Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Jarh And Ta’dil

After finishing discussion on hadith books, I an going to talk about jarh (sarcasm) and ta’dil, saying: When riwayah was inflicted with that corruption, and sahih traditions were mixed with incorrect ones, with capricious and irreligious people allowing themselves to falsify and fabricate traditions, ascribing them to the Messenger of Allah, for satisfying their desires and due to differences in conditions of narrators, among whom there being those lacking accuracy and reliability – the two provisions necessary for veracity of narration-some notable ulama’ undertook the task of criticizing the narrators so as to make people – through studying their biography – acquainted with the level of the narrations reported by them. This criticism was called ‘jarh and ta’dil’.

Muslim reported from Muhammad ibn Sirin as saying: This knowledge is verily a religion, so you should know well from whom you take your Din. He said too: They were not inquiring about isnad (chain of transmitters), but when fitnah (sedition) occurred they started to say: Bring in the names of your rijal.

Al-Nawawi said: Jarh (criticizing) the narrators is permissible, and rather is obligatory as agreed by ulama’ in cases of necessitating exigency, for the purpose of safeguarding the holy Shari’ah, and it can’t be considered of forbidden backbiting, but rather it is a counsel sincerely for sake of God and His Messenger (S) and the Muslims.

Scrutiny is something prescribed and called to by the Qur’an, when the Most High said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا

“O ye who believe! If an evil-liver bring you tidings, verify it, …” (, 49:6), ,

and said:

وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ

“… and call to witness two just men among you… (65:2)

and also said:

مِمَّن تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ

“… of such as ye approve as witnesses…”.( 2:282)

In another place He praised saying:

نِعْمَ الْعَبْدُ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ

How excellent a slave! Lo! He was ever turning in repentance (toward Allah)”. (38:30)

And He censured saying:

هَمَّازٍ مَّشَّاءٍ بِنَمِيمٍ مَّنَّاعٍ لِّلْخَيْرِ مُعْتَدٍ أَثِيمٍ

“Detracter, spreader abroad of slander. Hinderer of the good, transgressor, malefactor. Greedy therewithal, intrusive”.( 68:11-12)

It is known that criticizing the rijal was an ordinary practice from the lifetime of the Messenger (S). Ibn Adiyy (d.365H.), in the introduction to the book al-Kamil, has cited number of rijal belonging to his time, among whom we can refer to the Companions: Ibn Abbas (68) and Ubadah ibn al-Samit (34). And among the Tabi’un, we can refer to al-Shi’bi whose age exceeded one hundred years, and Ibn Sirin (110) and Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab (190).

It is said that Shu’bah, who used to call al-Shi’bi with the title Amir al-Mu’minin in hadith, was the first to comment on rijal, and he was born in 82 H. and dead in 160H.

He mentioned many critics of the 2nd century. What he said about this century: In its beginnings there were some unreliable narrators among the Tabi’un, the weakness of most of whom often originated before their being able to control the exactitude and correctness of hadith, as they used to narrate many mursal traditions and make the mawquf as marfu’, with committing several mistakes.

The most eminent critics in the end of the 2nd century were the authority Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan (198) and Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi (198). Since they were both trusted by people, whoever was deemed trustworthy by them would attain approval among people, and that deemed untrustworthy by them would be of no worth among people. And in regard of one concerning whom difference of opinion was there, people would refer to what they preponderated.

The first one undertaking the task of collecting his utterance on jarh and ta’dil was Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan. After him, another one of his disciples, Yahya ibn Mu’in (d.233), had a commentary too, in which his opinions and expressions differed regarding some of the rijal. Among the disciples of Yahya ibn Mu’in we can refer to Ahmad ibn Hanba (d.241) and Ali ibn al-Midyani (d.224) and others.

About this subject a commend is ascribed to Muhammad ibn Sa’d (d.230), the scribe of al-Waqidi in his Tabaqat, whose statement was good and reasonable.

I am not to cite the names of all those who discussed the subject of jarh and ta’dil as this being out of scope here.

Reasons of Jarh

Ibn Hajar says: Reasons of jarh are different, that can be restricted in five main things: Bid’ah (heresy), or contradiction, error, or ignorance of conditions, or claim of interruption in the sanad, as when claiming that the narrator was defrauding or giving mursal hadith.1

Disagreement Regarding Jarh and Ta’dil

There was disagreement among ulama’ of jarh in regard of jarh and ta’dil proportionate to difference of their madhahib (schools) and conditions.

Al-Hazimi,2 in Shurut al-A’immah al-Khamsah, says: The leaders (imams) of naql (reporting), with their multifarious madhahib and inconsistent states in usage of items, differ in most of them. There may be a narrator regarded trustworthy by Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi but deemed defamed by Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan, and vice verse. And it is known that these two were notable imams, being axis of criticism in naql, and from whom most of traditions were taken.

Abu ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi said: Some of men of hadith have commented against a group of venerable ulama’, charging them with weakness, before their being memorizers, while others deemed them reliable due to their venerated status and truthfulness, though they might have misconceived in some narrations. Then Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan spoke against Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, reporting from him afterwards. Further, Ibn Abi Layla used to narrate something in one way, narrating it in another way another time without any isnad, as this was done out of his memory, due to the fact that most of the earlier men of knowledge were never writing down the traditions, and those who wrote down had done this only after hearing.3

Following are some samples of their disagreement,4 I cite just as examples not for the sake of restriction, since this task requires a separate full book.

1- Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, Abu Ja’far ibn al-Tabari, one of the learned pious leaders of hadith, having both knowledge of fiqh and of hadith. From him many traditions were reported by al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud, and he was deemed reliable by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Mu’in and Ali ibn al-Midyani and others. But al-Nasa’i had a had opinion of him, as once he mentioned him saying: He is neither a thiqah (trustworthy) nor reliable.

2- Ahmad ibn al-Miqdam ibn Sulayman al-‘Ijli, who was deemed trustworthy by Abu Hatam and al-Nasa’i. About him Abu Dawud said: I never report hadith from him since he used to teach the impudent how to jest.

3- Khalid ibn Mukhallad al-Qutwani al-Kufi, who was one of the eminent shaykhs of al-Bukhari, from whom he reported and from another narrator from him. Al-Ijli says: He is a thiqah in whom there is tashayyu’. About him Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: He had (reported) some munkar (disapproved) traditions.

From him al-Bukhari singly reported the hadith: “Whoever contracts the enmity of a friend of mine…etc.”,5 which was considered by the traditionists as one of the odd traditions reported by al-Bukhari. Some of the leaders of hadith deemed some of his rijal to be unreliable, with being charged with reporting from those known of narrating weak and disapproved traditions, by Ibn Abi al-Dunya and al-Tabarrani through asanid about each of which there is lengthy discussion.

4- Ikrimah, mawla of Ibn Abbas, who was counted as authority (in argument) by al-Bukhari and authors of Sunan, but ignored by Muslim. Also Ibn Sirin said to his mawla Burd: Don’t tell me lies as done by Ikrimah against Ibn Abbas.

5- Al-Waqidi: He was deemed as a liar by al-Shafi’i and trustworthy by others. In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib it is said about him: There is concurrence that he being the most knowledgeable among ulama’ of the millah (cult)! Al-Thawri had a commentary on Abu Hanifah, Ibn Mu’in on al-Shafi’i, and al-Dhuhali on al-Bukhari.

The author of al-‘Ilm al-shamikh said: Opinions and judgements of people regarding jarh and ta’dil differed, as we find views differing in regard of one narrator , in a way once he would be labelled as Amir al-Mu’minin, and another time as the biggest liar, or something similar to these expressions.

Herewith is an all-inclusive statement about this subject, uttered by al-Sayyid Rashid Ridha’ (may God’s mercy be upon him):

“Authenticating everyone deemed trustworthy by the earliers, though the opposite is proved , opens the door for defamation against ourselves, by discarding the dalil (proof), adopting its preliminaries in respect of taqlid (imitation), and contradicting the guidance of the holy Qur’an”.6

Al-Allamah never adopted their rule of jarh and ta’dil of rijal in its absoluteness, saying:

“Everyone deemed as reliable unanimously by all earlier men of jarh and ta’dil, is verily reliable though proving to have for the latters some causes of jarh that were never found by the earliers. Those free-thinking men never approve of such utterance”. In the end of this book the reader will come across the complement to this discussion.

This saying and others, which were disclosed by this Allamah, had no alike by other sunni ulama’, and no one could be found to have deeply studied the hadith, reaching the depth of its kernel and real knowledge, in the present time, or rather in many ages. No wonder for this since he being the most eminent among the disciples of al-Ustadh Muhammad Abduh, and his companion who undertook the task of propagating his knowledge and interpreting his madhhab, with complementing, preserving and writing it down. His position to him was like that of the companions of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i to both of them, as stated before.7

Al-Wazir al-Yamani, in al-Rawd al-basim, writes: Many of leaders of jarh and ta’dil hesitate in regard of the narrator, authenticating him once and raising doubt about his reliability, another time, since taking his misconception into fold of multiplicity can never be measured with known balance, but it depends on surmise only and it necessitates investigation and ijtihad (strival) to be sure. His judging him turned to be like judgement of fuqaha’ regarding the surmise events, consequently Ibn Mu’in would have two views about the narrator: authentication and deeming with weakness, and alike.

To guard against wahm (misconception) is something infeasible, and‘ismah (infallibility) can never be trait of reliable narrators, but rather ismah never protects against wahm but only in tabligh (propagation).8 The Messenger of Allah (S) has imagined that he performed some obligatory prayers in complete forms, when Dhu al-Yadayn said to him: O Messenger of Allah, have you broken the prayer or forgotten that? In the Sahih the hadith was thus: And he (S) said: May God’s mercy be on so and so, he reminded me of a verse I have forgotten. (This hadith was reported by Muslim).

Also in the two Sahihs, it is reported from ‘A’ishah as saying about Ibn Umar: he has never lied but misconceived.9

Here is an example on this: Abu Ja’far al-Razi ‘Isa ibn Mahan, and it is said: Abd Allah ibn Mahan, about whom al-Dhahabi said: ‘He was of good hadith’, narrating about him difference of opinion afterwards. Al-Hafiz Abd al-Azim said: There was disagreement in the views of Ibn al-Midyani and Ibn Mu’in and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Midyani once said: He is thiqah, and another time said about him: He was commingling and confusing! Ahmad said once: He was not so strong (authentic), and another time he said: He is thiqah…he writes his hadith but commits mistakes. Abu Zar’ah al-Razi said: He is accused most of the time Al-Fallas said: He was of bad memory.

So there was uncertainty regarding his reliability, as knowing the limit of misconception with which the truthful should be forsaken, is something minute and assiduous about which there being two views for the memorizer, as there being two views by the faqih regarding the minute fiqhi issues.10 Al-Imam al-Shafi’i has abundantly narrated from Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya al-Aslami, and authenticated him while being opposed by most of the traditionists in this regard. Ibn Abd al-Barr, in his Tamhid, said: All the traditionists unanimously concurred – except al-Shafi’i – concerning tajrih (vilification) of Ibn Yahya.11

I give here another example: Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the greatest historian in the field of first episodes of Islam. Qatadah said: People are still in knowledge as long as Muhammad ibn Ishaq is living among them. About him al-Nasa’i said: He was not so strong. Sufyan said: I have never heard anyone accusing Muhammad ibn Ishaq (with weakness). But al-Daraqutni said: Neither him nor his father can be taken as (reliable) authority. Malik said about him: I give witness that he is a liar.12

Jarh Precedes Ta’dil

Ibn al-Salah said: When jarh and ta’dil come together in one person, the jarh would be given priority over ta’dil, as the mu‘addal (moderated) narrator tells of his apparent condition, while the jarih tells of a hidden reality about the mu‘addal. So if the number of the moderated being more than others, then priority would be given to ta’dil, while the correct notion held by all the jumhur (Ahl al-Sunnah) being: the jarh should be given priority.13

The philosopher Ibn Khaldun, when discussing the reason compelling some of the narrators to reduce number of their narrations, said:

The only reason that made every narrator decrease number of his narrations lies in the slanders facing him regarding them, and the defects intercepting his way, particularly the majority giving priority to jarh. Hence ijtihad would lead him to abandon adopting such interceptors befalling the traditions and ways of asanid. On multiplicity of this, his riwayah would become less due to the weakness in the turuq14 .

A General Word

It is inevitable to state here that ulama’ of jarh and ta’dil have exerted great effort on purifying all the traditions reported from the Messenger of Allah, the act deserving much applause and appreciation.

But, despite their favour and precision, they could not achieve the purpose of their striving as the hadith books are still containing numerous dubious traditions or those which seemed to be fabricated. And this was not of their fault, as they have done their full utmost in their work, but that was beyond their human capability, as their judgement on rijal was only regarding their apparent conditions and what they came to know of their news, inward facts, intentions and hidden consciences, which all being beyond their reach and can never be recognized but only by Knower of Hidden things.

There may be some man of good looking and appearance, but when divulging his inner intention we would be aware of his bad true state, the fact regarding which no one can doubt. About it several investigating ulama’, like mujtahid of Yemen al-Wazir al-Yamani who said in al-Rawd al-basim:15

There is unanimity among ulama’ on considering the exterior not the interior, and anyone whose hypocrisy appeared and infidelity was proved, his traditions would be abandoned. And that whose Islam and honesty could be manifested for all and uttered the truth, he would have good status though his inner truth being the opposite of what is outwardly known about him. Thus we would have undertaken our obligation and exerted the required effort to seeking the truth.

The Messenger of Allah used to act according to the outward and repudiate knowledge of inward, the fact to which the Qur’an referred:

لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ

“…whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them…” (9:101)

i.e. he (S) had no knowledge of the hypocrites the text of which is thus:

وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

“And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom.” (9:101)

Dr. Taha Husayn, in a valuable word16 with which he reviewed my book Adwa’, indicating the efforts exerted by men of jarh and ta’dil, said:

The earlier muhaddithun took notice of all this and did their best in seeking and finding the sahih traditions, purifying them of falsities of falsifiers and affectation of feigners. The method they adopted in this endeavour was studying the biographies of the rijal who transmitted the traditions throughout ages till the time they were written down. They used to follow up each and every one of these men, verifying whether he had an honest conduct and true faith in Allah and His Messenger, caring much to be truthful in all the traditions in general and those reported from the Prophet in particular.

That was a commendable and fruitful effort exerted by the precise among ulama’ of hadith, who did their utmost to bring out hadith in a sahih form. But all this exertion, despite its intensity and fertility, was not enough, as it is too difficult to follow up biographies of people, with searching, investigation and trying to find their minute details and what their hearts harbour inside, with what they hide of weak points in their souls and conduct.

It was inevitable to add to this effort another one, which being investigating the text itself, since the narrator might be honest and trustworthy ostensibly to the extent the judges admitting his testimony when giving witness, but Allah alone has the knowledge of minds and what the hearts hide, or inner consciences. Or the rijal from whom he narrated might be truthful and honest like him, of acceptable testimony by judges, but their innermost hearts conceal truth from people, the fact making it necessary to deeply studying the text of hadith reported by him from his counterpart reliable narrators, so as to explore the extent of its compatibility with the Qur’an to which doubt can never reach nor suspicion can afflict from any side. That is due to the fact that the Qur’an has never reached us through narrators – individuals or groups – but generations of the Islamic Ummah have unanimously exchanged and conveyed it in the form we know it today.

There generations have not conveyed it out of memory but in written form, as it was written during the lifetime of the Prophet himself, collected during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and was inscribed in masahif and sent to all towns during caliphate of Uthman, the fact making it gather the written riwayah and memorized one, with compatibility of the two with each other. Thus it becomes meaning less to doubt even little any of the Qur’anic texts since they reached us through a firm way having no room for suspicion or doubt.

While citing all these realities as they are, and manifesting these historical events after verifying and rectifying them, my aim is not harming anyone but what I am after is to display, without any reluctance, the real character of the Companions, their being ordinary people like others, containing the righteous and sinner, truthful and liar, living and enjoying life like others. All this can never be detrimental to Islam in a way or another, and its light will verily continue to shine out of its great Book, covering all people till the Day of Resurrection.

Notes

1. Huda al-sari, vol. II, p. 111.

2. Al-Hazimi, op. cit., pp. 58, 59.

3. Tawjih al-nazar, pp. 75, 76.

4. Ibid., p. 101 and following pages.

5. When al-Dhahabi cited this hadith in biography of Khalid ibn Mukhallad al-Qatwani in al-Mizan he said: This is a very odd hadith, and if not be for the status of the Sahih I would have considered it one of Ibn Mukhallad's oddities. See the full text of the hadith in my book Shaykh al-mudirah, and it was reported by Abu Hurayrah.

6. Al-Manar Journal, vol. XXVII, p. 615.

7. See p. 34.

8. That is the Prophet's propagation from Allah.

9. Al-Rawd al-basim, vol. I, pp. 80, 81.

10. Ibid., pp. 135, 136.

11. Ibid., p. 163.

12. Fajr al-Islam, p. 366.

13. Muqaddimat Ibn al-Salah, p. 42.

14. Muqaddiamt Ibn Khaldun, p. 444.

15. Al-Rawd al-basim, vol. I, p. 151.

16. This speech was published in the Egyptian Newspaper al-Jumhuriyyah, issue dated November 25, 1958, and with it I initiated this edition of my book.

Detriment of Narration Through Meaning Linguistically and Rhetorically

These were some of their sayings in regard of the detriment of reporting hadith through meaning, concerning the religious affairs. Whereas the linguistic and rhetoric detriment is elucidated through brief statement by the eminent Islamic litterateur al-Sayyid Mustafa Sadiq al-Rafi’i (may God’s mercy be upon him), when discussing the Prophetic rhetoric in his precious book I’jaz al-Qur’an,1 saying: The words of Prophethood are inhabiting a heart connected to the Glory of its Creator, and burnished by a tongue upon which the Qur’an was revealed with the realities it contains.

If they not being revealed (by God), however they came to be through way of revelation, and if they having no proof in it but they were verily among its evidences. That which of affirmed chapters has no even one separated handle, and in which meddling is absent has no even one preferred word. It is, in its brevity and indication, like a speaking heart pulse, and in its sublimation and efficiency is verily a manifestation of his (S) recollections” etc.2

In his comment on the arrangement of the Prephetic rhetoric, he said: “It is not necessary that whatever reported as a hadith, should be taken as an utterance of the Prophet (S) with its very words and expressions. Because many traditions have been reported on the basis of their meaning, the case in which most or some of their words be uttered by the one to whom they were ascribed in transmission.

Due to permission of narrating through meaning, Sibawayh and other Imams of the two Cities (Basrah and Kufah) have never quoted any hadith when compiling their books on grammar and linguistics, but they depended mainly on the Qur’an and authentic traditions reported from the Arabs. Had tadwin (writing down) been prevalent during the early stage (of Islam), with the possibility of recording all the traditions they (Companions) used to hear from the Prophet (S) with their original words and expressions and eloquence, this language would have been in an extremely different state”.

The procedure common among them was that the narrator’s being accurate in realizing the meaning of the hadith, with using words some of which being in agreement with the original texts, as in the case of his short traditions and aphorisms and proverbs, and some others disagreeing whereat the narrator inserting into them some of his own words. This fact led Sufyan al-Thawri to exclaim: If I tell you that I am narrating to you exactly as I heard (from the Prophet), never believe me, as it is no more than the meaning of it.3

I have expatiated on discussing this section of the book due to its high significance.

Solecism and Mistake in Hadith

The narrators were not satisfied with narrating the hadith according to meaning, but allowed themselves to cite hadith in a perverted way, finding no harm then in correcting its solecism and rectifying its error.

The Moroccan scholar Ibn Abd al-Barr, n his book Jami’ bayan al-’ilm wa fadlih,4 says:

Al-Walid ibn Muslim related to us saying: I heard al-Awza’i saying: No harm is there in rectifying solecism and error in hadith. He also said: I heard al-Awza’i saying: Arabicize the hadith as the people (addressed by it) were Arabs.

It is reported that Jabir said: I asked ‘Amir i.e. al-Shi’bi, and Abu Ja’far (i.e. Muhammad ibn Ali) and al-Qasim (i.e. Ibn Muhammad), and ‘Ata’ (i.e. Ibn Abi Rabah) about that relating hadith and perpetrating solecism... shall I relate it as I heard or should I Arabicize it? They replied: No, you have to Arabicize it.

Yahya ibn Mu’in said: No objection is there to anyone rectifying his hadith according to the Arabic Language.

Al-Nadr ibn Shummayl is reported to have said: Hushaym was a solecist, so I clothed for you his hadith with a nice garment – i.e. Arabicization. Ali ibn al-Hasan related saying: I said to Ibn al-Mubarak: When noticing any solecism in the hadith should I rectify it? He replied: Yes, since the people (Arabs) were never committing grammatical mistakes! But solecism is only on our part.

This matter was broached by al-Imam Ibn Faris in a treatise calling it Ma’khadh al-’ilm, when he said:5 “Some people claim that if any narrator committing a grammatical mistake when relating any hadith, it would be impermissible for the hearer to report from him but only in the same way he heard from him. Some others said: Rather, the hearer should relate it, if being aware of the Arabic Language grammar, in an Arabicized, correct, rectified manner, on the basis of evidence accepted by us. That is, the fact that the Messenger of Allah (S) was verily the most eloquent of all the Arabs with the best Arabic tongue...besides being protected by Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, against error.

Thus being the case, so it would be more proper to relate his hadith as rectified and free from any solecism or grammatical mistake.

Our Shaykh Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qattan used to record the hadith with its mistakes exactly as he heard it, with writing a note on the margin of his book: “he said so”, indicating that it is narrated in this way, with saying: And the correct hadith is so and so. This is verily the best of whatever I heard in this respect. Beside many other examples.

Advancing, Putting Off, Addition and Omission in Hadith

Furthermore, the narrators found no trouble in misplacing the hadith words, bring some forwards and some backwards.

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah is reported to have said: Hafs related to us on the authority of Ash’ath, as saying that al-Hasan and al-Shi’bi were disdaining from bringing forwards and backwards the expressions of the hadith.6

Jabir ibn Abd Allah quoted Abd Allah ibn Hudhayfah as saying: We are Arab people,...we cite the hadith with bringing forwards and backwards (its words)7 .

They exaggerated in doing a bad turn to the narration of hadith to the extent that one of the narrators daring to add some words to the hadith that can’t be found in another’s narration. They (narrators) even laid down a rule for this calling it: “addition from the memorizer is accepted.”

To Narrate Part of Hadith and Shortening It

Among other practices permitted by the narrators being to shorten the hadith and relate a part of it.

In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Mujahid is reported to have said: Delete whatever you like from the hadith but never add to it8 .

Ibn Hajar, in Sharh al-Nukhbah, said: In regard of shortening the hadith, the majority of traditionists permit it, provided that epitomizing it should be a learned man (‘alim).

In Sharh Muslim, al-Nawawi says: The correct notion held by the multitude and investigators among scholars of hadith, being permission of narrating a portion of the hadith on the authority of a gnostic. He adds: Concerning classification of hadith into sections by the compilers, it is more proper for permission, or rather negating dispute in it is excluded. This practice was continuously followed by most of the memorizers among ‘ulama’ and traditionists (muhaddithun), and others among classes of scholars.

Muslim was among those permitting abridgement of hadith, referring to this fact in his introduction.

Abu Shamah, in his book Mukhtasar Kitab al-Mu’ammal9 , is reported to have said:

‘That which is usually practised by pundits of fiqh in relation to the Prophetic traditions and narrated reports, being their abundant inferences from the weak (unauthentic) traditions to confirm their claims, and support their sayings, deleting some of the hadith words once, and adding to them another time. There are numerous examples for this practice in the books of Abu al-Ma’ali and his companion Abu Hamid. The most abominable act execised by some of them, being to argue with a weak report (khabar) which in fact be the proof used by his opponent against him. So they would introduce it, turning away from that which they have weakened before.

Their Leniency toward Narrations on Virtues and Their Detriment

Ibn Mahdi is reported to have said: “Whenever narrating any hadith about halal (lawful) and haram (unlawful) rules, we would be very strict in the asanid (chains of transmission) with scrutinizing the rijal. And when relating anything on virtues, reward and punishment, we would show leniency in the asanid and indulgence in respect of rijal”. (Reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Madkhal).

Among those permitting leniency in narrating the hadith when being concerned with the good deeds, it can be referred to the names of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak. Al-Hakim said: I heard Abu Zakariyya al-Anbari say: When the report (khabar) is neither forbidding what is lawful nor legalizing what is unlawful, nor obligating a rule related to temptation or intimidation, it should be overlooked with being negligent regarding its narration. And Ahmad has another opinion in this regard, that will be exposed later on.

Ibn Abd al-Barr says: The traditions on virtues need not any argument or proof... and the scholars in the past never showed that strictness in respect of reporting them from whomsoever of the narrators, without investigating deeply as they used to do with traditions on ahkam (rules).10

In his commentary on the statement of the author of al-Adab al-Shar’iyyah (Ibn Muflih11 ), that it is reported on the authority of al-Imam Ahmad what is indicating that it is unnecessary to adhere to the weak hadith on virtues and recommendable acts (mustahabbat), al-Sayyid Rashid Ridha’ says: “May God be pleased with Ahmad, what vast knowledge and accurate comprehension has he!... Verily to believe in acting in accordance with the weak hadith in the cases he referred to and calling to showing leniency in narrating it, opened for the Ummah a door for ghuluww (extravagance) in religion and multiplying the trouble-seeking rituals (‘ibadat), that are incongruous with the easy teachings of Islam, beside even making some of them among the rites of the Din.

All this, beside incompetence of many people in establishing the obligatory prayers and abiding by and fulfilling the duties, the fact leading consequently to accept and believe in the Israeliyyat, superstitions and dreams, as reported by a latter compiler on the authority of Ibn Taymiyyah who said: The ‘ibadat (rituals) and virtues decisively confirmed in the Book (Qur’an) and Sunnah are quite sufficient for the Ummah. And I wish there were a large number of people falling not short of fulfilling them.”

Really true is the utterance of these religious leaders and what they manifested regarding the disadvantages caused by narration of the weak and unauthentic traditions to the Ummah, due to the practice followed by some of these leaders (imams) in respect of virtues.

Therefore, al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki said: “It is absolutely impermissible to act according to the weak traditions.”12

The notable fluent Islamic writer Mustafa Sadiq al-Rafi’i (may God’s mercy be upon him) has dedicated a long interesting chapter for narration (riwayah) in his valuable book Ta’rikh Adab al-Arab, of which we quote the following:

Narration in Islam

The Companions used to learn under the Messenger of Allah (S) in a scientific way so as to be acquainted with the religious teachings and rules. Thus the meetings held by him (S) were the first knowledge circles that were ever widely known throughout Arabian history, with his being the first man to teach people.

When he (S) passed away, the science of riwayah emerged on the scene, since no any way or option for inference (istidlal) and determination was there but only through it. Abu Bakr was never accepting any hadith from anyone unless be confirmed by a witness that it was heard from the Messenger (S),13 the job that could be easily done due to nearness of the Prophet’s lifetime to that period, availability of the Companions and the material (of hadith) was still not abrogated.

Also Umar used to verify and investigate the authenticity of transmission, as hypocrisy prevailed among people, with the need becoming more urgent to the riwayah. Besides, Umar, Uthman and ‘A’ishah with majority of the Companions used to scrutinize the narrations cited to them, refuting and returning them to their transmitters. Then Umar feared that people expatiate upon narration abundantly, where blemish would find way into it with imposture and falsification be made by the hypocrite and libertine and the bedouin. So he kept on commanding them to lessen the number of narrations, with being so strict toward those narrating abundantly or reporting a hadith on (religious) rules without introducing a witness confirming it.

Because the prolific narrator, though reporting some correct traditions, cannot be immune against tahrif (misconstruction) or addition or omission in the narrations. It is reported that the Prophet (S) said: Whoever falsily ascribes any saying to me, his abode shall be Fire.14 Due to this precaution and abstaining from riwayah, many of the eminent Companions and the favourites near the Messenger (S), like Abu Bakr, al-Zubayr, Abu Ubaydah, and al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib used to narrate less traditions than others or rather some of them would even narrate nothing, such as Sa’id ibn Zayd who was one among the ten men promised with paradise.

The most prolific in narration among the Companions was Abu Hurayrah, who kept company of the Prophet for three years,15 surviving after him for about fifty years.16 For this reason Umar, Uthman and A’ishah were all the time disapproving his narrations with accusing him (of falsification), rendering him to be the first narrator ever accused throughout Islam. A’ishah was the severest in disapproving his traditions, due to the too long period she and he lived contemporaneously, as her death came to be one year before his.

Thereafter erupted the insurrection during the days of Uthman, after which there was uproar and so much talk regarding the caliphate, with people indulging in sorts of suspicion, perplexity and anxiety. Consequently there were many narrators who would neither take precaution nor verify or investigate (the traditions), the fact that became so common and familiar among people, who never cared for inquiring the veracity of traditions, or referring the riwayah to a decisive testimony or an establishing proof. But all the errors that occurred in the hadith previously were only due to inadvertence and ignorance on the part of the narrator.

The Companion17 (of the Prophet) Imran ibn Husayn is reported to have said: By God, had I found it necessary, I would have reported from the Messenger of Allah (S) as much as I willed, for two consecutive days, but I abstained from so doing when noticing a number of the Companions of the Messenger, though having heard what I heard and witnessed what I witnessed, relating traditions whose original wording and expressions be far from what they were narrating. So I feared of falling into imagination and misconception as happened to them. But the fact I want to disclose being that their practice was only out of mistake on their part and was never done by them on purpose18 .

The fact to be observed here is that this procedure was followed at a time when all the standards were still standing and branches were still there (i.e. material of hadith was still extant and undestroyed), with the situation reaching not the exacerbated degree yet. But after the revolt of the Kharijites and people’s tending to form sects and communities (firaq), dividing the society into schisms, some of the Companions embarked on making of the hadith as a trade (for earning living), composing and fabricating false traditions.

Then appeared on the scene, the relators and Zanadiqah, and people of too ancient akhbar (reports)19 that were similar to superstitious traditions, causing so much distortion and corruption to the hadith out of all these practices, throughout different ages and times.

Concerning the relators, they used to gain the hearts of the dignitaries among people, extracting from what they owned (of wealth) through disapproved, strange and falsified traditions. Common people were of the habit of gathering around the relator whenever his hadith being supersensible and irrationally amazing, or being a heart-saddening touching one exciting the emotions and extracting tears from eyes, the arts in which those people had good experience, big lies and extremely abundant reports.

In regard of the Zanadiqah, they tried their best, by trickery means, to distort and blemish Islam, through foisting in it some abominably ugly and unbelievable traditions resembling the superstitions of the Greeks and Romans, and legends of the Indians and Persians. Their only aim behind these practices was to vilify Ahl al-Sunnah and pervert their narrations through inserting false traditions that no reason could accept or sight could imagine. And concerning the people of ancient akhbar, they intended out of this to confirm and prove the superstitions that were prevalent in the Pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), with imparting veracity upon them so as to use them in interpretation (tafsir) and alike purposes, the cases for which ample examples are there.

Stage of Committing Hadith to Writing

After the class of traditionists, among whom were the minor Companions and senior Tabi’un (Followers) – lie the class of Ibn Abbas – hadith continued to be inflicted with symptoms of inadvertence, negligence and foisted suspicions and interpolations. But there might have been some trustworthy narrators who used to report hadith from unreliable ones, till the caliphate time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz20

Fearing the bad consequences of people’s additions to hadith and spreading of falsity when correct hadith be rare, as his time witnessed circulation of traditions, in which falsity was made on purpose for no interpretative convenience, like the ones falsified by Ikrimah the slave of Ibn Abbas,21 and in which the slave (mawla) of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab was refuted22 and others, Umar sent a letter to his deputy in administration and judgement on al-Madinah,23 giving him the order: Collect all the traditions of the Messenger of Allah and write them down, as I am quite afraid about the extinction of knowledge and loss of ‘ulama’.

This was the outset of writing down and collecting of the hadith, as it was never being written in the past24 etc.

We conclude this discussion by referring to a critical defect of riwayah.

A Critical Defect of Narration How Were Their Narrations

Many defects were there for narrating hadith after being forbidden by the Messenger of Allah (S), among which its being not narrated at the time of hearing it, the fact necessitating the narrators to report (hadith) according to the meaning. The other defect is that they used to practise fraud in narration, in a way that a Companion reporting the Messenger’s hadith from another one without referring to the name of that from whom he reported.

This fact was stated by Ibn Qutaybah in his book, Ta’wil mukhtalif al-hadith,25 when talking about Hurayrah’s narration which he never heard from the Prophet (S), that he used to say: “The Messenger of Allah said kadha (so and so)”, but in fact he heard it (hadith) from a trustworthy (in his view) narrator, relating it then. And the same was practised by Ibn Abbas and other Companions. Such kind of riwayah was called by the scholars of hadith by the term tadlis (fraudulence). In his reference to biography of Abu Hurayrah, al-Dhahabi said: Abu Hurayrah used to practise tadlis, and the tadlis of the Sahabah was so much and faultless.26

I have exposed these defects and indicated their bad effects in a previous chapter of this book, and in my book Shaykh al-mudirah which I published separately; but there is a quite dangerous defect I haven’t referred to before, which was disclosed by the eminent Companion Imran ibn Husayn,27 in his statement in which he swore saying: “By God had I found it necessary, I would have reported from the Messenger of Allah (S) as much as I willed, for two consecutive days, but I abstained from so doing when noticing a number of the Companions of the Messenger, though having heard what I heard and witnessed what I witnessed, relating traditions whose original wording and expressions be far from what they were narrating. So I feared of falling into imagination and misconception as happened to them. But the fact I want to disclose being that their practice was only out of mistake on their part, and was never done by them on purpose.28

In his book Shubhat al-tashbih29 , Ibn al-Jawzi is reported to have said: Al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam heard a man relating a hadith. He waited till the man finished his speech, when he said to him: Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah? The man replied: Yes!! Al-Zubayr said then: This hadith and its likes are preventing me from relating from the Prophet! By my life, I heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah, and I was there when he (S) started to recite it. Then we talked to him about a man from among the people of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), when you came after the fore part of the hadith was over. When he referred to the man of Ahl al-Kitab, you thought that part to be included in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah!

Bisr ibn Sa’id is reported to have said: Observe your duty to Allah and take precaution in the hadith. By God, we used to sit with Abu Hurayrah, who would relate to us hadith of the Messenger of Allah (S) and report (hadith) from Ka’b. Then as soon as he left us, I would hear someone from among us reporting the Messenger’s hadith from Ka’b, with ascribing hadith of Ka’b to the Messenger of Allah.30

This report was mentioned by Imran ibn Husayn, al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and Bisr ibn Sa’id, and every open-minded thoughtful Muslim is asked to ponder upon and attentively contemplate over it.

As the Companion Imran ibn Husayn swears by God, that if he intended he would report hadith from the Messenger of Allah for two consecutive days, but he abstained since he saw some of the Messenger’s Companions relating traditions whose original be different from what they narrate, only out of error or misconception. So if such be the case of those unintentional among the truthful Companions, how would it be the condition of the intentional ones, and hypocrites and enemies of religion? It is by God, in riwayah, one of the major sins! And whoever trying to enlighten people to this fact would be charged with impiety.

Another defect was described by al-Zubayr, which is: some of the Companions hearing a portion of the hadith from the Prophet, without its fore part, going out then and narrating what he heard to be a complete hadith.

After that comes the turn of Bisr ibn Sa’id, to appeal to people to observe their duty to Allah in (narrating) the hadith, as some of them used to compose the Messenger’s hadith from Ka’b al-Ahbar and make Ka’b’s hadith as if uttered by the Messenger of Allah. All that and others than it were recorded in the books, and continued to be extant, reported by successors from the ancestors till the Day of Resurrection. And there is neither might nor power but in God.

There is much more discussion and elaboration on taking precaution in narrating the hadith, recorded in our book Shaykh al-mudirah, to which the dear reader can refer.

Notes

1. I'jaz al-Qur'an, p. 364, refer to the complement of this eloquent speech, in the following pages till p. 422.

2. Ibid., p. 364.

3. Ibid., p. 422.

4. See vol. I, pp. 78-81.

5. Tawjih al-nazar, pp. 308, 309.

6. Jami' bayan al-'ilm, vol. I, p. 80.

7. This khabar is recorded also in Uyun al-akhbar, vol. III, p. 136.

8. India Edition, p. 237.

9. See p. 21, 22.

10. Jami' bayan al-'ilm, vol. I, p. 45.

11. Al-Adab al-Shar’iyyah, vol. II, pp. 313, 314. Another narration is scribed to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in which he held that it can be acted according to the weak hadith in virtuous deeds.

12. Al-Manar, vol. XXXI, p. 129

13. Al-Imam Ali (A) said: If I heard a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (S), God verily makes me benefit from it as much as He wills, and if anyone relating to me his hadith, I would exact an oath from him, when he swearing I would believe him.

14. This is verily the correct narration.

15. To be exact, he accompanied the Prophet for one year and nine months as I verified and stated in my book Shaykh al-mudirah, to which the reader can refer.

16. Abu Hurayrah died in 59 H.

17. Imran ibn Husayn died in 52 H.

18. See the discussion of the speech of 'Imran ibn Husayn after this statement.

19. Like the reports of the Jews and their likes.

20. He was acknowledged (as a caliph) in 99 H. and died in 101 H.

21. Ikrimah died in 105 H.

22. Sa'id died in 94 H.

23. Abu Bakr died in 120 H.

24. Ta'rikh adab al-Arab, published in 1329 H., 1911 AD., vol. I, pp. 276-281.

25. See p. 50.

26. Siyar a'lam al-nubala', vol. II, pp. 437, 438. Refer also to Shaykh al-mudirah.

27. Imran ibn Husayn ibn Ubayd ibn Khalaf and his father embraced Islam together with Abu Hurayrah in 7 H. He took part in some battles beside the Prophet. He became governor of Basrah, when Umar nelegted him to make its people comprehend their religion, and al-Hasan took oath that they were never visited by anyone better than 'Imran ibn Husayn. He died in 52 H. His Musnad contained 180 traditions, four of which on al-Bukhari, and nine of on Muslim - (Siyar a'lam al-nubala', vol. II, pp. 363-366).

28. Ibn Qutaybah, Ta'wil mukhtalif al-hadith, pp. 49, 50.

29. See p. 38.

30. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar a'lam al-nubala', vol. II, p. 436.