Do Not Say Only “SAHIH” Bukhari And Muslim And Validity Of Using A Da’if (Weak) Hadith
LAST UPDATE: 17/NOVEMBER/2015
Do Not Say Only “SAHIH” Bukhari And Muslim And Validity Of Using A Da’if (Weak) Hadith
''Be Ishq e Nabi(Peace Be Upon Him) jo padhta he Bukhari,
Aata he Bhukhar usko,
Aati nai he Bukhari''
''Bukhari Pado magar Saari padho''
''Dekho yeh he Bukhari,
Yeh he saari ki saari,
Na manne walo per padegi bahoot hi Bhaari''
Aata he Bhukhar usko,
Aati nai he Bukhari''
''Bukhari Pado magar Saari padho''
''Dekho yeh he Bukhari,
Yeh he saari ki saari,
Na manne walo per padegi bahoot hi Bhaari''
If someone says to you, "i only believe in Bukhari"...
Say to that person: "write on a piece of paper that you only believe in Bukhari, nothing but Bukhari. Do you believe in Kalma e Tayyab (LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah
)?"
He will say: "yes i believe in Kalma e Tayyab(LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah
)".
Then say to him: "prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahih Bukhari... Prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahi Bukhari ONLY because you said that you only believe in Sahih Bukhari.... By Allah you will not found this kalma in Sahih Bukhari... This kalma, 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah', you wont find in Sahih Muslim"
Say to that person: "write on a piece of paper that you only believe in Bukhari, nothing but Bukhari. Do you believe in Kalma e Tayyab (LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah
)?"
He will say: "yes i believe in Kalma e Tayyab(LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah
)".
Then say to him: "prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahih Bukhari... Prove 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah' from Sahi Bukhari ONLY because you said that you only believe in Sahih Bukhari.... By Allah you will not found this kalma in Sahih Bukhari... This kalma, 'LaIlahaillAllahMuhammadurRasoolAllah', you wont find in Sahih Muslim"
''All the Hadiths are not in Bukhari, there are many books of Hadiths Of
Prophet Muhammad[saw]''
CONTENTS:
PART 1: SHORT VIDEO
CLIPS
PART 2: VIDEOS
PART 3: BOOKS
PART
4: THE REALITY OF SAHIH (AUTHENTIC) HADITH OUTSIDE BUKHARI & MUSLIM
PART 5: BUKHARI SHARIF &
MUSLIM SHARIF
PART 6: HAVE YOU
BEEN BLACKMAILED WITH BUKHARI YET?
PART 7:
UNDERSTANDING DA’IF HADITH
PART 1: SHORT VIDEO
CLIPS
DONT SAY ONLY
BUKHARI AND MUSLIM
VIDEO: Response
to the one who says that i only believe in Bukhari Shariff | 3 MINS 13 SECS
URDU VIDEO: Saari Sahih Hadiths
sirf Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim ya sirf Sihah Sitta ki baqi kitabo me jamah
nahi hai! Sahih Hadiths bahoot si hadiths ki kitabo me jamah hai | 16 MINS 22
SECS
URDU VIDEO: 025 Sirf Sahih
Bukhari wa Muslim ko manne wale fitne ka radd | 18 MINS 23 SECS
URDU VIDEO: Hadith k Sahih hone k
koi pemana kitab per nahi hai (Har Sahih Hadith, Sahih Bukhari-Muslim me nahi
hai) | 6 MINS 41 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 06 Sehat, strength,acceptibility or da’if of any hadith has nothing to
do with any book, so STOP saying only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim | 37 MINS
24 SECS
URDU VIDEO: 01 Saari Sahih Hadiths ka sirf Sahih
Bukhari wa Sahih Muslim me na jamah hone ka saboot! Baaki Hadith books me bi
Sahih Hadiths hai | 1 HOUR 45 MINS 18 SECS
URDU VIDEO: 011 Sahih Bukhari se
pehle 100 kutubs(books) hadith ki likhi ja chuki thi | 4mins 20secs
LOW QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/011SahihBukhariSePehle100KutubsbooksHadithKiLikhiJaChukiThi
HIGH QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/011SahihBukhariSePehle100KutubsbooksHadithKiLikhiJaChukiThi_201411
URDU VIDEO: 012 Imam Bukhari k
Madhhab ki tehqiq(with two examples) | 43mins 6secs
URDU VIDEO: 013 Jo sirf Sahih
Bukhari ko mante he unhe khade(stand) hokar peshab karna chahiye | 5mins 21secs
LOW QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/013JoSirfSahihBukhariKoManteHeUnheKhadestandHokarPeshabKarna
HIGH QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/013JoSirfSahihBukhariKoManteHeUnheKhadestandHokarPeshabKarnaChahiye
URDU VIDEO: 014 Jo sirf Sahih
Bukhari ko mante he vo moze per sirf ek bar masa kare | 4mins 22secs
LOW QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/014JoSirfSahihBukhariKoManteHeVoMozePerSirfEkBarMasaKare4mins
URDU VIDEO: 021 Ye Shart Lagana K Sirf Sihah Sitta Se
Dikhao To Manege Bilkul Galat Aur Jahilana He |
13mins 14secs
LOW QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/021YeShartLaganaKSirfSihahSittaSeDikhaoToManegeBilkulGalatAurJahilanaHe
HIGH QUALITY: https://archive.org/details/021YeShartLaganaKSirfSihahSittaSeDikhaoToManegeBilkulGalatAurJahilanaHe_201411
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Imam Bukhari(rah) learnt 1 lakh Sahih Hadiths and 2 lakh Gair e Sahih
Hadiths by heart | 10 MINS 39 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Only Sahih Bukhari Muslim are
Authentic Source of Hadith | 6 MINS 39 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Reply to those who dont accept Al Adab Al Mufrad book of Imam
Bukhari(rah) | 14 MINS 49 SECS
SANAD:
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Importance of Sanad (Chains of Transmission) | 37 MINS 49 SECS
SERIES
1:
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 01 Meaning of term 'Hadith' | 13 MINS 46 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 02 The word 'Sahih' or word 'Da'if' | 4 MINS 55 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 03 Collection and compilation of Hadiths and Usool e Hadith are Sunnah
of Huzur(saw) | 12 MINS 48 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 04 Science of Isnad(Chain of Transmitters) is a part of Deen(Reply to
those who says we dont believe in personalities) | 17 MINS 16 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 05 Founders and History of the Science of Hadith(Usool e Hadith) | 24
MINS 45 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 06 Sehat, strength,acceptibility or da’if of any hadith has nothing to
do with any book, so STOP saying only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim | 37 MINS
24 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 07 Even Da'if is a hadith! Gair e Sahih Hadith doesnt mean that its
mawdu(fabricated or forged) | 15 MINS 8 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 08 Ranks in the system of Categorisation of Hadiths | 9 MINS 5 SECS
SERIES
2:
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 01 Understanding the concept of Da'if(weak) hadith through an example |
15 MINS 26 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 02 Categories of Hadith | 40 MINS 50 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 03 Reasons or causes which makes an Isnad(chain of transmitters) da'if |
43 MINS 58 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 04 Even if a Hadith is da'if, its acceptable in many circumtances and
situations | 1 HOUR 13 MINS 2 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 05 A hadith of Huzur(saw) in favour of da'if(weak) hadith | 24 MINS 27
SECS
SERIES
3:
URDU VIDEO:
01 Usool e Hadith per likhi hui kuch books ke name | 11 MINS 57 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
02 Aqsam e Hadith aur Usool e Hadith k sabse bade Imam Ibn Saleh, Imam Nawawi,
Ibn Kathir ne da'if hadith ko bi hadith kaha hai | 23 MINS 16 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
03 Sahih Hadith or Gair e Sahih Hadith ka matlab | 32 MINS 13 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
04 Sahih Hadith ki aqsam | 40 MINS 12 SECS
SERIES
4:
URDU VIDEO: 01 Saari Sahih Hadiths ka sirf Sahih
Bukhari wa Sahih Muslim me na jamah hone ka saboot! Baaki Hadith books me bi
Sahih Hadiths hai | 1 HOUR 45 MINS 18 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
02 Meaning and Introduction of Da'if Hadith | 49 MINS 4 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
03 Da'if hadith ka huqm | 36 MINS 50 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
04 Vo ahqaam jo sirf da'if hadith se sabit hai,
jo da'if hadith ko nai mante vo ye ahqaam bhi nai mane | 13 MINS 10 SECS
SERIES
5:
URDU VIDEO:
001 Usool e Hadith ki Tareekh | 1 HOUR 44 MINS 9 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
006 Hadith ki 3 qisme he aur da'if hadith bi HADITH HE (Qur'an wa Hadiths se) |
47 MINS 11 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
007 Hadith ki 3 qisme he aur da'if hadith bi HADITH HE (From Imams of Usool e
Hadith) | 1 HOUR 23 MINS 4 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
008 Hadith e Sahih | 1 HOUR 3 MINS 56 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
009 Hadith e Da'if - Introduction and Kinds | 1 HOUR 33 MINS
URDU VIDEO:
030 Hadith e Da'if ka huqm | 35 MINS 30 SECS
MISC
VIDEOS:
URDU VIDEO:
003 Aj k kuch naam nihad ulema ka mangarhat Usool e Hadith k Ilm | 11 MINS 53
SECS
URDU VIDEO:
003 Imam Tirmidhi ne fuqhaa ka ikhtiyar(qubool) karna, Hadith ki maqbooliyat ka
meyar bana diya | 2 MINS 39 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
da'if hadith aur Imam Tirmidhi | 15 MINS 53 SECS
URDU VIDEO:
Da'if hadith aur Mawdu ko ek misaal se samjhe | 6 MINS 48 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Da'if Hadith becoming a Hasan Hadith | 6 MINS 25 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Examples of Da'if Hadiths that are accepted | 10 MINS 5 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Hadith which is Strong but refused by Ijma | 44 MINS 24 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: If you dont accept a da'if hadith then you might be deprived from a
virtuous act | 12 MINS 12 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: India has been one of the greatest seat of learning of science of hadith
| 3 MINS 40 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Kinds of Sahih Hadith | 13
MINS 26 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Method of handling two seemingly or apparently contradictory Hadiths | 9
MINS 55 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: Weak Hadith, its kinds and conditions of acceptance (Brief Summary) | 9
MINS 57 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: What Does it Mean That Bukhari is the 'Most Authentic Book' | 16 MINS 5
SECS
PART
2: VIDEOS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 01 Towards Understanding Hadith Part 1: How Should Muslims Approach Hadith? | 1 HOUR
14 MINS 37 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 02 Towards Understanding Hadith 2: What Does it Mean That Bukhari is the
'Most Authentic Book' | 58 MINS 45 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 03 Towards Understanding Hadith 3: Are All Authentic Hadiths Accepted ? | 1 HOUR
8 MINS 14 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 04 Towards Understanding Hadith 4: Are All Weak Hadith Rejected? | 38 MINS 44
SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 05 Towards Understanding Hadith 5: Who Are The Real Ahlul Hadith? | 27
MINS 42 SECS
ENGLISH
VIDEO: 06 Towards Understanding Hadith 6: Who 'Rejects' Sahih Hadith? | 1 HOUR
32 MINS 56 SECS
PART 3: BOOKS
URDU BOOK:
Al Had Al Kaafi fi huqm al da’if By Ala Hadhrat (Scanned Version) | PAGES: 62
URDU BOOK:
Al Had Al Kaafi fi huqm al da’if By Ala Hadhrat (Text Version) | PAGES: 67
ENGLISH BOOK: Are Weak Hadith Totally Wrong? | PAGES: 22
URDU BOOK: Zaeef
wa Mauzooh ahadees ka fanni jaiza by Tufail Ahmad misbahi | PAGES: 62
PART
4: THE REALITY OF SAHIH (AUTHENTIC) HADITH OUTSIDE BUKHARI & MUSLIM
The
following paragraphs discredit the erroneous claim of some individuals: that
only the narrations of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic. This
rebuttal is summarized in five points.
AN
OUTDATED MISCONCEPTION
Firstly, in the fourth century of Islam, there
existed a deviated sect which – like some individuals today- claimed that
besides the ahadith of Sahihain, all other narrations are unacceptable. This
false accusation was the reason for which Imam Abu Abdillah Muhammad ibn
Abdillah Al-Hakim Al-Naisaburi (rahimahullah) compiled his famous work
entitled: “Al-Mustadrak ‘alas Sahihain’’, in which he endeavored to compile
those ahadith that fulfill the criteria of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
but were not included therein.
In his
introduction, Imam Al-Hakim (rahimahullah) says:
“Neither of
them (i.e. Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) or Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) have
stated that there exists no other authentic narrations besides what they have
chosen”.
[Al Mustadrak, vol.1 pg.2]
When
commenting on the criteria laid down by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim
(rahimahumallah), the scholars generally rely upon their own scrutiny of the
respective books (i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). The reason for this
is that very little has being explained by the authors themselves. For example,
Imam Al- Bukhari (rahimahullah) has not written an introduction to his book,
wherein he would have mentioned his criterion for accepting ahadith as sahih,
or as to what would be his methodology in his book. This naturally leads to
difference of opinion among the scholars.
However,
there can be no difference of opinion when “the man speaks for himself”, as is
the case in the topic under discussion.
Imam
Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) said:
“I
have memorized one hundred thousand authentic ahadith.”
[Tazkiratul
Huffadh – vol.2 pg.556]
Interestingly,
he only included nine thousand and eighty two of them (including repetitions)
in his Al-Sahih! (Refer: Hadyus Saari, pg.653)
Imam
Al-Isma’ili (rahimahullah) has quoted Imam Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) as saying:
‘’I have only cited sahih (authentic) ahadith
in this book (i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari) However, the amount of sahih ahadeeth that
I omitted there from is much more.’’
[Hadyus
Saari pg.9]
Imam Ibrahim
ibn Ma’qal Al-Nasafi (rahimahullah) reports that Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah)
said:
“I
have only quoted authentic ahadith in my book, and I excluded many other
authentic narrations for the fear of monotony.”
[ibid pg.9;
Tarikh Dimashq vol.55 pg.54
Imam Abu
Bakr al Hazimi (rahimahullah) states, ‘Imam
Al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) never intended to encompass every authentic narration.’[Shurutul
A-immah]
Imam Muslim
(rahimahullah) has made a similar statement in his book Sahih Muslim, “Chapter
on Tashahhud”:
“I haven’t quoted every single authentic
narration in this book.“ i.e, there
are many authentic narrations that are not included therein.
Imam Muslim
(rahimahullah) is also reported to have said:
“I haven’t ever claimed that those narrations
which are excluded from my Sahih are weak.My only claim is that the ahadith
contained in my book are authentic.”
[Tarikh Baghdad and Al-Imam Ibn Majah wa
kitabu Al-Sunan, pg.107]
These
quotations clearly explain the reality; that there exists many authentic
narrations outside of the Sahihain.
The
many types of Sahih Hadith
Secondly, Hafiz Ibn Salah (rahimahullah) and others
have classified the Sahih ahadith in to seven categories:
1) Those
ahadith that appear in both, Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Muttafaq
‘Alaih)
2) Those
ahadith that appear only in Sahih al Bukhari.
3) Those
that appear only in Sahih Muslim.
4) Those
that match the criteria of both, Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, but are not
found therein.
5) Those
that match the criteria of Sahih al Bukhari only and are not found therein.
6) Those
that match the criteria of Sahih Muslim only and are not found therein.
7) Those
that do not fit the description of any one of the above, but were classified
authentic by some reliable Muhaddithun.
[Muqaddimah
ibn Salah pg.27; Tadribur Rawi pg.73 and Sharh Nukhbah pg.64]
In light of
the above, the last four types of ahadith do not appear in the Sahihain.
Despite that, they are still considered as authentic.
Added to
this is the fact that Imam Al-Hakim (rahimahullah) has cited ten types of Sahih ahadith, many of which are not
included in the Sahihain. [Tadribur Rawi pgs.85-86]
More
Books that contain only Sahih Hadith
Thirdly, many Muhaddithun have compiled books which
they ensured contained only authentic narrations.
Undoubtedly
many of their narrations are not found in the Sahihain.
Some of
these compilations are:
a)
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (rahimahullah)
b) Sahih ibn
Khuzaimah
c) Sahih ibn
Hibban
d) Al
Mukhtarah of Imam Diyaudeen al Maqdisi (rahimahullah) and others.
The
General Practice of the Scholars
Fourthly, the practice of all the Muhaddithun
throughout time also confirms the prevalence of authentic ahadith outside of
the Sahihain. In this regard, countless Muhaddithun have classified various
ahadith (that do not appear in Sahihain) as Sahih.
Books such
as the following clearly substantiate this:
a)
Al-Targheeb wa Tarheeb of Hafidh Al-Mundhiri
(rahimahullah)
b) Riyadu
Saliheen of Imam Al-Nawawi (rahimahullah)
c) Majma’uz
Zawaid of ‘Allamah Al-Haithami (rahimahullah)
d) Nasbur
Rayah of ‘Allamah Al-Zaila’ee (rahimahullah)
e) Fathul
Bari of Hafidh Ibn Hajar Al-’Asqalani (rahimahullah)
Imam
Bukhari Himself
Fifth
and Lastly, there are several ahadith that
are not in the sahihain which Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) was asked to comment
on. Many of them have been classified as sahih by Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah)
himself! (Examples can be found in Al-‘Ilalul Kabeer of Imam Tirmidhi
(rahimahullah)
Conclusion
These five
points points are sufficient to prove the fallacy of the claim that: there
exists no Sahih hadith outside of the Sahihain (Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih
Muslim).
Therefore,
if any particular madhab (school of fiqh) substantiates its viewpoint with a
narration outside of the Sahihain, there should be no objection as long as the
narration is suited for that purpose.
One who
demands otherwise is quite far off from reality, since the Imams of the four
famous schools of fiqh actually lived before the existence of the Sahihain!
PART
5: BUKHARI SHARIF & MUSLIM SHARIF
Hadith is
the second source of Islam after the Qur’an. Whenever a Hadith is told to a
Muslim, he immediately accepts it, but there are some people, who when they are
told a Hadith, ask wether that Hadith is written in Bukhari or Muslim. They
say, if it is written in Muslim and Bukhari then it should be accepted, but if
it is not, then a doubt remains as to whether the Hadith is authentic or not.
Our claim to
this is that it is not the command of Allah or our Prophet (May Allah bless Him
and grant him peace) that we can only believe in those Ahadith which are
written in Muslim or Bukhari and have doubts about the rest. People who fall
into the category of people who use Bukhari and Muslim as their only sources of
Sunnah claim:
(A) Many
scholars of Islam have said that the Ahadith written in Muslim or Bukhari are
authentic, but the Ahadith which are not in Muslim or Bukhari can be weak,
fabricated or authentic.
(B) Muslim
and Bukhari do not take narration from a weak narrator. Even if there was a
weak narrator and Muslim and Bukhari took narration from the narrator, then the
narrator is said to have “Crossed the Bridge” [1].
[[1])
Usually, when the scholars of Ahadith look at a Hadith they look for narrator’s
authenticity (i.e. whether he was knowledgeable about Adieth or not), but if
Muslim or Bukhari took narration from that narrator, then any doubt regarding
the narrator authenticity is removed. It is said that that narrator has
“crossed the bridge”.]
(C) The
scholars of Hadith have not objected to any narration of Muslim and Bukhari.
(D) We do
not need to see any other Ahadith books because Muslim and Bukhari have gathered
all the authentic Ahadith in Muslim and Bukhari.
(E) No one
has ever criticised Imams Muslim and Bukhari in regards to any mistake they may
have made.
Whatever has
been claimed above is not from the Qur’an or Sunnah. We will explain, with the
help of Allah that these claims are false.
We say that
an authentic Hadith is one, which meets the principals of authentication of
Ahadith. It does not matter whether it is written in Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi
or Abu Dawud, or Muwatta of Imam Malik.
“The narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim
have not been criticised by scholars of Ahadith”
Before we
write about the actual narration of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari we will prove
that to criticise the narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim is not forbidden.
Asqalani
writes, “when you compare the narration of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim you
will notice that Imam Muslim’s narration have been criticised a lot more by the
scholars of Ahadith than the narration of Imam Bukhari. When Imam Bukhari took
narration from his teachers, he was well aware of these narrations beforehand,
On the other hand, when Imam Muslim took narration from his teachers, he had no
previous information about them. This is another reason why Imam Bukhari is
said to be better than Imam Muslim. Imam Bukhari carries less Shaadh and
Muallal (types of weak Hadith) than Imam Muslim
(An-Nukhbah,
chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Hafidh Asqalani).
Imam
Sakhawee writes that the status of Imam Bukhari is higher than Imam Muslim. The
reason he gives this is that Imam Bukhari has taken narration from 435
narrators, among these narrators there are only 80 weak narrators. Imam Muslim
has taken narration from 620 narrators. About 160 narrators are known to be
weak from among these
(Fath-ul-mughees,
chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Imam Sakhawee)
Hafidhh
Asqalani and Imam Ay’nee write that Imam Daar Qutni has written a book called
“Istadrikaat” in which he has objected to many narrations of Imam Muslim and
Imam Bukhari (Muqaddamah, Fath-ul-Baari by Hafidh Asqalani and Umdat-ul-qaari
by Imam Ay’nee)
Hafidh
Asqalani has attempted to answer the objection raised in the book. In the
preface of Fath-ul-Baari, Imam Asqalani has answered some questions raised
(Muqaddamah
Fath-ul-Baari, “Criticism of Imam Bukhari by Scholars of Ahadith” by Hafidh
Asqalani)
Alaama Abu
Fatah writes that Hafidhh Iraaqee has written in his book, “Al-Fayaah”, that he
criticised only two narrations of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari. In my other
book, “Sharh-ul-Kabeer”, I have gathered all the narration of Imam Bukhari and
Muslim, which the scholars of Ahadith have criticised. Hafidhh Abu Ali
Ghassaani has also compiled all the narration of Imam Muslim and Bukhari, which
scholars of Hadith have criticised. Alaama Abu Masaud has also written a
similar book
(Qawa’id
Uloom Al-Hadith page 40 by Abu Fatah Al Damashqi)
It is clear
that if the criticism of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari were forbidden, then the
scholars of Ahadith would not have dared to criticise their narration. Even
those people who have praised Imam Bukhari very highly have criticised him.
Hafidhh
Asqalani writes: “Qaadhi Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi, in his commentary on Bukhari,
claims that Imam Bukhari has written narration in Sahih-ul-Bukhari and that
they have been narrated by at least two persons e.g. two companions heard a
narration from our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and then
two of the companions’ students heard it from the companions themselves, and so
on. The scholars of Ahadith have proved this claim to wrong. The first
narration in SaHiH-ul-Bukhari is narrated by Al-Qaama who heard it from Umar
(May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace). This proves that Qaadhi Abu
Baqaaree’s claim is wrong.
(An-Nukhba,
p14 by Hafidh Asqalani)
SOME NARRATION OF BUKHARI AND MUSLIM, WHICH
HAVE BEEN CRITICISED BY THE SCHOLARS OF AHADITH
There
are many narrations of Imam Bukhari, which have been criticized, the detail can
be found in Fath-ul-Baari and Umdat-ul-Qaari, whicj are written by Hafidh
Abd-ul-Barr’s, and Ibn Jawzee’s books. Here are some examples from those books:
(1)Imams
Bukhari and Muslim write that when the leader of the hypocrites, Abdullah bin
Ubaydah died, his son came to see our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant
Him peace] and asked him if he would perform his Father’s funeral prayer
(Janaazah) As our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] stood up to
read the Janaazah, Umar tugged his shirt and asked him: “Are you going to
perform the Janazah?” Umar said that he was a hypocrite and that AllahAlmighty
has forbidden him to perform a hypocrite’s Janaza. Our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace] then said to Umar that Allah Almighty had given him
the choice of whether or not to read the Janazah of a hypocrite. According to
this narration, the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said,
“Allah Almighty has told me that if I ask for their forgiveness seventy times,
He will not forgive them, but I will ask for their forgiveness more than
seventy times. After this, our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] performed the Janaazah prayer. After the Janaazah, Allah Almighty
revealed verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah. The revelation is as follows: “ Prophet
[May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]! If someone dies from among them
(non-believer or hypocrite) do not say their Janaza or do not stand at their
graves, because they have blasphemed with Allah and His Messenger.
(Bukhari
and Sahih Muslim, chapters: “Janaaiz, Tafsir and Fadaa’il Umar)
Hafidhh
Asqalani, Imam Anee and other scholars of Hadith write that whether our Prophet
[May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and Umar had this discussion is
doubtful. Qadhi Abu Bakr has said that it is not permissible to accept this
narration, as it is not true. Hafidhh Asqalani has said this is a narration
from those, narrations that have not been authenticated. Imam Al-Haramain has
said that the scholars of Ahadith do not accept this narration. Imam Ghazali
and Imam Daudi have said that it is clear that this Hadith is not true.
The
reason that the above scholars have not accepted this Hadith is that before
this event verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah was already revealed. The meaning of
that verse is O Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]! If you ask
for their forgiveness, or if you do not ask for their forgiveness, or if you
ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah Almighty will not forgive them
because they disbelieve in Allah Almighty and his Messenger [May Allah bless
him and grant Him peace]. From the meaning of the above verse, we can establish
three facts.
·
The first fact is that whether the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] asks for their forgiveness or not, the hypocrites will not be forgiven.
·
The second fact is that if the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] asked for their forgiveness more than seventy times, his prayer will
still not be granted. The word “seventy” mentioned does not actually mean
seventy times; rather it means “no matter how many times”.
·
The third fact is that the hypocrites have disbelieved in Allah Almighty and
His Messenger[May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] so they cannot be
forgiven. With the above facts in mind, how can our Prophet [May Allah bless
him and grant Him peace] be able to say that he has been given a choice by
Allah Almighty whether or not to say their Janaazah? Secondly, how did our
Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] establish that Allah Almighty
will not forgive them if he asks for forgiveness seventy times, but will
forgive them if the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] asks for
their forgiveness more than seventy times?
Allah
Almighty verified Umar’s understanding by revealing verse 83 of
surat-ut-taubah. The general meaning is: “if anyone dies from among the
non-believers, do not read their Janaazah and do not stand at their graves.”
From reading the above verse, it seems as though Umar had a better
understanding of verse 80 of surat-ut-taubah than our Prophet [May Allah bless
him and grant Him peace]. This is impossible and is not acceptable. Before this
event, when the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] was living in
Makkah, his uncle Abu Talib, died and The Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] said that he would make du’aa for his uncle until Allah stops
him. Verses of 113 and 114 of surat-ut-taubah were then revealed. These state
that it is not fitting for our Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him
peace] or any other Muslim to ask for forgiveness for a non-believer. Prophet
Ibrahim[May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] stopped asking for forgiveness
for his Uncle when he learnt that he was a non believer
(Fath-ul-Baari,
Umdat-ul-Qaari, Tasayyar-ul-Qaari, ShahH Bukhari by Hafidh Asqalani, Imam Anee
and Shaikh Dhelwi).
(2)
Imam Bukhari writes that Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet SAW said, that
on the Day of Judgement when Allah TA’ALA throws the people into hellfire,
hellfire will say give me more. Then Allah TA’ALA will create a nation and then
throw them into it. Hellfire will again say I want more, and again Allah TA’ALA
will create a nation and throw them into it, hellfire will again say I want
more, then Allah TA’ALA will put His feet onto hellfire then it will be full.
(Bukhari
Kitab-al-Tawheed Chapter Tawheed).
Hafidhh
Asqalani writes that Imam Bukhari has written this hadith in Tafsir of Surah
Qaaf. In this narration when hellfire asks for more Allah TA’ALA will put His
feet onto it and then it will be full, and Allah TA’ALA is never cruel but in
Abu Hurairah’s above narration it says that Allah TA’ALA will create a nation
and fill hellfire with it. Hafidhh ibn Qayyam, Abu Hassan Qubsi and other
groups of scholar of Hadith say that the narrator of this Hadith has fabricated
this by saying that Allah TA’ALA will create a nation to fill hellfire. They
say that Allah TA’ALA created hellfire for those people who follow satan, and
that the new creation would never have sinned, so how could Allah TA’ALA put
them in hellfire? Allah TA’ALA also says in the Qur’an that He never does
injustice to anyone. (Surah al-Qaaf Verse 49).
The
scholars also say that to fill hellfire, Allah TA’ALA would fill it with stones
as this has no life, but humans have a life. Other scholars say that Allah
TA’ALA is all powerful and could punish anyone without a sin as He wills, and
is not answerable to anyone.
(Fathul
Bari Chapter on Tawheed).
Hafidhh
ibn Taymiyyah writes that an authentic narrator sometimes makes mistakes, but
knowledgeable scholars of Hadith find these mistakes straight away, like Imam
Bukhari writes in Kitab-al-Tawheed that Allah TA’ALA will create a new nation
and fill hellfire with it. A master of Hadith will find out straight away if a
narrator has made a mistake. These mistakes by narrators are also found in
other Hadith books. Imam Muslim writes that when the Prophet SAW married his
wife Mamunah after he had taken off the Ahram from himself, the Prophet SAW did
not perform 2 rakat nafal inside the Kaba.
A
person with deep knowledge of Hadith will straight away know the narrator of
this Hadith has made a mistake because it is proved from another authentic
Hadith:
That
the Prophet SAW never performed Umrah in the month Of Rajab when the Prophet
[May Allah blessHim and grant Him Peace] married his wife Mamunah, he was
wearing the ahram and he did perform 2 rakat nafal inside the Kaaba.”
There
is another narration of ibn Umar that the Prophet SAW performed Umrah in the
month of Rajab.
(Usooleh
Tafsir Chapter Ijma-al-Muhaddiseen by Hafidhh ibn Taymiyyah).
From
the above statement we can see that Hafidhh ibn Taymiyyah has criticized Imam
Bukhari and Imam Muslims narration's.
(3)
Imam Bukhari writes, after the death of the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace], umm-ul-mu’mineen Sawda, was the first to die. [Bukhari,
chapter of Zakaah by Imam Bukhari]
Hafidh
Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes that this is wrong, and that umm-ul-mu’mineen Zainab
died first. Imam Ibn Jawzi says this narration is not correct and it is very
strange that Imam Bukhari wrote this. Imam Nawawi also says that Imam Bukhari
has made mistakes.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
chapter on Zakaah, by Hafidhh Asqalani)
(4)
Imam Bukhari states, that the Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] wife, Ummay Habeeba heard that her Father died in Syria.
[Bukhari
chap Janaa’iz,]
Hafidhh
Asqalani says, “All the scholars agree that Ummay Habeeba’s Father died in
Madinah and that the word Syria was incorrectly used in this narration.
(Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Janaa’iz)
(5)
Imam Bukhari states, that in the Battle of Badr, Khabaib bin Addi killed Haris.
[Bukhar
chap of Al-Maghasi, chapter 38,]
Hafidhh
Asqalani says that the majority of scholars say that Khabaab never joined in
the battle of Badr. (Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Maghasi, by Hafidh Asqalani]
(6)
Imam Bukhari states that a man was punished by Uthman [Radi alla hu anhu] who
was whipped eighty times.
[Bukhari,
Fadaa’il-ul-Uthman]
Hafidh
Asqalani says this is not right as the man was whipped forty times as written
in other narrations.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
chapter on Fadaa’il-ul-Uthmaan, by Hafidh Asqalani)
(7)
Imam Bukhari states that Abu Hurairah said, “I went with the Prophet [May Allah
bless Him and grant Him peace] to Banoo Qainuqah’s market and he sat in
Fatimah’s garden.
[Bukhari
chap Maazukirah Fil Aswaaq]
Hafidhh
Asqalani states that in this narration, certain words are missing because
Fatimah’s house was not in Banoo Qainuqah. The proper narration is the one that
Imam Muslim records, which is:
“The
Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] went to Banoo Qainuqah and
then he returned and went to Fatimah’s house.” Faatimah’s house was in the
middle of the Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] wives’
houses.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
chapter “Fadaa’il Aswaq” by Hafidhh Asqalani)
(8)
Imam Bukhari states after the death of Uthmaan, no one stayed alive from among
the companions of Badr. When the war of Harra happened, none of the Hudaibiyah
companions were left alive.
[Bukhari
chapter Mughasi]
Hafidhh
Asqalani says that this is false becaused after the death of Uthman (Radi allah
hu anhu), from the companions of Badr, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Saad (Radi allah hu
anhu) and other companions were alive after Uthmaan died. Hafidh Asqalani has
also proved that the second part of this narration is incorrect.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
chapter on Fitan, by Hafidh Asqalani)
(9)
Imam Bukhari states, that when Aadam [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]
was created, he was sixty feet high.
[Bukhari
chapter Anbiya]
Hafidhh
Asqalani states “If this was in fact true, the houses of the previous nations
(like ‘Aad and thamood) should be higher than our houses but this is not the
case. This has confused me until now.” (Fath-ul-Baari, chapter on Anbiyaa’, by
Hafidhh Asqalani)
(10)
Imam Bukhari says that Abu-Musa said that when our Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] was going towards Khaybar. The people who were behind him
were shouting “Allah is great” in loud voices. Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] told them not to shout in loud voices but to recite it
normally.
(Bukhari,
Chapter on Khaibar).
Hafidh
Asqalani and Hafidh Ibn Kathir say that this cannot be right as Abu-Musa
Ash’aree came from Habsha to the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] after Khaybar was won along with the Muhajirs (Immigrants). In Bukhari,
it also proved that Abu-Musa came to Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] after the war of Khaybar was over. This means that it would not be
correct to say that this event took place on the way.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
chapter on Khaybar, by Hafidh Asqalani and Sirat-un-Nabi, by Hafidh ibn Kathir)
(11)
Imam Bukhari says that Umar Bin Maymoon said: “I saw a monkey who had just
committed adultery with another one. Other monkeys then stoned them both, so I
also started to throw stones as well.”
(Bukhari,
“Ayyaam-ul-Jaahiliyyah”)
Hafidh
Asqlani writes: Alaama Ibn Abd-ul-Barr says: “This narration is wrong because,
enforcing an Islamic law on a animal about regarding any matter would be wrong.
If in any way you were to say that the words of this narration were true then
it would be correct to say that the monkey was in fact, a Jinn.” Humaidee says
that this account was not actually in the original Bukhari, but someone has
added it later. Nusqi wrote the second version of Bukhari, and this narration
was not written in it. If we were to say that Hafidh Humaydi and Ibn Abdul-Barr
are right, then what about the Ulamaa’ (Scholars) who say that all the Ahadith
written in Bukhari are correct.
(Fathul-ul-Baari,
“Ayyaamul-Jaahiliyyah” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam
Badr-ud-deen Anee has said it is not true that all the Hadith contained in
Bukhari are authentic. The reason he gives it that Imam Bukhari has taken some
narration from the people who were from misled sects.
(Umdat-ul-qaari,
“Al-Munaqib”)
Hafidh
Asqalani himself has criticised many of Imam Bukhari’s narrations. The preface
of Fath-ul-Baari contains a list of all the scholars who have criticised
Bukhari’s narration. In some places, he has tried to answer some of the
objections raised. So how then can anyone claim that there is no argument
concerning the narrations of both Imam Bukhari and Muslim? Our shaykh Shah Abul
Husain Zaid Farooqee (may god bless him) has said that Ibn Maymoon saw the
monkeys before the Islamic order for stoning an adulterer was revealed. And,
even the monkeys were jinnaat, so how could they be punished?
but
on the third night our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was
taken on the miraaj. (Bukhari, “Siraat-un-nabi” and “Kitaab-ut-tawheed”)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that the narration, which states that our Prophet [May Allah
bless Him and grant Him peace] was taken on the miraaj before the first
revelation of the Qur’an, is not acceptable. The ummah is in agreement that the
miraaj took place after Muhammad [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] obtained
Prophethood and before the emigration to Madeenah. Imam Khatabee, Ibn Hazm,
Qadi Iyad and Imam Nawawi also reject the above narration.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
“At-tawheed” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh
Ibn Quyaam writes that the journey to heaven took place only once, it was after
the first revelation. May AllahAlmighty bless Imam Muslim as he did not write
this narration.
(Zaad-ul-Maad,
“Asrah” by ibn Qayyam)
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir writes that the content of the above narration has been altered from
the original version. This is because Shareek was unable to remember the actual
words of the Hadith. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, surah Banee Israa’eel, Aayah 1)
Ibn
Muhammad bin Abdul Wahaab ul Najdi writes that the miraaj occurred only once
and it happened before the hijrah to Madeenah. The scholars of Ahadith have
rejected Shareek’s narration. (Mukhtassar-us-Sirat-ur-rasool, chapter “Asra” by
Ibn Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahaab-un-Najdi)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that the above narration is one of those narration which
scholars of Ahadith have criticised. The scholars who have criticised this
narration have deep knowledge of Ahadith and had studied them from
ecvonceivable point.
(Muqaddamah
Fath-ul-Baari, Chapter Ta’an Daar Qurtubee ‘Alal-Bukhari” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam
Dhahabi writes that Shareek’s narration is one of those narration which no one
has verified. (Mizaan-ul-I’tidaal, biography of Shareek, by Hafidh Dhahabi)
(13)Imam
Muslim writes that Abu Sa’eed narrated from the Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] that he ordered us to not write down any of his Ahadith,
also he narrated that any one who has written his Ahadith other then Qur’an
should destroy it. (Muslim, “Zuhad”)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that Imam Bukhari and other scholars have said that this
narration is not authentic. This is not our Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] Hadith, but, in fact, these are the words of Abu Sa’eed
himself. It is clear from many other Ahadith that our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace] has given us the permission to write his Hadith.
(Fath-ul-Baari, “Kitaabaat-ul-’Ilm” by Hafidh Asqalani)
(14)
Muslim writes that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had
many wives and that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] gave
equal time to each wife, but there was one wife who did not have her fixed
time. Her name was Safiyyah.
(Sahih
Muslim, “Chapter Rada”)
Imam
Nawawi has written that the narrators of this Hadith, Atha and Ibn Jurayj have
made a mistake inthe name Safiyyah, which should have been Sawdah. Imam Muslim
has written in the same chapter that our Prophet’s [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] wife, Sawdah, had given her turn to A’isha. (Sharh Sahih
Muslim, “Ar-radah” by Imam Nawawi)
Moreover,
Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Daud, Imam Ibn Sa’ad, Imam Ibn Kathir and Hafidh
Asqalani have written that the name of the wife of Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] who gave up her turn was Sawdah. (Bukhari, “Nikaah”, Abu
Daud, “Nikaah”, Tabakath Ibn Sa’ad “Usd-ul-Ghaabah”, Ashaabah, “Biography of
Sawdah”).
(15)
Imam Bukhari has written that Abu Hurairah has said that the Muslims were
victorious in the war of Khahybar and during the war there was a man who seemed
to be fighting very bravely our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] said that he would go to hell. (Sahih Bukhari, “Al Khaibar”)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that it is implied, from the above narration, that Abu Hurairah
was present in the war of Khaybar. I (Asqalani) feel that when writing this
narration, Imam Bukhari did not give his full attention, because Abu Hurairah
came to our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to become a
Muslim after the war of Khaybar. Imam Bukhari has also written, in the same
chapter, that Abu Hurairah came to see Our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] when he was dividing the spoils of war and that the Prophet
[May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] gave some to Abu Hurairah is well.
(Fath-ul-Baari, “Khaybar” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh
Ibn Kather, Hafidh Ibn Alquayaam, Imam Ibn Atheer and Hafidh Asqalani write
that Abu Hurairah went to Madinah to see our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] In Madina he prayed Salaah, someone else lead the Salaah
prayer, after the prayers Abu Hurairah learnt that our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace] has gone to war at Khaybar. Abu Hurairah also traveled
to Khaybar, but when he reached Khaybar the war has ended and our Prophet [May
Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was dividing the spoils of war.
(Sirat
un Nabi and Zahdual Maad chap Khaybar, Usdual Gahbah and Al Sabaah biography of
Abu Hurairah by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Quayum, Ibn Atheer and Hafidh Asqalani).
(16)Imam
Muslim writes that Abu Hurairah reported that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] said that AllahAlmighty created the earth on Saturday, the
mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, mad things on Tuesday, light on
Wednesday, animals on Thursday and on Friday, Prophet Aadam was created.(SaHiH
Muslim, “Al munfiqee”)
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir has said that this is an odd narration. Imam Bukhari and Imam Ibne
Madani were not satisfied with this narration. The scholars of Ahadith have
said that theses are not the words of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace], but are the words of Kaab who was a Jew and who embraced
Islam. The narrators of this Hadith have mistaken the words of Kaab to be the
words of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. Imam Bayhaqi
has also rejected this Hadith. There is more concrete proof that this narration
is not authentic because Allah, Almighty has said in the Qur’an that the earth
and the skies were created in six days. How can our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace] say anything, which goes against the Qur’an?
(Tafsir
Ibn Kathir, surat-ul-Baqarah, verse 29, surat-ul-a’raaf, verse 54 and Tarikh
Ibn Kathir, volume 1, “World Creation” by Ibn Kathir)
(17)Imam
Muslim writes that Ibn Abbas reported that when Abu Sufiyaan became a Muslim,
he said to the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] that he had a
most beautiful girl in the whole of Arabia. Her name is Ummay Habeebah. Abu
Sufiyaan then said that he wished to her marry with the Prophet [May Allah
bless him and grant Him peace]. (Sahih Muslim, “Fadaa’il abu Sufiyaan”)
Imam
Nawawi has written that the objection to this narration is that Abu Sufiyaan
became a Muslim in the 8th year of Hijrah which was after the victorious war of
Makkah. At this time Ummay Habeebah was already the wife of our Prophet [May
Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. How, therefore, can Abu Sufiyaan ask our
Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to marry his daughter again?
It is said that the narrator of this Hadith is weak. If Abu Sufiyaan did wish
to marry this daughter to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]
again, he would not need to mention that she was the most beautiful girl in
whole of Arabia, and that her name was Ummay Habeebah. If he did wish to marry
his daughter again, in Abu Sufiyaan’s presence, all he had to do was to make a
request. I think that the first answer is more authentic.
(Sharh
Muslim, “Fadaa’il Abu Sufiyaan” by Imam Nawawee)
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir writes that Imam Muslim has said that Abu Sufiyaan made a request to
our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] to marry Ummay Habeebah
when Abu Sufiyaan became a Muslim. This statement is not true. Ibn Hazm has
said that this is a fabricated Hadith and it is made up by Ikraamah bin Ammaar.
The other scholars of Ahadith say that we should not call this a fabricated
Hadith but we should say that the narrator has made a mistake.
(Sirat-un-nabi
and Tareekh Ibn Kathir, “Nikaah of Ummay Habeebah”, by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)
Hafidh
Asqalani, Hafidh ibn Atheer and Hafidh Ibn Asakir write that the scholars of
Ahadith have objected to this Hadith, because it has been proved that Ummay
Habeebah had already, been married to our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] when Abu Sufyan became a Muslim. There is a famous narration
that there was an agreement between the Muslims of Madeenah and the
non-believers of Makkah, but non-believers of Makkah did not abide by the
agreement and the Muslim of Madeenah announced that they would cancel the
agreement. Abu Sufyan went to his daughter’s house in Madeenah. As Abu Sufyan
was just about to sit on a bed which, was in the room, Ummay Habeebah asked her
Father to wait. She removed the bedspread and said that it was the bedspread of
the Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]. Abu Sufyan then said to
his daughter that you changed.
(Asahbah
Usd-ul-Ghaabah, Ibn Asahquir, “Biography of Ummay Habibah” by Hafidh Asqalani,
Ibn Atheer and Ibn Askhir)
Hafidh
Ibn Taymiyyah writes that Imam Muslim has written those types of narration to
which Scholars of Ahadith have objected e.g. AllahAlmighty made the skies and
earth in seven days, Abu Sufiyaan asked our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] to marry his daughter after becoming Muslim, Another
narration, in the book Salaah, where it can be interpreted that our Prophet
[May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had two sons called Ibrahim, (When we
know that our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] had only one
son called Ibrahim) At-Tawasul, Uloom Hadith and Fatwaa Ibn Taymiyyah, vol.18,
“chap Maqaam Bukhari wa Muslim” by Ibn Taymiyyah)
(18)Imam
Bukhari and Imam Muslim have said that the war of Mustalak happened in 4 Hijree
as Musaa bin Uqbah has said. Ibn Is-haaq has said that it happened in 6 hijri.
Mustalak was in the war when Aisha was falsely accused of a sin she did not
commit. Aisha has said that when she was falsely accused, the verse of veil was
revealed. One day our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] was
talking to some people and he said “Some people have falsely accused my wife,
but I can only see goodness in her”. From the evidence, Saad bin Maas, stood up
and said “If the person who has falsely accused your wife is from our tribe, I
will kill him”
(Bukhari,
“Magaazee” and Muslim, “Tawbah”)
Hafidh
Asqalani has written that Imam Bukhari has said that the war of Mustalaq
happened in 4 hijrah. Imam Bukhari has made a mistake, because the war of
Mustalaq happened in 5 hijrah. I feel that Imam Bukhari wanted to write down 5
but he wrote down 4, because Imam Bukhari also wrote a Hadith in “Jihad” which
proves that the war of Mustalaq happened in 5 hijri. Secondly, the narration
where Saad bin Maas has said that he would kill the slanderer is also wrong.
This is because Saad bin Maas was martyred in the war of Khandaq, (which
happened before the war of Mustalaq). ‘Aisha has said, “When I was falsely
accused, the verse of veil was revealed and it was revealed after the war of
Khandak.” s
(Fath-ul-Baari,
“ “Magaazee” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir writes that Saad bin Maas was martyred in the war of Khandak, after
which, our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] married Zainab and
after that the verse of Hijaab was revealed. This all happened before the war
of Mustalaq and the false accusation was leveled at ‘Ai’sha. (Sirat-un-Nabi,
and “Tareekh Ibn Kathir” by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)
Imam
Nawawi has said that the narration where Saad bin Maas has said that he would
kill the slanderer is hard to believe, because all the Islamic historians are
in agreement that Saad bin Maas was martyred before the war of Mustalaq. Qadhi
Iyad has said that to include Saad Bin Maas in this Hadith is a Mistake of the
narrators. The more likely person to have said those words could be Saad bin
Abadah. (Sahrh Sahih Muslim, “Tawbah” by Imam Nawawi)
Imam
Nawawi, Imam ibn Atheer, Imam Tabaree, Hafidh ibn Qayyam, Ibn Muhammad bin
Abdul Wahhaab an-Najdi have written that when the false accusation was leveled
at Aisha, Saad bin Maas was not alive.(Tareekh Tabaree, Usd-ul-Ghaabah,
Zaad-ul-Ma’aad, Muktaasar Sirat-ur-Rasool, “Mustalak and Khandak” by Imam
Tabaree, Imam ibn Atheer, Hafidh ibn Qayyam and ibn Shaykh an Najdi)
(19)Imam
Bukhari writes that on the day of judgement, when Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah
bless him and grant him peace] will see his Father, he will say to Allah, “You
made a promise to me, that you will not make me sad on the day of judgement”.
Allah will reply “I have made it forbidden for the non-believers to enter
Jannah.
(Bukhari,
“Tafsir”)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that Ismaa’eelee has said that this Hadith is wrong, it has no
origin and it is doubtful. This is because this Hadith goes against the Qur’an.
Allah tallah says in the Qur’an“when Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] found out that his Father was the enemy of Allah Ta’ala, he
stopped praying for him” (soorat-ut-tawbah, verse 120) Secondly, when Allah
Tahlah makes a promise, it is always fulfilled. From this narration it seems as
though Allah tahlah does not fulfill his promises.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
“Tafsir” by Hafidh Asqualani)
(20)
Imam Bukhari writes that Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him and grant Him
peace] never lied except on three occasions. On one occasion, members of his
tribe asked him to accompany them to a fayre, he said to them that he was ill.
Secondly, when Ibreaheem [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] broke the
pagan idols and he was asked if he broke them, he said that big idol had
destroyed them. The third “lie” was when Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant
him peace] was travelling with his wife and they reached a place whose king was
an oppressor. Someone went to the King and informed him that a person had
arrived in his city accompanied by a very beautiful woman whom the king would
like. The King then asked to see Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him
peace] and asked him who the woman was. Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant
him peace] replied “She is my sister.” Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant
him peace] returned and told his wife: “I have told the king that you are my
sister. You and I are the only two Muslims in the world and when you are asked
about this, you must not make me out as a liar.”
(21)(Bukhari,
“Fadaa’l Ibraaheem)
Sayyed
Mawdoodee writes:
“The
above Hadith, which is in Bukhari and Muslim, has authentic narrators. But it
is very difficult for me to believe that Prophet Ibrahim [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace] would lie and also our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and
grant Him peace] would say that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him
peace] has lied. In this narration there must be some misunderstanding by the
narrators. The first two “lies” mentioned in this narrations are not actually
lies and the third “lie” is fabricated by the Jews. This has been mentioned
twice in the Bible. Let us examine these lies. The first “lie”, that Ibrahim
[May Allah bless him and grant him peace] said that he was ill, is written in
the Qur’an. For this to be proved a lie it must first be established that
Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] said that he was not ill but
was healthy, by some evidence better then the Qur’an. The second lie: when
Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] was asked if he broke the
idols and replied: “Ask these broken idols who has broken them if they can
speak”.
From
the above statement it can be established that it is not a lie, but an attempt
to demonstrate that these idols which the pagans worshipped as Gods, were
actually rock and nothing else. If an ordinary person cannot call this a lie
then how can our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] say so the
third lie is one of those lies which has been made up by the Jews and it’s the
aim was to disgrace Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]. In the
Bible, book of Genesis chapters 12 and 20, it is mentioned that Ibrahim [May
Allah bless him and grant him peace] went to a kingdom whose king was an
oppressor. It is mentioned in this book that Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and
grant him peace]’s wife was 60 years old, on one occasion and 90 years old on
the other. Therefore, how can a king can summon some one to come to his palace
and quiz him about the woman he was accompanying. It is clearly understood that
Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace] did not lie and that Our
Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] did not say that Ibrahim [May
Allah bless him and grant him peace] lied. Some people think that the narrators
of this narration are authentic and to accept this narration for this reason
would not be acceptable because I feel that we would then be accepting that our
Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] has lied. Imam Raazi has said
that when a narration is attributed to Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant
Him peace], which is a lie. It is better to attribute the lie to a narrator.
But I feel that it is sufficient to say that the narrators have made a mistake
in understanding the narration.”
(Rasaa’il-ul-Masaa’il,
chapter 1, “Tafsir Tafheem ul Qur’an, Surat-us-Saffaat, verse 23 by Sayyed
Mawdoodi)
CRITICISM OF IMAM BUKHARI AND IMAM MUSLIM
The
claim that the scholars of Hadith have not objected to any narrators of Muslim
and Bukhari is false. Not only did the scholars of Hadith criticise Imam
Bukhari’s and Muslim’s narrators, they also criticised on Bukhari and Muslim
themselves.
CRITICISM OF IMAM BUKHARI
Hafidh
Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes that Hafidh Saalih said: “One day, Hafidh Abu Zur’ah
said to me “I have read Imam Bukhari’s Tareekh, and in it, I have found many
mistakes.” I informed him “When a person of Bukhara (Bukhari’s home town) goes
to Iraq and comes back with new information, Imam Bukhari always reads it. The
writing style of these people was quite unusual. This meant that Imam Bukhari
had difficulty in reading the narration. This is why Imam Bukhari made
mistakes. Otherwise, he is the best from among all the scholars of Kharasaan”
(Tahdheeb
ul Tahdheeb, By Hafidh Asqalani, biography of Imam Bukhari)
Imam
Muslim writes, “In our time some, people think that they are scholars of
Hadith. They have made up false conditions in order to accept Hadith. One of
them says, “When you take a narration of Hadith from a narrator, you must make
sure that the narrator and his narrator have met. It is not enough that they
were simply alive at the same time.” This is an innovation because none of the
previous great scholars of Hadith have mentioned this condition. This condition
is very wrong, and I refute this condition in case people who are less
knowledgeable might accept this.
(Sahih
ul Muslim, Chapter Mu’an‘an)
Imam
Nawawi writes that the condition which Imam Muslim has discussed above, has
been introduced by Imam Bukhari and his teacher, Imam Ali bin Madeenee.
(Sharh
Muslim, Chapter Mu’an’an)
Imam
Bukhari writes that Malik was a companion of the Prophet [May Allah bless Him
and grant Him peace], and Bohainah was his mother.
(Bukhaari,
Chapter Salaah)
Hfidh
Ibn Hajar Asqalani has said “Imam Bukhari has made two mistakes. Malik was not
the companion of Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] and that
Bohaina was not Malik’s mother.
(Fath-ul-Baari,
“Kitaab-us-Salaah”, chapter 38)
Hafidh
Dhahabi and Hafidh Ibn Kathir write that when Imam Bukhari took narrations from
the Syrians, he made mistakes.
(Tadhkaraat-ul-Huffaad,
and Taareekh Ibn Kathir Biography of Imam Muslim)
Hafidh
Iraqi writes: “Imam Ibn Abi Hatam (The famous Scholar of Al-Jarhu Ta’deel)
compiled all of the mistakes that were apparent in Imam Bukhari’s “Taareekh”,
into one book entitled “Khata’ ul Bukhari”(Mistakes of Bukhari).
(Preface
of Ibn Al Salaah, by Hafidh Iraqi)
Imam
Ibn Abi Hatam wrote: “When Imam Abu Hatam and Imam Abu Zur’ah heard that Imam
Bukhari said that the Qur’an is creation, they stopped taking any narrations of
Hadith from him.
(Al
Jarhu Ta’deel, by Imam Ibn Hatam, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes:
“In
250 Hijri, Bukhari went to Nashapur. The people of Nashapur rolled out a red
carpet for him. Imam Zuhlee, (who was Imam Bukhari’s teacher,) also came to
embrace him. Prior to Imam Bukhari’s reception, Imam Zuhlee announced that Imam
Bukhari was to make a speech and that no-one should ask him: “Wether the Qur’an
was a creation[2]. He feared that if Imam Bukhari’s answer contradicted Imam
Zuhlee’s belief then a difficult situation could arise, could expose both
scholars to which ridicule by other sects. Everything went well for the first
two days but on the third day someone in the audience asked the question, “Are
the words of Qur’an a creation of Allah?” Imam Bukhari replied: “Our actions
are creation and the words which we recite are part of our actions.” Some of
the audience perceived that Imam Bukhari had called the Qur’anic word a
creation. This misunderstanding resulted in commotion, which prompted the
house-owner to ask everyone to leave. When Imam Zuhlee, (who was not present at
the speech,) heard of Imam Bukhari’s public statement about the Qur’anic words
he announced: “The Qur’an is not a creation. Any one claiming otherwise is an
innovator and everyone must avoid him at all times.” He also added, “Anyone who
attends Imam Bukhari’s meetings, will be considered an innovator too.” With the
exception of Ahmad Bin Salmah and Imam Muslim, Imam Bukhari was outcast by
everyone. Imam Muslim played a neutral part in this debate. After this
incident, Imam Muslim did not include any Hadith narrated by either Imam
Bukhari or Imam Zuhlee in Sahih Muslim. I think that Imam Muslim acted justly
in this matter. A few days later, Imam Zuhlee declared that it was not possible
for him to live in the same city as Imam Bukhari. Imam Bukhari then left
Nashapur for his hometown Bukharah. Also Imam Zuhlee, through his supporters,
publicised in Bukhaara, that Imam Bukhari held controversial beliefs. After
arriving in Bukhaarah, Imam Bukhari faced much hostility. His adversaries made
it difficult for him to live in Bukhara. This provoked him to leave for
Sammarqand. On his way he was informed that the people of Sammarqand were also
split concerning his views. Imam Bukhari then prayed, “Oh Allah! if your vast
earth is being reduced on me, I ask to be freed from this life.” History
records that Imam Bukhari died on the 1st of Shawwaal, 256 Hijri - one month
after his prayer.
(Muqaddamah
Fath-ul-Baari, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)
Imam
Subqi writes that at the time Imam Zuhlee heard the news that Imam Bukhari had
given an answer to a question related to the Qur’an, which was vague and was
open to many interpretation, he received a letter from scholars of Hadith who
lived in Baghdad. The content of this letter stated that the scholars advised
Imam Bukhari not to make any statements regarding the question “Is the Qur’an a
creation or not?” but he ignored their advice and made the statement anyway.
This statement made the people to quibble amongst themselves. (Tabakt-ush-
Shaafi’ah, by Imam Subqui, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)
Hafidh
Asqalani and Imam Dhahabi write that even after this dispute Imam Bukhari
included 43 Ahadith narrated by Imam Zuhlee in his book, Sahih ul Bukhari. To
avoid embarrassment, each Hadith was written not the narrators name disguised,
e.g. narrated by Mohammad or ibn Abdullah or ibn Khalid, to attribute Imam
Zuhlee to his Father’s or grandFather’s names.
(Tahadeeb
ut Tahadeeb and Alaam un Nubalaa by Hafidh Asqalani and Hafidh Dhahabi,
“Biography of Imam Zuhlee”)
CRITICISM OF IMAM MUSLIM
Hafidh
Asqalani writes:
“May
Allah send blessing on Imam Bukhari. Imam Bukhari has collected the principle
of Hadith (Usool) and taught it to people. After Imam Bukhari anything which
has been written, includes quotes from his book. Imam Muslim has written books
whose content has been taken from Imam Bukhari’s books. Imam Muslim has copied
Imam Bukhari’s books and did not have the courtesy to acknowledge him in them.
Imam Darr Qutni said that if Imam Bukhari did not exist there would not even be
the name of Imam Muslim. Imam Muslim has done nothing special, what he has done
that he has is taken some Ahadith from Imam Bukhari’s book and has added some
more Ahadith to complete his book, Sahih Muslim.
(Muqaddamah
Fath-ul-Baari, “Biography of Imam Bukhari”)
If
this accusation was made at any other scholar of Ahadith, every one would have
called him stealer of Ahadith and all his narrations would have been rejected.
If someone wishes to explore the criticism of
Imam Muslim and Bukhari, they should study “Al-JarH-ut- wat Ta’deel”. These
books have been written by different scholars of Ahadith and describe, in
detail, the characteristics of narrators. (e.g. Wether they were weak,
authentic,
knowledgeable, good or bad natured, and which sect they belonged to)
NARRATORS OF BUKHARI AND MUSLIM THAT HAVE BEEN CRITICISED BY THE
SCHOLARS OF HADITH
Many
Narrators of Imam Muslim and Bukhari have been criticised overwhelmingly. The
claim that no one has criticised them clearly illustrates the claimant’s lack
of knowledge at the subject matter.
The
following are some narrators of Muslim and Bukhari who have been criticised by
the scholars of Ahadith. The information below has been obtained from the books
of Hafidh Asqalani and Hafidh Dhahabi.
1)
Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah (Teacher and narrator of Imam Bukhari and Muslim)
Imam
Ajaali has said that he used to tell such types of Hadith that when we had
heard them, it would make us pray to Allah to keep our Imaan alive and take
refuge in Allah. An example of the type of narrations he used to tell is: “Our
Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] attended a festival of
non-believers and respected their idols the way they respected them. This is
the reason why two angels refused to pray behind our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace].” Scholars of Hadith have said that this situation
would never arise with our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace].
This Hadith is most definitely fabricated. Uthmaan, also used to interpret the
Qur’an incorrectly and disrespected it by changing its words.
When
he recited the verses of the Qur’an like surah al-hadid verse 13, Allah says
‘fa-duri-ba-bay-na-hum-bisoorilla hu baab’ meaning ‘a wall will be set up between
the Muslims and the hypocrites in which there is a door’.
He
used to recite the verse like this,
‘fa-duri-ba-bay-na-hum-bi-sunnuh-rin-la-hu-naab’ which meant that ‘there will
be placed between them a cat and it will have a tail’. Another verse which he
mocked was Surah Yusuf verse 10,
‘fa-lamma-jah-haza-bi-ja-haz-za-hum-ja-ala-assiqa-yata-fi-rahli-akhi-hi’ which
means, ‘when he makes ready their baggage, he put the drinking cup in the
saddle bag of his brother’.
Ibn
Abi Shayba used to recite that verse in the following way,
‘fa-lumma-jah-haza-hum-bi-ja-haz-zi-him-ja-ala-asifinata-fi-rahli-akhi-hi’,
which means ‘and when he made ready the baggage, he put a ship in the saddle
bag of his brother’.
In
Surah al-Shuara verse 130, ‘fa-izaa-ba-tash-tum-ba-tash-tum-jabbaa-reen’ which
means, ‘and when you lay your hands on anyone, you lay hands in unjustice’. Ibn
Abi Shaybah used to recite the verse like this,
‘fa-iza-ba-tash-tum-ba-tush-tum-kabbah-zeen’, which means ‘and when you lay
your hands on anyone, you lay hands on naan (Pitta Bread)’. He also recited
many other verses of the Qur’an like this and the verses mentioned above are
some examples of this. He was a very humorous person. That is why whenever he
used to recite the Qur’an he read it humorously, which was wrong. I think that
Ibn Abi Shaybah might have repented this sin before he died.
(Mizaan
I’tidaal and tadhkarat-ul-huffaaz by Hafidh Dhahabi)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes:
Despite
the above, Imam Bukhari has taken 53 narrations and Imam Muslim has taken 135
narrations from him. As usual, some scholars of Ahadith praised him.
(Mizaan-ut-ta’deeb
by Hafidh Dhahabi And Hafidh Asqalani, “Biography of Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah”)
Imam
Daar al Qutini wrote a book called Kitaab-al-Tas-heef. In this book, he wrote
various names of scholars who made fun of the Qur’an when reciting it. He wrote
that the scholar who made the most fun of the Qur’an was Imam Ibn Abi Shaiba.
It
could be that Ibn Abi Shaybah was reciting a different mode of recitiation, of
which there are seven, and so this would support his reading of the Qur’an.
If
we look at the different modes of recitation, we find that the general meaning
does not change, but there may be slight variations like, for example, in one
mode of recitation, the third aayah of surat-ul-faatiha, is ‘maaliki
yaumiddeen’ - owner of the day of judgement. In another mode it is pronounced
as ‘maliki yaumiddeen’ – king of the day of judgment. Both of these ways have
been confirmed by Prophet Muhammad [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace]
and angel Gibreel [May Allah bless him and grant him peace]. If someone was to
introduce another mode of recitation, other than the ones which have been
confirmed, it is totally unacceptable. When we look to the alterations which
Ibn Abee Shaibah made, we see that both the meaning and wording is altered.
This means that the way that he used to recite the Qur’an was totally contrary
to the Sharee’ah.
Also,
Imam Dhahabi, said in his book, meezaan-ul-I’tidaal, and tadhkarat-ul-huffaaz,
that maybe, Ibn Abi Shaybah, repented for reading the Qur’an incorrectly. From
this, it is proved that if the way that Ibn Abi Shaybah recited the Qur’an was
correct there was no need for him to repent from the way he used to recite the
Qur’an.
2)
Abu bin Abas bin Sahaal Ansari Saad
Imam
Dahabi has said that Saad was not strong in knowledge of Ahadith. Yahyaa bin
Mu’een has said that he was a weak narrator. Imam Ahmed has said that he used
to tell Hadith which no one had any knowledge about. Naas’ee has said that he had
minimum knowledge of Hadith. Dahabi has said that Imam Bukhari has said that he
had minimum knowledge of Hadith, but nevertheless, Imam Bukhari has taken
Hadith narration from him. The narration, which Imam Bukhari took, is that of
the Excellency of Ibrahim [May Allah bless him and grant him peace].
(Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal
and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani)
3)
Ahmed bin Salaah Abu Ja’far Nasaa’ee(Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Nasaa’ee
has said that he is not authentic and he has not accepted his narrations. Imam
Ahmed had evicted him from his meetings. Yahyaa bin Mu’een has said that he was
a lair but some scholars of Hadith had praised him.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and
Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Ahmed
bin Salaah”)
4)
Ayyoob bin Sulaimaan-il-Madinee (Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Abul-Fath
has said that the type of Ahadith he told were not told by anyone else. Daar
Qutni has made similar remarks. Ibn Abi Burr has said that Sulaimaan was weak.
But some scholars of Hadith have praised him.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and
Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of
Ayyoob bin Sulaimaan)
5)
Ja’far bin Sulaimaan-il-Ba’see(Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Yahyah
Bin Sa’eed has said that his Hadith should not be written and that he was a
weak narrator. Ibn ul Madinee has said that he used to tell the sort of
narrations that no one else would relate. Ibn Maadi has said that his narration
has no value. Ibn Sa’eed has said that he was authentic but weak. Once, a
scholar of Ahadith asked Ja’far if he swore at Abu bakr and Umar. Ja’far
replied: “I do not swear at them but I hate them.” Ahmed bin Madaam has said
that once he attended a meeting of Yazeed bin Zoorah accompanied by Jafaar.
Yazeed bin Zoorah said to the people “Do not let him (Ja’far) come near me
because he swore at Abu Bakr and Umar.” Imam Bukhari has said that he was a
weak narrator. Dowri has said that whenever Ja’far talked about Mu’awiah, he
used to swear at him and whenever he used to talk about Ali, he used to cry. (
Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh
Asqalani “Biography of Ja’far bin Sulaimaan”)
6)
Harab bin Maymoon al basri (Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Imam
Bukhari has said that he used to make many mistakes in Hadith but he was a
truthful person. One day Harab brought a box and said that the box contained
pictures of the family of Qaroon. He then showed these pictures. But what he
said was a big lie. Imam Bukhari Ibn Ali and Abdullah have said that he was a
weak narrator. Asqalani has said that he was a big liar but some people have
still praised him.(Mizaan-ut-Ta’deeb, Dhahabi and Asqalani, “Biography of Harab
bin Maymoon Al Basri”)
7)
Husain Bin Ibraahim Al quramaani (Narrator of Imam Muslim and Bukhari)
Nasaa’ee
has said that he was not an expert in the knowledge of Hadith. Ibn Adee has
said that whenever he told Hadith he made mistakes. Imam Ahmed has rejected his
narrations. Uqalee has said that his Hadith are doubtful. Ibn Madeenee has said
he was a Qadiree (One from a deviant sect) but he was authentic. As always,
some people have still praised him. ( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb
by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani “Biography of Husain Bin Ibrahim Al
quramaani”)
8)
Zakariyyah bin Yahyaa Ath-thaani(Teacher of Imam Bukhari)
Daar
Qutni has said that he had no knowledge of Hadith and he used to tell the type
of Hadith, which no-one would tell. Haakim had said that he was a weak narrator
and used to make many mistakes in narration. Bukhari has said that the scholars
of Ahadith have ignored him and did not take any Ahadith from him. Nonetheless,
Imam Bukhari has taken narrations from him. (Sahih Al Bukhari,
Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh
Asqalani, “Biography of Zakariyyah Bin YaHyaa Ath-thaani”)
9)
Ayyoob bin Saalih il-Kufee(Narrator of Imam Bukhari)
Abu
Zoorah said that he was a weak narrator. Ibn Hiban has said that he used to
make mistakes in Ahadith. Imam Bukhari has said that he was Murjee(From a
misled sect). Imam Bukhari has mentioned his faults, but nonetheless, still
took narrations from him. This seems very strange.( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and
Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidh Dhahabi and Hafidhh Asqalani, “Biography of Ayyoob
bin SaaliH”)
10)
Sa’eed Bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al Madaan (Narrator of Imam Muslim)
Ibn
Adee has said that he used to relate the type of narrations that no one else
would repeat. Abu Hataam and Ibn Jawzee have said that his narrations cannot be
used as evidence. Ibn Hataam has also said that he used to tell fabricated
Hadith in the name of pious people. Some scholars of Ahadith have praised him.
( Mizaan-ul-Itihdaal and Ta’zeeb-ut-ta’zeeb by Hafidhh Dhahabi and Hafidhh
Asqalani, “Biography of Sa’eed bin Abd-ur-Rahmaan Al Madaan)
From
the above, it can be clearly seen that the above claim is completely false. The
above ten narrators are not the only narrators which have been criticised, but
we only mentioned some of the narrators in one specific decade. Hafidh Asqalani
has made a list, in the preface of Fath-ul-Baari, of all those narrators, of
Imam Bukhari, who have been criticised, by the scholars of Ahadith.
“IMAM BUKHARI AND MUSLIM HAVE GATHERED ALL THE AUTHENTIC HADITH
IN SAHIH BUKHARI AND SAHIH MUSLIM!!!”
The
scholars of Ahadith are in agreement that there are many authentic Ahadith that
have been left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari. These can be found in other
Ahadith books, for example, Ibn Habbaan, Ibn Khuzaimah, Musnad Ahmad, Abu
Da’ood, Tirmidhee, and Nasaa’ee etc.
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir writes that there are many authentic Ahadith that were left out of
Sahih Muslim and Bukhari and can be found in other Hadith books like Tirmidhee,
Abu Da’ood, An-Nasaa’ee.
(Ikhtaisar-ul-Uloom
ul Ahadith, page 21, by Hafidh Ibn Kathir)
Hafidh
Ibn Salaah writes that many authentic Ahadith were left out of Sahih Muslim and
Bukhari and that Imam Hakim has collected all the authentic Ahadith, which met
the Hadith principles of Muslim and Bukhari, and put them in a book called
“Mustadrak ‘alas-Saahihain”. It is written in four volumes and contains
enormous amounts of authentic Ahadith. Imam Bukhari, himself, said that he knew
100,000 authentic Ahadith and 200,000 which were not authentic, but in the
Sahih Bukhari there are only 4,000 Ahadith without repetition.[3]
(Uloom-ul-Ahadith,
page 17, “Bukhari and Muslim”, by Hafidh ibn Salaah)
Hafidh
Asqalani writes that there are 9682 narrations in sahih Bukhari, but each
narration has been repeated many times. The total number of individual narrations
in Bukhari is 2623.
(Preface
of Fath-ul-baari, by Hafidh Asqalani)
Even
the name of Sahih Bukhari can tell us that there are lots of authentic Ahadith
which have been left out of Sahih Bukhari. The full name of Sahih Bukhari is
“Al Jamee’ ul Musnad-is-SaaHiH-il-Mukhtasari Min al murree Wa yaamayhee”. The
meaning of this is “The short collection of the Sunnah of our Prophet [May
Allah bless Him and grant Him peace]”.
(Tah’deeb-ut-ta’deeb
by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam
Nawawee and Imam Dhahabi write that Imam Muslim compiled Sahih Muslim from the
300,000 Ahadith that he knew. The total number of Ahadith in Sahih Muslim is
12,000. If repetitions can be left out, the actual number would be 4,000.
(Sharh
Sahih Muslim by Imam Nawawee and Tadhkarat-ul-Huffad by Imam Dhahabi)
From
the references above we can understand that Imam Bukhari and Muslim knew a very
large numbers of Ahadith by memory but in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari only
approximately 10% of these Ahadith has been compiled. Hence, it can clearly be
seen that there are large numbers of authentic Ahadith present, which have been
left out of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari. These Ahadith can be found in other
Ahadith books.
HOW DID BUKHARI BECOME AN ENTITY?
Hafidh
Asqalani writes:
Imam
Bukhari said “One day we were at the meeting of Is-haaq bin Rahaawiyyah and
some-one from among our companions said “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of you
could write a short book regarding the sunnah of our Prophet [May Allah bless
Him and grant Him peace].” This was directed at everyone, but somehow this
request became embedded in my heart. It was my good fortune that Allah wanted
this work to be carried out by me. I then started to collect the material for
the book, which would contain only Sahih Ahadith. I have left out many authentic
Ahadith because I thought that the book would become too large. This book is
the concise summarisation of the 600,000 Ahadith which I knew. The book was
completed in sixteen years.”
(Fath-ul-baari,
“Biography of Imam Bukhari” by Hafidh Asqalani)
Imam
Bukhari completed Sahih Bukhari in sixteen years. During which time, he
continuously edited it. Towards the end, Imam Bukhari did not have the
opportunity to make the final alterations because he passed away. Whenever we
read Sahih Bukhari, we notice that it lacks fluency and it is disjointed. For
example, we may find a chapter with a heading but nothing written in it and
sometimes there might be a chapter written but no heading for it. The reason
for this is that his students, from the materials that were left by Imam
Bukhari, finally edited Sahih Bukhari. The students found that some material
was written in final draft, some in rough draft form and some in brief comments
on the sides of the pages. Hafidh Abu Is-haaq has said, “I copied the original copy
of Sahih Bukhari, which was in the possession of Imam Bukhari’s student,
Faraabri. From the material I collected, I noticed that some things were
incomplete and some things were without any headings and also there were
headings for chapters but nothing written in them. We had to join the material
together.”
Imam
Baaji said that four people copied the original Sahih Bukhari. These people
were Ibrahim bin Maq`al, Muhammad bin Yousaf Faraabri, Abu Talha bin Muhammad
and Hammad bin Shakir. There are differences between these four versions, i.e.
you can find that Ahadith are written in one place, in one version but the same
thing could be written in another place, in the other versions. The reason for
this is that when these four people compiled Sahih Bukhari from the original
materials they interpreted the material according to their own understanding.
(Preface
of Fath-ul-Baari, page 10, by Hafidh Asqalani)
Hafidh
Ibn Kathir writes: “Imam Bukhari’s student Hafidh Faraabri possessed the
original copy of Sahih Bukhari and at the present time we have this version”
(Taareekh
Ibn Kathir, “Biography of Imam Faraabri” by Hafidh ibn Kathir)
There
were other students who heard and narrated Sahih Bukhari but those versions
have not reached us. Some scholars of Ahadith have seen those versions in the
old Islamic centres and have noticed that there are differences among them.
Hafidh
Suyyuti writes that Imam Faraabri narrated Sahih Bukhari and that in this
original copy, there are 200 more Ahadith than Humaad bin Shakir’s version and
300 more Ahadith than Ibrahim’s version. The reason why Faraabri carries more
Ahadith is because he heard Sahih Bukhari from Imam Bukhari twice and others
heard it only once.
(Tadreeb-ur-Raawee,
by Hafidh Sayuti)
ONE EXAMPLE
Imam
Bukhari writes, “Musa bin Ismail reported that Anas bin Malik said that the
Qur’an forbade us from asking questions to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and
grant Him peace] so we wanted a sensible person to come from the village who
could ask things to the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] and
we could hear the answers”.
One
day a person came from the village and asked some questions to the Prophet [May
Allah bless him and grant Him peace]. The Hadith continues on the subject.
(Bukhari chapter Illum).
Hafidh
Asqalani writes, “This Hadith was narrated by Imam Bukhari’s teacher”.
Imam
Sun Anni said, “This Hadith is not written in all the original copies of
Bukhari’s. It is only written in that copy which is written by Imam Bukhari’s
student, Imam Farabri. But I say that all the original copies of the Bukhari
that I have seen, I have not seen this Hadith mentioned in any of them”.
(Fathulbari, chapter Illum by Hafidhh Asqalani).
Imam
Muslim writes, “The Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant Him peace] said that
a person who continually speaks the truth, Allah writes his name amongst the
truthful. A person who continually tells lies, Allah writes his name amongst
the liars”.
(Muslim
chapter Kitaab-ul-Birr).
Imam
Nawawi writes,” All the copies of Bukhari and Muslim in our area mention only
this”.
Qaadi
Ayyad and Humaidi also write only this. But Abu Mas-ood narrates this Hadith
with the extra words. Those words are, “The worst people are those who tell
lies. Lies are not permissible under serious or humorous intentions. It is not
permissible for a Father to make false promises with his son”.
(Sharhah
Sahih Muslim chapter Kitab-ul-Birr by Imam Navavi).
Finally,
we disagree with those people who claim that Imam Bukhari’s narrations are
higher than the Hadith principles, and demand all references from Sahih
Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. This demand is wrong because Hafidh Asqalani has
written that Imam Bukhari has said “I know 100,000 authentic narrations, but in
Sahih Bukhari there are only 9082”On page 107 it says a different amount
(Fath-ul-Baari,
page 5)
Of
course, the other 90,918 authentic narrations are recorded in the other books
of the Ahadith which were written before them.
·
Imam Dahabi writes – Hummaam Ibn Munabi (died: 101H) had a collection of Hadith
which were narrated by Abu Huraira.
·
Imam Zuhri, Imam Abdul Aziz Madani (died: 164H), Imam Hadri (died: 174H), Imam
Malik (died: 179H) and Imam Abu Dawud Tayaalsi (died: 203H) wrote books of
Hadith.
·
Hammaad bin Salma (died: 167H) wrote a book of Hadith that had a collection of
ten thousand Hadith.
·
Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed (died: 143H) wrote books of Hadith that were read to
people by Imam bin Zaid (died: 179H).
·
Imam Abu Awana (died: 176H) wrote a book of Hadith about which Imam Ahmad said
that his book is authentic.
·
Imam Hasheem (died: 183H) wrote a book of Hadith that has a collection of two
thousand Hadith.
·
Abdullah bin Mubarak (died: 181H) wrote a book of Hadith which had a collection
of twenty thousand Hadith.
·
Imam Mousli (died: 186H) wrote books on different topics of Islam and one of
the books were a collection of Hadith.
·
Imam Abu Hanifah (died: 150H) wrote books of Hadith which were narrated by his
students, Imam Muhammad Ashaibaani (died: 189H) and Imam Abu Yusuf (died:
182H).
(Tadkara-tul-Uffaad
biography of the above names by Imam Dahabi)
Hafidhh
Sayutti writes – ‘Abu Waleed, Suffian Thuri, Abi Salma, Abi Suffian and Ibn
Uyaina wrote books of Hadith’.
(Tadreeb
Al-Rawi by Hafidhh Sayutti)
The
books of Hadith mentioned above are more close to the time of the Prophet [May
Allah bless him and grant Him peace] and are more authentic because they have a
shorter chain like the Hadith narrated by Abu Hanifah which is more authentic
because he narrated the Hadith from the Prophet’s companion or the companion’s
students.
Here
is one example – Imam Abu Hanifah says, ‘I heard from Ataa bin Rubaah and he
heard from Ibn Abbas who heard from the Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant
Him peace] who said, ‘ Whoever reads the Fajr and Esha Salaah with Jamaat,
Allah purifies his heart from hypocrisy’’.
(Musnad
Imam Abu Hanifah, chapter Salaah)
Hafidhh
Asqalani writes ‘Imam Yahya bin Maueen said ‘Abu Hanifah narrated Hadith from
Ai’sha bint Ajarad and she narrated from Prophet [May Allah bless him and grant
Him peace]’.
(LesaanulMeezan
biography of Aiyasha bint Ajarad by Hafidhh Asqalani)
The
above evidence highlights the fact that one cannot claim that Bukhari and
Muslim are the only sources of Sunnah.
WITH GREAT REGRET
By
mentioning the above references the writers intention is not to insult Imam
Bukhari and Imam Muslim. We believe that Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim were
great scholars of Ahadith and their books contain many more authentic
narrations than any other book, We have great respect for them both. They have
done a lot of hard work for the science of Ahadith and have done a great favour
to the whole of the Muslim ummah. We also make Du’aa’ for them, May Allah may
reward them in Paradise and fill their graves with blessings and Noor. Amin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]) Usually, when the scholars of Ahadith
look at a Hadith they look for narrator’s authenticity (i.e. whether he was
knowledgeable about Adieth or not), but if Muslim or Bukhari took narration
from that narrator, then any doubt regarding the narrator authenticity is
removed. It is said that that narrator has “crossed the bridge”.
[2] Scholars of Hadith have been divided into
two groups. In the first group are those who believe that the revelation is not
creation, but do not comment on the words recited from the Qur’an. The second
group are those who agree that the revelation is not creation but say that the
recited words of the Qur’an are creation. Imam Bukhari was from among the
second group while Imam Zuhlee was from among the first.
[3]Whenever scholars of Ahadith write a
Hadith, they usually write the same Hadith with different chains. If a Hadith
was recieved through five different chains, it is counted as five different
Ahadith, but infact it is only one Hadith. Imam Muslim and Bukhari have used
this same principle, so the quantity of the Ahadith “recorded” in their books
is very large, when infact, the actual quantity is smaller.
PART 6: HAVE YOU
BEEN BLACKMAILED WITH BUKHARI YET?
Many great scholars of Islam have
taken a great deal of time and trouble to explain the correct approach towards
hadith which are attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as the
application thereof. Extensive volumes have been written, and in all orthodox
schools and seminaries of Islam, the study of ‘Usool (principles) of Hadith’ is
mandatory before progressing to higher studies. The subject is so important
that the earliest surviving schools (the Hanafi, from the time of the tabaeen –
successors to the companions of the Prophet (SAW) and the Malikis, from the
generation after that) were at great pains both to collect hadith and regulate
and limit their application in the appropriate ways.
Your problem however, most
likely, will begin with the above paragraph.
You, if you are a lay Muslim,
probably consider the collections of ‘Sahih Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’ to be the earliest,
most authoritative or ‘canonical’ collections of hadith or alleged sayings of
the Prophet. In fact, the earliest collection of hadith is by the Hanafis, and
then the famous ‘Muwatta’ of Imam Malik. The very first book written after the
generation of the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet) was the ‘Kitab Al Athar’
of the Hanafis, containing numerous hadith, and as with the ‘Muwatta’ of Malik,
with very short chains as well as their application to jurisprudential
considerations.
Hardly anyone today in the UK
knows this though.
The reason is that today we have
a highly heterodox approach to the hadith being expounded by two widespread and
well funded groups who would like to claim the field for themselves. These
people would like to take a hadith and settle a given matter by it alone. For
example, there is the eponymous ‘blackmail by Bukhari’, in which an
unsuspecting person will be confronted by someone, usually without any kind of
Islamic schooling apart from perhaps the ability to read Arabic (often poorly),
who nonetheless will try to accost them with the information that;
‘brother/sister, hadith is sahih/in Bukhari, how dare you not act on it!’
The necessity for having a
grounding in fiqh and Islamic sciences and above all the Quran before one can
extract rulings or even the Sunnah itself from the Hadith has been emphasised
almost ad nauseum by the notable scholars of Islam past and present.
However, today the situation is
acute and the lay people (Muslims and others) need a shield against the misguidance
that can result from people being told to follow narrations directly or simply
because they are in the canonical collections. Further, we are giving an
excellent weapon to the enemies of Islam by insisting on traditions which
either the scholars of fiqh (law or jurisprudence) or Aqeedah (belief or creed)
rejected, despite their being classed as Sahih or in Bukhari, or at the very
least did not take literally.
The individuals and organisations
spreading this misguidance hide under a false banner of orthodoxy or by
accusing their Sunni challengers of ‘hadith rejection’ or sectarianism. The
main groups responsible are ‘Ahl al Hadith’ (‘people of hadith’) and the
associated Salafi movement. It is necessary to highlight at the very outset
what the approach of both Sunni Islam and these groups in fact is before going
into details – this is because any attempt to rectify these ideas results in a
deliberate failure of these mentioned groups to state their actual position
towards hadith and the subsequent confusion of the masses and in particular
converts to Islam, from whom we receive many correspondences requesting help
with this issue.
In summary, the position of Sunni
Muslims, as stated by both hadith masters such as Ibn Hajar, Al Nawwawi and
more importantly the doctors of law and belief such as Abu Hanifa and Malik and
Shafi is that the Quran is certain knowledge because it is mass transmitted
(‘muttawatir’) without the possibility of error: essentially, the Quran is
narrated by so many different people who did not know each other and could not
have collaborated in a lie that it is habitually impossible for it to have been
fabricated – and this goes for all of the different recitations too. It is
logically equivalent to a conspiracy of Medieval English people fabricating the
existence of London and this never was exposed. So a good definition of
muttawatir is ‘mass transmitted without the possibility of error’. Besides the
Quran, there are other muttawatir transmissions, a few in the hadith (such as ‘Whoever
lies on behalf of me [The Prophet], let him prepare his place in Hellfire’) and
also outside the hadith, such as in the books of fiqh in issues such as how to
pray.
Muhaditheen such as Imam Bukhari
do not concern themselves with the ‘chains of transmission’ or ‘Isnads’ of
Muttawatir narrations – this is because they are certain, profuse and
investigating them is of no use.
But besides the Quran and
Muttawatir hadith and narrations, there are some 1,000,000 more Hadith
(reported sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW). If we exclude variant chains
with the same text, we still have 300,000. If we take those graded as ‘Sahih’
by for example the Shafis, who have a more lenient and inclusive ‘Mustalah of
Hadith’ (methodology of Hadith) than the Malikis or Hanafis, then we are left
with, say, 20,000 narrations attributed to the Prophet (SAW) which may be
‘sahih’/authentic in chain (isnad).
Virtually none of these 20,000 or
so are muttawatir and the vast majority are ‘ahad’ (narrated singly, from a
single witness). Further, most are narrated by meaning as opposed to verbatim
(thus they can contain grammatical errors, which the verbatim speech of the
Prophet would not, due to his perfect diction in Arabic).
But the chain (‘isnad’) isn’t
everything: we have to look at the content (‘matn’) as well. Once we have found
the isnad to be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself.
Scholars who study the Sunna have
laid down many criteria for the study of hadith from the very inclusive (such
as the Hanbali school) to the very cautious (Malikis and Hanafis), with the
Shafis somewhere in between. The approach to hadith by experts of the Sunnah is
often summarised in five points which are widely recognised:
1) An isnad (chain of narration)
comprised of transmitters with good memory and exact recollection
2) An intelligent grasp of what
they are narrating as well as unimpeachable morals – and this must be attested
to.
3) These two qualities must be
applied to each person in the chain – whether it is three people or seven. If
anyone is lacking, the hadith becomes less than sound.
Once we have found the Isnad to
be valid, we then examine the text of the narration itself:
4) It must not be aberrant (for
example, by contradicting the Quran, or a Muttawatir hadith or a more reliable
report etc)
5) It must not have a fault
rendering it unacceptable
The different usool of hadith
then go on to elucidate these matters as well as the types of chains that can
be accepted, and many of the differences in practices and creed between the
schools of Islam depend on which hadiths they do and do not accept.
This is already a huge problem
for Ahl al Hadith – since they would like to decide the authenticity of a
narration by it’s chain of transmission alone, regardless of the content of the
actual narration. If, when they tell you a hadith is ‘Sahih’, you ask them
‘Sahih in chain (isnad) or content (matn) or both?’, they will react with anger
and confusion, as for them, the content is not even secondary: the chain is
king.
There are many different
terminologies used in the grading of hadith and they vary according to which
method one follows – all of the groups have different methods and variant terms
(the Malikis do not accept Hadith that are Sahih but clash with the practice of
the inhabitants of Medina at the time of Imam Malik, Hanafis do not take Sahih
hadith if they clash with Quran or rationality, Shafi will take them if they
meet his ‘five conditions’ which are similar to those of Imam Bukhari) but an
important third ‘grade’ of hadith is ‘Mashoor’ or ‘famous’. This is again
another narration type and has different definitions in the different groups
but in short it is more likely than ahad to be true – by being closer to
‘muttawatir’ due to it’s acceptance by early generations or Companions despite
not initially being mass narrated.
And now we come to the important
part: Muttawatir narrations, be they Quran or hadith are regarded as ‘certain’
by the ijma/consensus of Muslims (not only scholars) and logical, habitual
necessity. ‘Mashoor’ are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Tomaneenah’ (or ‘very likely’) and
Ahad with an perfect chain are regarded as ‘Ilm ul Zann’ (probable, or a better
translation is ‘maybe, maybe not’, or as hadith master Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani
puts it in his introduction to his commentary on Sahih Al Bukhari ‘Fath Al
Bari’, ’50/50′). No one in Sunni Islam says that Ahad hadith are certainly
attributable to the Prophet. In fact, to assert this would be a heresy
(‘Bidat’). But Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis, despite their insistence to the
contrary. do not in fact follow Sunni Islam.
And this last part, namely that
ahad narrations (i.e. essentially all of the contents of Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan
Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Musnad Imam Ahmad etc) are not certain is what groups
such as Ahl Al Hadith and Salafis do not like: they would, to varying degrees
of disagreement amongst themselves, like it if an ahad hadith (single chain
narration) that was authentic in chain would be considered as ‘certain
knowledge’ i.e. in the same way as the Quran or Muttawatir hadith and thus be
acted on.
Some of them will say this
openly, but others will deny it by arguing that they (for example Salafis) do
have principles or usool of hadith, but in practice, these mean checking the
chains of narrations and then comparing them to Bukhari and giving preference
to Bukhari over Muslim, Muslim over Tirmidhi etc, and not whether the imams of
fiqh took these into account when making rulings. Further, these people usually
will not check them against Quran and insist that ahad narrations can specify
or even abrogate the Quran – and most importantly that they can be taken into
belief – i.e. matters which cannot certainly be proved to be part of what the
Prophet passed on should be treated as so and taken into creed. There are
various glosses and a lot of ‘smoke and mirrors’ with all of this, but that is
what their approach amounts to.
It goes without saying, this is
not the approach of Sunni Islam.
Nor even Twelver Shi’ism.
Of course, these people, claiming
to be ‘Ahl al Hadith’ or the party of hadith claim that they posses the correct
methodology and that it is the other groups that are heterodox. These people
are very hostile to those who do not accept their version of hadith studies (or
rather, lack of hadith studies), even if they are from the Salaf such as Abu
Hanifa or Malik. However, because of the prestige those leaders or ‘Imams’
enjoy in Muslim communities, their periodic attacks on their scholarship are
met with a harsh response. More on this later.
In fact, the dispute is an old
one as many converts who were led to serious strife by the question of the
correct approach to hadith have realised (for example, Lang in his masterpiece
– and I do not use that term lightly – ‘Losing My Religion’). There has been a
long standing conflict between the people of hadith and the people of fiqh: Abu
Hanifa was accused of being both ignorant of hadith and of rejecting them –
because to these people, rejecting a hadith that is ‘sahih’ in terms of it’s
chain is an impossibility (though as we will see, out of necessity, they are
often forced to do so, in which case they usually try to pretend that there was
some problem with it’s chain, even if the chain was authenticated by Bukhari or
Muslim).
It is shocking for many Muslims
who have been ‘blackmailed by hadith’ to note that many muhadditheen, including
some of the most well known such as Imam Bukhari and Imam Ahmad, disparaged the
jurists in the strongest terms. One can see that Bukhari hardly narrates from
either Imam Abu Hanifa or Malik. And how is it that the earliest book of
hadith, by one of the people who set up hadith studies in the first place, Imam
Malik’s ‘Muwwata’, is not considered one of the reliable books of hadith and
not in the ‘six sahihs’?
The inescapable conclusion is
that the imams of fiqh were useless in hadith.
Or that the muhaditheen sometimes
went overboard in their zeal, as we shall come to see soon.
One of the tricks used by
Salafists to avoid openly insulting the Imams Malik and Abu Hanifa in particular
is to insist that the scholars of hadith, despite their limited specialisation
and competence (namely in Hadith only) should nonetheless be given priority
about what is and is not ‘Islam’ and to imply that people like Abu Hanifa were
‘Imams’ in name only but lacked all competence in Hadith. This is a most
dangerous method: Imams of hadith sometimes disparaged doctors of creed and law
by narrating that some only knew five hadith (i) and other Muhaditheen went so
far as to accuse people like Abu Hanifa or Malik of apostasy (ii).
So by demanding that you follow
the narrations of their select and sectarian muhaditheen alone, they are in
fact opening the door to you disparaging the fuqaha and even accusing them of
kufr. Of course, they do not want to come out and say this as the large number
of individuals and sects from the subcontinent in the UK will react harshly,
since they tend to respect Abu Hanifa.
They are in fact trying to revive
an old issue, already resolved in Sunni Islam until billions petrodollars
flowed into mosques and publishing houses around the world to imbibe their
heresy into the beliefs of ordinary Muslims – and if it means accusing people
like Malik or Abu Hanifa of multiple apostasies or endangering the faith of lay
Muslims and arming Christian or atheist missionaries by reviving neglected and
rejected hadith, then so be it (iii).
Further, they are forcing, again
in a stealth way, people to ‘choose’ between the Salaf such as Abu Hanifa and
eminent Imams of hadith such as Bukhari: apart from the fact that this is a
disgraceful way to conduct Islam, this is no choice at all – Bukhari is a
mighty scholar of hadith but has no madhab, no book of aqeeda in short, he is
not even a jurist. Apart from the fact that Abu Hanifa and Malik, as well as
Shafi are Bukharis’ seniors in even hadith as they set up the principles of
this science, unlike Bukhari, they also set up the science of fiqh, creed, were
eminent logicians and mutakallims. Imam Bukhari did not pretend to engage in
these disputes with them, and if he did, where is his madhab and his book of
fiqh? As we shall see later, he did not concern himself in his ‘Sahih’ even
with how to pray the compulsory daily prayers, as he deferred to the senior
Imams in this.
This trick of elevating their
favourite muhadditheen or scholars above the Sahabah or Salaf is repeated by
the Ahl al Hadith for latter day entities such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Nassiruddin
Albani, who they again allow to second guess the Salaf on aqeeda, fiqh and
hadith respectively.
In any case, the matter has been
settled in the favour of the jurists (at least for Sunni Muslims) because
elevating the Sahih to ‘certainty’ can cause serious problems as will become
evident later.
The old dispute has been
underscored such that there is no hadith without first understanding fiqh – in
short, the people of creed and jurisprudence – who are polymathic, have
seniority over the people of Hadith alone:
Al-Shâfi`î (himself a Muhaddith
and apart from Ahmad the most partial of the schools to hadith) narrated that
Mâlik ibn Anas was told: “Ibn `Uyayna narrates from al-Zuhrî things you do not
have!” He replied: “Why, should I narrate every single hadîth I heard? Only if
I wanted to misguide people!” (iv)
Ibrâhîm al-Nakha`î (teacher of
Imam Abu Hanifa, a Salaf and muhadith himself) said: “Truly, I hear a hadîth,
then I see what part of it applies. I apply it and leave the rest’ (v) (vi)
Shaykh Muhammad `Awwâma commented: “Meaning, what is recognized by the
authorities is retained while anything odd (gharîb), anomalous (shâdhdh), or
condemned (munkar) is put aside.”
Hujjat al-Islâm al-Ghazâlî (a
Shafi) in al-Mustasfâ and Imâm Ibn Qudâma (Hanbali and Muhadith) in Rawdat
al-Nâzir both said that an`Âlim may be an Imâm in a particular science and an
uneducated common person in another.
Thus it has been agreed that
knowledge of Hadith alone does not make one omni-competent in Islamic sciences:
without any insult, one can compare the superior Muhaditheen to the great
historians – their exacting standards in checking and authenticating
information do not however make them competent in other fields such as theology
or fiqh. Another way to put it is that there is more to Islam than Hadith
studies – a lot more. Nor are hadith even the most important sources in Islam –
that would be the Quran and then usool of tafseer, since the Quran is the
protected source text of Islam. And before even that, God commands the use of
the intellect to come to the right conclusions about which religion to follow.
It is easy to understand: we
would not allow, even today, the greatest historians to pronounce on physics
nor vice versa, unless they were polymaths. Gibbon would never dare argue with
Maxwell on Electromagnetism, no mater his pre-eminence as a historian. But
sadly, this is all to common in Islam, with teh Muhaditheen often reosrting to
the most base insults against the jurists. The polymaths of Islam were the
fuqaha, not the muhaditheen, the earliest and greatest of whom was Abu Hanifa,
as Imam Shafi conceded, ‘All Islamic jurisprudence is from him’.
Many of even the greatest
muhaditheen were not qualified to give fatwas or deferred to the Imams of Creed
and Fiqh. However, there were many who did offer an opinion, based only on
hadith and their literal meanings, and these had a huge problem with Abu Hanifa
and Malik:
Ibn `Abd al-Salâm said: “Most
hadîth scholars are ignorant in fiqh.” – 90% according to Anas ibn Sîrîn –
among the Salaf. So now what is left for the latter day Muhadditheen? (vii)
Imam Al-Dhahabî (again, a
muhaddith himself) said: “The majority of the hadîth scholars have no
understanding, no diligence in the actual knowledge of hadîth, and no fear of
Allah regarding it.” (al-Sakhâwî, al-Jawâhir wa al-Durar (p. 18)) All of the
authorities al-Dhahabî listed as “those who are imitated in Islâm” are
Jurisprudents and not merely hadîth masters.
Al-Sakhâwî in his biography of
Ibn Hajar entitled al-Jawâhir wa al-Durar fi Tarjamat Shaykh al-Islâm Ibn Hajr
states that al-Fâriqî said: “One who knows chains of hadîth but not the legal
rulings derived from them cannot be counted among the Scholars of the Law.”
His student Ibn Abî `As.rûn (d.
585) also followed this view in his book al-Intisâr. [Al-Sakhâwî, al-Jawâhir wa
al-Durar (p. 20-23)]
When you encounter people of Ahl
al Hadith and Salafis, they will fail to show you a single reference from the
Salaf or the Mujtahid Imams saying that you must follow all hadith that are
‘Sahih’ without question as long as the chain is ‘sahih’. They will talk about
consensus (ijma) but none will be demonstrated. In fact, it is clearly stated
by the scholars that hadith is misguidance without checking them:
Ibn Abî Zayd al-Mâlikî reports
Sufyân ibn `Uyayna as saying: “Hadîth is a pitfall (madilla) except for the
fuqahâ’,” and Mâlik’s companion `Abd Allâh ibn Wahb said: “Hadîth is a pitfall
except for the Ulema. Every memorizer of hadîth that does not have an Imâm in
fiqh is misguided (dâll), and if Allâh had not rescued us with Mâlik and
al-Layth [ibn Sa`d], we would have been misguided.” (viii)
Imam Ahmad’s teacher, Yahya ibn
Sa`id al-Qattan, despite his foremost status as the Master of hadîth Masters,
would not make rulings from hadith but followed in this the fiqh of Abû Hanifa
as he said bluntly: “We do not belie Allah. We never heard better than the
juridical opinion (ra’î) of Abû Hanîfa, and we followed most of his positions.”
(ix)
Here is where ‘Blackmail by
Bukhari’ occurs: surely all this does not apply to Bukhari, right?
Surely Bukhari was at the same
rank as the ‘Mujtahid Mutlaq’ (x) Imams who set up the madhabs? If he of all
people narrates a hadith, we have to follow it, right?!
Wrong.
He never claimed to be Mujtahid
[here is a sample ranking of Islamic scholars within traditional Sunni Islam,
which of course the Ahl Al Hadith reject and make the only qualification for
being an authoritative scholar knowledge of hadith alone – see (x)] Nor did he
himself say that it is necessary to act on all of his hadith. Nor did he claim
to be setting up his own school of aqeeda (creed) or Fiqh. He is an Imam of
hadith only.
If we are to ‘follow’ Bukhari or
muhaditheen to the neglect of Sunni Islam and these Imams’ own advice and
assertions then we should know that ‘imam’, in English, can be translated as
‘one who guides’ or ‘one to follow’. So since people would have us follow Imam
Bukhari and his ‘school’ even though he did not tell us to, then lets attempt
this.
First of all, we would have to
give up calling ourself ‘Salafis’ or followers of the Salaf since Imam Bukhari
is from long after those generations (he was born 194 years AH and did not
complete Bukhari till near his death – in fact he left it unfinished so it was
interpolated by two other authors, so the final draft is from even later). We
also have to admit that we have no school from neither the Sahabah or Tabaeen
(this honour falls only to Abu Hanifa nee 63 AH, though his enemies amongst the
muhaditheen try to make it later). The Salafis of course will try to allege
that the ‘school’ is in the hadith. Lets see if this is true momentarily.
Also, we do not have any books of
hadith from the Salaf or the Tabaeen accepted into the ‘six sahihs’ by the Ahl
al Hadith, so we find ourselves in a similar position to the Christian
scriptures, where the important narrations were not sorted out or put to paper
until at least 200 years after Hijri. Of course, there was a oral tradition,
but the ‘necessary’ input of authentication by Imam Bukhari and Muslim etc had
to wait for nearly three centuries, and until then people were supposedly in a
confused state. We then also have to pick between Bukhari and Malik: he
narrated only a thin book of hadith, unlike the 4-5000 in Bukhari – his
‘Muwatta’ is a short volume, easily read in a day or two and not even composed
entirely of hadith – there are many pages of judgements and he judges against
some of the hadith he himself narrates.
There are two options:
Malik (and the Hanafis before him
who collected hadith) are negligent and failed to pass on or even write down
the essential hadith which we needed
or
they did indeed pass on what is
needed and Bukhari and others were collecting additional material for
historical purposes only.
The other option is that the
Imams of fiqh were ignorant of hadith and we had to wait for Bukhari to come
along. Or, Bukhari includes, for the historical record or his own reasons,
hadith which they rejected as non-applicable despite their being Sahih.
But if we use Imam Bukhari or
muhaditheen alone, despite the fact that he was following others in law and
aqeeda and notwithstanding his personal idiosyncrasies in fiqh, and ignoring
the fact that he did not even claim to set up a school of creed or
jurisprudence, we should at least be able to find the details for our beliefs
and practices in his or other muhaditheens’ books, right?
Wrong.
Where, for example, does Bukhari
narrate how to pray a single rakat (cycle) of Salat (the five daily prayers) to
completion? Or the numbers of the components of the five different prayers? Or
the comprehensive non-conflicting accounts of their timings? (the answers are
in fact spread out all over the books of fiqh and hadith and most of the
relevant hadith are not ‘Sahih’).
So Imam Bukhari makes no effort
to show us even how to pray a single rakat (probably as he knew this was not
needed as people would not be so foolish as to take his book as a reference as
opposed to a historical record or manual of hadith) and yet we are supposed to
follow ‘sahih’ hadith no matter what?
Ahl al Hadith will say that
omissions from his book, even on so important an issue as prayer, do not mean
we leave the rest of the ‘sahih’ hadith. They will argue that leaving a Sahih
hadith is ‘bid’at’ (innovation or heresy). But which Imams of creed or even
fiqh said that? In fact the position is that Imams and suitably qualified
people did indeed leave or not act on hadith, in either their literal meanings,
or believed them to be abrogated or ‘strange’ in matn.
Hanafis such as Isa Ibn Abban
rejected swathes of Ahad narrations and although the grounds for rejecting the
ahad Sahih vary between Ahlus Sunnah (the Hanbalis are most reluctant to reject
any), it is valid to reject an ahad in meaning or content with a reason, the
problem only comes if I reject one for no reason at all. But here again Salafis
will try to confuse you: they will have to admit that the Sahih can be
rejected, since their own Imam of Hadith, Nassaruddin Albani rejected many, but
they will assert that hadith can only be rejected on the grounds of their chain
and not their apparent meanings.
This is again a lie and mere
sophistry, but we will come back to this.
The unfortunate result of
‘Bukhari blackmail’ is to encourage people to question the intentions of Imam
Bukhari, set up a conflict between him and the Fuqaha (to a greater extent than
was the case) and to ultimately encourage people along the vile and dangerous
path of hadith rejection by making them think that every narration must be
taken into belief: beliefs, such as ‘does God have a son?’, can only be on
certainty – you cannot be 90% sure in Islam, only 100% will do. So how can
taking ‘Ilm ul Zaan’ or ahad narrations (both probabilistic knowledge only)
into matters of belief be appropriate?
Sadly, confusion and posturing
abound from Ahl al Hadith – apart from failing to show how to pray from Sahih
hadith alone, they make bizarre claims that Imam Bukhari himself did not make:
for example, not all of the hadith narrated by Imam Bukhari are of one grade –
‘Sahih’: however, they will never tell you the actual facts, leaving Christians
and atheists to come up to you and tell you that the ‘hadith is in Bukhari and
sahih and thus you must accept it!’ – when in fact some of Imam Bukhari’s own
hadith do not meet his conditions and he merely adduces them as supporting
evidence for the main hadith of the chapter:
”Auxiliary narrations served to
bolster the authenticity of the Prophetic tradition, but neither Bukhari or
Muslim felt the need to meet their usual rigorous standards for authenticity
when dealing with them” (xi)
So the actual percentage of Sahih
al Bukhari which is ‘Sahih’ according to his conditions is not all of it but
only the main chapter heading hadiths only – the others may sometimes not be
(some scholars give a figure of 1/3 of his hadith meet his condition, others
less). There is much confusion about this and Imam Dhahabi (yes, he is a
muhaddith too) expresses it thus:
”They are all Sahih, but not all
of them reach the same high degree of Sahih” (xii)
The danger of harassing Muslims
by insisting that hadith is ‘Sahih’ so how dare you not believe in it or follow
it is manifest in the fact that it is not only hadith narrations which can be
Sahih (and nor are by any means all or even most sahih hadith and narrations in
the collections of Bukhari and Muslim. Again, this is a consensus of Sunnis and
admitted by Imam Bukhari in the full title of his Sahih – which is called the
‘Short version of the book’) – the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident is graded as Sahih
by hadith masters such as Ibn Hajar and historians such as Imam Tabari (also a
hadith master and faqih, though his school is currently lost) alike – but they
knew and articulated clearly that being sahih did not mean ‘true’ but merely
that the chain was correct – the content and meaning could well be rejected, as
it is in this case. But a person nowadays, suitably mislead by the Salafi
movement could be incited, as Ibn Taymiyyah was, to mistake it’s ‘sahih’ status
for it’s acceptability and thus to believe that the Prophet compromised on the
issue of monotheism (xiii) – an impossibility rejected by all orthodox Muslims.
You would think the incident of
the ‘Satanic verses’ or the ‘hadith of the cranes’ as it is known would be
sufficient to deter the Salafis from endangering people’s Iman by threatening
them with ‘Bid’at’ or heresy if they fail to accept any and all sahih
narrations, but no such luck.
They will retort with the
deceptive claim that none of the hadith masters rejected the sahih hadith –
that is not true: they were rejected openly such as the Satanic Verses incident
(except by Ibn Taymiyya, who is in fact not found amongst the lists of senior
hadith masters anyway).
What these individuals are trying
to fool you with is the fact that they were rejected did not make them ‘not
sahih’, as that only relates to their chain but not their truthfulness (since
these two concepts are identical to many Salafists and all Ahl Al Hadith, they
try to equate them in your mind as well).
However, the scholars of Islam
were under no such illusions, and Imam Bukhari was well aware of the criteria of
fallibility as prescribed in the Quran for all works of man and muhadditheen:
‘Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah
they would have found therein much incongruity.’ [4:82] – this states clearly
that all works other than those of God are plagued by contradiction.
So although the issue of the
Satanic verses should be enough to deter people from ‘Hadith is sahih brother,
how dare you go against it!’, it will be necessary here to show that Imam
Bukhari and others narrated hadith which they knew would not be acceptable in
Islamic fiqh or aqeeda but that they were documenting only – their lack of
endorsement or explanation of these narrations demonstrates that sufficiently
Bukhari 18. ‘What one is cautious
about in bad luck in a woman’:
4805. It is related from
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, said, “There is bad luck in women, houses and horses.”
4806. It is related that Ibn
‘Umar said, “They mentioned bad luck in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, said, “If there is bad luck in anything, it is in houses, women and
horses.”
This story is found in a number
of ways in various hadith collections: the first narration clearly claims that
there is such a thing as bad luck and the second says ‘if’ thus leaving the
question open. Obviously there is no such thing as bad luck and least of all in
women – this absence of superstition in Islam is confirmed in Bukhari itself.
Yet Imam Bukhari narrates the hadith here without comment or explanation and
again in ‘Adab wal Mufrad’ (his text on Islamic manners). A person picking this
up would be shocked and confused, especially as Imam Bukhari omitted the
explanation of hadrat A’isha where she explained that Ibn Umar had missed out
the phrase that The Prophet said ‘The ignorant people believe that there is bad
luck…’
Imam Ahmad, who checked and
approved of Imam Bukhari’s ‘Sahih’, did include that narration of A’isha (RA):
so the options are that Imam Bukhari wants you to believe that women are bad
luck (impossible) he narrates contradictory hadith (which is fine as long as he
is not narrating them for the purpose of acting on them or believing in them)
or you are not to act, believe in or even read as a layman every hadith in
Bukhari (or Imam Bukhari expects you to know all of the other narrations which
he neglected to include, presumably because he did not consider them authentic
or was negligent, which would also be inappropriate).
Sahih Bukhari, Narrated Aisha:
”Allah’s Apostle heard a man
reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as
he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was
caused to forget.”
Obviously, no-one is saying you
should believe in this, or it could lead one to think that the Prophet forgot
parts of the Quran, which is clashing with Quran and aqeeda.
But Imam Bukhari does not provide
any explanation – having narrated it, it is left to the Imams of Fiqh and
Aqeeda to sort out, and they of course reject it. There is no question of
‘following the hadith’.
Again, from Bukhari via Abu
Huraira:
‘‘The angel of death was sent to
Moses and said ‘respond to your Lord’…Moses slapped him severely, knocking out
one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said,“You sent me to a
slave who does not want to die.” Allah restored his eye and said, “Go back and
tell him to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to
live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his
hand…(continues)”
Now a person reading this
narration without knowing that not all sahih are taken into belief etc would be
most confused: it has been addressed in detail by Islamic scholars (a good
treatment in Arabic is by Muhammad Al Ghazzali for those interested). It is
clearly related in the Quran that the time of death of any person will not be
postponed and in any case it is unacceptable for a Prophet to reject death and
refuse to meet God. It would also seem strange that angels are creatures that
can have their eyes knocked out by humans. Various explanations have been
offered by scholars such as Qadi Iyad and hadith scholars such as Ibn Khuzayma,
who said that perhaps Moses mistook the Angel of Death for an assassin. These
explanations are in themselves problematic due to the text of the hadith, but
the point here is that it is narrated without explanation and has no relevance
to practise or doctrine – inflicting it on people as if Imam Bukhari meant for
them to act on or believe it can cause serious confusion.
Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain:”The
Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we performed it with
Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did
the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it as illegal)
just expressed what his own mind suggested. That man was Umar.”
This will likewise, without the
explanation of the scholars, which Imam Bukhari does not provide, cause
confusion and make someone believe that Umar (RA) makes things up off the top
of his head – the hadith requires commentary and could cause confusion without
it. ‘Following the hadith of Bukhari’ does not help here either.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.251
Narrated by Abu Salama: ‘Aisha’s brother and I went to ‘Aisha and he asked her
about the bath of the Prophet (saws). She brought a pot containing about a Sa’
of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at that time there was
a screen between her and us.’
What is the point of telling
people to accept stories such as this? Imam Bukhari is clearly documenting for
the purpose of historical record a story even as strange as this (in fact it is
rejected by Hanafis and omitted by Malik and Shafi). In it’s literal meaning it
implies that Aisha had a bath behind a screen to demonstrate how to do ghusl –
but this is impossible for our mother A’isha! Various glosses have been
presented, but none are of any use and the hadith is a favourite of Shia; if
she was to demonstrate the ghusl, she had no need to undertake it in front of
them, it is impossible for the screen to be transparent so what is the point of
this narration other than for it to be used against those who disparage our
noble mother Ai’sha? Will the Ahl al hadith go around telling people this
hadith is in Bukhari so we must accept it? Or one of their bizarre explanations
(admitting that this happened but that she was fully clothed, which would still
be unacceptable or that she merely had the bath, in which case what was the
point of having them witness it). Enforcing this hadith is of no value and the
Hanafis dealt with it appropriately by rejecting it despite the ‘Sahih’ status.
Bukhari 3:49 863, Narrated
Al-Bara’: ”When the Prophet intended to perform ‘Umra in the month of
Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the
matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the
document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: ‘These are the
terms on which Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle agreed (to make peace).’ They said,
“We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah’s Apostle we
would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah.” The Prophet said,
“I am Allah’s Apostle and also Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah.” Then he said to ‘Ali,
“Rub off (the words) ‘Allah’s Apostle’ “, but ‘Ali said, “No, by Allah, I will
never rub off your name.” So, Allah’s Apostle took the document and wrote,
‘This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah has agreed upon
Taken literally, it means the
Prophet could not only read but write as well – this narration is beloved of
Christian missionaries, but again, it is rejected by scholars and the
explanation is found later on in Bukhari – what actually happened is clarified
in the following two ahadith. Ali refused to honour the Prophet’s request &
the Prophet struck that part out himself. He did not write as mentioned in
Bukhari, 3:863
Narrated Al-Bara bin ‘Azib: When
Allah’s Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin
Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it, “Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle
.” The pagans said, “Don’t write: ‘Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle’, for if you were
an apostle we would not fight with you.” Allah’s Apostle asked Ali to rub it
out, but Ali said, “I will not be the person to rub it out.” Allah’s Apostle
rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and
his companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they
would enter with their weapons in cases.
However, Imam Bukhari yet again
does not explain – this is because these narrations are not meant to be taken
in the way the Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith tell you to. Unless they are saying
that we are to work out what Imam Bukhari means without him telling us – in
which case we need another Imam and so on ad infinitum.
Sahih Muslim, Kitab Ar-Radaa’
A’isha (RA) reported: Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah’s Prophet and said:
Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on
entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah’s Prophet
(SAW) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?
Allah’s Messenger smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man ‘Amr
has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of
Badr and in the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (the words are): Allah’s Messenger
laughed.
Will the unhinged members of the
Salafi ranks go around demanding that Imam Muslim meant for this to be applied
or that it in fact actually happened? It is clear by now that people who will
insist in the Satanic Verses will not stop at this either, but Imam Muslim is
surely collecting the narrations as a historian is wont to do – he cannot be
asking us to believe in it. In any case, the hadith is rejected for obvious
reasons.
Abu Dawood: 4723: It was narrated
from Al- WalId bin Abi Thawr, from Simak, from ‘Abdulläh bin ‘Amirah, from
Al-Ahnaf bin Qais, from Al-‘Abbãs bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib, who said: “I was in
Al-Batba’ with a group of people, among whom was the Messenger of Allah . A
cloud passed over him, and he looked at it and said: ‘What do you call this?’
They said: ‘As-Sajãb (a cloud).’ He said: ‘And Al-Muzn (rain cloud)?’ They
said: And: ‘Al-Muzn.’ He said: ‘And ‘Anãn (clouds)?” They said: ‘And Al-‘Anan.”
– Abu Dãwud said: I am not very certain about Al-‘Anãn – “He said: ‘How much
(distance) do you think there is between heaven and earth?’ They said: ‘We do
not know.’ He said: ‘Between them is (a distance of) seventy-one, or
seventy-two, or seventy-three years, and between it, and the heaven above it is
the same (and so on)’ – until he had counted seven heavens. ‘Then above the
seventh heaven there is a sea, between whose top and bottom is a distance like
that between one heaven and another. Then above that there are eight mountain
goats’ The distance between their hooves and their knees is like the distance
between one heaven and the next. Then on their backs is the Throne, and the
distance between the bottom and the top of the Throne, is like the distance
between one heaven and another. Then Allah is above that, may He be blessed and
exalted.”
This is a particularity
embarrassing hadith for the Salafis, especially as Ibn Taymiyyah graded it as
‘acceptable’, but the idea of God being carried on wild goats (or carried at
all) is heretical – the hadith, despite being narrated in many collections and
graded as Sahih by at least Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn Taymiyya, is rejected for
naked anthropomorphism and for sounding eerily familiar to God riding a cherub
in the Old Testament. Are we to accept this bizarre and faith busting narration
merely because it is graded as ‘sahih’ by some Hadith scholars?
Sometimes the ‘explanations’,
which are outright lies in the cases presented, male the problem worse:
(Original Arabic here:
http://futureislam.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sunan-abu-dawud-volume-5-ahadith-4351-5274.pdf
A deliberate mistranslation where they interpolate ‘angels’ for ‘goats’ and
truly awful and confusing explanation here: http://islamqa.info/en/88746)
Sunan Abu Dawood and Musnad of
Ahmad: from Abu Huraira – ”The illegitimate child is the most evil of the
three’, meaning more evil than his parents”
Once again, this is a confusing
narration and there are others like it of various degrees of authenticity.
Shall we follow it because some (including Salafis like Albani) say that it is
‘sahih’? Obviously not, as it clashes with the Quran and seems to promote the
idea of ‘Original Sin’ – however, the explanation of Hadrat Ai’sha (namely that
the hadith does not mean what Ahmad and Abu Dawood are narrating but warns the
child against replicating the actions of his parents) was not included by the
Muhaditheen, either for their own reasons or because it did not meet their
conditions. Obviously, foisting this narration on someone and then telling them
it is ‘sahih’ is going to cause major confusion – Hanafis and Malikis rejected
it and muhaditheen who wanted to retain it were forced to offer their own
explanations instead. But none of these explanations are in front of you when
you read this narration – so what happened to following all Sahih narrations?
This narration is very useful in
illustrating the Salafi mentality – after demanding that one accepts hadith,
when a difficult one comes along, they resort to gymnastics and other sources
to try and explain it: a funny strategy of theirs is to say that Albani did not
accept so and so hadith or Ibn Baz rejected it in fiqh, as if their latter day
20th century Imams had to be awaited before clearing up important issues. And
once again – they will try to give Muhaditheen exclusive rights to critique
hadith for fear that the jurists would reject them – as indeed jurists were
justified in doing so.
Sahih Muslim Book 19, Hadith
Number 4322.
Chapter : Permissibility of
killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is narrated by Sa’b b.
Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the
children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from
them.
Here is an interesting counter
example – an effort has been made by Imam Muslim to explain the narration which
could be misconstrued. He also takes care to put it after the section
denouncing the killing of non-combatants. But once again, not knowing that
no-one in Islamic history took this literally and that it was merely an
understanding that accidental civilian deaths due to cavalry damage occurred
due to mingling of civilians with combatants and were unavoidable but extremely
regrettable, could lead the one who has been ‘blackmailed’ by hadith to
conclude that ‘they are from them’ means it is licit to kill them as opposed to
‘they are mixed up with them’, which would have been a better translation. One
can see how those of the ‘party of hadith’ predisposed to violence can easily
be led astray by narrations without fiqh.
Then there is this flagrantly
confusing narration in Bukhari (which is again a favourite of Shia): ”Narrated
Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till
he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited
Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said,
“Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He
said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his
recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how
you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in …”
The ‘dot dot dot’ is not mine: it
is in fact in the text of Sahih Bukhari: if we are to ‘follow all sahih
hadith’, what do we make of this confusing narration? How do we act on this,
especially as the narration exists in a full form with the same chain, that
Imam Bukhari neglected to mention – thus
the bit he missed out is: “Approach the woman in her anus” (xiv)
This narration is rejected by all
Sunnis, and in any case, what is the point of narrating and incomplete and
confusing passage such as this? Did Imam Bukhari mean for us to ‘follow it’ as
Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith claim? Obviously not.
Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Al-Jihaad
Narrated Abu Huraira: ”Allah’s Apostle said, “Once Solomon, son of David said,
‘(By Allah) Tonight I will have sexual intercourse with one hundred (or
ninety-nine) women each of whom will give birth to a knight who will fight in
Allah’s Cause.’ On that a (i.e. if Allah wills)but he did not say, ‘Allah
willing.’ Therefore only one of those women conceived and gave birth to a
half-man. By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad’s life is, if he had said, “Allah
willing’, (he would have begotten sons) all of whom would have been knights
striving in Allah’s Cause.”
Are we really expected to believe
that Imam Bukhari expects us to believe in this shocking incident? In any case,
how is it reconciled with a merciful God that Solomon, a Prophet, is punished
for not saying ‘If Allah wills’ (which isn’t a sin in the first place) so
severely by God? Then what chance do any of us stand? and why is God punishing
the mother of the child and the child itself for something Solomon did? Does
Imam Bukhari expect us to become Christians? Of course not – this narration was
never meant by him to be ‘accepted’ in the manner Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith are
doing.
Obviously, examples can be
multiplied ad nauseum, but this should be sufficient: the next time people
demand that you act on a hadith because the muhaditheen graded it as ‘sahih’,
ask them about ‘acting’ on these narrations.
It can be seen that it is clear
that (hopefully) the Muhaditheen were not collecting these for the purpose of
acting on them or believing them but rather for the purposes of historical
interest: none of them have any relevance to this life or the hereafter and if
pursued lead to misguidance and confusion. But be warned – Salafis and Ahl al
Hadith will nonetheless challenge you with outlandish explanations as seen for
the hadith of ‘the Goats’, where they resorted to actually changing the words
in translation and adding a whole sentence about angels that is not in the
text.
You will also be constantly
harangued with ‘show me anyone (they mean anyone they approve of) who rejected
Sahih hadith’: be careful as they are playing with you – no-one rejected the hadith
as not being Sahih, as in having an authentic chain. They did indeed reject
them in meaning, application or truth, because contrary to what Ahl Al Hadith
would like you to think, a Sahih hadith, having a perfect chain, can be
rejected for it’s meaning. There is no reason to denounce it as ‘not Sahih’, as
the chain never gave it certainty in the first place. These people have
misguided many with this piece of sophistry and deception: it is not necessary
to grade as hadith as ‘not sahih’ to reject it, in fact no-one ever did, since
a hadith sahih in chain may be rejected by suitably qualified people for a
valid reason.
Sahih does not mean ‘true’ or
‘definitely said by the Prophet’, so there is no need to tackle the hadith by
saying ‘not sahih = not true’, since sahih did not mean true in the very first
place (as explained by, as well as all other Sunni Muslims, Ibn Hajar in his
introduction to his magisterial commentary on Sahih Al Bukhari).
Further, those who decide the
rejection on content are not the Imams of hadith, who are experts in chains
only (somewhat akin to modern day archaeologists or forensic historians), but
rather the doctors of law such as Malik and Abu Hanifa, and they do indeed
frequently reject Sahih narrations, some of which were shown above.
We also unfortunately need to
combat here in more detail the nonsensical assertion that no hadith in Bukhari
has ever been critiqued or challenged: this is utter sophistry, especially
coming from Salafis whose Imam of hadith Albani actually not only questioned
but despite his latter day status and numerous documented gaffes in hadith
sciences, actually rejected a shocking number of hadiths from Bukhari and
Muslim.
Recalling that the Imams of Sunni
Muslims usually had no need to overtly reject Sahih hadith since they did not
consider them to be anything other than probabilistic in the first place, their
willingness to attack narrations in Bukhari would have perhaps pleased the
academic in Imam Bukhari himself:
Not only do the Imams of Sunni
Muslims question and indeed reject some narrations of the Sahih, so do the
Mujassim Imams of the Salafis – Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Quyyum themselves – so
what is the point of haranguing lay Muslims with ‘the Hadith is in Bukhari! How
dare you question!’ – these arch-deacons of Salafism not only question but
reject sahih from Bukhari:
Imam al-Bukhari writes:
“Abu Hurayra reported that the
Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, ‘On the Day of
Judgement when Allah Most High throws the people into the hell fire, it will
say, “Give me more.” Then Allah Most High will create a nation and then throw
them into it. The hell fire will again complain, “I want more”, and again Allah
Most High will create a nation and throw them into it. The hell fire will again
say, “I want more” and then Allah Most High will put His feet onto the hell
fire and it will be full”
[Bukhari, Kitab at-Tawhid,
chapter on ‘Tawhid’]
Doctor Maximus of Hadith, Ibn
Hajar al-‘Asqalani writes:
“Imam al-Bukhari has written this
hadith in his tafsir of Sura Kahf. In this narration when the hell fire asks
for more, Allah Most High puts His ‘feet’ onto it and then it will be full.
Allah Most High is never cruel and yet in Abu Hurayra’s above narration it says
that Allah Most High will create a nation and fill Hell with it. Hafiz Ibn
Qayyim, Abu Hasan Qubsi and other groups of scholars of Hadith say that the
narrator of this hadith has fabricated this by saying that Allah Most High will
create a nation to fill Hell. They say that Allah Most High created Hell for
those people who follow Satan, and that the new creation would never have
sinned, so how could Allah Most High put them in Hell? Allah Most High also
says in the Qur’an that He never does injustice to anyone (Sura al-Kahf verse
49).
[al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari,
chapter on ‘Tawhid’]
Hafiz ibn Taymiyya writes:
“An authentic narrator sometimes
makes mistakes, but knowledgeable scholars of Hadith find these mistakes
straight away. For example, Imam al-Bukhari writes in Kitab al-Tawhid that
Allah Most High will create a new nation and fill the hell fire with it. A
master of Hadith will find out straight away if a narrator has made a mistake.
These mistakes by narrators are also found in other Hadith books. Imam Muslim
writes that when the Prophet (SAW) married his wife Maymunah, after he had
taken off the ihram from himself, the Prophet (SAW) did not perform two rakat
nafila inside the Ka’ba. A person with deep knowledge of Hadith will straight
away know the narrator of this hadith has made a mistake because it is proved
from another authentic hadith that the Prophet never performed ‘umra in the
month of Rajab. When the Prophet married his wife Maymunah, he was wearing the
ihram and he did perform two rakat nafil inside the Ka’ba.
[Ibn Taymiyya, Usuli Tafsir,
chapter ‘Ijma al-Muhaddithun’]
Ibn Taymiyya writes also about
Imam Muslim:
“Imam Muslim has written those
types of narrations to which scholars of Hadith have objected e.g. Allah Most
High made the skies and Earth in seven days and Abu Sufiyan asking our Prophet
(may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to marry his daughter after becoming
Muslim. Another narration in the ‘Book of Salat’ indicates that our Prophet
(SAW) had two sons called Ibrahim [when we know that our Prophet (SAW) had only
one son called Ibrahim]
[Ibn Taymiyya, at-Tawassul, ‘Ulum
al-Hadith and Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya, vol.18, chapter on ‘Maqam Bukhari wa
Muslim’]
Of course, Ibn Taymiyyah is as
indirect and unclear as he always is but it seems that he has criticized Imam al-Bukhari’s
and Imam Muslim’s narrations as well as Ibn Quyyum – and they are to be praised for their honesty
and academic vigour in criticising a hadith that in fact supports their
anthropomorphic beliefs.
Imam al-Bukhari writes:
“After the death of the Prophet
(may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Umm al-Mu’minin Sawda (may Allah be
pleased with her) was the first to die”
[Bukhari, Chapter of Zakat]
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
writes that this is wrong, and that Umm al-Mu’minin Zaynab died first. Imam Ibn
al-Jawzi says this narration is not correct and it is very strange that Imam
al-Bukhari wrote this. Imam an-Nawawi also says that Imam al-Bukhari has made
mistakes [Fath al-Bari, ‘Zakat’]
Bukhari: ‘Umar ibn Maymun said:
“I saw a monkey who had just committed adultery with another one. Other monkeys
then stoned them both, so I also started to throw stones as well”
[Bukhari, “Ayyam al-Jahiliya”]
Hafiz al-‘Asqlani writes: “Allama
Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr says: ‘This narration is wrong because enforcing an Islamic
law on an animal regarding any matter would be wrong.’ Humaydi says that this
account was not actually in the original Bukhari, but someone has added it
later. Nusqi wrote the second version of Bukhari, and this narration was not
written in it. If we were to say that Hafiz Humaydi and Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr are
right, then what about the scholars who say that all the ahadith written in
Bukhari are correct?”
”[Fath al-Bari, “Ayyam
al-Jahiliya”]
Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim
have said that the War of Mustalaq happened in 4 AH as Musa ibn ‘Uqba has said.
Ibn Ishaq has said that it happened in 6 AH. Mustalaq was in the war when
‘A’isha was falsely accused of a sin she did not commit.’A’isha has said that
when she was falsely accused, the ‘Verse of the Veil’ was revealed. One day our
Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was talking to some people
and he said, “Some people have falsely accused my wife, but I can only see
goodness in her.” From the evidence, Sa’d ibn Mas, stood up and said, “If the
person who has falsely accused your wife is from our tribe, I will kill him”
[Bukhari, Magazi; Muslim, Tawba]
Hafiz al-‘Asqalani writes:
“Imam al-Bukhari has said that
the war of Mustalaq happened in 4 AH. Imam al-Bukhari has made a mistake, because
the War of Mustalaq happened in 5 AH.I feel that Imam al-Bukhari wanted to
write down 5 but he wrote down 4, because Imam al-Bukhari also wrote a hadith
in the chapter on Jihad which proves that the war of Mustalaq happened in 5 AH.
Secondly, the narration where Sa’d ibn Mas has said that he would kill the
slanderer is also wrong. This is because Sa’d ibn Mas was martyred in the
Battle of Khandaq (which happened before the War of Mustalaq).’A’isha has said,
‘When I was falsely accused, the Verse of the Veil was revealed and it was
revealed after the Battle of Khandaq’ “
[al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari,
Magazi]
It is very interesting that the
same, very understandable confusion with numbers, if it is applied to the issue
of the age of Ai’sha, namely that the ages given in the Sahih collections do
not add up and she was older than nine at the time of betrothal, send Salafis
into a rage of ‘modernist’ and ‘hadith rejecter’ – but here is Ibn Hajar saying
that Bukhari and Muslim have their dates wrong – what of it?
People have not only felt free to
fault the Sahih collections on their matn (recall the anger that Salafis feel
on anything but criticism of the chain of transmission, but Ibn Taymiyyah and
Ibn Quyyam were happy to critique the content or matn in the above narrations)
but also even in the chains of narrations.
Before we get into that, it is
important to know why people try to blackmail Muslims into accepting
muhaditheen as the main authorities in Islam – namely to facilitate their
heretical views on hadith. To this end, they will often point out that
narrators such as Abu Hanifa and Malik are considered weak by certain
muhaditheen (they mean their favourites of course) and for this reason they do
not narrate hadith from them – this is a gross deception.
But assuming it is true, why are
we to accept the views of the opponents of the fuqahah, in this case the
muhaditheen as being correct? One does not take the information from one side
of a dispute only.
In fact, Hadith narrators such as
Imam Bukhari and even earlier ones had serious problems with the Imams of fiqh,
often making shocking statements about them – so when the Salafis tell you that
Abu Hanifa and the Muwatta of Imam Malik are ‘weak’ in hadith, they do not tell
you the following pertinent facts:
Imam al-Bukhari has stated:
“Imam Abu Hanifa was a Murji’i”
(*Murjis were a sect who believed that believing in God guaranteed paradise
just as not believing it guaranteed Hell and thus actions were not of any
benefit apart from those. The accusation of course, is false)
[Al-Ta’rikh al-Kabir, under the
‘Biography of Numan ibn Thabit’]
Imam al-Bukhari also writes:
“When Sufyan ath-Thawri heard
news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa, he said: ‘Praise be to Allah that such
a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse
person born in Islam’ “
[Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of
Imam Abu Hanifa]
Imam al-Bukhari also writes:
“On two occasions Imam Abu Hanifa
was ordered to repent from making blasphemous statements”
[al-Bukhari, Kitab ad-Daufa
Walmat Rukin; Ibn ‘Abdi’l-Barr, Al-Intiqa]
Imam al-Bukhari informs us that
he had taken these statements from his tutor Na’im ibn Hammad [Ta’rikh
as-Saghir]
Imam al-Bukhari was so convinced
by his tutor, that he never mentioned or used Imam Abu Hanifa as a reference
for his book Sahih al-Bukhari, and accused him of only knowing a handful of
hadith (a bizarre assertion).
So Imam Bukhari is not at all
saying that Abu Hanifa is ‘weak’ but rather that he is an apostate (times two).
Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak
(another noted Muhaddith) said, ‘I don’t consider Imam Malik to be a scholar.’
So before the lay Muslims are led
to believe that they should doubt Malik or Abu Hanifa on hadith, it should be
known that Ahl Al Hadith accept these kinds of narrations from individuals such
as Na’im Ibn Hammad: One often finds both praiseworthy and very scathing
statements about narrators and scholars – whereas Imam Bukhari (and Salafis)
are happy to take Hammad’s word on Abu Hanifa, there is this about him, amongst
other alleged calumnies:
“Na’im ibn Hammad was a famous
scholar from a region called Marau. He had sight in one eye only. During the
later part of his life he went to live in Egypt. At first, he belonged to a
sect called the Jahmites, and was an active member. He then later left this
sect and wrote a book, which was the first book to use the science of Musnad.
These were a compilation of narrations by the Sahahba, which were placed in an
alphabetical order, according to whom they had narrated the hadith. During this
particular period, the Umma used to question whether the Holy Qur’an was
makhluq (created). When this question was put forward to Na’im ibn Hammad he
did not give an explanation. He was then sent to prison along side Yaqub Faqia.
He died in 228 AH. It was noted that no janaza [funeral prayer] was prayed over
him and he was buried without a kaffan [shroud]”
[al-Baghdadi, Tadhkirat
al-Huffaz; adh-Dhahabi, Tahzib al-Tahzib; al-‘Asqalani and al-Baghdadi,
Biography of Na’im ibn Hammad]
So it is these kinds of tricks
that are used by the Ahl Al Hadith to confuse converts and lay Muslims – if
Muhaditheen are reluctant to narrate from Malik or Abu Hanifa due to doubts
about them what about the doubts about less senior scholars from much after
their time such as Hammad? Why are they not doubting them? The reason is
obviously that they are in the ‘hadith’ gang and Abu Hanifa is persona non
grata to them. So there is no need to give them final say on who Abu Hanifa or
Malik are or are not.
In reality, we should not be
fooled by the Salafi movement into being too partial to the ‘people of hadith’:
scholars are human beings – they can get angry and they can err – this even
happens to the Sahabah. In fact it is because of the power struggle between the
narrators of hadith and the scholars of Islam that the former refuse to narrate
from them and accuse and belittle them. It is indeed a great loss for Islam and
it’s authenticity if we discard the two earliest Imams because some Muhaditheen
had a problem with them. And as seen above, we cannot reconstruct Islam and
fiqh and creed from the books of hadith alone. Or if we can, it is a very
strange Islam, full of wild goats and inapplicable stories.
Further, it can be seen that the
Muhaditheen not narrating hadith from the earliest collectors such as Malik is
not due to scholarly rigour but animosity:
For example, we saw Imam Bukhari
narrate a hadith from Imran Ibn Hattan above: but he was the head of the
Khawarij sect and his poem exalting Ibn Moljam who assassinated Ali is famous.
Yet Bukhari often narrates from him – but not from Hanafis. It may be, as some
have said, that he does this from before the time he became a khawarij – but he
certainly seems more accommodating of such people than might be considered
proper given his harshness against Abu Hanifa, based on what a similarly
unreliable person had claimed about him. Further, does not the fact that
someone became a Khawarij render his earlier narrations suspect? At what stage
did he become a Khawarij? And does Imam Bukhari give the same leeway to other
deviant sects?
Imam Bukhari also narrates, as do
other muhaditheen from Hariz Ibn Uthman who was known for cursing Ali (RA)
seventy times before leaving the mosque. Ismail Ibn Ayyash narrated: “I accompanied
Hariz from Egypt to Makkah. On the way he kept cursing Ali. I said to him: How
can you curse someone about whom the Prophet (SAW) has said: “You are to me as
Aaron to Moses?” Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Nasai and others have narrated from him.
Imam Bukhari narrated over fifty
three narrations from Uthman Ibn Abi Shaybah – who many Muhaditheen were
willing to give the benefit of the doubt, unlike Malik or Abu Hanifa despite
his being well known for making fun of the Quran and narrating “Our Prophet
attended a festival of non-believers and respected their idols the way they
respected them. This is the reason why two angels refused to pray behind our
Prophet”. But this situation would never arise with our Prophet. Ibn Abi Shayba
also used to interpret the Qur’an incorrectly and disrespected it by changing
its words (xv). Zakariyya ibn Yahya ath-Thani Daraqutni claims he had no
knowledge of Hadith and he used to tell unknown narrations. Hakim had said that
he was weak and made many mistakes in narration. Al-Bukhari admits the scholars
of Hadith have ignored him and did not take narrations from him at all. But
Imam al-Bukhari has taken narrations from him regardless (xvi).
Accepting such a person and not
accepting Abu Hanifa does not do wonders for Imam Bukhari’s partiality.
The Muhaditheen that the Salafis
want you to judge Malik and Abu Hanifa by are also willing to narrate from Imam
Zuhri and Sufian Ibn Ouyana – who claim that some part of the Quran was lost in
the battle of Yarmuk. Of course, that is their right, but it is not then a
necessity for you to defer to them as to who is and is not Sahih vis-a-vis the
Imams of Fiqh and aqeeda. With all of these people, you find good and bad
narrations – the Muhaditheen do not deny that these people for example made fun
of the Quran, but their sciences allow then to narrate from them. Likewise, the
sciences of the Islamic logicians and jurists such as Malik allow him to reject
such ‘Sahih’ narrations. If anything, the latter is the safer path.
Of course, our intention here is
not to disparage the noble Imams of hadith, but rather to maintain the correct
balance or ‘Al Qistas al Mustaqeem’ as Imam Al Ghazzali might say; the efforts
of the Imams of Hadith are immense, but to put them above the fuqaha of the
tabaeen and Salaf and allow them to insult them is incorrect and offensive,
especially when the methodology of deviant sects today is to play into the
hands of Shia, modernists and missionaries by asserting that hadith has primacy
over Fiqh or that Bukhari has primacy over Malik or Shafi or worst of all, Abu
Hanifa. This is manifest stupidity.
Despite these very harsh
statements and apparently strange narrations and narrators by the Imams of
Hadith, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafis and others have been tolerant and rightly give
the Imams of Hadith their due rank and respect.
At the same time, they reserve
the right, due to their seniority and superiority in knowledge, to reject
hadith (sahih or not) that clash with the Quran, or the noble character of the
Prophets. Malikis reject freely those hadith which clash with the practices of
Medina at the time as they question how a single chain narration could go
against what all of the Companions and Successors were doing. Shafis reject any
that do not meet their five conditions or clash with reality. Hanafis have a
big list of conditions, over a dozen, and thus reject ahad that clash with
Quran, Seera, observable reality, analogy and a big list of others (xvii). It
is the fact that Hanafis and Malikis are most strict when it comes to
attributing statements to the Prophet and that the Muhaditheen indeed had the
most antagonism with them and they have paradoxically been accused by them of
hadith rejection (and much worse as the quotes Bukhari etc show).
As I hope is obvious by now, people
like Isa Ibn Abban and Abu Hanifa and Malik have very good reasons for
rejecting the hadith they do, quite apart from their followers being accused of
hadith denial or modernism (ironically it is the Ahl Al Hadith and the Salafis
who hold honours for innovation and modernism with their ‘any hadith goes as
long as it’s Sahih’ policy).
The real meaning of tolerance of
different opinions is to not start accusing people when they have a different
methodology to oneself – after all, everyone is wiling to tolerate those who
agree with them. Thus the madhabs must be free to apply their methodologies of
hadith as they have from the very earliest days, indeed, from long before
Bukhari, without fear of marginalisation or harassment.
The next time a man or woman with
a scowl comes up to you, starts hurling hadith and insisting the hadith is
‘Sahih’ and you must follow it, tell them ‘the hadith that women are bad luck
is sahih, do you accept it? Why do you look for a way out with narrations of
Imam Ahmad? Do you accept that God rides seven wild goats? Why not, hadith is
Sahih!’.
Or ignore them and follow the
correct methodology of the Madhabs and the greatest of Imams, Abu Hanifa (RA).
A Sample
Dialogue For Students Harassed At University
This is in no way to convince those who
terrorise and misguide others under the banner of being the ‘party of Hadith’
(since people who believe that God rides on not one but seven wild goats are
rather hard to convince), but rather to arm those Muslims and new Muslims who
suffer from their onslaughts. This is not a ‘scholarly’ response but more of a
rhetorical one – I have given some references as my limited knowledge allows in
the main piece above and also a reading list by better qualified individuals
below.
‘You are saying that Sahih
hadith can be rejected!’
I’m not saying that, everyone is
saying it.
Especially Sheikh Albani of the Salafi
movement
Sheikh Albani only
rejected hadith due to their chains, in the traditional manner
Where is your conclusive proof that
rejecting hadith can only be due to their chains and further is confined to the
muhaditheen only?
(*this is in fact the actual position of Ahl
Al Hadith and most Wahhabis/Salafis – if they do allow someone like Malik to
reject a narration they will assert it was because of the chain only and
because he was a Muhaddith. If Al Ghazzali or Maturidi reject a hadith, then
they get the kind of treatment that Abu Hanifa got at the hands of Hammad i.e
takfir)
Then if this is true, how come we had to
wait for 1100 years for Albani to come along and weed out the non-sahih
narrations of Bukhari and Muslim? If it was the ‘traditional style’, are you
saying all of the scholars of hadith in between him and Bukhari were
incompetent?
Then what guarantee do we have then that
another scholar, even better than Albani won’t come along and remove more
‘weak’ hadith from Bukhari? How can you be sure that if Albani is such a
revolutionary genius (despite his obvious gaffes), another won’t come
emerge (possibly from outside your sect). Will you accept him? Or will he
be a ‘modernist hadith rejecter’?
Sahih means you have
to accept it!
Sahih (in isnad) means it has a valid chain
of transmission, that is all.
And even here there are differences between
narrators, Bukharis ‘sahih’ is not the same as Tirmidhis ‘sahih’ etc.
It does not mean that the Prophet definitely says it or
that it is verbatim what he said: it means that the probability is in favour of
it being genuine unless there is a fault in it’s matn. Most hadith are not
narrated verbatim but by meaning in any
case, so it is rarely ‘what the Prophet said’.
It is logically impossible (and no Sunni
ever claimed) that each and every ‘sahih’ single chain narration between all of
the different transmitters until the time of Bukhari some 230 years later
is verbatim and
not without any error:
there are whole books by scholars discussing the faults and errors of the
famous narrators of hadith, furthermore the Quran demands that all books
aside from it are ‘contradictory’ (‘If
it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much
contradiction.’ 4:82) and this includes the hadith
collections – if not where is the explicit exemption? There are numerous hadith
in Bukhari where the narrator says ‘I am not sure if it was x or y’ such as Sa’id
and Anas disagreeing on the number of Prophet’s wives (in a single narration).
So how is it inerrant?
No one ever gave Sahih the criterion of
infallibility: show us where it says this. Show us where any Sunni scholar
claims that Ahad hadith is 100% certain knowledge.
And if according to Ibn Taymiyya and the Ahl
Al Hadith, even the Prophets can forget and err (Allah forbid), then what about
the narrators?
You are misquoting the
Quran – the thing about other books having errors does not apply to hadith books:
since they are the commentaries on the Quran they are protected by God
Then what about the commentaries and
explanations of the Hadith books, namely the books of fiqh – are they protected
too? And the commentaries on them? Ad infinitum?
Show your proof where Allah promises to
safeguard any book but the Quran.
And if the commentaries on the Quran are
solely in the books of hadith and not seera, science and grammar and history,
why is the exegesis of the Quran still ongoing?
How come the exegetes were not all
Muhaditheen? How many of the commentaries of the Quran are by Muhaditheen? Not
many…
You are insulting the
narrators and the Sahabah!
A cheap slur, but to be expected.
Not all of the narrators are Sahabah, many
are from much later. And no one insulted the Sahabah – we do not have the
hadith from them but
from the last person in
the chain or for example Bukhari 200 years later. And it has
been clearly shown above that some narrators were highly criticised for
insulting Ali, or lying about the Quran and saying it was changed: Imams such
as those mentioned & Daruqutni challenged the chains of many of
the above narrations.
Also, we know that there were many
hypocrites in Medina, the names were known only to one sahabah (Hudhayfa
Ibnitul Yamman) – can you guarantee that no hadith are narrated from these
people, who even the Sahabah did not know about?
Imam Bukhari narrated the
most hadith, therefore he is the
most knowledgeable and most worthy to be followed
Abu Huraira narrated thousands more
hadith than Abu Bakr, Umar or Ali put together, does that mean he is better
than them?
Your statement is as foolish as saying
‘so-and-so is an excellent historian, therefore we should let him fly the space
shuttle’.
The Imams of fiqh failed
to narrate important hadith or were ignorant of them, therefore the
muhadtiheen, of whom Bukhari is the greatest, had to fill this gap
First of all, this means that you are not
following the Salaf or a school of thought of the Salaf but the Imams of hadith
– please show us their schools of thought and madhabs, as well as books of
fiqh, proving the existence of God, full commentaries on the Quran etc.
Where is the evidence that Bukhari is a
greater muhaddith than Abu Hanifa or Malik or Shafi? Just because he narrated
more? So Stephen King is a better writer than Melville because he has written
more books?
It could also be that the Fuqahah were aware
of the narrations but did not pass them on, to avoid causing confusion as many
of the above narrations do indeed cause, just as Abu Bakr destroyed a
collection of 400 hadith from the Sahabah and Umar prohibited narrating hadith,
saying ‘leave people with the book of God’. Are they ignorant of hadith too?
Further, it is clear that Bukhari was
narrating to document things, not because he wished for them to be followed or
believed: if so, once again, where is his madhab and his book of Creed, how to
pray, his views refuting the Shia, Mu’tazzila, Murji’ah, and atheists?
It is in his book
He did not include how to even pray one
rakat of salat, as he knew this was to be left to the fuqaha. Then what of the
rest of the things?
Are we to extract them from the narrations?
So we need Imam Bukahri for the hadith and
then another Imam
to make the rulings from them (this is exactly what the Salafi movement has
done with Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen etc).
Why should I do this and follow these Imams
when I can save myself the trouble and follow one of the others who are from
the salaf and reliable like Malik?
Because Bukhari and our
Imams such as Ibn Taymiyyah have more knowledge
So everyone was ignorant of how to pray, how
to marry, have sex and circumcise themselves until Bukhari came along two
hundred years later or Ibn Tamiyyah another five hundred years after him? How
come the Ummah was left without the people to clear this up?
If there were others of ‘your school’, where
is their madhab, school or even books? How come no-one is following them?
The majority of people
follow Imam Shafi and accept the hadith unless they go against
his five conditions which are similar to those of Bukhari,
so you have to follow the majority
Do you mean ‘ijma’ (consensus) or
‘majority’?
If it is consensus, then there is a
consensus that all of the hadith in Bukhari are ‘Sahih’ but not all of the
hadith in it can be applied to possible judgements – that honour goes to
‘Muwatta’ of Imam Malik.
And anyway, there is no consensus that
Bukhari is ‘the most reliable book’ – a big group of Malikis and Hanafis
disagree, while asserting Imam Bukharis’ achievement is altogether Sahih in
chain (but not matn).
In any case, it is not the method of
traditional Islam to take an opinion poll of Shafi, Abu Hanfia, Ahmad etc and
then follow the majority – that would mean we are knowledgeable enough to judge
between them and obviate the need for taqleed (see (x)). Nor is this they
way things are done as it would abolish all differences and the mercy of God
therein. Rather, we are free to follow an Imam’s methodology in hadith, fiqh
etc.
If your appeal is to consensus, then show
it.
And on what basis do you then allow Ibn
Tamiyyah to violate consensus on issues such as the Satanic Verses, the
createdness of the universe and marriage and divorce, as well as Albani to
violate it on the issue of there being weak hadith in Bukhari?
I’m a Deobandi/Brelwi: we
are told to act on hadith if it is sahih, and we are Hanafis so you are wrong,
it is not just Ahl Al Hadith who disagree with you
First of all, Deobandis do not follow the
Hanafi mustalah of hadith but the Shafi one – as have many Hanafis for the past
few hundred years – let us know from which books you have taken Usool of Hadith
– they invariably will not be the Hanafi or Maliki ones. Further, the position
of a madhab or school of law or belief is known from those who are in a
position to narrate it, as shown by the gradings of scholars (x) and not what our
favourite latter day Imams have said.
Show us the clear proof that rejecting a
sahih hadith is not allowed: it is merely not allowed without a valid reason –
the Imams of Fiqh and Creed furnished valid reasons and avoided problems by not
narrating hadith which might cause confusion. The Muhaditheen, in their limited
speciality, did not.
Without Bukhari and other
books we would not know the essentials of our religion
First of all, who told you to do without
Bukhari?
But which essentials of religion would you
lose and where were they before Bukhari was written? If they were in other
books like Bukhari,
why have we lost those but yet have the books of Fiqh and Aqeeda from before
him?
Neither Creed nor fiqh are contained in
those books alone but are derived from the Quran and authenticated Sunnah (as
opposed to Hadith alone) by the fuqaha.
Why do you need ‘Aqeedah Tahawiya’, ‘Al Fiqh
Al Akbar’ or the Sanussi Creed or even the books of the Mujassims like Muhammad
Abd Al Wahhab if it is all in Bukhari already?
The Imams of Creed that
you mentioned merely culled it from Bukhari and other Hadith books
Then why did Imam Bukhari and Tirmidhi etc
not do it themselves but followed other in Aqeeda (As’haris)? And some of the
Imams named pre-date any of the Sahih collections anyway.
All of the Sahih hadith
are in Bukhari and Muslim
No-one claims this within the Orthodoxy, and
you are contradicted by Bukhari who called his Sahih the ‘short
collection’ (xi),
according to him, most of
them are outside these collections.
We don’t need the others,
they are not relevant or as strong as Bukhari
No one says this either but then show me how
to pray a rakat of Salat from Bukhari and Muslim alone
You reject Sahih hadith
based on your whims and to appease modernists
I can just as easily say that you insist on
accepting all of them on your whims and to appease your sect, which is very modern, but…
So were Imam Ahmad and Malik rejecting Sahih
hadith to appease modernists when they did it?
No-one said that Sahih hadith can be
rejected willy – nilly for no
reason but in line with the Usool of hadith set up by the
legitimate schools of jurisprudence.
And if you are so keen to accept ‘Sahih’
narrations, do you accept the narrations of illegitimate children going to
Hell, of grown men being breast-fed in front of the Prophet or the Satanic
Verses incident?
I leave it to the scholars
You mean, you leave it to your chosen scholars, which
means you think you have the ability to judge them and choose your favourites,
thereby actually you are following your own judgement (which is fine I suppose
but at least be honest about it).
Let’s hope the non-Muslims and Christians
who seek to attack us by such narrations leave it to ‘the scholars’ too…
I don’t need Abu Hanifa
and those guys: scholars of Haidth such as Zuhri provided explanations of
all of those narrations you mentioned
So why did the narrators not mention them in
the places when and where they narrated them?
Did they assume that everyone knows all of
the possibly thousands of narrations on each topic, is Mujtahid or has the
books of all Muhaditheen open in front of them when they read a single hadith
like the one about illegitimate children going to Hell?
If so, why are you bringing sahih hadith as
proofs if it is beyond our capability to comprehend them or reconcile them?
Then don’t read them,
leave them to scholars of hadith
If I am to blindly follow anyone, why not
the Fuqahah who have specialisation beyond hadith alone and are from the Salaf?
Why jump ship to the scholars of hadith?
I see your point, but
Bukhari and the Muhaditheen are the best in Hadith and Malik and Shafi are the
best in Fiqh, none is ‘better’ than the others, leave it at that!
So now you are saying that there is no benefit
in being from the generation of the Salaf as Malik and Abu Hanifa are (despite
the hadith of the Prophet praising these generations). Further, you have given
up the view that Salaf are better than the later generations and made Bukhari
equal in rank to Shafi or Abu Hanifa, something he himself never claimed.
Furthermore, you have made someone who set
up the very branches of knowledge and initiated them equal to an expert in just
one of those branches.
Most crucially, if there was no Abu Hanifa
or Malik or Shafi or Ahmad to set up the sciences of hadith in the first place
do you think you would even have a Bukhari to compare them to?
This is no different than asserting that the
later generations were equal to the Sahabah. Absurd.
We Ahl Al Hadith go back
further, to people like Imam Zuhri
So where is his madhab and books of creed,
refutations of atheism etc?
They all
had their madhabs, but they are lost
So it was not the best and most accepted
madhabs that survived and made it to this day, we only have the degenerate
ones, just as Shia brothers say?
And of course the ultimate ‘Hadou-ken’
finishing move of all Salafis and Ahl Al Hadith:
You don’t know Arabic!
(and runs away, even if you are in fact a
Phd in Quranic Arabic)
(i) Ibn Khaldun mentions the
accusation that Imam Abu Hanifa knew only seventeen ahadith in his famous ‘Muqaddima’, writing that
this accusation is completely false as Imam Abu Hanifa’s students Imam Abu
Yusuf and Imam Muhammad narrated a great number of ahadith from Imam Abu Hanifa
which they have written in their books (Kitab al-Athar by Imam Abu Yusuf
and Kitab al-Athar by Imam Muhammad – available in
English). In fact, all of the narrations of ahadith are accumulated in Jami’
al-Masaneed by Imam Abu Hanifa – who is one of the first people to
dictate books on Hadith/Fiqh. Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, etc. all came
a very long time after him. This is why his status
is the highest of all of them as from the famous scholars of Hadith/Fiqh
he is the only one who is a Tabi’i (who have seen the Companions). This
privilege was awarded to Imam Abu Hanifa only and not to Imam Malik, Imam
Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad, Imam al-Bukhari or Imam Muslim.
(ii) Narrated in ‘Sunnah of Abdullah ibn
Ahmad’ (the son of Imam Ahmad)
(iii) ‘History of Baghdad’ by Khatib Baghdadi
(iv) al-Khatîb in al-Jâmi` li Akhlâq
al-Râwî (2:109)
(v) Ibn Abî Khaythama by Abû Nu`aym in the
Hilya (4:225)
(vi) Ibn Rajab in Sharh. `Ilal
al-Tirmidhî (1:413)
(vii) Ibn `Abd al-Salâm, al-Fatâwâ
al-Mawsiliyya (p. 132-134)
(viii) Ibn Abî Hâtim in the introduction of
al-Jarh. wa al-Ta`dîl (p. 22-23); Ibn Abî Zayd, al-Jâmi` fî al-Sunan (p.
118-119)
(ix) Narrated by al-Dhahabî in Tadhkirat
al-Huffâz. (1:307) and Ibn Hajar in Tahdhîb al-Tahdhîb (10:450)
(x) 1. ‘Mujtahid Mutlaq’ –
Such as Imam Abu Hanifah (or Imam Malik etc) – the highest level and it is he
who set up the Hanafi madhab (system of knowledge about religion). They
articulate and prove first principles and base them on sound reasoning – so
they elucidate the epistemology of that madhab. They should not follow any
other scholars of their own or lower level and are not even allowed to do so
since they are able to reason from said first principles. The requirement of
intellect, memory and independent verification and peer review to reach this level
is almost preposterously exacting by any system of knowledge; for example,
knowing everything by heart which can include pieces of evidence ranging into
the hundreds of thousands or even millions verbatim. Such people are thus
exceedingly rare and none will be found to meet the required standard today
(though many will claim it).
2. Mujtahid
Muqayyad – such as Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad (Salafi brothers may
disagree with me but this is due to their own antagonisms and novel
methodology). Theoretically they shouldn’t leave the madhab and they can only
use the already established principles of the madhab to issue fatwa (rulings)
about non – existing masail (new problems that need answers, like for example
nowadays, the permissibility of organ transplantation). But in practice we do
see them leaving the madhab from time to time.
3. As’haab
Tarjeeh – examples would be individuals such as Qadikhan, Sarakhsi.
It’s those who can chose the stronger opinion if there is more than one opinion
availible within the madhab, by weighing the evidence for each position and
choosing. But if there is only one opinion they are not qualified to leave that
opinion. As well as if there is more than one then they are not qualified to
take some opinion from outside of the madhab.
4. Rawil-Madhab –
it’s those who are trusted to narrate the mu’tamad (official) position of the
Madhab.
(xi) Jonathan A C Brown, ‘Criticism of the
proto hadith Canon’, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Journal of
Islamic Studies, 15:1 (2004) Page 20, though Imam Muslim makes the same point
in his introduction to Sahih Muslim.
(xii) Al-Muqiza (p. 80)
(xiv) Fatah ul Bari Sharah Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 8 page 190
(xv) Imam Adh-Dhahabi, ‘Mizan
al-I’tidal’ and ‘Tadhkirat al-Huffaz’
(xvi) Imam Adh-Dhahabi, Mizan
al-I’tidal; al-‘Asqalani, Tahzib at-Tahzib, Biography of Zakariyya
ibn Yahya ath-Thani
(xvii) Al
Mutasaar of Imam
PART 7: UNDERSTANDING DA’IF HADITH
VIEWS OF AUTHORITIES ON ACCEPTANCE OF HADITH E DA’IF
There are three different views
on this matter:
1ST VIEW IS, IT
WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. NEITHER IN LAWS (RULINGS OF SHARI’AH) NOR IN ACTS OF
VIRTUES (FADAEL-UL-AMAAL).
It is often said that above mazhab or opinion
is of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. We can go through hundreds of Books on
Usool-ul-Hadith including that of Imam Bukhari and Muslim, yet we don’t find
this statement mentioned by them. (Imam Bukhari/Muslim). This is something
assumed by people of innovation in our time. And with this they misguide
general people.
2ND VIEW IS, EVERY
WEAK HADITH WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. EVEN IN LAWS (RULINGS OF SHARI’AH) AND ACTS OF
VIRTUES (FADAEL E AMAAL).
There are a lot of Imams following
this point of view. They only put one condition on it that if no Sahih
Hadith on that particular subject is available then the weak Hadith will also
be accepted in deriving rulings of shari’ah on that particular subject.
The Imams who favor the above view point are
as follows Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Tirmidhi, Imam
Nasaai, Imam Ibn e Majah, Imam Ahmad bin Hambal.
The great Muhaddith, Imam
Abdullah bin Ahmad Bin Hambal reports the saying of his father Imam Ahmad bin
Hambal that:
“To act upon a weak Hadith is
better than to follow the views of people or individual.”
This statement of Imam Ahmad Bin
Hambal is mentioned by ALLAMA IBN E TAYMIYYAH, Book: Majmoo’ Al Fatawa, Volume
18, page 52
3RD VIEW IS, WEAK
HADITH WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND WOULD BE ACTED UPON IN CASE OF ACTS OF VIRTUES
(FADAEL E ‘AMAAL) NOT IN LAWS WITH SOME CONDITIONS
The conditions are:
a. weakness shouldn’t be severe.
b. It should fall under some
principle or it should not go against the explicit teachings of Islam.
c. The Niyyah (intention) should
be that: “MAY BE (NOT SURE) HOLY PROPHET PEACE BE UPON HIM INSTRUCTED OR
PRACTICED THIS ACT.”
This point of view is practiced
by majority of Imams of Hadith from 1400 years, some of them are:
1. Imam Abu Haneefah (80-150
Hijri)
2. The Ameer-ul-Momieen in Hadith
Imam Sufyan Thori (97-161 H.)
3. Imam Sufyan bin ‘Uyinah
(107-198 H.)
4. Imam Abdur Rahmaan Bin Mahdi
(135-198 H.)
5. Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal he have
both views (164-241 H.)
6. Imam Abu Dawud (202-275 H.)
7. Imam Tirmidhi (209-279 H.)
8. Imam Ibn e Majah (209-273 H.)
9. Imam Nasaai (215-303 H.)
10. Imam Haakim Neshapuri
(321-405 H.)
11. Ibn e Abdul Bar (368-463 H.)
12. Imam Ibn e Jauzi (508-597H.)
13. Imam Nawawi (631-676 H.)
14. ALLAMA Ibn e Taymiyyah
(661-728 H.)
15. Imam Ibn e Kaseer (700-774
H.)
16. Imam Zain-ud-din al ‘Iraqi
(725-806 H.)
17. Hafiz Ibn e Hajr ‘Asqalani
(773-852 H.)
18. Imam Sakhawi (831-902 H.)
19. Hafiz Jalal-ud-din suyuti
(849-911 H.)
20. Imam Ibn e Hajar Maki
(909-974 H.)
21. Imam Mulla Ali Qari (D. 1014
H.)
So whoever says that Hadith e
Da’if (weak Hadith) is totally rejected is opposing the consensus of scholars
from 1400 years. May ALLAH save us from people of innovation.
SOME MORE SAYINGS
OF EXPERTS OF HADITH SCHOLARS REGARDING WEAK HADITH
The Grand Teacher
of Imam Bukhari, Imam Abdul Rahman Bin Mahdi said:
“Whenever we reported some
Ahadith in matter of Sawaab, Punishment, Reward and Acts of virtues (Fadael e
‘Amaal) we used to become very lenient and very soft on transmitters in this case.
And when there was a matter of Halaal, Haraam or Big matters (Ahkamaat) then we
used to be very strict.”
Al Madkhal-Imam Haakim, 29/1
Jami Ikhlaaq Ar Rawi-Imam Khateeb
Baghdadi, 91/2, #1267
Imam Ahmad Bin
Hambal Said:
“We used to become strict when
there was a matter of halaal, haraam and Shari’ah. And if the matter was
related to virtues acts (Fadael e ‘Amaal) then we used to become very lenient
and soft in case of Asaneed (Chain of narrators).”
Al Kifayah-Imam Khateb Baghdadi,
134/1
Imam Nawawi says in
At Taqreeb:
“If you see a Hadith Da’if in Asnaad, It never
means that its text is Da’if. It means its Sanad is weak.”
At Taqreeb-Imam Nawawi, 47/1
Same types of statements were
also mentioned by Imam Jalal-ud-din Suyuti and many other great Imams of
Hadith.
HADITH
ON ACCEPTING THE DA’IF HADITH IN CASE OF ACTS OF VIRTUES
Hadith
number 1
Reported by
Anas bin Malik RADI ALLAH TA’ALA ANHU that Prophet PEACE BE UPON HIM said:
“If anybody
performs his duties (fareedah) and he teaches the people the pious acts, he
will be regarded as superior to other people like my superiority to other
people. If anybody received some Hadith (or news) based on virtues acts and
that person accepted that narration, he would be rewarded for that even the one
who reported was a liar.”
From: Ibn e
Abdul Barr al Maliki Book: Jami’ Bayan Al ‘Ilm, Volume: 1, Page: 103, Hadith
number: 93
Hadith
number 2
Reported by
Abu Hurairah RADI ALLAH TA’ALA ANHU that PROPHET PEACE BE UPON HIM said:
"I do
not want to hear of anyone of you who, upon hearing a Hadith narrated from me,
says while reclining on his pillow: 'Recite Qur'an (to verify this Hadith).'
(Here the Prophet SAW said) Any excellent word that is said, it is I who have
said it." [How can you reject what I have said?].”
From: Ibn e
Majah hadith number: 21
Hadith
number 3
Reported by
Abu Hurairah RADI ALLAH TA’ALA ANHU that PROPEHT PEACHE BE UPON HIM said:
“I know
those persons who will be receiving a Hadith, Somebody transmits my Hadith to
them. They would say I don’t accept it and put this Hadith (in front of me) in
comparison of Quran. (Oh my Ummah!) Whatever you hear if it is a good thing (it
is an act of virtue) you may consider it that I might have said it. If anything
comes to you based in evil don’t accept it. I never said about evil things.”
Al
Musnad-Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal, 400/14, #8801
Al
Musnad-Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal, 188/16, #10269
CLEAR-CUT ANSWERS FOR THOSE WHO REJECT WEAK AH̩ÃDĨTH (FOR
FAḌĀ’IL AL-AʿMĀL)
Foreword by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed
Praise be to Allah that is due from all grateful believers, a fullness of praise for all his favours: a praise that is abundantly sincere and blessed. May the blessings of Allah be upon our beloved Master Muhammad, the chosen one, the Apostle of mercy and the seal of all Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all); and upon his descendants who are upright and pure: a blessing lasting to the Day of Judgment, like the blessing bestowed upon the Prophet Ibrahim (alaihis salam) and his descendants. May Allah be pleased with all of the Prophetic Companions (Ashab al-Kiram). Indeed, Allah is most worthy of praise and supreme glorification!
I was forwarded this short epistle in repudiation of the claim that merely weak (da’eef) Ahādīth cannot be used for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). It being the compilation of a noble brother and student of the deen by the name of Abu Humayd from England. His riposte was directed at an individual using the screen name – “Ahlul-Isnaad” or ibn Abi Raza, also known as Raza Hassan. A simple internet search lead to the conclusion that he seems to be closely associated with the methodology of the late and controversial Zubair Ali Za’i (d. 2013) of Pakistan when it comes to their understanding of the principles connected to Hadīth, as well as being an admirer of Nasirud-Din al-Albani (d. 1999). He is also linked with similar minded disseminators in England and Pakistan that have been the subject of a few responses from this pen.
With regard to the issue at hand, it is pertinent to follow what the majority of the Muhaddithin (Hadīth scholars) have stated using acknowledged principles, and for the benefit of the readers, the following narrations have been incorporated into this introduction to substantiate the position of the vast majority of the trustworthy Sunni Hadīth scholars of the past. The quotes serve to show the contradistinction between the majority of the profoundly learned scholars of Hadīth and those who pay lip service by claiming to follow their way in this age.
The late al-Albani (see his Tamām al-Minna, p. 35), held the minority stance of rejecting the acting upon of weak type of narrations for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and this trend is also seen in the actions of some of his followers, albeit in a zealous manner, in printed literature, masjids, internet sites, forums, social media or on the streets. These folk are reminded to study the following quotes to see where the truth lies and what was the real way of the majority of the Imams of the Salaf and their successors (khalaf) in this matter of acting on weak Ahādīth connected to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and the like that have been mentioned in this work.
In this regard, the well-known Imam from the Salaf known as Abdur Rahman Ibn Mahdi (d. 198 AH), has been attributed with the following statement as reported by Imam Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) in his Mustadrak (1/490), and in his al-Madkhal ala Kitab al-Iklil (p. 4):
فَإِنِّي
سَمِعْتُ أَبَا زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ ، يَقُولُ :
سَمِعْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ
الْحَنْظَلِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : كَانَ أَبِي يَحْكِي عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ
مَهْدِيٍّ ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا رَوَينَا عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْحَلاَلِ ، وَالْحَرَامِ ، وَالأَحْكَامِ ، شَدَّدْنَا فِي
الأَسَانِيدِ ، وَانْتَقَدْنَا الرِّجَالَ ، وَإِذَا رَوَينَا فِي فَضَائِلِ
الأَعْمَالِ وَالثَّوَابِ ، وَالْعِقَابِ ، وَالْمُبَاحَاتِ ، وَالدَّعَوَاتِ
تَسَاهَلْنَا فِي الأَسَانِيدِ
Ibn Mahdi said:
“If reports are related to us from the Prophet ﷺ concerning what is lawful (halal) and forbidden (haram), and legal rulings (al-Ahkām), we are severe with the chains of transmission (asānid) and we disparage the narrators. But if we are told reports concerning the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), their rewards (thawāb) and punishments [in the Hereafter], permissible things or devout invocations, we are lenient with the chains of transmission (asānid).”
There is a similar report from Ibn Mahdi in al-Khatib al-Baghdadi’s (d. 463 AH) al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rāwi wa Adab al-Sāmi‘ (2/91 no. 1267). Imam Badrud-Din al-Zarkashi (d. 794 AH) has also mentioned in his Nukat ala Ibn al-Salah (2/308) that the same report from ibn Mahdi has been recorded by Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) in his al-Madkhal.
Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH) has been reported to have said that one may narrate from a weak (da’eef) narrator those type of narrations connected to good conduct (adab), admonition (maw’iza) and sobriety (zuhd). See Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil of ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (2/30) under the following chapter heading for Ibn al-Mubarak’s report:
باب
في الآداب والمواعظ أنها تحتمل الرواية عن الضعاف
Meaning:
“Chapter on (narrations regarding) good manners and admonitions: they may be carried forth as a report from weak narrators.”
Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH) has incorporated into his al-Adab al-Mufrad a number of weak Ahadīth which fall under the realm of virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). The same can be noticed from the Kitab al-Zuhd of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Kitab al-Zuhd of Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, as stated by Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda (d. 1997) in his editing of Shaykh Abdul Hayy al-Laknawi’s (d. 1304 AH) Zafar al-Amāni (p. 185). Shaykh Abdal Fattah Abu Ghudda also responded to the claims of Shaykh Jamalud-Din al-Qāsimi (d. 1914) and his own teacher, Shaykh Muhammad Zāhid al-Kawthari (d. 1951), that Imam al-Bukhari did not allow acting on weak Hadīth in an absolute manner on the same page of his editing of Zafar al-Amani.
Shaykh Abdal Fattah also quoted al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s Hadi al-Sāri while inferring Imam al-Bukhari’s methodology on incorporating less authentic Hadīth. This was mentioned with regard to a narrator who was weakened by some while praised by most scholars, and was known by the name Muhammad ibn Abdur Rahman al-Tufawi and his transmission of the narration: “Be in this world as if you are a stranger (kun fi al-dunyā ka’annaka gharīb).” See the above reference to Zafar al-Amāni for details.
Of the later Hadīth compilations containing certain weak Ahādīth connected to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), or exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), were works by Imams like Ibn Shāhin (d. 385 AH) in his al-Targhib fi Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, Abul Qasim al-Asbahāni (d. 525 AH) in his Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl, Abdul Azim al-Mundhiri (d. 656 AH) in his famous al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, Diya al-Maqdisi (d. 643 AH) in his Kitab Faḍā’il al-Aʿmāl and other works. All of the named works are now in print.
Some scholars have also claimed that Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 261 AH) rejected the use of weak narrations in any matter based on their readings of his introduction (Muqaddima) to Sahih Muslim. This point was contended by the leading Syrian Muhaddith, Shaykh Nurud-Din Itr, in his editing of Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d. 795 AH) Sharḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmidhī (1/76), where he said that Imam Muslim was in line with the majority of the scholars of Hadīth in allowing the use of weak Hadīths (using certain principles) related to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and the like.
What indicates this further is the fact that Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) wrote one of the most famous commentaries to Sahih Muslim, and as will be seen below he too not only said it was permissible to act upon weak narrations for virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl); but he stated in some of his works that there was agreement of the Hadīth scholars and others to do so.
Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) was one the leading experts of Hadīth in his time. In his al-Kifāya fi 'Ilm al-Riwāya (1/133), he said:
بَابُ
التَّشَدُّدِ فِي أَحَادِيثِ الْأَحْكَامِ ، وَالتَّجَوُّزِ فِي فَضَائِلِ
الْأَعْمَالِ : قَدْ وَرَدَ عَنْ غَيْرِ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ السَّلَفِ أَنَّهُ لَا
يَجُوزُ حَمْلُ الْأَحَادِيثِ الْمُتَعَلِّقَةِ بِالتَّحْلِيلِ وَالتَّحْرِيمِ
إِلَّا عَمَّنْ كَانَ بَرِيئًا مِنَ التُّهْمَةِ ، بَعِيدًا مِنَ الظِّنَّةِ ،
وَأَمَّا أَحَادِيثُ التَّرْغِيبِ وَالْمَوَاعِظِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ فَإِنَّهُ
يَجُوزُ كَتْبُهَا عَنْ سَائِرِ الْمَشَايِخِ
Meaning:
“Chapter on strictness in legal Hadīths (Ahādīth al-Ahkām) and the permissibility in the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). It has been quoted from many of the pious predecessors (al-Salaf) that it is not permitted to transmit ḥadīths concerning permissibility (Halal) and prohibition (Haram) except from those who are free of accusation, far from suspicion. But as for the ḥadīths of encouragement (targhīb), preaching (mawāʿiẓ) and similar things, it is permitted to record them from other Shaykhs.”
Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi has also mentioned a report with his chain of transmission back to Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal in his al-Kifāya (1/134) as saying:
ثنا
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ الْقَطَّانُ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ ، لَفْظًا ، أنا مُحَمَّدُ
بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَافِظُ،, قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا
زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا
الْعَبَّاسِ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ السِّجْزِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ
النَّوْفَلِيَّ يَعْنِي أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَحْمَدَ بْنَ
حَنْبَلٍ ، يَقُولُ: «إِذَا رَوَيْنَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ فِي الْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ وَالسُّنَنِ وَالْأَحْكَامِ
تَشَدَّدْنَا فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ ، وَإِذَا رَوَيْنَا عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى
اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَّ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ وَمَا لَا يَضَعُ حُكْمًا
وَلَا يَرْفَعُهُ تَسَاهَلْنَا فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ»
Meaning:
Ibn Hanbal said: If reports are related to us from the Prophet ﷺ concerning what is lawful (halal), forbidden (haram), the Sunnas and legal rulings, we are severe with the chains of transmission (asānid). But if reports are related to us from the Prophet ﷺ concerning virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and what does not place a judgement and not raised back, we are lenient with the chains of transmission (asānid).”
Some scholars have weakened the above narration back to ibn Hanbal due to the weakness of the sub-narrators Abul Abbas Ahmed ibn Muhammad al-Sijzi and al-Nawfali. The same narration was also recorded by Imam Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) in his al-Madkhal ala Kitab al-Iklil.
Nevertheless, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) has mentioned the following point in his al-Qawl al-Musaddad (p. 11):
وَقد
ثَبت عَن الإِمَام أَحْمد وَغَيره من الْأَئِمَّة أَنهم قَالُوا إِذا روينَا فِي
الْحَلَال وَالْحرَام شددنا وَإِذا روينَا فِي الْفَضَائِل وَنَحْوهَا تساهلنا
Meaning:
“It has been established from Imam Ahmed (ibn Hanbal) and others from the Imams that they said: If reports are related to us [from the Prophet ﷺ] concerning what is permitted (halal) and forbidden (haram), we are strict; and if reports are related to us on the virtues (al- faḍā’il) or the like, we show our leniency.”
It may be that Ibn Hajar knew of an authentic chain of transmission going back to ibn Hanbal to establish what was attributed to him in the above quote from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and al-Hakim.
Another contemporary scholar who lived in the time of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was the Syrian Muhaddith, al-Hafiz Ibn Nasirud-Din al-Dimashqi (d. 842 AH). In his work on the prayer known as Salatul Tasbih, entitled al-Tarjih li Hadīth Salatil-Tasbih (p. 36), he has mentioned that Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi and ibn Hanbal were lenient on the transmission of weak narrations to do with instilling virtue and inspiring fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), stories (qisas), parables (amthal), admonitions (mawa’iz) and virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), and that the majority of scholars permit acting upon such narrations.
Later scholars like al-Hafiz ibn Hajar have stipulated three conditions for acting on such weak type of narrations (see later).
There are some examples where ibn Hanbal allowed the use of such narrations not connected to legal rulings. An example is mentioned in al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (p. 93) of ibn Hanbal as transmitted by his student, al-Marrudhi, as follows:
218 - وَسُئِلَ عن النَّضْر بن
إِسْمَاعِيْل أَبِي المُغِيْرَة؟ فَقَاَلَ: قَدْ كتبنا عنه، لَيْسَ هو بقوي، يعتبر
بحديثه، ولكن ما كَاَنَ من رقائق وكَاَنَ أكثر حديثًا من ابن السَّمَّاك
“And I asked him (Ibn Hanbal) about al-Nadr ibn Isma’il Abi al-Mughira. He said: ‘We have written [Hadīths] from him; he is not strong; his ḥadīths are considered, but only in raqā’iq. Most of his Hadīths are from ibn al-Sammak.’”
Raqā’iq or riqāq are those type of narrations that are considered to be heart softeners in terms of their meanings.
A contemporary of ibn Hanbal’s was the famous expert on Hadīth narrators known as Imam Abū Zakariyya Yahya Ibn Ma’īn (d. 233 AH). Imam Ibn Sayyid al-Nās (d. 734 AH) has claimed in the beginning of his Uyun al-Athar that Ibn Ma’īn did not permit any type of weak narration to be used in any matter. This claim does not seem to be accurately proven from Ibn Ma’īn as the following examples show.
Imam Abū Ahmed Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH) has recorded the following in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (10/216, Rushd edition) from Ibn Ma’īn on his standing on a weak type of narrator, and his narration being acceptable for raqā’iq type of narrations:
17241 -حَدثنا علي بن أحمد، حَدثنا ابن أبي مريم، سمعت يحيى بن مَعين يقول:
أَبو معشر المدني ضعيف يكتب من حديثه الرقاق، وكان رجلاً أُميا يتقى أن يرْوَى من
حديثه المسند
Ibn Ma’īn said: “Abu Ma’shar al-Madani is weak, but his ḥadīths on riqāq can be recorded. He was an illiterate man, and one should fear narrating his musnad Hadīths.”
Ibn ʿAdī has recorded the following also in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (9/515):
15993 - حَدثنا علان، حَدثنا ابن أبي
مريم، سألت يَحيى، عن موسى بن عبيدة الربذي؟ فقال: ضَعيف، إلا أنه يكتب من حديثه
الرقاق
Ibn Ma’īn was asked about the narrator known as Musa ibn Ubayda al-Rabadhi and he said: “Weak (in Hadīth), except that his Hadīth on riqāq may be written down.”
The last narration was also recorded by Imam Abū Ja’far Al-Uqayli (d. 322 AH) in his Kitab al-Du’afa (4/1314).
Ibn ʿAdī has also recorded the following in his al-Kāmil fi Du’afa al-Rijāl (2/235):
2319 - حَدثنا علي بن أحمد بن سليمان،
حَدثنا أحمد بن سعد بن أبي مريم، قال: سمعتُ يَحيى بن مَعين يقول: إدريس بن سنان
يكتب من حديثه الرقاق
Ibn Ma’īn said about the narrator known as Idris ibn Sinan: “His Hadīth on riqāq may be written down.”
Idris ibn Sinan was declared to be overall weak by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib (no. 294)
Two more contemporaries to al-Khatib al-Baghdadi who touched on this matter were the two Huffāz of Hadīth, Abu Umar ibn Abd al Barr al-Maliki (d. 463 AH) and al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH).
Ibn Abd al-Barr said in his al-Tamhīd li-mā fī al-Muwaṭṭa’ min al-Maʿānī wa’l-Asānīd (1/127), after mentioning a narration via an unknown narrator named Abu Abdul Ghani:
وأهل
العلم ما زالوا يسامحون أنفسهم في رواية الرغائب والفضائل عن كل أحد وإنما كانوا
يتشددون في أحاديث الأحكام
Meaning:
“The People of Knowledge have always been tolerant in narrating reports on devout aspirations (al-raghā’ib) and virtues (al-faḍā’il) from everybody. They were stringent only on ḥadīths regarding legal rulings (Ahādīth al-Ahkām).”
Al-Bayhaqi reported the following from Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) in his Shu’ab al-Imān (3/428, no. 1914):
قَالَ
أَحْمَدُ: " وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ فِي دُعَاءِ الْخَتْمِ حَدِيثٌ مُنْقَطِعٌ بِإِسْنَادٍ ضَعِيفٍ وَقَدْ
تَسَاهَلَ أَهْلُ الْحَدِيثِ فِي قَبُولِ مَا وَرَدَ مِنَ الدَّعَوَاتِ
وَفَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ، مَتَى مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ مَنْ يُعْرَفُ
بِوَضْعِ الْحَدِيثِ أَوِ الْكَذِبِ فِي الرِّوَايَةِ "
Meaning:
“And a broken chained (munqati) Hadīth has been reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on the supplication of completing (the Qur’an), with a weak (da’eef) chain of transmission. The People of Ḥadīth (Ahlul-Hadīth) have been lenient (tasāhala) in accepting what has appeared regarding devout supplications (al-da’awāt) and the virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), as long as no one (in the isnād) was a known forger of Hadīth, or a liar in the narration.”
Imam Abu Amr ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) said in his famous Muqaddima (p. 98, Nurud-Din Itr edn) on Hadīth terminology:
اعْلَمْ
أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ الْمَوْضُوعَ شَرُّ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ، وَلَا تَحِلُّ
رِوَايَتُهُ لِأَحَدٍ عَلِمَ حَالَهُ فِي أَيِّ مَعْنًى كَانَ إِلَّا مَقْرُونًا
بِبَيَانِ وَضْعِهِ، بِخِلَافِ غَيْرِهِ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ الَّتِي
يُحْتَمَلُ صِدْقُهَا فِي الْبَاطِنِ، حَيْثُ جَازَ رِوَايَتُهَا فِي التَّرْغِيبِ
وَالتَّرْهِيبِ، عَلَى مَا نُبَيِّنُهُ قَرِيبًا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى
The above has been presented in the English edition under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadīth” (p. 77) as follows:
“The forged Hadīth is the fabricated, made-up Hadīth. Be aware that the forged Hadīth is the worst kind of the weak Hadīth. It is not permissible under any circumstance for someone who is aware that a Hadīth is forged to relate it, unless coupled with a declaration that it is forged. This is different from the other kinds of weak Hadīth - which may possibly be fundamentally truthful - in as much as it is permissible to transmit the other kinds of weak Hadīth to instill virtue and inspire fear (al-targhib wa-l-tarhib), as we will explain shortly, God (He is exalted) willing.”
Ibn al-Salah also said in his Muqaddima (p. 103):
يَجُوزُ
عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَغَيْرِهِمُ التَّسَاهُلُ فِي الْأَسَانِيدِ
وَرِوَايَةِ مَا سِوَى الْمَوْضُوعِ مِنْ أَنْوَاعِ الْأَحَادِيثِ الضَّعِيفَةِ
مِنْ غَيْرِ اهْتِمَامٍ بِبَيَانِ ضَعْفِهَا فِيمَا سِوَى صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ
تَعَالَى وَأَحْكَامِ الشَّرِيعَةِ مِنَ الْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ وَغَيْرِهَا.
وَذَلِكَ كَالْمَوَاعِظِ، وَالْقِصَصِ، وَفَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ، وَسَائِرِ
فُنُونِ التَّرْغِيبِ وَالتَّرْهِيبِ، وَسَائِرِ مَا لَا تَعَلُّقَ لَهُ
بِالْأَحْكَامِ وَالْعَقَائِدِ. وَمِمَّنْ رُوِّينَا عَنْهُ التَّنْصِيصَ عَلَى
التَّسَاهُلِ فِي نَحْوِ ذَلِكَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، وَأَحْمَدُ
بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا.
The above has been presented in the English edition (p. 80) as follows:
“In the opinion of the scholars of Hadīth and others, some laxity is tolerated in the provision of isnāds and in the transmission of Hadīth from the various categories of weak Hadīth - with the exception of forged Hadīth - without bothering to explain their weakness. This applies in topics other than the characteristics of God (He is exalted) and legal rulings concerning the permitted and forbidden, and so forth.
It is valid, for instance, for sermons, stories, the descriptions of the rewards associated with the performance of various religious acts, the other types of Hadīth inspiring virtue and instilling fear, and the Hadīth on other matters having no connection to legal rulings and theological issues. ʿAbd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ahmad b. Hanbal (God be pleased with them) are some of those we heard from who totally forbade laxity in Hadīth like these.”
As for the last portion from the English translation of ibn al-Salah’s above work, the translator published it as: “Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ahmad b. Hanbal (God be pleased with them) are some of those we heard from who totally forbade laxity in Hadīth like these.”
What they forbade laxity on was acting on and using narrations to do with legal rulings (Ahkam al-Shari’a) which were not proven authentic. The same would apply to theological issues connected to creedal issues (aqa’id).
A better translation would be: “Among those from whom we narrate such a requirement of laxity on such matters are Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi and Ahmed ibn Hanbal – May Allah be pleased with both of them."
Within this article, quotes have been provided earlier on from Ibn Mahdi and his student ibn Hanbal allowing laxity on acting on narrations to do with virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) if the narrations are weak overall.
The above point from Ibn al-Salah was reported similarly by Imam Jalalud-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) in his Tahdhir al-Khawass (pp. 74-75), and straight after it al-Suyuti said:
وَقد
أطبق على ذَلِك عُلَمَاء الحَدِيث فجزموا بِأَنَّهُ لَا تحل رِوَايَة الْمَوْضُوع
فِي أَي معنى كَانَ إلا مَقْرُونا بِبَيَان وَضعه ، بِخِلَاف الضَّعِيف فإنه تجوز
رِوَايَته فِي غير الْأَحْكَام والعقائد ، وَمِمَّنْ جزم بذلك : شيخ الإسلام محيي
الدّين النَّوَوِيّ فِي كِتَابيه الإرشاد والتقريب ، وقاضي الْقُضَاة بدر الدّين
ابْن جمَاعَة في المنهل الروي ، وَالطِّيبِي فِي الْخُلَاصَة ، وَشَيخ الإسلام
سراج الدّين البُلْقِينِيّ فِي محَاسِن الِاصْطِلَاح ، وحافظ عصره الشَّيْخ زيد
الدّين أَبُو الْفضل عبد الرَّحِيم الْعِرَاقِيّ فِي ألفيته وَشَرحهَا وَعبارَة
الألفية
Meaning:
“On this the scholars of Hadīth correspond one and all, and they firmly assert that it is impermissible to relate a fabrication in any sense of any kind except together with the elucidation of its being fabricated, contrary to the weak Hadīth, which it is permitted to relate in other than legal rulings (ahkām) and creedal issues (aqā’id).
Amongst those who have positively affirmed this is Shaykh al-Islam Muhyud-Din al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) in his two books, al-Irshād and al-Taqrīb; Qadi al-Qudāt Badrud-Din ibn Jama’ah (d. 733 AH) in al-Manhal al-Rāwi; al-Tībi (d. 743 AH) in al-Khulasa; Shaykh al-Islam Sirajud-Din al-Bulqini (d. 805 AH) in Mahāsin al-Istilah; and the Hadīth master (Hafiz) of his age, Shaykh Zaynud-Din Abul Fadl Abdur Rahim al-Iraqi (d. 806 AH) in his Alfiyya and its commentary.”
Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said in his Kitab al-Adhkar (p. 8):
قال
العلماءُ من المحدّثين والفقهاء وغيرهم: يجوز ويُستحبّ العمل في الفضائل والترغيب
والترهيب بالحديث الضعيف ما لم يكن موضوعاً. وأما الأحكام كالحلال والحرام والبيع
والنكاح والطلاق وغير ذلك فلا يُعمل فيها إلا بالحديث الصحيح أو الحسن
Meaning:
“The scholars from the Hadīth experts (muhaddithin), the jurisprudents (fuqaha) and others said: It is permitted and praiseworthy to act on (Hadīths on the) virtues (fada’il), exhortation to do good (targhib) and instilling fear (tarhib), with the weak (da’eef) Hadīth if it is not fabricated.
As for the legal rulings like the Halal (permitted) and Haram (forbidden), sale (of goods), marriage, divorce and other than that, one should not act on them except with authentic (Sahih) or good (Hasan) Hadīth.”
Imam al-Nawawi said in his al-Tarkhīs fi al-Ikram bi al-Qiyam li Dhawi al-Fadl wa al-Maziyya min Ahl al-Islam (pp. 17-18, 1st edition):
ولكن
هذا الحديث من باب الفضائل ، وقد اتفق أهل الحَدِيث وَغَيرهم على الْعَمَل فِي
الْفَضَائِل وَنَحْوهَا من القصص وشبهها مما ليس فيه حكم ولا شىء من العقائد وصفات
ألله تعالى بالحديث الضعيف ، والله أعلم
Meaning:
“But this Hadīth is from the chapter on virtues, and the People of Hadīth (Ahlul-Hadīth) and others are agreed on the acting on such to do with virtues and so on, from stories which are like it, provided they are not to do with a legal ruling, and nothing from creedal beliefs and the Attributes of Allah most High, with weak Hadīth, and Allah knows best.”
Imam al-Nawawi said in his introduction to his well-known al-Arba’un al-Nawawiyya:
وقد
اتفق العلماء على جواز العمل بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال
Meaning:
“The scholars are agreed it is permissible to act on a weak (da’eef) Hadīth in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
Imam al-Nawawi said in his Fatāwa (p. 75, Kitab al Jana’iz) after mentioning a Hadīth on talqin (instructing the deceased Muslim)
وهو
حديث ضعيف، ولكن يُستأنس به، وقد اتفق علماء الحديث وغيرهم على المسامحة في أحاديث
الفضائل والترغيب والترهيب
Meaning:
“It is a weak (da’eef) Hadīth, but one feels content with it. The scholars of Hadīth and others agree on indulgence towards Ahadīth on virtues (al-Fada’il), exhortation and instilling fear.”
Imam al-Nawawi has also mentioned acting on weak Ahadīth for faḍā’il al-aʿmāl in various places of his al-Majmu Sharh al-Muhadhhab (see 2/94, 3/248 and 8/261). As part of a discussion on a Hadīth found in Sunan Abi Dawud, he said in al-Majmu (3/122):
فَهُوَ
حَدِيثٌ ضَعِيفٌ لَكِنَّ الضَّعِيفَ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ
“For it is a weak Hadīth, but the weak (Hadīth) is acted upon in faḍā’il al-aʿmāl (virtuous actions) by agreement of the scholars.”
Imam al-Nawawi also said in his al-Tibyān fi ādāb Hamalat al-Qur’an (p. 4):
واعلم
أن العلماء من الحديث وغيرهم جوزوا العمل بالضعيف في فضائل الأعمال
Meaning:
“Know that the scholars of Hadīth and others permit acting on weak (Hadīth) in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
Imam al-Nawawi has also discussed the acting upon of weak Ahadīth on virtuous actions in his Sharh on Sahih Muslim known as al-Minhāj (see 1/125, 1st edition 1929 CE/1347 AH).
Al-Hafiz Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi (d. 806 AH) said in his poem on Hadīth terminology known as the Alfiyya:
255 - وَسَهَّلُوا في غَيْرِ
مَوْضُوْعٍ رَوَوْا ... مِنْ غَيْرِ تَبْيِينٍ لِضَعْفٍ، وَرَأوْا
256 - بَيَانَهُ في الحُكْمِ
وَالعَقَائِدِ ... عَنِ (ابنِ مَهْدِيٍّ) وَغَيْرِ وَاحِدِ
Meaning:
And they eased (the criteria) in narrating other than the forged narration
Without having to indicate its weakness, but this they consider
In explaining what pertains to legal judgements and doctrinal issues
As related from Ibn Mahdi and more than one (scholar of Hadīth)
Al-Iraqi mentioned the following in his own commentary to the Alfiyya that was published under the title Sharh al-Tabsira wa al-Tadhkira (1/325):
وأمّا
غيرُ الموضوعِ فجوّزوا التساهُل في إسنادِهِ وروايتِهِ من غيرِ بيانٍ لضَعْفِهِ
إذا كانَ في غيرِ الأحكامِ والعقائدِ. بلْ في الترغيبِ والترهيبِ، من المواعظِ
والقصصِ، وفضائلِ الأعمالِ، ونحوِها. أما إذا كانَ في الأحكامِ الشرعيةِ من
الحلالِ والحرامِ وغيرِهما، أو في العقائدِ كصفاتِ اللهِ تَعَالَى، وما يجوزُ
ويستحيلُ عَلَيْهِ، ونحوِ ذلكَ، فَلَمْ يَرَوا التساهلَ في ذَلِكَ. وممَّنْ نصَّ
عَلَى ذَلِكَ من الأئمةِ عبدُ الرحمنِ بنُ مهديٍّ، وأحمدُ بنُ حنبلٍ، وعبدُ اللهِ
بنُ المباركِ، وغيرُهُمْ. وقدْ عقدَ ابنُ عديٍّ في مقدّمةِ " الكاملِ "،
والخطيبُ في " الكفايةِ " باباً لذلكَ
Meaning:
“As for what is besides the fabricated narration, they permitted lenience in the chain of transmission and its transmission without explaining its weakness. That is, if it is besides that related to legal rulings (ahkām) and creedal beliefs, like in exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wal Tarhib), from preaching, stories, and virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) and so on.
As for what is to do with Shari’a-based rulings from what is permitted (halal), forbidden (haram) and so on, or that to do with beliefs pertaining to the Attributes of Allah most High, it may be not possible to allow that, and so on. They did not see this lenience on that. As for the Imams who have a textual saying on this, they are Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and others from them. Ibn Adi and al-Khatib (al-Baghdadi) have a chapter on this in the introduction to al-Kāmil (fi Du’afa al-Rijāl) and in al-Kifāya (fi 'Ilm al-Riwāya) respectively.”
Note, in the earlier part of this article, the points from Ibn Mahdi, Ibn Hanbal and ibn al-Mubarak have all been provided. The last quote was also mentioned with similar wording by al-Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) in his commentary on the above-named Alfiyya under the title, Fath al-Mugith (1/349), as well as by Imam Ibn al-Wazir (d. 840 AH) in his Tanqīḥ al-anẓār fī maʿrifat ʿulūm al-āthār (pp. 185-186)
Imam Ali al-Qāri al-Hanafi (d. 1014 AH) said in his al-Asrar al-Marfu’a (no. 434) after mentioning the weakness of a narration on wiping the neck during ablution:
وَالضَّعِيفُ
يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ اتِّفَاقًا وَلَذَا قَالَ أَئِمَّتُنَا
إِنَّ مَسْحَ الرَّقَبَةِ مُسْتَحَبٌّ أَوْ سُنَّةٌ
Meaning:
“And the weak Hadīth is put into practice by agreement in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl). Hence our (Hanafi) Imams said that wiping the neck is desirable or a Sunna.”
Ali al-Qāri also mentioned in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (2/806, no. 1019):
لِأَنَّ
غَايَتَهُ أَنَّهُ كَالضَّعِيفِ، وَهُوَ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
اتِّفَاقًا
Meaning:
“For its end result is like that of the weak (hadith), and it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement”
He also quoted his teacher (Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami) as saying, in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/880, no. 1144) about a broken chained (munaqti) narration which is technically weak (da’eef), the following point:
قَالَ
ابْنُ حَجَرٍ: رَوَاهُ التِّرْمِذِيُّ بِسَنَدٍ مُنْقَطِعٍ وَمَعَ ذَلِكَ يُعْمَلُ
بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
Meaning:
“Ibn Hajar said: ‘Al-Tirmidhi related it with a broken chain (munqati) of transmission; with that, it may be acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).’”
He also said in Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/895):
مَعَ
أَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعُوا عَلَى جَوَازِ الْعَمَلِ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي
فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
Meaning:
“With that, they agreed on the permissibility to act on a weak Hadīth in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
He also quoted his teacher Ibn Hajar as saying in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (3/969):
لَكِنْ
يَعْمَلُ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ بِاتِّفَاقِ
الْعُلَمَاءِ
“But a weak Hadīth is acted on in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement of the scholars (ittifaq al-ulama).”
He also said in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih (4/1603, no. 2313):
إِسْنَادُهُ
ضَعِيفٌ، لَكِنْ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
“Its chain of transmission is weak, but it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
He also said in Mirqāt al-Mafātih (8/3117, no. 4976):
وَعَلَى
تَقْدِيرِ ضَعْفِهِ يُعْمَلُ بِهِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ إِجْمَاعًا
“And on assessment of its weakness, it is acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement (ijma).”
There are several more examples where Ali al-Qāri spoke about the permissibility to act on weak narrations in virtuous actions in his Mirqāt al-Mafātih.
Indeed, Imam ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) mentioned in his al-Fatawa al-Hadīthiyya (p. 132) while answering a question with regard to Imam al-Nawawi’s Kitab al-Adhkar, the following with regard to acting on certain types of weak narrations connected to virtuous actions:
لأن
الحديث الضعيف والمرسل والمعضل والمنقطع يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال اتفاقا بل
إجماعا على ما فيه
Meaning:
“Because the weak (da’eef) Hadīth, the mursal, mu’dal, munqati, are acted upon in virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl) by agreement (ittifaq), rather by consensus (ijma) upon it.”
The ruling of al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) on acting on weak Ahadīth for faḍā’il al-aʿmāl was mentioned by his student, al-Hafiz al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) in his al-Qawl al-Badi‘ fi al-Salat wa al-Salam ‘ala [al-Habib] al-Shafi‘ (p. 255) as part of the following discussion:
قال
شيخ الإسلام أبو زكريا النووي - رحمه الله - في الأذكار قال العلماء من المحدثين
والفقهاء وغيرهم يجوز ويستحب العمل في الفضائل والترغيب والترهيب بالحديث الضعيف
ما لم يكن موضوعاً وأما الأحكام كالحلال والحرام والبيع والنكاح والطلاق وغير ذلك
فلا يعمل فيها إلا بالحديث الصحيح أو الحسن إلا أن يكون في احتياط في شيء من ذلك
كما إذا أورد حديث ضعيف بكراهة بعض البيوع أو الأنكحة فإن المستحب أن يتنزه عنه
ولكن لا يجب، انتهى.
وخالف
ابن العربي المالكي في ذلك فقال إن الحديث الضعيف لا يعمل به مطلقاً وقد سمعت
شيخنا مراداً يقول وكتبه لي بخطه أن شرائط العمل بالضعيف ثلاثة، الأول متفق عليه
أن يكون الضعف غير شديد فيخرج من انفرد من الكذابين والمتهمين بالكذب ومن فحش
غلطه، الثاني أن يكون مندرجاً تحت أصل عام فيخرج ما يخترع بحيث لا يكون له أصل
أصلاً، الثالث أن لا يعتقد عند العمل به ثبوته لئلا ينسب إلى
النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ما لم يقله قال والأخيران عن ابن السلام وعن صاحبه ابن دقيق العيد والأول نقل العلائي الإتفاق عليه،
النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ما لم يقله قال والأخيران عن ابن السلام وعن صاحبه ابن دقيق العيد والأول نقل العلائي الإتفاق عليه،
قلنا
وقد نقل عن الإمام أحمد أنه يعمل بالضعيف إذا لم يوجد غيره ولم يكن ثم ما يعارضه
وفي رواية عنه ضعيف الحديث أحب إلينا من رأى الرجال
Meaning:
“Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in the (Kitab) al-Adhkar:
‘The scholars from the experts of Hadīth and the jurisprudents and others have said it is permitted and praiseworthy that acts on virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), exhortation to good and deterrence from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak Hadīth so long as it is not fabricated (mawdu`). As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is allowed (halal), and what is forbidden (haram), trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one's practice is not based upon anything other than authentic (sahih) or good (hasan) Hadīth, except as a precaution in some issue related to one of the above, for example, if a weak (da’eef) Hadīth was mentioned about the abhorrence (karahat) of certain kinds of trades or marriages. In such circumstances what is recommended is to avoid such trades and marriages, but it is not obligatory."
Disagreeing with this, ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki said:
‘Absolutely no practice is based on weak Hadīth.’
I have heard my Shaykh (al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani) maintain on the following, and he put it to me in writing himself:
‘The conditions for acting on weak Hadīth are three:
The first is unanimously agreed upon: that the weakness must not be very severe (ghayr shadid). This eliminates the narrations singly recorded by liars, or those accused of lying, and those who make gross errors.
The second is that there be a general legal basis for it. This eliminates what is made up and has no legal basis to start with.
Thirdly, that one not consider, while acting on the basis of it, that it has been established as true. This is in order that no words which the Prophet did not say be ascribed to him.’
(Ibn Hajar said further):
‘The last two conditions are from Ibn Abd al-Salam and his companion Ibn Daqiq al-Eid. Abu Sa’eed al-Ala'i reported agreement over the first condition.’
I say (al-Sakhawi): It has been conveyed from Imam Ahmed (ibn Hanbal) that one may act on a weak Hadīth if there is no other Hadīth to that effect, and also if there is no Hadīth that opposes it. In one account, he is reported to have said: ‘I prefer weak Hadīth better than the opinion of men.’" End of quote.
Note that the third point that al-Sakhawi quoted from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was also elucidated by the latter in his Tabyīn al-ʿajab bi-mā warada fī faḍl Rajab (p. 3)
Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani headed a section in his al-Matalib al-Aliyya (12/659) with the following title:
“Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in the (Kitab) al-Adhkar:
‘The scholars from the experts of Hadīth and the jurisprudents and others have said it is permitted and praiseworthy that acts on virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), exhortation to good and deterrence from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak Hadīth so long as it is not fabricated (mawdu`). As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is allowed (halal), and what is forbidden (haram), trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one's practice is not based upon anything other than authentic (sahih) or good (hasan) Hadīth, except as a precaution in some issue related to one of the above, for example, if a weak (da’eef) Hadīth was mentioned about the abhorrence (karahat) of certain kinds of trades or marriages. In such circumstances what is recommended is to avoid such trades and marriages, but it is not obligatory."
Disagreeing with this, ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki said:
‘Absolutely no practice is based on weak Hadīth.’
I have heard my Shaykh (al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani) maintain on the following, and he put it to me in writing himself:
‘The conditions for acting on weak Hadīth are three:
The first is unanimously agreed upon: that the weakness must not be very severe (ghayr shadid). This eliminates the narrations singly recorded by liars, or those accused of lying, and those who make gross errors.
The second is that there be a general legal basis for it. This eliminates what is made up and has no legal basis to start with.
Thirdly, that one not consider, while acting on the basis of it, that it has been established as true. This is in order that no words which the Prophet did not say be ascribed to him.’
(Ibn Hajar said further):
‘The last two conditions are from Ibn Abd al-Salam and his companion Ibn Daqiq al-Eid. Abu Sa’eed al-Ala'i reported agreement over the first condition.’
I say (al-Sakhawi): It has been conveyed from Imam Ahmed (ibn Hanbal) that one may act on a weak Hadīth if there is no other Hadīth to that effect, and also if there is no Hadīth that opposes it. In one account, he is reported to have said: ‘I prefer weak Hadīth better than the opinion of men.’" End of quote.
Note that the third point that al-Sakhawi quoted from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was also elucidated by the latter in his Tabyīn al-ʿajab bi-mā warada fī faḍl Rajab (p. 3)
Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani headed a section in his al-Matalib al-Aliyya (12/659) with the following title:
بَابُ
الْعَمَلِ بِالْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
Meaning:
“Chapter on acting on weak Hadīth with regard to virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
One may see an example of where ibn Hajar stated that a weak Hadīth on the virtue of the town of Asqalan was considered to fall under the faḍā’il al-aʿmāl genre in his al-Qawl al-Musaddad (p. 27, Hadīth no. 8).
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani narrated a Hadīth in his al-Amāli al-Mutlaqa (p. 134) and after mentioning the agreed upon weakness of a narrator by the name of Uthman Ibn Abdur Rahman Ibn Umar ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, he said:
وَقَدْ
رَخَّصُوا فِي رِوَايَةِ الْحَدِيثِ الضَّعِيفِ فِي فَضَائِلِ الْأَعْمَالِ
Meaning:
“And they permitted the narration of weak Hadīth on virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl).”
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has also left behind a Forty Hadīth collection known as al-Arba`un fi rad’ al-mujrim ‘an sabb al-muslim (40 Hadīths on deterring the criminal to not abuse a fellow Muslim), and within it are some narrations that have been considered to be weak by later scholars.
This trend of narrating weak Hadīths on either virtuous actions (faḍā’il al-aʿmāl), exhorting to do good and instilling fear (al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib), or heart softening narrations (raqā’iq or riqāq) can also be seen in a number of Forty Hadīth collections by other scholars.
As for what was mentioned about Abu al-`Arabi al-Maliki above, then this seems to be Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 543 AH), who wrote a commentary on Jami al-Tirmidhi with the title Aridat al-Ahwadhi Sharh Sunan at-Tirmidhi. His position on not acting upon any weak Hadīth in all circumstances was also mentioned by Imam al-Suyuti in his Tadrib al-Rawi (1/351). Despite what has been ascribed to Ibn al-‘Arabi, he too has allowed acting on some type of weak narrations.
In his Aridat al-Ahwazi (10/205) while mentioning the chain presented by al-Tirmidhi containing an unknown narrator (majhul) he said:
وإن
كان مجهولا فإنه يستحب العمل به لأنه دعاء بخير
“Although its (chain has an) unknown narrator, it is preferable to act upon it because it is a supplication (du’a) for well-being.”
This example serves to show that he accepted acting on a technically weak narration, as the chain that has an unknown reporter (majhul) is considered weak in essence.
To conclude, the vast majority of scholars in Sunni Islam have allowed action upon weak narrations not connected to legal rulings or creedal matters, with certain stipulations. One must also mention that primarily one should act on the authentically narrated reports connected to any matter of the Islamic teachings, and if the need arises to act on weak narrations connected to virtuous actions then it is done so on a secondary basis. The common Muslim should look to when they may act upon such weak narrations based on the rulings of authoritative scholars of Hadith and jurisprudence (fiqh). The brother, Abu Humayd, has given some examples in what follows.
Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad.
Abul Hasan
Darul-Tahqiq
London
August 2015/Shawwal 1436 AH
الأجوبة
الصريحة لمن أنكر الأحاديث الضعيفة
Clear cut answers for those who reject weak ah̩ãdĩth
Compiled by Abu Humayd
There is a general view from the majority of the ’Ulamã' that acting upon weak ah̩ãdĩth on the topic of virtues is permitted whilst only a handful disagree with them[1][2]. However, saying that, acting upon weak narrations has been met with three conditions[3] as mentioned by the H̩ãfiz̩; Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ رحمه الله [d. 852 AH], although some could argue that quite a few scholars were less stringent in their conditions of accepting weak narratives on the topic of fadhã'il[4], but for brevity's sake we will stick to the conditions laid out by the H̩ãfiz̩.
There will follow a few examples (the examples will be limited to just give an insight) of some virtuous deeds that meet the conditions laid forth, these examples will be of those that are frequently regurgitated in discussions by the opponents because of their weakness. This should afford us the opportunity to also take into consideration acting upon them (those ah̩adĩth narrated via weak narrators related to the topic of fadhã'il al-a’mãl) - or whether we choose not to act on them - at the least, should not condemn those who do take the initiative in acting upon them.
This will also work to flush out those who make the claim to accept weak narrations that meets the criteria, (but) in reality will expose their lip-service as will be made clear with the examples given. To proceed, the three conditions (shurũt̩) are as follows:
1. The h̩adĩth should not be severely weak (dhu’f shadĩd), to the extent that it contains liars (kãz̩ibĩn) in the chain, or those accused of lying (muttaham bil-kaz̩ib)or even those whose mistakes are very severe (fah̩ish al-ghalat̩).
This first point excludes the following types of narrators:
A.
Those
who are majhul [unknown; details of narrators that are not found and those of
whom neither have appraisals or criticisms].
B.
Narrators
who are generally dha'if [weak; slight weakness in memorisation (hifz) or
having less precision (dhabt) in relaying the texts].
C.
It
also excludes narrations where there is inqita' in the isnãd [chain] or
narrations which are mursal.
2. The virtuous deeds mentioned in the h̩adĩth should generally fall under an established practice in Islãm.
This means that there needs to be some foundation [as̩l]. Few examples of actions that fit this criteria will be given as we move on.
3. The one who acts upon the weak narration [that fits the above two criteria] should not believe that such an act is thãbit [established with certainty from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم]. Rather one should act out of ih̩tiyãt̩ [precautionary measure).
This condition is self explanatory, and should require no explanation. However, an important point that should be made is that no one should obligate such practices, nor should they look down upon others who don't act upon it. Having said that, the one who acts upon ah̩adĩth that are weak, and meet the above criteria should not be blamed either.
Relating to the third criteria, it would also be unnecessary to go over it with every example that is given because it would be repeating what would be mentioned the first time round. So essentially what should be understood in this point is many of the laity are now - in terms of virtuous deeds - aware that weak narrations can be used and acted upon, this is not hidden to those who are exposed to such polemics on-line and off, which should dismantle any claims that the laity are not informed regarding the weaknesses of certain narrations relating to virtuous deeds. Generally, many also know of the conditions relating to the acceptance of weak narrations relating to fadhã'il. In this age, knowledge is not stagnant. Rather it is available at the fingertips, at the click of buttons or even one call away. The ’Ulamã' have collectively (some more than others) been informing the masses regarding narrations, some may not have been very stringent regarding various weak narrations, possibly because they believed that such narration is actually thãbit from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, this proves sometimes it comes down to ijtihãd, hence being a very subjective matter and not something which they can be blamed for.
As the conditions have been relayed with brief explanations and references, examples will follow of some virtuous deeds that meet the conditions. The following examples will prove that those who propagate the acting upon weak narrations for the purpose of virtuous deeds do undertake due care and caution as a collective and not wilfully narrate on to others everything they hear. To proceed with the examples:
1. Wiping the face after du’ã
Application of the first criteria:
There are generally three oft-quoted narrations regarding wiping the face after du’ã; one in Sunan Ibn Mãjah[5] (which is weak due to S̩ãlih̩ Ibn Hassãn, though it could be argued this narration has a mutãbi’ah), another in Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ[6] which he classed as "S̩ah̩ĩh̩ Gharĩb" (despite it containing H̩ammãd Ibn ’Ĩsã, in which there is general weakness), and yet another narration in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[7] (which is slightly weak due to the chain containing Ibn Lahĩ’ah who is weak and H̩afs̩ Ibn Hishãm who is majhũl). The latter two narrations were utilised as proof by H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar in his Bulũgh al-Marãm[8] saying that the narration in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd is a shãhid [support] to the narration in Sunan of al-Tirmiz̩ĩ and that they strengthen each other to the level of h̩asan [acceptability].
Another acceptable narration that can be utilised as evidence is narrated in the Mus̩annaf of ’Abd al-Razzãq[9] which is a mursal s̩ah̩ĩh̩ h̩adĩth. The Imãm, ’Abd al-Razzãq رحمه الله [d. 211 AH] himself said he acted upon this practice (of wiping the hands over the face after supplication) which clearly proves the such narration is s̩ãlih̩ lil-ih̩tijãj [good to deduce proof from] and further strengthens H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar's view that it reaches the level of h̩asan due to it's combined strength.
Application of the second criteria:
Raising the hands for supplication is established via multitudes of ah̩ãdĩth without any disagreements, and since raising the hands is an established practice, then the wiping of the face after the supplication will only compliment it and not contradict it. This is because wiping the face requires the hands be raised for supplication, the latter being something that is integral with supplication. Another subtle point is that supplication is an act of ’ibãdah[10] which requires sincerity[11], and the believers shouldn't ask from Allãh except that they shed a few tears whilst supplicating. After supplication they should wipe the tears from their faces with their hands (as it a natural thing do to). This proves that wiping the face is nothing short of being complimentary to raising the hands.
2. Wiping the nape during wudhũ'
2. Wiping the nape during
wudhũ'
Application of the first criteria:
There are many narrations that clearly outline the permissibility of wiping of the nape during wudhũ', different words have been used to describe wiping the nape (back part of the neck). Some words that are used to describe the nape are raqabah, ’unuq and qafã.
The first narration that is used is in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[12] (this narration contains Layth Ibn Abĩ Salĩm who has been classed as weak and there is also an unknown narrator, Mus̩arrif Ibn ’Amr), another narration that is utilised is related in Musnad al-Firdaws[13] (this is also weak due to the narrator Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Amr al-Ans̩ãrĩ regarding whom there is general weakness). A third narration (which does not suffer severe weakness) is in al-T̩abarãnĩ's Kabĩr[14] (The defect here is in the narrator, Muh̩ammad ibn H̩ujr).
There is also a supplementary evidence which is utilised, this is a strong mursal narration mentioned by Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ in al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr[15], the narration is as follows:
"Whoever makes masah of his nape together with his head will be saved from severe thirst / shackles on the day of Qiyãmah."
The H̩ãfiz̩ goes on to say that despite it being mursal [having a link missing of a companion] it will take the ruling of marfũ’ because it is not possible to talk about the unseen out of mere opinion[16], meaning it surely must have been substantiated to make such a statement.
In summary of all this the great Fiqh and H̩adĩth Scholar of the last century from the Indian Sub-continent, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ رحمه الله [d. 1304 AH] wrote a whole risãlah on this subject alone, entitled; Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, in which he proves with many narrations that wiping of the nape is established. His conclusion was that such practice is mustah̩abb, and that the one who practices it shouldn't be blamed and the one who leaves it there is nothing wrong upon him either[17].
Application of the second criteria:
In respect to this criteria it is important to take note that wiping the nape is not subtracting any practice that is already established via authentic narrations for ablution. Rather, it is an addition [albeit via weak narrations] to that which is already thãbit in Islãm i.e. wudhũ, in other words it is not a replacement nor a substitute for anything that is established.
It is authentically reported that Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the limbs of the body that are washed during wudhũ' on the Day of Judgement will shine; the faces, the hands and the feet[18], in this regard it is narrated that the companion Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه would extend the length of his washing of his limbs, when he would wash his arms he would wash up close to his shoulders and when washing his feet, he would wash up to the shins[19]. The Scholars have stated that this was from his personal ijtihãd as he believed the virtue was general[20], whereas the Scholars agree there exists no narrations from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he washed further than the elbows when washing the arms nor did he go above the ankles when washing the feet.
Taking the above into consideration there should exist no doubt that acting upon the weak narrations (concerning the nape) would in fact be in-line with the h̩adĩth of S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim by virtue of the fact that the limbs will shine on the Day of Judgement, while also giving consideration to the weak narrations concerning this issue. The narration in S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim shouldn't be taken mutlaqan [absolutely] to do everything, however, it does lend good support to this issue that if there is anything that should be washed (after what has been mentioned in the authentic narrations) then we should certainly be considerate of these weak narrations in light of the fadhĩlah [virtue] mentioned in S̩ah̩ĩh̩ Muslim for washing the limbs.
3. Raising the hands for supplication after the obligatory prayer
Application of the first criteria:
When the Imãm concludes prayer it is prescribed - according to the Scholarly consensus - to make z̩ikr and du’ã, however there remains a contention whether the hands are to be raised when making the supplication. To begin there are general narrations that indicate the hands are to be raised with the palms up whenever we ask from Allãh. This is related in Imãm Abũ Dãwũd's Sunan[21] as follows, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
"Whenever you ask Allah, then ask him with the palms of your hands [raised up] and not with the back of your hands".
This indicates that generally it is legislated to raise the hands for supplication in any situation, whether after the obligatory prayers or not. However, there are weak narrations [of raising the hands for supplication] that give strength after the prayers, from them; a narration in al-T̩abarãnĩ's al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr[22] that the companion, ’Abdullãh Ibn al-Zubayr رضي الله عنه had seen a man raising his hands [for supplication] before he had concluded the prayer, after this person finished praying he said to him that the Mesenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم raised his hands (for supplication) after concluding the prayer. The H̩ãfiz̩, Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ رحمه الله [d. 807 AH] in his Majma’ al-Zawã'id[23] states all the narrators are reliable [thiqãt]. Another H̩ãfiz̩, Dhiyã' al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ رحمه الله [d. 643] in his work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Mukhtãrah, authored to only include rigorously authentic narrations, also included the above h̩adĩth[24]. However, some have argued that there could be a break in the chain due to a certain narrator (Muh̩ammad Ibn Abĩ Yahyã) not meeting the named companion. The second narration that is utilised is related in Ibn Kathĩr's Tafsĩr[25] from Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه that after concluding a prayer, the Messenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم faced the qiblah and prayed for the emancipation of the Muslims from the hands of the disbelievers. (this narration contains ’Alĩ Ibn Zayd, whom according to Shaykh Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ رحمه الله [d. 1353] is a narrator who there is dispute over[26]).
The third narration, narrated in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[27], where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم described the night prayer in sets of two with the tashahhud, and after which the hands are to be raised (this narration has a majhũl narrator, ’Abdullãh Ibn Nãfi’). There is also another narration, in the Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah[28] that can be used for support (although this narration contains a weak narrator, Ibn Abĩ Laylah). The combined strength of the above narrations without a doubt do meet the first criteria set by the H̩ãfiz̩; Ibn H̩ajar.
Application of the second criteria:
As for whether it meets the second criteria, then it is pretty much clear that Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم used to compliment his obligatory prayers with z̩ikr and du’ã. A narration which mentions that the hands are to be raised when we ask from Allãh (all of which have already been posted). This proves by way of ijtihãd that the hands can be raised after the obligatory prayers. However to further consolidate this view, the weak narrations (that has reached the level of acceptability with its combined strength) may be used as evidence and can be acted upon as it doesn't contradict any established evidence. In fact, the established evidence proves the permissibility of it due to it being general. This proves once again that the ’Ulamã do undertake due caution when acting upon narrations that are not strong. The examples given (along with their acceptability, being fit to use as proof) also proves that many of those who oppose these views have clearly gone to an extreme in their rejection of weak narrations concerning virtues, which in reality is against the jumhũr [majority].
4. Worshipping in the nights preceding the ’Ĩdayn [the two ’Ĩds]
Application of the first criteria:
Regarding the above practice many have severely criticised others for practicing and even propagating such narrations that speak of the virtue of this practice, in so far as labelling these narrations as dha’ĩf jiddan [severely weak], only to mimic the words of their leader in the field of grading narrations. To start, there is a narration present in the Sunan of Ibn Mãjah[29] (this narration contains Baqiyyah Ibn al-Walĩd whom Ibn H̩ajar summed up as s̩adũq but committed tadlĩs from weak narrators, leaving aside the abundance of ta’dĩl [appraisals] for him), there is also a mutãbi’ah for this narration as narrated in al-Umm[30] by the Imãm, the Mujtahid, al-Shãfi’ĩرحمه الله [d. 204 AH] mawqũfan , from the companion Abũ Dardã' رضي الله عنه (and not from the companion Abũ Umãmah رضي الله عنه as related in Sunan Ibn Mãjah), regardless if it stops at a companion the narration will take the h̩ukm of a marfũ’ because it is a well known principle (that has already preceded) that none of the companions would speak about the unseen matters without prior knowledge of it from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
It is worth noting that al-Shãfi’ĩ himself said it was mustah̩abb to worship on this night after relating the above h̩adĩth[31], which clearly proves that this narration is s̩ãlih̩ lil-ih̩tijãj according to the Mujtahid Imãm.
Even if we assume these narrations are weak on their own (though there is plenty of ground to disagree) and that the words of al-Shãfi’ĩ falls on deaf ears, there is still a good shãhid [support] for this narration recorded in the Mu’jam of al-T̩abarãnĩ in al-Awsat̩[32] (according to al-Haythamĩ the narrator known as ’Umar Ibn Hãrũn al-Balkhĩ has some praises, however many have weakened him[33]). The combined strength cannot be disputed.
It is undeniable that many whom have weakened these narrations from the classical scholars didn't do severe criticism to the extent they labelled such narrations as "not applicable" mutlaqan [absolutely] (the likes of Ibn al-Jawzĩ and Ibn Taymiyyah went overboard in their criticism of these narrations, and those who followed suit from this era), rather they weakened these narrations generally like Im̃am al-Nawawĩ[34], whilst others graded the narration as h̩asan [good][35], for example Imãm Ibn Muflih̩ رحمه الله [d. 763 AH].
Furthermore, to prove that the ’Ulamã from the Sub-continent are not following a shãz̩ [isolated] opinion on this matter nor that they are alone in acting upon these narrations, it is mentioned in Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah[36] that there is consensus between the fuqahã' [the jurists major schools of thought, viz. H̩anafĩ, Mãlikĩ, Shãfi’ĩ and H̩anbalĩ] that it is permitted to worship on the nights of ’Ĩd due to the h̩adĩth (as mentioned above). Which now proves that such narrations are plausible to be acted upon according to the jumhũr.
Application of the second criteria:
The highest form of worship after the obligatory prayers, is according to many Scholars, the worshipping in the nights (standing in prayer). There is no disagreements that the night prayers hold many magnificent virtues, in fact the generality of standing in prayer in the nights is something already established by many narrations. The practice of standing in the nights preceding the ’Ĩds would not be a contradiction to these general narrations, rather a compliment to each other. No one is oblivious to the general virtues of the night prayers (especially those that stand during the nights of ’Ĩds), they will worship on this night knowing nights prayers themselves have merit, and will hope for more reward, as the believer should.
Conclusion
It suffices to say that we pay absolutely no attention to people who give mere lip-service, the ’Ulamã have always been very honest in their research of ahãdĩth and tried their utmost to give (from the corpus of ahãdĩth) gems which the Ummah at large can benefit from. Our ’Ulamã have been always at the forefront when it came to prophetic narrations and were always careful when they passed on the words of Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم may Allãh have mercy upon them all. Amĩn.
Application of the first criteria:
There are many narrations that clearly outline the permissibility of wiping of the nape during wudhũ', different words have been used to describe wiping the nape (back part of the neck). Some words that are used to describe the nape are raqabah, ’unuq and qafã.
The first narration that is used is in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[12] (this narration contains Layth Ibn Abĩ Salĩm who has been classed as weak and there is also an unknown narrator, Mus̩arrif Ibn ’Amr), another narration that is utilised is related in Musnad al-Firdaws[13] (this is also weak due to the narrator Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Amr al-Ans̩ãrĩ regarding whom there is general weakness). A third narration (which does not suffer severe weakness) is in al-T̩abarãnĩ's Kabĩr[14] (The defect here is in the narrator, Muh̩ammad ibn H̩ujr).
There is also a supplementary evidence which is utilised, this is a strong mursal narration mentioned by Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ in al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr[15], the narration is as follows:
"Whoever makes masah of his nape together with his head will be saved from severe thirst / shackles on the day of Qiyãmah."
The H̩ãfiz̩ goes on to say that despite it being mursal [having a link missing of a companion] it will take the ruling of marfũ’ because it is not possible to talk about the unseen out of mere opinion[16], meaning it surely must have been substantiated to make such a statement.
In summary of all this the great Fiqh and H̩adĩth Scholar of the last century from the Indian Sub-continent, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ رحمه الله [d. 1304 AH] wrote a whole risãlah on this subject alone, entitled; Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, in which he proves with many narrations that wiping of the nape is established. His conclusion was that such practice is mustah̩abb, and that the one who practices it shouldn't be blamed and the one who leaves it there is nothing wrong upon him either[17].
Application of the second criteria:
In respect to this criteria it is important to take note that wiping the nape is not subtracting any practice that is already established via authentic narrations for ablution. Rather, it is an addition [albeit via weak narrations] to that which is already thãbit in Islãm i.e. wudhũ, in other words it is not a replacement nor a substitute for anything that is established.
It is authentically reported that Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم said that the limbs of the body that are washed during wudhũ' on the Day of Judgement will shine; the faces, the hands and the feet[18], in this regard it is narrated that the companion Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه would extend the length of his washing of his limbs, when he would wash his arms he would wash up close to his shoulders and when washing his feet, he would wash up to the shins[19]. The Scholars have stated that this was from his personal ijtihãd as he believed the virtue was general[20], whereas the Scholars agree there exists no narrations from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he washed further than the elbows when washing the arms nor did he go above the ankles when washing the feet.
Taking the above into consideration there should exist no doubt that acting upon the weak narrations (concerning the nape) would in fact be in-line with the h̩adĩth of S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim by virtue of the fact that the limbs will shine on the Day of Judgement, while also giving consideration to the weak narrations concerning this issue. The narration in S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim shouldn't be taken mutlaqan [absolutely] to do everything, however, it does lend good support to this issue that if there is anything that should be washed (after what has been mentioned in the authentic narrations) then we should certainly be considerate of these weak narrations in light of the fadhĩlah [virtue] mentioned in S̩ah̩ĩh̩ Muslim for washing the limbs.
3. Raising the hands for supplication after the obligatory prayer
Application of the first criteria:
When the Imãm concludes prayer it is prescribed - according to the Scholarly consensus - to make z̩ikr and du’ã, however there remains a contention whether the hands are to be raised when making the supplication. To begin there are general narrations that indicate the hands are to be raised with the palms up whenever we ask from Allãh. This is related in Imãm Abũ Dãwũd's Sunan[21] as follows, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
"Whenever you ask Allah, then ask him with the palms of your hands [raised up] and not with the back of your hands".
This indicates that generally it is legislated to raise the hands for supplication in any situation, whether after the obligatory prayers or not. However, there are weak narrations [of raising the hands for supplication] that give strength after the prayers, from them; a narration in al-T̩abarãnĩ's al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr[22] that the companion, ’Abdullãh Ibn al-Zubayr رضي الله عنه had seen a man raising his hands [for supplication] before he had concluded the prayer, after this person finished praying he said to him that the Mesenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم raised his hands (for supplication) after concluding the prayer. The H̩ãfiz̩, Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ رحمه الله [d. 807 AH] in his Majma’ al-Zawã'id[23] states all the narrators are reliable [thiqãt]. Another H̩ãfiz̩, Dhiyã' al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ رحمه الله [d. 643] in his work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Mukhtãrah, authored to only include rigorously authentic narrations, also included the above h̩adĩth[24]. However, some have argued that there could be a break in the chain due to a certain narrator (Muh̩ammad Ibn Abĩ Yahyã) not meeting the named companion. The second narration that is utilised is related in Ibn Kathĩr's Tafsĩr[25] from Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه that after concluding a prayer, the Messenger of Allãh صلى الله عليه وسلم faced the qiblah and prayed for the emancipation of the Muslims from the hands of the disbelievers. (this narration contains ’Alĩ Ibn Zayd, whom according to Shaykh Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ رحمه الله [d. 1353] is a narrator who there is dispute over[26]).
The third narration, narrated in Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd[27], where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم described the night prayer in sets of two with the tashahhud, and after which the hands are to be raised (this narration has a majhũl narrator, ’Abdullãh Ibn Nãfi’). There is also another narration, in the Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah[28] that can be used for support (although this narration contains a weak narrator, Ibn Abĩ Laylah). The combined strength of the above narrations without a doubt do meet the first criteria set by the H̩ãfiz̩; Ibn H̩ajar.
Application of the second criteria:
As for whether it meets the second criteria, then it is pretty much clear that Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم used to compliment his obligatory prayers with z̩ikr and du’ã. A narration which mentions that the hands are to be raised when we ask from Allãh (all of which have already been posted). This proves by way of ijtihãd that the hands can be raised after the obligatory prayers. However to further consolidate this view, the weak narrations (that has reached the level of acceptability with its combined strength) may be used as evidence and can be acted upon as it doesn't contradict any established evidence. In fact, the established evidence proves the permissibility of it due to it being general. This proves once again that the ’Ulamã do undertake due caution when acting upon narrations that are not strong. The examples given (along with their acceptability, being fit to use as proof) also proves that many of those who oppose these views have clearly gone to an extreme in their rejection of weak narrations concerning virtues, which in reality is against the jumhũr [majority].
4. Worshipping in the nights preceding the ’Ĩdayn [the two ’Ĩds]
Application of the first criteria:
Regarding the above practice many have severely criticised others for practicing and even propagating such narrations that speak of the virtue of this practice, in so far as labelling these narrations as dha’ĩf jiddan [severely weak], only to mimic the words of their leader in the field of grading narrations. To start, there is a narration present in the Sunan of Ibn Mãjah[29] (this narration contains Baqiyyah Ibn al-Walĩd whom Ibn H̩ajar summed up as s̩adũq but committed tadlĩs from weak narrators, leaving aside the abundance of ta’dĩl [appraisals] for him), there is also a mutãbi’ah for this narration as narrated in al-Umm[30] by the Imãm, the Mujtahid, al-Shãfi’ĩرحمه الله [d. 204 AH] mawqũfan , from the companion Abũ Dardã' رضي الله عنه (and not from the companion Abũ Umãmah رضي الله عنه as related in Sunan Ibn Mãjah), regardless if it stops at a companion the narration will take the h̩ukm of a marfũ’ because it is a well known principle (that has already preceded) that none of the companions would speak about the unseen matters without prior knowledge of it from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
It is worth noting that al-Shãfi’ĩ himself said it was mustah̩abb to worship on this night after relating the above h̩adĩth[31], which clearly proves that this narration is s̩ãlih̩ lil-ih̩tijãj according to the Mujtahid Imãm.
Even if we assume these narrations are weak on their own (though there is plenty of ground to disagree) and that the words of al-Shãfi’ĩ falls on deaf ears, there is still a good shãhid [support] for this narration recorded in the Mu’jam of al-T̩abarãnĩ in al-Awsat̩[32] (according to al-Haythamĩ the narrator known as ’Umar Ibn Hãrũn al-Balkhĩ has some praises, however many have weakened him[33]). The combined strength cannot be disputed.
It is undeniable that many whom have weakened these narrations from the classical scholars didn't do severe criticism to the extent they labelled such narrations as "not applicable" mutlaqan [absolutely] (the likes of Ibn al-Jawzĩ and Ibn Taymiyyah went overboard in their criticism of these narrations, and those who followed suit from this era), rather they weakened these narrations generally like Im̃am al-Nawawĩ[34], whilst others graded the narration as h̩asan [good][35], for example Imãm Ibn Muflih̩ رحمه الله [d. 763 AH].
Furthermore, to prove that the ’Ulamã from the Sub-continent are not following a shãz̩ [isolated] opinion on this matter nor that they are alone in acting upon these narrations, it is mentioned in Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah[36] that there is consensus between the fuqahã' [the jurists major schools of thought, viz. H̩anafĩ, Mãlikĩ, Shãfi’ĩ and H̩anbalĩ] that it is permitted to worship on the nights of ’Ĩd due to the h̩adĩth (as mentioned above). Which now proves that such narrations are plausible to be acted upon according to the jumhũr.
Application of the second criteria:
The highest form of worship after the obligatory prayers, is according to many Scholars, the worshipping in the nights (standing in prayer). There is no disagreements that the night prayers hold many magnificent virtues, in fact the generality of standing in prayer in the nights is something already established by many narrations. The practice of standing in the nights preceding the ’Ĩds would not be a contradiction to these general narrations, rather a compliment to each other. No one is oblivious to the general virtues of the night prayers (especially those that stand during the nights of ’Ĩds), they will worship on this night knowing nights prayers themselves have merit, and will hope for more reward, as the believer should.
Conclusion
It suffices to say that we pay absolutely no attention to people who give mere lip-service, the ’Ulamã have always been very honest in their research of ahãdĩth and tried their utmost to give (from the corpus of ahãdĩth) gems which the Ummah at large can benefit from. Our ’Ulamã have been always at the forefront when it came to prophetic narrations and were always careful when they passed on the words of Rasũlullãh صلى الله عليه وسلم may Allãh have mercy upon them all. Amĩn.
وصلى
الله على سيدنا محمد
[1] Shaykh al-Islãm, Imãm al-Nawawĩ رحمه الله [d. 676 AH] mentions this in his Majmũ' Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab (3/227):
وقد
قدمنا اتفاق العلماء على العمل بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال دون الحلال
والحرام ، وهذا من نحو فضائل الأعمال
[2] Amongst those who were vocal against even acting upon weak narratives completely [mutlaqan] - even for virtuous actions - was Imãm Ibn al-’Arabĩ رحمه الله [d. 543 AH] as mentioned in Tadrĩb al-Rãwĩ (1/252):
لا
يجوز العمل بالحديث الضعيف مُطلقاً لا في فضائل الأعمال ولا في غيرها
[3] This was related by the H̩ãfiz̩ al-Sakhãwĩ رحمه الله [d. 902 AH], who heard his teacher H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ as mentioned in his book al-Qawl al-Badĩ’ (pg. 195):
وقال
الحافظ السخاوي:
سمعت
شيخنا مراراً يقول: (يعني الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني) – وكتبه لي بخطه - إن شرائط
العمل بالضعيف ثلاثة:
الأول:
متفق عليه، أن يكون الضعف غير شديد فيخرج من انفرد من الكذابين والمتهمين بالكذب
ومن فحش غلطه .
الثاني:
أن يكون مندرجاً تحت أصل عام ، فيخرج ما يخترع بحيث لا يكون له أصل أصلاً .
الثالث:
أن لا يعتقد عند العمل به ثبوته لئلا ينسب إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ما لم
يقله.
[4] H̩ãfiz̩ Ibn al-S̩alãh̩ رحمه الله [d. 643 AH] in his Muqaddamah (2/310), points out a very general condition that weak hadith cannot be used for h̩ukm or it's like, ’aqã'id or Allãh's sifãt rather only for virtuous actions, according to the consensus of the Scholars:
أجمع
أهل الحديث وغيرهم على العمل في الفضائل ونحوها مما ليس فيه حكم ولا شيء من
العقائد وصفات الله تعالى بالحديث الضعيف في فضائل الأعمال
Similar report was narrated by the Imãm of the Ahl al-Sunnah Ah̩mad Ibn H̩anbal رحمه الله [d. 241 AH] as related in al-Qawl al-Musaddad (pg. 11) of Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ, that narrations relating to H̩alãl and H̃arãm he would be more critical in it's analysis, where as if it related to virtuous deeds he would be easy on it's analysis of the chain:
وقد
ثبت عن الإمام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة أنهم قالوا : إذا روينا في الحلال والحرام
شددنا ، وإذا روينا في الفضائل ونحوها تساهلنا
Indeed, as Ibn H̩ajar mentions others from the a'immah held the same opinion, one of them being the great traditionalist ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn Ibn Mahdĩ رحمه الله [d. 198 AH] as related in the Mustadrak of al-H̩ãkim (2/160 #1844):
عبد
الرحمن بن مهدي ، يقول : إذا روينا ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في الحلال
، والحرام ، والأحكام ، شددنا في الأسانيد ، وانتقدنا الرجال ، وإذا روينا في
فضائل الأعمال والثواب ، والعقاب ، والمباحات ، والدعوات تساهلنا في الأسانيد
[5] Sunan Ibn Mãjah (1181)
حَدَّثَنَا
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّبَّاحِ , حَدَّثَنَا عَائِذُ بْنُ حَبِيبٍ , عَنْ صَالِحِ
بْنِ حَسَّانَ , عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ , عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ,
قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " إِذَا
دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ , فَادْعُ بِبُطُونِ كَفَّيْكَ , وَلَا تَدْعُ بِظُهُورِهِمَا ,
فَإِذَا فَرَغْتَ , فَامْسَحْ بِهِمَا وَجْهَكَ "
[6] Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3386)
حَدَّثَنَا
أَبُو مُوسَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ,
وَغَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ ، قَالُوا : حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ عِيسَى الْجُهَنِيُّ ،
عَنْ حَنْظَلَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ الْجُمَحِيِّ ، عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ
اللَّهِ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ،
قَالَ : " كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا
رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ فِي الدُّعَاءِ لَمْ يَحُطَّهُمَا حَتَّى يَمْسَحَ بِهِمَا
وَجْهَهُ "
[7] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1492)
حَدَّثَنَا
قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ ، عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ هَاشِمِ
بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ ، عَنْ السَّائِبِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ
، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " كَانَ إِذَا دَعَا
فَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ مَسَحَ وَجْهَهُ بِيَدَيْهِ "
[8] Bulũgh al-Marãm, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (pg. 264), and his words are:
وله
شواهد منها حديث ابن عباس عند أبي داود ومجموعها يقتضي أنه حديث حسن
[9] Mus̩annaf of ’Abd al-Razzãq (3234/3235)
عن
معمر عن الزهري قال : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يرفع يديه عند صدره في
الدعاء ثم يمسح بهما وجهه
قال
عبد الرزاق : وربما رأيت معمرا يفعله وأنا أفعله
[10] Jami al-Tirmiz̩ĩ (3372)
حدثنا
أحمد بن منيع حدثنا مروان بن معاوية عن الأعمش عن ذر عن يسيع عن النعمان بن بشير
عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الدعاء هو العبادة
[11] Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (7/85)
قال
: ( ألا لله الدين الخالص ) أي : لا يقبل من العمل إلا ما أخلص فيه العامل لله ،
وحده لا شريك له
[12] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (113)
حَدَّثَنَا
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى ، وَمُسَدَّدٌ ، قَالَا : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ ،
عَنْ لَيْثٍ ، عَنْ طَلْحَةَ بْنِ مُصَرِّفٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ ،
قَالَ : " رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
يَمْسَحُ رَأْسَهُ مَرَّةً وَاحِدَةً حَتَّى بَلَغَ الْقَذَالَ وَهُوَ أَوَّلُ
الْقَفَا "
[13] Mentioned in Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. 11):
روى
الديلمى فى مسند الفردوس من حديث ابن عمر رضى الله تعالى عنهما مسح الرقبة امان من
الغل يوم القيامة
[14] al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (10/59 #118)
حدثنا
بشر بن موسى ، ثنا محمد بن حجر بن عبد الجبار بن وائل الحضرمي حدثني عمي سعيد بن
عبد الجبار ، عن أبيه ، عن أمه أم يحيى ، عن وائل بن حجر قال : " حضرت رسول
الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقد أتي بإناء فيه ماء ، فأكفأ على يمينه ثلاثا ، ثم غمس
يمينه في الإناء فأفاض بها على اليسرى ثلاثا ، ثم غمس اليمنى في الماء فحفن حفنة
من ماء فتمضمض بها واستنشق ، واستنثر ثلاثا ، ثم أدخل كفيه في الإناء فحمل بهما
ماء فغسل ، وجهه ثلاثا ، وخلل لحيته ، ومسح باطن أذنيه ، ثم أدخل خنصره في داخل
أذنه ، ليبلغ الماء ، ثم مسح رقبته
[15] al-Talkhĩs̩ al-H̩abĩr, Ibn H̩ajar al-’Asqalãnĩ (1/163-164)
عن
عبد الرحمن بن مهدي ، عن المسعودي ، عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن ، عن موسى بن طلحة
قال : { من مسح قفاه مع رأسه وقي الغل يوم القيامة }.
[16] Ibid.
قلت
: فيحتمل أن يقال : هذا وإن كان موقوفا فله حكم الرفع ، لأن هذا لا يقال من قبل
الرأي ، فهو على هذا مرسل
[17] Tah̩fat al-T̩alabah fĩ Tah̩qĩq Mas-h̩ ’alã al-Raqabah, Imãm ’Abd al-H̩ayy al-Laknawĩ (pg. --):
والحقُّ
في هذا البابِ ما اختارَهُ أولو الألباب من أَنَّهُ مستحبٌّ، مَن فعلَهُ أحسنَ،
ومَن لم يفعلْهُ لا بأس عليه.والأحاديثُ الواردةُ فيه وإن كانت ضعيفةً ،لكنها تكفي
لإثبات الفضيلةِ
[18] S̩ah̩ĩh Muslim 368:
وحَدَّثَنِي
هَارُونُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الأَيْلِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ وَهْبٍ ، أَخْبَرَنِي
عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي هِلَالٍ ، عَنْ نُعَيْمِ بْنِ
عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، " أَنَّهُ رَأَى أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ يَتَوَضَّأُ ، فَغَسَلَ
وَجْهَهُ وَيَدَيْهِ حَتَّى كَادَ يَبْلُغُ الْمَنْكِبَيْنِ ، ثُمَّ غَسَلَ رِجْلَيْهِ
حَتَّى رَفَعَ إِلَى السَّاقَيْنِ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ
صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : إِنَّ أُمَّتِي يَأْتُونَ يَوْمَ
الْقِيَامَةِ غُرًّا مُحَجَّلِينَ مِنْ أَثَرِ الْوُضُوءِ ، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ
مِنْكُمْ أَنْ يُطِيلَ غُرَّتَهُ ، فَلْيَفْعَلْ "
[19] Ibid.
[20] This was mentioned by H̩ãfiz̩, Ibn Daqĩq al-’Ĩd رحمه الله [d. 702 AH] in his Ih̩kãm al-Ih̩kãm Sharh̩ ’Umdat al-Ah̩kãm (1/96) under the narration of Abũ Hurayrah رضي الله عنه:
وفي
الرجلين : بغسل بعض الساقين وليس في الحديث تقييد ولا تحديد لمقدار ما يغسل من
العضدين والساقين . وقد استعمل أبو هريرة الحديث على إطلاقه وظاهره في طلب إطالة
الغرة فغسل إلى قريب من المنكبين .
ولم
ينقل ذلك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا كثر استعماله في الصحابة والتابعين رضي
الله عنهم فلذلك لم يقل به كثير من الفقهاء
[21] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1273)
حَدَّثَنَا
سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ الْبَهْرَانِيُّ ، قَالَ : قَرَأْتُهُ فِي
أَصْلِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَيَّاشٍ ، حَدَّثَنِي ضَمْضَمٌ ، عَنْ
شُرَيْحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو ظَبْيَةَ ، أَنَّ أَبَا بَحْرِيَّةَ السَّكُونِيّ
حَدَّثَهُ ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ السَّكُونِيِّ ثُم الْعَوْفِيّ ، أَنَّ
رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " إِذَا
سَأَلْتُمُ اللَّهَ فَاسْأَلُوهُ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلَا تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا
" . قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد : وقَالَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ : لَهُ
عِنْدَنَا صُحْبَةٌ ، يَعْنِي مَالِكَ بْنَ يَسَارٍ .
[22] al-Mu’jam al-Kabĩr (21092)
حَدَّثَنَا
سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْعَطَّارُ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ الْجَحْدَرِيُّ
، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَحْيَى ، قَالَ : رَأَيْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ
، وَرَأَى رَجُلًا رَافِعًا يَدَيْهِ يَدْعُو قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْرَغَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ
، فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْهَا ، قَالَ : " إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ ، حَتَّى يَفْرَغَ مِنْ
صَلاتِهِ "
[23] Majma’ al-Zawã'id, H̩ãfiz̩ Nũr al-Dĩn al-Haythamĩ (10/22 #17345):
رواه
الطبراني ، وترجم له فقال : محمد بن أبي يحيى الأسلمي ، عن عبد الله بن الزبير ،
ورجاله ثقات
[24] Full name of the work; al-Ah̩ãdĩth al-Jiyãd al-Mukhtãrah min mã laysa fĩ S̩ah̩ĩh̩ayn, H̩ãfiz̩ Dhiyã' al-Dĩn al-Maqdisĩ (3165)
وَبِهِ
أبنا وَبِهِ أبنا سُلَيْمَانُ الطَّبَرَانِيُّ ، ثنا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ
الْعَطَّارُ ، ثنا أَبُو كَامِلٍ الْجَحْدَرِيُّ ، ثنا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ
، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَحْيَى ، قَالَ : رَأَيْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ
الزُّبَيْرِ ، وَرَأَى رَجُلا رَافِعًا يَدَيْهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْرُغَ مِنْ
صَلاتِهِ ، فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْهَا ، قَالَ : إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى
اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنْ
صَلاتِهِ
[25] Tafsĩr Ibn Kathĩr (2/392)
وقال
ابن أبي حاتم : حدثنا أبي ، حدثنا أبو معمر المقري حدثنا عبد الوارث ، حدثنا علي
بن زيد ، عن سعيد بن المسيب ، عن أبي هريرة : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رفع
يده بعدما سلم ، وهو مستقبل القبلة فقال : " اللهم خلص الوليد بن الوليد ،
وعياش بن أبي ربيعة ، وسلمة بن هشام ، وضعفة المسلمين الذين لا يستطيعون حيلة ولا
يهتدون سبيلا من أيدي الكفار "
[26] Tuh̩fat al-Awh̩az̩ĩ, Muh̩ammad Ibn ’Abd al-Rah̩mãn al-Mubãrakfũrĩ (1/172):
قلت
: وفي سند هذا الحديث علي بن زيد بن جدعان وهو متكلم فيه .
[27] Sunan Abĩ Dãwũd (1105)
حَدَّثَنَا
ابْنُ الْمُثَنَّى ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاذُ بْنُ مُعَاذٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ ،
حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ رَبِّهِ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ أَبِي أَنَسٍ ، عَنْ
عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نَافِعٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ ، عَنِ
الْمُطَّلِبِ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ :
" الصَّلَاةُ مَثْنَى مَثْنَى أَنْ تَشَهَّدَ فِي كُلِّ رَكْعَتَيْنِ ،
وَأَنْ تَبَاءَسَ وَتَمَسْكَنَ وَتُقْنِعَ بِيَدَيْكَ ، وَتَقُولَ : اللَّهُمَّ
اللَّهُمَّ ، فَمَنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ خِدَاجٌ "
[28] Mus̩annaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah (2370)
حَدَّثَنَا
أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، قَالَ : نا وَكِيعٌ ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى ، عَنِ الْحَكَمِ ،
وَعِيسَى ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى ، عَنِ الْبَرَاءِ بْنِ
عَازِبٍ ، " أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا
افْتَتَحَ الصَّلَاةَ رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ ثُمَّ لَا يَرْفَعُهُمَا حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ "
[29] Sunan Ibn Mãjah
حَدَّثَنَا
أَبُو أَحْمَدَ الْمَرَّارُ بْنُ حَمُّويَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ
الْمُصَفَّى ، حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ،
عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ ، عَنْ أَبِي أُمَامَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى
اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : " مَنْ قَامَ لَيْلَتَيِ الْعِيدَيْنِ
مُحْتَسِبًا لِلَّهِ ، لَمْ يَمُتْ قَلْبُهُ يَوْمَ تَمُوتُ الْقُلُوبُ "
[30] Kitãb al-Umm,
al-Shãfi’ĩ (1/265)
العبادة
ليلة العيدين أخبرنا الربيع قال أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا إبراهيم بن محمد قال
أخبرنا ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن أبي الدرداء قال : " من قام ليلة
العيد محتسبا لم يمت قلبه حين تموت القلوب
[31] Ibid.
( قال الشافعي ) : وأنا أستحب كل ما حكيت في هذه الليالي من غير أن
يكون فرضا .
[32] al-Mu’jam al-Awsat̩, al-T̩abarãnĩ (164)
حَدَّثَنَا
أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ خَالِدِ بْنِ حَيَّانَ ، قَالَ : نا حَامِدُ بْنُ
يَحْيَى الْبَلْخِيُّ ، قَالَ : نا جَرِيرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ
وَهُوَ عُمَرُ بْنُ هَارُونَ الْبَلْخِيُّ ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ، عَنْ
خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ ، عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ
صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " مَنْ صَلَّى لَيْلَةَ
الْفِطْرِ وَالأَضْحَى ، لَمْ يَمُتْ قَلْبُهُ يَوْمَ تَمُوتُ الْقُلُوبُ " .
لَمْ يَرْوِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ ثَوْرٍ ، إِلا عُمَرُ بْنُ هَارُونَ ،
تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ : جَرِيرٌ
[33] Majma' al-Zawã'id, al-Haythamĩ (2/199):
عن
عبادة بن الصامت أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال "" من أحيا
ليلة الفطر وليلة الأضحى لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب " رواه الطبراني في
الكبير والأوسط وفيه عمر بن هارون البلخي والغالب عليه الضعف ، وأثنى عليه ابن
مهدي وغيره ، ولكن ضعفه جماعة كثيرة والله أعلم
[34] al-Majmũ’ Sharh̩ al-Muhaz̩z̩ab, Im̃am al-Nawawĩ (5/51):
رواه
عن أبي الدرداء موقوفا ، وروي من رواية أبي أمامة موقوفا عليه ومرفوعا كما سبق ،
وأسانيد الجميع ضعيفة
[35] al-Mubda’ fĩ Sharh̩ al-Muqni’, Ibn Muflih̩ (2/27):
لقوله
عليه السلام ( من قام ليلتي العيدين محتسبا لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب ) رواه
ابن ماجه من حديث أبي أمامة ، وفيه بقية ، روايته عن أهل بلده جيدة ; وهو حديث حسن .
[36] Mawsũ’at al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaytiyyah (36/115)
اتفق
الفقهاء على أنّه يندب قيام ليلتي العيدين لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « من قام
ليلتي العيدين محتسباً لله لم يمت قلبه يوم تموت القلوب »
INSHA’ALLAH
IN FUTURE I WILL ADD MORE INFO ON IT
MAY
ALLAH(SWT) GRANT US THE DEEDAR E MUSTAFA(PEACE BE UPON HIM) BA HALT E BEDARI!
AMIIN!
COMPILED BY:
MUHAMMAD REHAN SIDDIQUI
Facebook
Profile: http://www.facebook.com/mrehan15
ISLAMIC
SITE: http://www.mrehan786.blogspot.com