Concluding Critical Observations on Hayes’s Methodology
Hayes’s work demonstrates several notable strengths. To begin with, Hayes’s extensive and careful use of classical sources is commendable. In line with many contemporary western scholars of Islam, he exhibits a deep engagement with the primary textual tradition. His research demonstrates a serious attempt to extract coherent historical data from scattered, and often contradictory, reports. By compiling timelines, mapping networks of narrators, and analyzing their roles within the community, Hayes provides an organized and data-driven perspective on a period that is often shrouded in hagiography or polemic. This rigorous and systematic approach certainly adds value to the study of early Imamī Shiʿism.
Methodological Critique of Edmund Hayes’s Work
Despite the scholarly merits of Hayes’s research, several methodological concerns deserve attention.
1. Use of Loaded and Directional Language
One of the key issues in Hayes’s work is the repeated use of ideologically charged or directional terminology, which often reflects underlying assumptions. Expressions such as:
- “assemble”, “retrospective”, “centrifugal force”, “back-projection”, “manipulate”, and “reproduce”,
- As well as phrases like “Shiʿi oligarch elite” and “theologically corrected”
— reflect more than just descriptive analysis. These terms carry connotations that subtly, or at times overtly, undermine the traditional Shiʿi narrative by suggesting that foundational doctrines and institutions were artificial constructs developed post-factum for purposes of authority consolidation or theological justification.
Rather than engaging neutrally with Shiʿi sources on their own terms, such language frames the historical actors as manipulative, reactive, and primarily politically motivated. This rhetorical framing implicitly casts doubt on the authenticity of the sources and the legitimacy of the belief structures they represent.
2. Preconceived Theoretical Assumptions
Hayes often proceeds from the assumption that later Shiʿi doctrines were constructed retrospectively, which affects how he evaluates historical data. Reports that align with Twelver doctrine are often treated as later interpolations, whereas those that diverge from it are granted greater historical weight. This binary treatment imposes a form of methodological scepticism that privileges dissonance over continuity, often without sufficient justification. Some of his other problematic assumptions that can clearly be seen in the text are:
• The necessity of setting aside the Shiʿi perspective on the beginning of the Occultation when examining historical claims.
• The non-existence of the Twelfth Imam is assumed. There is a recurring issue of presumptive reasoning. For example, when discussing the possibilities surrounding the Imam’s birth or the agents’ legitimacy, he doesn’t even consider the possibility that the Imam might have actually existed and remained hidden — a position consistent with Shiʿi belief. Instead, he dismisses that as unlikely from the outset.
• Many narrators transmitted or altered traditions based on their own motives and beliefs.
• Significant alterations in early Shiʿi books as they have come down to us today.
• The fabrication of traditions attributed to the Imams, especially those predicting future events.
• The manipulation of traditions to align with contemporary Shiʿi beliefs and doctrines. There are also problematic interpretive choices. For instance, when Hayes encounters a hadith that is very compatible with current Shiʿi beliefs, he suggests that it may have been ‘shaped’ or interpolated to match later theology. While that might be possible in some cases, he assumes this too readily, often using it to discredit narrations without solid evidence.
3. Use of Questionable and Incomplete Sources
Another concern lies in Hayes’s reliance on sources that are either fragmentary, dubiously attributed, or methodologically problematic. For instance:
- He draws on al-Tanbīh by Abū Sahl al-Nawbakhtī — a work that survives only in partial form through citations in later texts, most notably in Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s Kamāl al-Dīn.
- He also makes extensive use of al-Hidāyah al-Kubrā by al-Khaṣībī, particularly its later chapters. However, the attribution of these sections to al-Khaṣībī has been questioned by several scholars due to both stylistic and doctrinal inconsistencies.
- Similarly, Dalāʾil al-Imamah — often cited by Hayes — has been the subject of scrutiny regarding both its authorship and historical reliability. Contemporary researchers have raised concerns about whether the work is authentically attributable to Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī.
- Finally, Hayes frequently draws upon conflicting Sunni historical sources to critique or challenge Twelver narratives, often without adequately addressing the methodological challenges posed by inter-sectarian polemics and historiographical discrepancies.
Taken together, these issues raise questions about the foundations upon which some of Hayes’s key arguments are built. While engagement with a broad range of sources is commendable, treating all textual traditions with equal historical weight — without accounting for their context, transmission, and sectarian framing — can produce a skewed reconstruction of early Shiʿi history
4. Overuse of Uncertain and Speculative Language
A recurring methodological issue in Hayes’s work is his heavy reliance on speculative terminology. Terms such as “apparently,” “it seems,” “perhaps,” “possibly,” “probably,” and “it can be assumed” appear frequently throughout his book. While some degree of conjecture is inevitable in historical reconstruction — especially when dealing with fragmentary or ambiguous sources — the frequency and manner in which such phrases are employed is concerning.
More critically, Hayes often builds firm conclusions atop these speculative premises. For instance, in several key arguments, he begins with tentative language — using phrases like “it seems likely” or “perhaps” — and then proceeds to assert definitive claims about institutional developments or historical motivations. In one section alone, these speculative terms appear five times within a single page, culminating in a firm historical assertion presented as the most plausible or even definitive reading of events.
5. Misunderstanding or Misrepresenting Traditions and Historical Reports
Another methodological concern in Hayes’s work is the occasional misreading or misrepresentation of primary texts — particularly ḥadīth reports and tawqīʿāt (signed letters attributed to the Hidden Imam). In several cases, he appears to conflate narrators’ commentary with the words of the Imams themselves or misinterprets the semantic structure of key phrases.
For example, in one instance, a narrator adds a clarifying remark at the end of a report, yet Hayes erroneously treats this addition as if it were part of the Imam’s statement. Such conflations can significantly alter the meaning of the report and its theological implications.
A more serious example appears in Hayes’s treatment of a tawqīʿ attributed to the Imam regarding Muḥammad b. Shādhān. Hayes writes:
“Muḥammad b. Shādhān [b. Nuʿaym/Naʿīm] Nishāpūrī. Commended in a rescript (tawqīʿ) of the Hidden Imam as ‘a man of our Shīʿa,’ and of the ahl al-bayt…”[1]
Here, Hayes seems to suggest that the Imam identified Muḥammad b. Shādhān as belonging to the ahl al-bayt, implying that he was considered part of the Prophet’s family. However, the actual report, as cited in Shaykh al-Ṣadūq’s Kamāl al-Dīn, reads:
Wa ammā Muḥammad b. Shādhān b. Nuʿaym fa-huwa rajulun min shīʿatinā ahl al-bayt.
“As for Muḥammad b. Shādhān b. Nuʿaym, he is a man from among our Shīʿa, [the Shīʿa] of the ahl al-bayt.”
The phrase shīʿatinā ahl al-bayt is grammatically and contextually meant to indicate that Muḥammad is one of the followers (shīʿa) of the ahl al-bayt, not that he himself is a member of the ahl al-bayt. Hayes’s reading — which suggests a familial inclusion — is a serious misinterpretation and alters the doctrinal implications of the text.
In discussing the case of Abū Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Bilāl — a figure who had been cursed by the Imam (a) — Hayes translates the relevant passage from Kitāb al-Ghaybah as follows:
“The story of [Abū Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Bilāl] is well-known regarding what occurred between him and Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān al-ʿAmrī (may God make his face shine), his seizing of the monies belonging to the Imam which had been in his possession; his preventing of them being handed over; and his claim that he was the wakīl, until the majority group disassociated from him (barāʾah), and cursed him, and the rescript (tawqīʿ) was issued from the Lord of the Age (ṣāḥib al-zamān) (a) and things that are well-known.”
Hayes then comments:
“It is unfortunate that these events were too ‘well-known’ for Ṭūsī to relate, for now we have lost many of the details of the story.”[2]
However, this conclusion stems from a clear misreading of the original Arabic. The key phrase in Shaykh al-Ṭūsī’s Kitāb al-Ghaybah is:
وَخَرَجَ فِيهِ مِنْ صَاحِبِ الزَّمَانِ عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ مَا هُوَ مَعْرُوفٌ
A more accurate translation of this line would be:
“And a well-known [rescript] was issued from the Lord of the Age (ʿa) concerning this matter.”
In this context, the referent of “mā huwa maʿrūf” (what is well-known) is the tawqīʿ, not the event as a whole. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī is simply stating that the letter (tawqīʿ) regarding this incident is well known — not that he is omitting the details of the event because they were supposedly already known. Indeed, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī proceeds to provide several reports detailing the conflict, including the actions of Abū Ṭāhir and the community’s response to him.
6. Selective Citation and Interpretation of Narrations
It should be acknowledged that Hayes has read a wide range of narrations with admirable attention to detail. However, he frequently overemphasizes isolated excerpts, selectively citing parts of a narration while overlooking other relevant reports—or even the continuation of the same narration—that might clarify or contradict his interpretation.
For example, in the report concerning a burial request in the Imam’s house, Hayes interprets the incident as evidence of ongoing tension between Jaʿfar and the deceased’s family, rather than acknowledging the narration’s theological implication: the visible and miraculous intervention of the Hidden Imam. He writes:
“We have some clues that, even after the division of the inheritance, tensions between Ḥudayth and Jaʿfar persisted. In one report, Ḥudayth requests to be buried in the Imam’s house after her death. Jaʿfar’s churlish reluctance to allow Ḥudayth to be buried in the house results in the miraculous intervention of the child Twelfth Imam:
And when the grandmother, al-Ḥasan’s mother, died she ordered that she should be buried in the house, but [Jaʿfar] opposed them and said, “It is my house. She shall not be buried in it!” But [the child Imam] (AS) came out and said, “O Jaʿfar! Is it your house?” Then he disappeared, and he did not see him after that.”[3]
While Hayes notes the miraculous nature of the event in passing, his interpretive emphasis remains on familial dispute rather than the narration’s doctrinal significance—namely, affirmation of the Imam’s presence during the early Occultation.
Consider the following passage from Hayes:
“Jaʿfar’s Imamate is repudiated in a key set of reports that revolve around a delegation sent by the people of Qumm soon after the death of the eleventh Imam. The stories of the Qummī delegation belong to the broader trope of seekers for the new Imam. In them, the rejection of Jaʿfar is seen to depend on a number of criteria, including the test of his (presumably legal and theological) knowledge; the discovery of his inability to provide the secret signs of Imamate (perhaps recognized evidentiary miracles); the assertion of the strict principle of father-to-son succession; and criticism of his moral character.”[4]
The underlined portion (which references Ibn Bābūya, Kamāl, 475–76) refers to the famous narration of Abū al-Adyān, in which the 12th Imam miraculously appears at the funeral of his father, corrects Jaʿfar, and provides secret signs to validate his identity. However, Hayes selectively cites this narration: he focuses only on the rejection of Jaʿfar—interpreting the report to mean that some people initially brought money to Jaʿfar but then turned away from him—while completely omitting the central theological core of the narration: the physical and miraculous manifestation of the Hidden Imam himself.
In another revealing example, Hayes discusses a narration transmitted by Ibn Barniya and cited by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī in al-Ghaybah. He dismisses the report as a doctrinally motivated manifesto, claiming that it was crafted to “tick doctrinal boxes” rather than preserve historical fact. Hayes characterizes it as a retrospective attempt to canonize the idea of a continuous chain of designated deputies, and therefore urges that such reports be set aside in historical analysis.
Yet, paradoxically, he proceeds to extract chronological information from that very same report—using it, for example, to establish dates for the death of Abū Jaʿfar al-ʿAmrī and to assert a 50-year period of agent service. [5] This selective use—rejecting the report’s legitimacy when it conveys theological meaning, but accepting it when it provides historical scaffolding—raises questions about methodological consistency in Hayes’s treatment of early Twelver sources.
Lastly, the translation of this book into Persian spans about 450 pages, with extensive footnotes. When we add critical commentary, the final annotated version may reach 550–600 pages. It’s currently being prepared for publication, and perhaps gatherings like this can help in improving the final version.
[1] Hayes, Agents of the Hidden Imam, p.90
[2] Hayes, Agents of the Hidden Imam, pp. 143-144
[3] Hayes, Agents of the Hidden Imam, p. 69
[4] Hayes, Agents of the Hidden Imam, p. 101
[5] Hayes, Agents of the Hidden Imam, pp. 82-83
