not one but two persons; therefore, if one is affirmed as reliable, it does not follow that the other must also be affirmed as reliable. Therefore, he holds, in general, that this tradition is weak with respect to its chain of transmission.
Response to the Objection of Muḥaqqiq Khūʾī
Our esteemed teacher, Āyatullāh Zanjānī, has responded to this objection.
Response to the First Part
First: if these designations, which are mentioned in the book of rijāl of Najāshī and in the Fihrist of Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, were identical, and the listing of these two were alike—that is, for example, if everyone named in the book of Najāshī were also mentioned in the book of Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, and vice versa; for example, if Najāshī had provided biographical accounts for three hundred persons, and Shaykh al-Ṭūsī had likewise, by and large, written about the very same three hundred persons—we could then conclude that these two books correspond to one another, and that, if we doubted, in some instance, the identity or non-identity of a narrator, we could say that they are one and the same person. However, these two books, with respect to the list of narrators, are related by partial overlap (ʿumūm wa khuṣūṣ min wajh)—meaning that Najāshī has mentioned many designations that are not in the Fihrist of Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, and Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī], too, has mentioned many designations that Najāshī has not mentioned; this shows that, fundamentally, these two books do not correspond to one another. Therefore, we cannot say that, because Najāshī affirmed the reliability of this person under one name, and Shaykh al-Ṭūsī mentioned him under another name without saying anything about him, this means that they are one and the same person. This concerns the first part of the statement of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī; because Āyatullāh Khūʾī first, by this argument, affirmed the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī, and then refuted it. The statement of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī has two parts: one, establishing the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī—or, in fact, mentioning an argument for the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī; the second part is a rebuttal of this affirmation of reliability. The objection of our esteemed teacher to the first part of the statement of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī is that, fundamentally, by this argument, we cannot establish the identity of these two persons; because Najāshī has mentioned a certain group, and Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, another group, and the relation between these two is one of partial overlap. Therefore, how can we say that these are identical? The name of these two persons differs, and these two books also do not correspond to one another such that identity could be inferred from them. Second: it is highly improbable that Shaykh al-Ṭūsī was aware that the surname of Yazīd al-Kunāsī was al-Qammāṭ and that his patronymic (kunyah) was Abū Khālid, yet, despite this, he mentioned neither his surname nor his patronymic anywhere—neither in al-Fihrist nor in his book of rijāl. On the other hand, it is highly improbable that Najāshī knew that Yazīd Abū Khālid al-Qammāṭ was the very same person who hailed from Kunāsah and who is mentioned in numerous chains of traditions under the designation Yazīd al-Kunāsī, yet deliberately omitted the term “al-Kunāsī.” Therefore, he states that when we compare the conduct of Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī] with that of Najāshī, an assurance is gained for us that neither Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī] nor Najāshī regarded these as one person. This is what can be derived from this. This concerns the first part of the statement of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī.
Response to the Second Part
The second part of the statement of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī was that al-Barqī, who predates Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī] and is more knowledgeable than him regarding the narrators of the traditions, has named both persons and provided a biographical account for each; this indicates that al-Barqī did not regard these two persons as identical—however, due to his earlier dating and his greater expertise, we give preference to his statement over the argument advanced for their identity. The response is: on what basis can we say that these are two persons? Even this action undertaken by al-Barqī is compatible with their identity as well; it is true that al-Barqī has given the names of two persons and written a biographical account for each, but it is possible that a single person had two names, two designations, or two epithets, while those engaged in the task of compilation and collection would, at times, write down names along with a biographical account, and some interval would elapse, and then they would write again regarding the very same person who had been introduced under a different name—and this has parallels elsewhere. In similar books, sometimes a single person who was known and renowned under two or three designations has had a biographical entry and life account written for each. Therefore, this action of al-Barqī does not constitute proof that al-Barqī did not regard these as identical. If al-Barqī’s view had been that these are one and the same person, then, naturally, he ought not to have listed them separately; but we do not know whether al-Barqī had ascertained their identity or not; we know only that he has given the names of these two persons and written something about each. This could have arisen from the fact that, when he came to write about the second one, he had forgotten that he had previously written about this very same person under a different name. Therefore, in general, he [our teacher] rejects this objection of the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī.
The Preferred View Regarding Yazīd al-Kunāsī
In the end, we are now faced with two views; according to one view, the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī is not authoritative. But according to other views, the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī is authoritative; the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī does not regard it as authoritative; Shahīd al-Thānī, too, apparently does not regard the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī as authoritative. Therefore, regarding the chain of transmission of this tradition, two positions exist: one, that the chain of transmission of the tradition is weak; and the other, that its chain of transmission is authoritative. Our view is that, in light of the basis we have adopted regarding the authoritativeness of the Four Books (kutub arbaʿah)—namely, that all traditions found in the Four Books are authoritative, that is, traditions appearing in Tahdhīb, Istibṣār, Man Lā Yaḥḑuruh, and al-Kāfī—this tradition, too, is transmitted in Tahdhīb and Istibṣār; Shaykh al-Ṭūsī has mentioned this tradition both in Tahdhīb and in Istibṣār. This is particularly corroborated by one further point, namely that, ordinarily, if Shaykh al-Ṭūsī transmits a tradition in his books that has a problem with its chain of transmission, he states this; for example, if a tradition opposes his own view, he states the problem with its chain of transmission or its indication, or in some manner offers an interpretation of it. But regarding this tradition, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī has said nothing whatsoever, despite having transmitted it in both Tahdhīb and Istibṣār. We have stated that the traditions of these two books are authoritative. Another argument that can reinforce the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī is the transmission of traditions from him by eminent scholars (ijlāʾ); great figures such as al-Ḥasan ibn Maḥbūb, Jamīl ibn Ṣāliḥ, Hishām ibn Sālim, ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥakam, and ʿAlī ibn Riʾāb have transmitted traditions from Yazīd al-Kunāsī; the traditions transmitted from him are not few either. Therefore, on these two grounds, we can say that the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī is authoritative and that there is no problem with its chain of transmission.
Discussion for the Next Session
Certain objections have also been raised regarding the indication of this tradition, which we must examine, along with their responses.