Al-Ka Book I: Intellect & Foolishness, by Muammad ibn Yaqb al-Kulayn.

Translation and commentary directed by Rizwan Arastu.

It goes without saying that al-Kf by Shaykh Kulayn is one of the most seminal and important collections of adth in Islmic history. There is an especially urgent need for scholars, intellectuals, and laypersons of all backgrounds
to have access to this text in English translation. There have been other attempts to translate al-Kf, including the one by WOFIS (World Organization
For Islamic Services). However, none of these are complete (WOFIS nished
about one volume and a half).
Recently the Islamic Texts institute, led by Shaykh Rizwan Arastu and with
the support of the publisher Taqwa Media, has made a fresh eort to translate
al-Kf into English. Al-Kf is divided into eight volumes, and each volume
is divided into a number of books. So far, Book One of Volume One (al-Aql
wa l-Jahl, rendered into English by the translator as Intellect and Foolishness) has been published in paperback. The initial presentation is beautiful,
even stunning. Rarely do we nd Sh literature in English presented with
such attention to details of outward presentation (Psalms of Islam, translated
by William Chittick and sponsored/published by The Muhammadi Trust is another good example). On the other hand, the Latin typography on the inside
is not nearly as impressive as the outside.
The Arabic text uses a very readable, functional, and yet very bland typeface.
The Arabic text is typeset acceptably. But for the Latin font, the interline spacing is too big for the font size. This would be ne if there were a lot of extracts
of Arabic-script text within the Latin-script paragraphs, because Arabic-script
needs more interline spacing. But there is little to no mixed-script text in this
book.
Another typographical issue: The organization of the book in the Table of Contents is rather unclear. For example, the items below Preface should be, e.g.,
indented to make sure it is clear that those items are indeed part of the preface.

There are other typographical issues as well. My suggestion to the publisher

is to hire a professional typesetter and typographer to set the entire text, if
that is feasible.
With respect to the content there are a number of observations. With regards to the intended audience of the work, it is apparently intended to be
quite general. As the back cover states, Whether you are a Muslim looking
to deepen your understanding of Islam, a seeker on a quest for truth, or an
academic. In perusing this work, a clear tension between the desire to appeal to both lay believers as well as scholarly academics is very palpable. And
it appears that the balance tilts much more heavily to the former, viz., lay
believers and/or introductory seminary students. One illustration of this is
the use of heavy or dramatic, value-laden descriptions and judgements. Even
on the front cover we read, The earliest and most important compilation of
traditions from Prophet Muhammad and his successors. Two points:

Al-Kf is not the earliest compilation of Sh traditions, not by a long

shot;

It is not good scholarly or academic practice to make such a strong, value-laden claim that something is the most important compilation right on the
cover of the book. If this is mainly for an audience of true believers and
seekers (as opposed to academics) then it is arguably ok. But even here
the claim is arguable. There are other compilations as well which might be
considered as most important. This kind of argument on value is better
left for the scholarly introduction.

The spirit hinted at in the above pervades the entire text. In this vein, there
appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt to lter the readers attitude and approach to al-Kf via the orthodoxy of some of the seminaries of Qum and the
Ul tradition. The translator spends at least ten pages of the Preface seeking to refute the Akhbar approach to dth criticism. Although it is perfectly
respectable for the translator to take sides in the Akhbar-Ul debate, he
appears unduly heavy-handed to the point of subjective bias. For a seminary
audience, where orthodoxy might be expected and/or enforced, such a discussion may be warranted. However, Kulayn lived long before the Akhbar-Ul
debates; from a scholarly/academic perspective his work deserves a presentation not clouded by the lter of that debate. On the other hand, those ten

pages refuting Akhbarism may have been better served by an objective introduction to the science of dth criticism and of the science of Rijl (narrators),
particularly from the point of view of Kulayn himself.
The device of placing a summary of the commentary on each tradition is something useful and laudable in principle, especially in a classroom context. However, the content of these particular summaries seem more suited for Sunday
school than for a college classroom. For example, p. 113: Section 30 of Tradition 1.1.12 teaches the following: If we lack humanity, our devotion to religion
and truth is incomplete. The tone and feel of this kind of language is, at
best, seminarian and, at worst, preachy.
For an ancient text such as Al-Kf context is critical. This is especially important in the case of the traditions of a community that suered immense
persecution as the Sha did, and whose traditions were transmitted under
dicult circumstances. Thus the commentary provided by the translator and
his team is a welcome and very praisworthy addendum to the entire project.
In many places the commentary provides very useful context; Note 1 of Tradition 1.1.1, where Shaykh Arastu provides some context to how chains of narration work in transmitting the text of al-Kf, is a good example where very
useful information is given. But all too often the commentator makes claims
without providing any source or argument. For example, on page 2:
Muslim scholars use the word aql to mean many dierent things. However, the traditions of Prophet Muhammad and the imams [sic]1use it
to mean only four things.
Again, this comes across as preaching in Sunday school. And there is nothing
wrong with that, if that were the intended audience. But from a research
and academic standpoint the translator owes his audience an explanation of
the only part: Why are these four possibilities jointly exhaustive? Is there a
tradition from the Imams () that states this? Is it one of the commentators
from the 17th century (as alluded to on the back cover) being relied upon? Or
is there a logical, linguistic, or etymological argument to restrict the possible
meanings to four?2
1

The translator uses the plural imams as a common noun and hence does not capitalize it.
Yet expressions like the above, Prophet Muhammad and the imams (where P and M are
capitalized, but not i), show how awkward and even distracting that is. It would be much
better English usage to capitalize Imams as the proper name of a specic class.

In the commentary the author makes a point of emphasizing that his use of
intellect as a translation of aql is not meant to endorse the Perennialist
Schools usage of the same translation. This is very weird, since

there is absolutely nothing special about translating aql by intellect, nor

anything to mark it as unique to the Perennialist School;

the translator does not tell his readers anything about the Perennialist
School or its background;

there appears to be no relevance whatsoever in mentioning this marginal

group anyway.

In a number of places the commentator makes strange statements about the

content of dierent traditions. For example: In Tradition 1.1.14 Imam diq ()
says,
Then he [Allah] created Foolishness out the dark, acrid sea.
Then we read in the commentary:
Foolishness is a non-entity; it does not actually exist. It is, in reality, the
absence of intellect. Accordingly, it is far-fetched to say that foolishness
was created It is far-fetched to say that the intellect and foolishness
were actually commanded to go back and come forward.
On this point I have to be very frank: With humility and respect to the commentator: These do not sound like the words of someone who has delved very
much into the language and expressions of the Imams (). What the commentator appears to be doing is imposing a traditional, scholastic analysis of the
philosophical denitions of aql and jahl on the intentions of the Imams ().
The description of jahl as merely the absence of intellect is to miss an incredible amount of profundity in this and other traditions on the topic. In the
teachings of the Imams () in contradistinction to the Hellenistic-based philosophy and theology of traditional Muslim scholasticism: jahl is not merely
the absence of aql; it is a creation. Death is not merely the absence of Life;
it is a creation. Darkness is not merely the absence of Light; it is a creation.
2

A small quibble: In the second, third, and fourth of the allegedly jointly exhaustive meanings
of aql the translator says that the word is an innitive. This is very loose usage of the word
innitive. More properly, the word aql is not an innitive, but a gerund.

This is a clear teaching of the Qurn and of the Imams (). I would strongly
suggest to the commentator to relook at this. Yes, the commentator does mention the possibility of taking the passage literally. But he spends over a page
trying to argue that one should not do so, and makes no attempt to support
the literalist position (I prefer to say substantive position).
Another example. from Tradition 1.1.2:
Only he is [said to know and fear God] like this whose actions conrm
his words
Then we read in the commentary:
The Arabic of this phrase as it appears in al-Kf is problematic
Then, in Note 4, the commentator goes out of his way to suggest that the transcriber got the phrase wrong, because we normally say that actions must conrm words, not the other way around. But when one reads the next phrase of
the tradition, and whose private [conduct] agrees with his public [conduct],
it becomes clear that the original wording in al-Kf is almost certainly the
correct one. For in each phrase there is clear reality-manifestation distinction
at work. Actions and private conduct are mentioned rst reality of the individual. Words and public conduct are mentioned second manifestation of
the individual.
Too often the commentator reduces the profundity and depths of the teachings
of the Imams () to some dry, scholastic framework. When the words of the
Imam () does not t the box, he struggles to force them into that box. Examples of this abound throughout the commentary, in addition to the two I have
mentioned. As yet one more example, in Note 1 of Tradition 1.1.2 the commentators attempts to explain away the apparent substantiality of the traits
of Adam is very unsatisfactory.
Sometimes the commentator will say, e.g., Tradition X teaches the following: followed by things in the commentary that are not mentioned in Tradition X! For example, see the discussion of the relation of rah to aql after
Tradition 1.1.35. In addition, he claims without evidence that the rah is a
product of aql, which is extremely misleading and which is not attested to in
Tradition 1.1.35 at all.

In other places (e.g., Note 10 to Tradition 1.1.29) the commentator goes on a

diatribe against the gnostics (literally, knowers) that is totally unjustied by
the tradition itself, which praises the genuine knowers of God and says that
He is their Comforter (translated here as ally). That is, the commentator
takes a passage praising the knowers of God and turns it into a rant against
those who allegedly pretend to know. Ok, but that was not the point of the
original passage in the tradition!
One gets the impression that the commentator is constantly trying to inoculate
his readers against some deviance from orthodoxy. It would be better to let the
text speak for itself and to trust the reader more.
To be fair, there is indeed a lot of very useful information in the commentary.
On the other hand: If I were to use the book in a classroom setting, it would be
wearying to have to constantly correct where the commentator gets o track
and misses the depth of some passage of the tradition under discussion.
My humble suggestion to the commentator is to try to approach these traditions more phenomenologically and less scholastically. Try to bracket all of
ones philosophical and theological categories, boxes, and lenses and look at
the traditions as a young child: fresh and without presuppositions. Approach
the traditions as the student, not the teacher, and see what comes out. After
all the Imams () have stressed over and over again the diculty of grasping
the profundity of their words (Our Traditions are dicult, steeped in diculty).
With respect to the translation itself: It is an acceptable job, neither terribly
inaccurate nor particularly profound. Some of the translators conventions I
nd strange and awkward, as I mentioned in an earlier footnote. But these
are largely matters of taste and can be overlooked. But even here, a more
phenomenological approach to the traditions might be useful.
The translation of aql by intellect is conventional, understandable, yet unsatisfactory. It reects the inuence of Hellenistic and Greek philosophy on
Muslim scholasticism and terminology. I would like to have seen the translator struggle to rise above that conventionality. According to the Imams (),
aql is that by which Al-Ramn is worshipped (Tradition 1.1.3). Aql is that
by which God is known (Tradition 1.1.12 and many others). But this is not intellect per se but rather a consciousness and awareness that is not a function

of the faculty of intellection per se. Intellect per se is a faculty of ratiocination,

one prized by philosophers and theologians.
Identifying aql with the faculty of intellect leads to all kinds of confusion and
even arrogance on the part of those who have (or think that they have) a strong
ability to reason logically. In todays age we nd the greatest intellects (such
as Bertrand Russell or Stephen Hawking) denying the existence of God. When
studying the writings of rationalist and naturalist philosophers, logicians, and
intellectuals, we see the intellect as constituting the biggest veil to the knowledge and recognition of God.
One evidence of this is in the commentary. The commentator says on page
1.1.3,
Thus the likes of Muawiyah, despite having a strong intellect and putting
it to use, are devils because they use that faculty for evil
This is a true statement, viz., that Muawiyah put his intellect to use for
evil. But the Imam () states very explicity in the original passage that what
Muawiyah had was not aql. Thus to translate aql by intellect just doesnt
work. Indeed, this passage is yet another example of how the commentator
continuously turns the words of the Imam () upside down to t them within a
preconceived scholastic framework. The Imam () is explicit that Muawiyah
did not have aql, yet the commentator insists that Muawiyah did have aql
(translated as intellect), but only misused it!
A similar point can be made with regard to intellect. On page 45 we read in
the commentary:
The intellect does not err in its judgment.
This is simply false, and on at least two levels. On one level: The intellect errs
in its judgment quite regularly: All intellectuals make mistakes, and many in
the exercise of their intellect do not even recognize God. What these people
are missing, according to the Imams (), is aql per se, not intellect. On a
deeper level, it is even possible for the person with aql to make mistakes.
This is one of the reasons aql is a necessary but not sucient condition for
recognizing and serving God. If aql were sucient there would have been no
need to send the Prophets and the Imams. One can argue that the dierence is
that the Prophets and Imams have perfect intellect while the rest of us dont.

Even if we accept that distinction and there are important nuances that need
mentioning the above sentence is clearly in the context of the aql of ordinary
mortals, not that of Prophets.
Part of a solution to avoid these kinds of scholastic traps is to nd an alternative translation for aql. Of course, that will have profound consequences
for the rest of the commentary as well. A phenomenological approach of examining the traditions, including a bracketing of presuppositions and other
frameworks, will help in the struggle to nd creative and better translations
for key terms.
The translation of jahl by foolishness is unconventional and quite creative.
Creativity in the struggle for accurate translation is a good thing. However:
In my opinion it is still unsatisfactory. This is one of those rare cases where the
conventional English translation (ignorance), actually gives nearly a one-to-one
mapping to the connotations and vibrations of jahl. As a contrary opposite,
foolishness is arguably the opposite of intellect, but it is not the opposite of
aql which is, as alluded earlier, a faculty of consciousness and awareness. In
both English and Arabic, Ignorance and jahl each carry the connotations
of lack of knowledge (ignorant of calculus), lack of awareness (ignorant of
God), and unwise behavior (acting ignorantly). The same cannot be said of
the word foolishness.
There is no space for a detailed analysis of translation of terminology overall. In general, the translator does a god job and makes respectable eorts to
convey the general sense of the Arabic expressions. However, the practice of
translating against the text is really problematic. For example, the translator insists that the order of the Arabic in Tradition 1.1.14 is a mistake of the
copyist where it says (p. 128, par. 8, and Note 10 following) that ama is one
of the armies of aql whereas yas (hopelessness) is one of the armies of jahl.
So in the translation he renders what he thinks the Arabic should have been.
Occasionally a translator does have to make this kind of judgement. In this
book, however, the translator/commentator is far too liberal with judgements
of copyist errors in the original text, especially when other, simpler solutions
may be found. In this case the translator jumps from the frying pan into the
re by making yas one of the troops of aql. This is because, in general, yas
is considered one of the worst sins in Islam, even a form of kufr.
In the case of ama, it would have been better to look at one of its other meanings instead of resorting to a judgment of copyist error. In this case the solution

is simple: Here the word ama means striving in general. So we should strive
in the Way of God and in our duties to ourselves and those for whom we are
responsible, and not become hopeless when things are dicult. This maintains the integrity of the text, provides an accurate translation, and conveys a
profound meaning as well.
To summarize: The translator has done an acceptable job for the most part.
In my view he has the potential to take this to a higher level. Again, I very
humbly and respectfully urge the translator and commentator to reconsider
his approach to the text. A greater degree of phenomenological sensitivity
is essential to conveying the beauty and profundity of these traditions to a
Western audience. Continuous, dry judgments of copyist errors and explaining
traditions against their explicit content will cheapen the value of the text of
al-Kf, especially to a non-Sh or academic audience.
In conclusion: Volume One of this new attempt to translate al-Kf is a very
praiseworthy project; it is clear that Shaykh Arastu has put an immense eort
into this project, and both he and Taqwa Media deserve our gratitude for their
hard work. Some of the issues raised in this informal review are non-critical.
At the same time the project as it currently stands is, in my view, critically
awed in a number of respects in both the commentary and in the translation
itself. At the moment I cannot recommend it to either non-Sh scholars as a
denitive resource, or to college students (without very signicant care on the
part of the instructor who adopts it).
For believers and seekers (to use the phrase from the back cover), it is very
useful. But even here, the profundity of the teachings of the Imams () is often lost in what appears to be an attempt to present the traditions contained
in al-Kf through the lens of a particular scholastic or seminarian agenda.
The personality and creativity of a translator/commentator can and must always come out in any project of this type. Indeed, creativity is a critical talent
needed in this work, and it is clear that Shaykh Arastu has this talent. What
appears to be missing is a greater phenomenological sensitivity to the text and
a greater independence from those theological frameworks and philosophical
categories that were not explicitly taught by the Imams () who are speaking
through the traditions of al-Kf.
Succinctly: Without a signicantly greater attempt at phenomenological sensitivity to the text on the one hand, and theological-philosophical objectivity

10

and independence on the other, it is very doubtful that this project will fulll
its vision of reecting the content of al-Kf to its intended audience of true
believers, seekers, and academics.
At the same time, this reviewer fully supports and encourages the continuation
of this project. As Al ibn Ab lib () famously said: That which is easy
should not be abandoned on account of that which is dicult. The team is
working hard and doing its best. At this juncture it may be useful to take
a pause and to reect; then move on. Some of the issues mentioned can be
xed or revised in a second edition of this rst volume (of what will be dozens
of volumes, inshaaAllah). Admittedly, revising this volume will take a lot of
work. And we hope there is time to work on these matters before the next
volumes are published. I wish Shaykh Arastu, his team, and Taqwa Media all
the best as they continue on with this noble project.

October 26, 2013