Abstract
Sayyid al-Murtada, widely known as "Alam al-Huda" is considered one of the most prominent Shia jurists and theologians of the fifth century AH, whose scholarly influence extended across both Eastern and Western parts of the Islamic world. al-Amali, one of his most significant works, comprises eighty sessions and is primarily organized into four thematic categories: Quranic exegesis, hadith, Arabic literature and poetry, with occasional discussions on theological and jurisprudential principles. In this work, Sayyid al-Murtada, in several instances, presents his foundational principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), which play a decisive role in the interpretation and assessment of solitary reports (akhbar al-ahad). The primary aim of this study is to examine and elucidate the usuli foundations employed by Sayyid al-Murtada in understanding and interpreting the narrations included in al-Amali. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and based on a close textual analysis of al-Amali, the findings indicate that Sayyid adheres to specific jurisprudential principles in his engagement with hadith, such as the rejection of Quran-sufficiency, the authoritative status of Imami consensus (ijma), the non-restriction of certain narrations to fixed meanings, and the principle of asalat al-haqiqa. Overall, it can be concluded that the usuli principles of hadith interpretation discussed by Sayyid al-Murtada in al-Amali primarily address four categories of narrations: (1) narrations containing rare or complex terminology, (2) narrations marked by semantic ambiguity or apparent contradiction, (3) narrations that seem to conflict with Sayyid’s own theological or legal principles, and (4) narrations that are seemingly inconsistent with Quranic verses or other transmitted traditions. In addressing these issues, Sayyid al-Murtada effectively resolves the ambiguities and contradictions, offering coherent interpretations aligned with his jurisprudential methodology.
)