Category Archives: Hadith

Hadith Matn Criticism – A Closed, Haraam and Kufr Enterprise

[Majlisul Ulama]

REFUTATION OF A MORON JAAHIL’S VIEW ON HADITH CRITICISM

“Verily, those  who dispute  in  Our Aayaat  without  any  proof having come  to them, in  their hearts there  is nothing but a pride  (whose  objective)  they  will  not  attain. Therefore  seek refuge  with  Allah. Verily,  He  is The  Hearer, The  See-er ”   (Aayat  56 Surah  Al Mu’min)

Some  jaahil  groveling  in  his  quagmire  of  jahl-e-murakkab (compound  ignorance), cunningly  in  an  article  peddles  the  haraam  view  that “criticism  of  Hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise.”  In  this  statement  he  subtly  implies  that  every  modernist  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  moron  has  the  right  to  submit  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  to  the  vagaries  of  his  wildly  fluctuating  nafs  in  whose  grip  labours  his  brains.

The  moron  seeks  to  acquit  himself  as  an  authority  of  the  Shariah  by  disgorging  some facts  which  he  has  gleaned  from  some  academic  kutub.    His  jahaalat  constrains  him  to drive  a  wedge  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith  of  Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  Whilst  the  buffoon  concedes  that  there  does  exist  a  concept  such  as  ‘Sunnah’,  he  perpetrates  the  kufr  of  denying  that  Allah  Ta’ala  has  defined  the  Sunnah.  This  is  indeed  a  subtle  rejection  of  the  Qur’aan  itself,  for  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  states  in  His  Kalaam:

“Verily, for  you  (O  Muslimeen!)  there  is  in  Rasulullah  a  Beautiful  Uswah  (lifestyle), for    him  who  has  hope  in  Allah  and  the  Last  Day.”

Then  Allah  Ta’ala  states  a  dozen  times  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”  The  theme  of  strict  obedience  to  the   Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  a  solid, conspicuous  thread  permeating  the  entire  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah  Ta’ala  warns  of  severe  punishment –  the  punishment  of  the  Fire  –  deprivation  from  Jannah  for  those  who  do  not    obey  His  Commands  and  Prohibitions, viz.,  His  Shariah.  The  absolute  severity  of  the  Divine  Warnings  mentioning  of  the  roasting  bodies  in  Hell  fire;  being  cast  upside  in  Jahannam;  being  force-fed  boiling  water  and  the  thorns  of  Zaqqoom  in  Jahannam,  etc.,  etc.,  totally  preclude  the  slightest  ambiguity  in  the  Sunnah,  that  Sunnah  which  the  Ummah  has  to  follow  meticulously  to  secure  Najaat  (Salvation)  in  the  Aakhirah.

THE  SUNNAH  IS  NOT  AMBIGUOUS
Most  assuredly,  Allah  Ta’ala  after  having  imposed  the  Sunnah  lifestyle  on  us  and  after  issuing  dire  warnings  and  threats  of  the  severest  consequences  for  disobedience,  did  not  leave  us  to  dwell  and  grope  in  the  darkness  of nafsaani  vacillation  in  the  endeavour  to  discover  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a  concept  which  is  the  consequence  of  our  discovery,  its  not  a  discovery  developing  from  the  application  of  man’s  opinion  bogged  down  and  contaminated  by  a  variety  of    inimical  forces.  The  Sunnah  is  the  lifestyle  created  by  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  for  His  Makhlooq,  and  defined  meticulously  by  the  practical  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  noble  Sahaabah,  hence  he  declared:

“Honour  my  Sahaabah,  for  verily,  they  are  the  best  of  you;  then  those  who  followed  them (the  Taabieen),  then  those  who  followed  them  (Tab-e-Taabieen).  Then  after  them  kithb (falsehood  and  lies,  especially  modernist  lies  disgorged  by  morons)  will  prevail.”

The  Qur ‘aan-e-Hakeem  does  not  deal  with  modernist  fiction.  It  expounds  incumbent facts  for  us  to  compulsorily  adopt  in  practical  life  in  the  precise  way  exemplified  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  illustrious  Sahaabah.  The  Sunnah  is  not  a stupid  conundrum  which  has  been  left  for  extrapolating  concepts  of  life  in  kufr evolutionary  style  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have  mutilated  and  transmogrified the  Shariahs  of  Nabi  Musa  (alayhis  salaam)  and  Nabi  Isa  (alayhis  salaam).  There  is  no ambivalence  in  the  Sunnah.  The  attempt  to  convey  the    devilish  idea  that  the  Sunnah  is  a  riddle  to  be  solved  by  the  brains  of  the  modernist  juhala  by  way  of  submitting  the Ahaadith  to  their  personal  opinion  is  kufr.  Such  ‘believers’  are  zindeeqs.  They  seek  to scuttle  Islam  in  subtle  and  cunning  ways  by  retaining  the  name  ‘Islam’  for  the  hotch  potch  of  which  is  the  quotient  of  their  wild  conjecturing. 

There  is  no  ambiguity  and  no  conundrum  in  the  Sunnah.  Allah  Ta’ala  did  not  command us  to  submit  to  a  conundrum    or  to  a  concept  stricken  with  ambiguity  and  darkness,  then threaten  us  with  the  severest  punishment  for  acts  which  are  in  conflict  of  the  Sunnah despite  our  unawareness  of  what  that  Sunnah  actually  is.

THE QUR’AAN AND THE SUNNAH The  modernist  jaahil  concedes  that  the  Qur’aan  unequivocally  proclaims  that  whatever Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  spoke  was  divine  inspiration – Wahi  from  Allah Ta’ala.  How  then  can  his  Sunnah  be  an  ambiguity  consigned  to  posterity  for  unraveling?  What  then  was  the  purpose  of  the  Rasool?  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  indulge  in  mental  gymnastics,  riddles  and  crossward  puzzles.  The  Sunnah  is  a  serious  way  of  life  ordained  for  the  Ummah  by  Allah  Ta’ala.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  definition  of  the  Sunnah  was  left  for  the  pastime  hobby  of  modernist  morons  who  mushroom  in  this age  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.  What  does  the  jaahil  seek  to  achieve  by  engaging  on  a  topic  which  has  already  been  solved  and  settled  many  centuries  ago? What  sinister  plot  does  the  moron  conceal  with  his  satanic  attempt  to  fault  Bukhaari  Shareef,  etc.  in  this  age  in  which  the  Ummah  should  be  concerned  with  only  the    practical  Sunnah  lifestyle  as  it has  been  reliably  transmitted  to  us  down  the  long  corridor  of  Islam’s  history  by  means  of authentic  narration  and      practice  of  the  Sahaabah?

There  is  absolutely  no  scope  for  adjusting  and  reinterpreting  the  Shariah  which  has  come down  to  us  most  reliably  from  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen.  The  focus  of  these  modernist morons  is  on  the  production  of  a  new  ‘shariah’ – Yahood  and  Nasara  style,  hence  the  devious  and  pernicious  idea  of  the  validity  of  criticizing  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire edifice  of  the  Shariah  is  structured.  In  fact,  without  Ahaadith  there  is  no  Qur’aan.  The  very  authenticity  and  immutability  of  the  Qur’aan  are  firmly  based  on  Ahaadith.  There  is  absolutely  no  other  avenue  for  corroborating  the  Qur’aan’s  authenticity  other  than  Ahaadith.

IMPUGNING  THE  HADITH HADITH CRITICISM
The  attempt  to  impugn  the  lofty  status  of  the  Ahaadith  by  citing  differences  of  Ulama  is contemptible  and  satanic.  The  authorities  – the  true  Ulama  of  bygone  times  were  not  like these  modernist  juhhaal.  They  were  qualified  in  all  sciences  of  the  Shariah.  It  is  ludicrous and  laughable  that  modernist  morons  of  this  age  are  seeking  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  authority  of  the  Ulama,  Fuqaha,  Muhadditheen  and  Mufassireen  who  were  the  Heirs  of the  Ambiya  occupying  the  highest  station  in  the  concept  of Waraathat-e-Ambiya.

The  sole  repositories  of  the  highest  degree  of  Shar’i  Authority  were  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen.  This  was  a  demarcation  enacted  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  himself,  hence  it  is  the  divine  demarcation  which  excludes  all  conflicting  concepts,  views  and  theories  which  developed  beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  sacred demarcation.  Making  explicit  reference  to  this  fact,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  branded  all  post Khairul  Quroon  ‘religious’  innovations  and  ideas  as  Kithb (falsehood)  which  are  the  effects  of  simaanah  (obesity). 

It  is  indeed  the  epitome  of  jahaalat  to  assault  the  Ahaadith  with  stray  opinions  of  scholars  who  had  appeared  on  the  scene  6,  7,  8  and  10  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  No  one  is  the  Muqallid  of  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah alayh).  Hence,  if  there  is  some  anomaly  in  a  view  of  Imaam  Suyuti,  it  may  not  be  imposed  on  the  Ummah  as  a  valid  opinion  despite  its  glaring  conflict  with  the  Opinion  which  has  flourished  in  the  Ummah  since  the  epoch  of Khairul  Quroon,  for  this  is  the  boundary  cast  in  solid  divine  Rock  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Consider  the  following  stupidity  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  and  trumpeted  by  the  modernist  jaahil  in  his  abortive  bid  to  substantiate  his  baseless  idea  of  meddling  and  fiddling  in  the  Ahaadith  with  the  objective  of  scuttling  the  Shariah:

“Ibn  Qayyim  said  ahadith  that  says:  “He  who  loves,  keeps  chaste  and  dies,  does  a martyr”  are  forged.  Even  if  the  narrators’  chain  was  as  bright  as  the  sun.,  he  said  it  would still  be  wrong.”  

Undoubtedly  there  is  something  drastically  wrong  with  the  brains  of  the  one  who  had  propounded  this  ludicrous,  irrational  and  haraam  view.  The  very  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  is  established  on  the  basis  of  such  Ahaadith  whose  narrators’  chains  are  as  “bright  as  the  sun”.  This  innovated  theory  attributed  to  Ibn  Qayyim  in  the  belated  age  of  several  centuries  after  Khairul  Quroon  is  pure  ghutha  (rubbish)  which  the  modernist  juhhaal  find  most  palatable.

THE  ISNAAD AND THE MATAN The  fundamental  basis  of  authenticity  of  Hadith  is  the Isnaad,  not  the  Matan.  Thus, regardless  of  perceived  irrationality  and  apparent  contraction  in  Hadith  narrations,  these  elements  will    never  be  factors  for  the  rejection  or  denigration  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  a  Chain  of  Narrators,  “bright  as  the  sun”.    Reason  and  rationality  are  relative  concepts.  What  may  appear  unreasonable  to    someone,  may  be  reasonable  to  another.  Ahaadith  with  Isnaads  “as  bright  as  the  sun”  are  in  entirety  independent  of  the  test  of  rationality.  All  the  raka’ts  of  Salaat  are  based  on  Ahaadith  whose  authenticity  is  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  No  one  may  tamper  with  these  raka’ts  or  doubt  their  correctness  on  the  basis  of  rationality,  moreover  if  such  rationality  is  an  aberration  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  who  proliferate  Muslim  society  of  this  age.

Relative  to  the  Authorities    who  flourished  during  Khairul  Quroon,  the  likes  of  Ibn  Qayyim  recede  into  the  realm  of  oblivion.  It  is  laughable  to  even  cite  Ibn  Qayyim  or  any post  Khairul  Quroon  Scholar  in  negation  of  the  entrenched  beliefs,  practices  and  concepts which  had  existed  during  that  early  era  in  which  the  Divinely  Sealed  Shariah  was  delivered  to  the  Ummah.

Expounding  his  jahaalah,  the  modernist  Ghabi  says:

“It  is  clear  from  these  and  other  verses,  and  there  is  no  doubt,  that  Muhammad  (s)  is, for  us,  an  exemplar  and  a  model.  Nor  should  there  be  doubt  that  rejecting  his  Sunnah  is  a  grave  error.  No  wonder,  then,  that  it  is  generally  accepted  among  most  Muslims  that  his  Sunnah  is  the  second  most  important  source  of  legislation  and  guidance.”

This  moron  with  his  smattering  of  ‘academic’  knowledge’,  suffering  from  the  disease  of oblique  mental  vision,  just  does  not  know  what  he  has  blurted  out.  Alternatively,  his disgorgement  is  a  subtle  stunt  to  dislodge  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  hence  the  ghutha of  the  “secondary  nature”  of  the  Sunnah  which  according  to  the  Qur’aan  is  the  primary  and only  way  of  life  for  Muslims.  The  Sunnah  embodied  in  the  Ahaadith  being  the  second source  of  legislation  should  not  be  confused  with  the  Sunnah  which  has  been  ordained  to  be  the  practical  lifestyle  of  the  Ummah.  The  Sunnah  which  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  by  either  the  First  or  the  Second  or  the  Third  or  the  Fourth  Source  of  legislation  is  the only  Sunnah  for  practical  implementation – implementation  which  is  Waajib.  Nothing detracts  from  the  incumbency  and  the  imperative  importance  of  any  Sunnah  act  confirmed  by  any  one  of  the  Four  Sources  of  legislation.  What  has  been  confirmed  as  the  Sunnah  in Khairul  Quroon,  is  the  Sunnah    whose  practical  adoption  the  Qur’aan  commands  regardless  of  the  status  of  the  confirmatory  source.

The  averment  that  rejection  of  the  Sunnah  is  “a  grave  error”  is  grossly  erroneous.  Rejection  of  Sunnah  is  kufrkufr  which  expels  the  rejector  from  the  fold  of  Islam.  Observance  of  the  Sunnah  is  commanded  by    the  Qur’aan.  In  this  Sunnah  there  is  no  ambiguity,  and  this  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  reasoning  process  of  the  dumb  modernist  juhhaal.

The  modernist  ghabi  peddling  his  haraam  kufr  wares,  seeks    assistance  from  a  Scholar  who  is  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen  a  veritable  non- entity.  Thus  he  says:

“Jalal  al-Din  Suyuti’s  statement  on  matn  criticism  is  now  axiomatic:  “If  you  encounter  a  hadith  contrary  to  reason,  or  principles,  then  you  should  know  that  it  is  forged.”

This  statement  carries  absolutely  no  weight – it  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance  in  the  face  of  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  based  on  a  Chain  “as  bright  as  the  sun”.  It  is  a  forgery  attributed  to  Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh).  The  moron  or  whoever  has  schooled  him  in  his  lamentable  smattering  of  hadith  knowledge,  has  torn  the  principle  from  its  context. The  manner  in  which  the  jaahil  has  presented  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  has  been  deliberately  or  ignorantly  calculated  to  convey  the  spurious  notion  that  this  statement  is  a general  principle  for  scrutiny  and  acceptance  of  Hadith  narrations  when  in  fact  this  idea  is baseless – a  figment  of  the  moron’s  hallucination.  The  axiom  mentioned  by  the  moron  has  applicability  only  if  the  narration’s  chain  is  of  a  dubious  nature  or  uncorroborated  by  the  requisite  evidence  for  establishing  authenticity.  In  such  an  event,  the  narration  will  not  be  entertained  even  in  the  domain  of  Fadhaaila  domain  which  allows  room  for  Dhaeef Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  the  moron  did  not  even  understand  what  he  has  read  or  heard about  the  alleged  ‘axiom’.  The  aforementioned  statement  has  been  torn  from  its  context  by the  moron  who  has  failed  to  understand  either  the  statement  or  the  context.

The  statement  mentioned  above  applies  to  such  Maudhoo’  (Fabricated)  narrations  which cannot   be  interpreted  to  reconcile  with  the  Shariah.  It  does  not  even  apply  to  Maudhoo’ in  general. 

The  ghabi  has  attempted  to  pass  himself  off  as  an  authority  by  citing  the  name  of Imaam  Suyuti  (rahmatullah  alayh)  to  impress  other  juhhaal  of  his  ilk.  He  has  attributed  a calumny  against  Imaam  Suyuti.  Imaam  Suyuti’s  statement  does  not  mean  what  the  jaahil  is bandying  out.

It  is  indeed  the  height  of  ghabaawah  to  even  suggest    the  rejection  of  a  Hadith  of  the  Mutawaatir  class  on  the  basis  of  a  moron’s  reasoning  or  simply  because  the matan  of  the  Hadith  militates  against  the  density  of  the  moron’s  brains. Every  jaahil  will  find  almost  every  juz’i  mas’alah of  every  Shar’i  Institution  to  be  in  conflict  with  his  defective reasoning.  Innumerable  ahkaam of  Hajj  will  be  found  to  be  in  conflict  with  ‘reason’ – the  reason  of  ghabis.  Must  we  then  reject  all  these  ahkaam  substantiated  by  Ahaadith  simply  because  morons  perceive  a  conflict  with  their  reasoning  process?  The  ghabaawah  of  the modernist  juhhaal  is  indeed  axiomatic.

WHAT IS THE SUNNAH? Flaunting  his  jahaalah ,  the  moron  asks: 

“After  that  acknowledgement,  however,  it  gets  tricky.  The  question  that  follows  is:  how  do  we  know  what  his  Sunnah  is.”  

The  Imaan  of  this  moron  appears  to  have  been  extinguished  hence  this    ludicrous  question  bordering  on kufr.  Every  Muslim  is  aware  that  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  been  acquired  from  the  Sahaabah  who  had  transmitted  it  to  Taabieen  who  in  turn transmitted  it  to  the  Tab-e-Taabieen  who  in  turn  transmitted  it  to  the  succeeding  generation,  and  so  on  by  way  of  reliable  transmission  the  Sunnah  has  reached  us  intact,  and  so  shall  it  be  transmitted  intact  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah  from  generation  to  generation.

Nothing  of  the  Sunnah  has  been  omitted  in  the  process  of  transmission.  He  who  ventures such  a  kufr  claim  of  the  Sunnah  being  imperfect  or  incomplete  or  that  part  of  it  has  been lost  in  the  transmission  process  is  in  abnegation  of  the  Qur’aan.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has undertaken  the  responsibility  of  safeguarding  this  Deen  of  Islam.  It  will  remain  in  its pristine  purity  until  Qiyaamah  regardless  of  the  deviation,  baatil,  bid’ah  and  kufr  which modernist  morons  and  other  types  of  juhhaal  innovate  from  time  to  time.  Thus  the  Sunnah has  been  extant  since  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Islam  is  the final  DeenNubuwwat  has  been  terminated.  No  new  code  of  life  will  be  revealed.  This  pre-supposes  the  perpetual  existence  of  the  original  Sunnah  and  Shariah  in  their  pristine  purity.  The  attempt  to  cloak  the  Sunnah  with  ambiguity  is  underlined  with  a  satanic  motive,  and  that  motive  is  to  disfigure  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  to  accommodate  the  concepts  of  kufr  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  such  as  the  moron  who  deems  himself  qualified  enough  to  masquerade  as  an  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.

The  moron  further  exhibits  his  gross  ignorance  by  saying  that   the  Ahaadith  merely  “contain  clues  of  what  the  Sunnah  was,  but  they  are  not  the  Sunnah” To  him  the  Sunnah  “was”.  It  is  something  antique,  no  longer  in  existence.  The  Ahaadith  are  not  mere  clues  of  the  Sunnah.  The  entire  structure  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  There  is  no  other  source  of  the  Sunnah  other  than  the  Qur’aan  and  Ahaadith.  That  certain  Ahaadith  do  not  form  part  of  practical  Sunnah  notwithstanding  their  authenticity,  does  not  detract from  the  fact  that  the  foundation  of  the  Sunnah  is  the  Ahaadith..  Only  a  moron  has  the  audacity  and  who  is    sufficiently  stupid  to  believe  that  in  the  Ahaadith  are  only  ‘clues’  of  the  Sunnah.  We  wonder  if  the  jaahil  possesses  adequate  expertise  in  the  Sunnah  style  of  Istinja.

The  Ahaadith  do  not  provide  only  a  ‘glimpse’  of  the  Sunnah  as  the  moron  alleges.  It provides  the  whole  of  the  Sunnah,  hence  the  Qur’aan  commands:  “Obey  Allah  and  obey  the  Rasool.”   The  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  preserved  in  the minutest  detail  in  the  Ahaadith,  and  all  the  Ahaadith  which  constitute  the  Sunnah  have  already  been  authenticated  and  documented.  Ijtihaad  in  the  field  of  Hadith  is  a  closed  book.  There  remains  not  the  slightest  scope  for  revision  and  revisiting  the  Ahaadith  to structure  a  new  ‘sunnah’  to  conform  to  the  brains  of  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah remains  unadulterated.  It  exists  as  it  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah,  albeit very  little  of  it  is  being  practically  implemented  by  Muslims  of  this  era.  But  the  Sunnah  is  not  hidden.

AHAADITH  TOO, PROTECTED BY ALLAH TA’ALA
Disgorging  another  figment  of  his  satanic  hallucination,  the  Ghabi  says: “……the  Qur’ an has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  Here  the  moron  implies  that  Allah’s Shariah  is  the  victim  of    change,  interpolation  and    disfigurement  in  the  way  the  Shariahs  of  previous  Ambiya had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  respective  followers.  The  averment  is  a  veiled  rejection  of  the  Finality  of  Nubuwwat    and  of  the  Qur’aan’s  proclamation  of  the completion  and  perfection  of  this  Deen  of  Islam.  In  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have  completed  for  you  My  Bounty (of  the  Perfect  Deen),  and  have  chosen  for  you  Islam  as    (your)  Deen.”   (Aayat  4,  Al-Maaidah)

On  what  basis  does  the  jaahil claim  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  raised  are  not  protected  by  Allah  Ta’ala?  The  Divine  Protection  of  the “Thikr”  mentioned  in  the  Qur’aan  brings  within  its  purview  the  whole  of  the  immutable  Deen  whose  perfection  and  completion  Allah  Ta’ala  has  announced  in  the  Qur’aan.  The  protection  is  not  confined  to  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  Allah’s  promised  Protection  extends  over  the  entire  Deen  which  He  says  He  has  completed  and  perfected.  But  the  jaahil  with  vermiculated  brains  speculates  that  the  Ahaadith  on  which  is  based  the authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  and  which  constitute  the  bulwark  of  the  Shariah  have  remained  unprotected  to  be  fodder  for  the  corrupt  interpretations  of  the  modernist  juhhaal.

If  the  Ahaadith  did  not  enjoy  Divine  Protection,  then  today there  would  have  been  no Qur’aan  and  no  immutable  Shariah.  The  compilation  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  was  a  sacred  Task  accomplished  on  the  foundation  of  Ahaadith. Narrations  which  do  not  form  part  of  the  Shariah  should  not  be  cynically  and  deceptively confused  with  the  Protected  Ahaadith  which  constitute  not  only  the  foundation,  but  also the  super  edifice  of  the  Shariah.  For  the  protection  of  the  text  of  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Huffaaz.  For  the  protection  of  the  Shariah,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama.  This  Institution  is  divided  into  several  categories.  For  the  protection  of  the  Ahaadith,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  the  Jamaat  of  the  Muhadditheen.    After  the  accomplishment  of  their  sacred  Task  of  compiling  the  Ahaadith, the  Institution  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  terminated  since  the  objective  had  been  achieved.  Hence,    after  the  era  of  the  Muhadditheen,  we  no  longer  find  Ulama  of  the Muhadditheen  calibre.  The  ‘muhadditheen’  of  later  centuries  were  not  Muhadditheen  in  the meaning  of  the  Institution  as  it  existed  in  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. Thus,  the  averment  that  the  Ahaadith  has  been  left  unprotected  is  kufr.  It  is  a  plot  of  the  modernist  juhhaal  plot  to  introduce  and  innovate  kufr  views  and  ideas  into  Islam.  The  motive  underlying  this  stupid  averment  of  kufr  is  to  leave  open  a  window  through  which  baatil  and  kufr  could  be introduced  by  stealth.

Regardless  of  the  classification  of  Ahaadith  by  the  Muhadditheen  of  the  post Aimmah Mujtahideen  era,  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah,  were  already  well  defined  and  entrenched  in  the  Ummah,  long  before  the  appearance  of  the  Muhadditheen.  The  Sunnah  as  it  was  handed  to  the  Ummah  by  the  Sahaabah  to  the  Taabieen  is  independent  of  and  not  in  need of  the  Hadith  classification  science  of  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  did  not  need    Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Imaam Muslim  (rahmatullah  alayh)  for  establishing  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  with  its  concomitant  Shariah.  The  Muhadditheen  could  not  and  did  not  discard  any  aspect  of  the  inherited  Sunnah  on  the  basis  of  their  classification  of  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  they  would  make amal  on  (practically  implement)  the  inherited  Sunnah  even  it appeared  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  text  of  any  Hadith  which  they  had  classified  Saheeh.

The  Sunnah  is  not  subservient  to  the  Science  formulated  by  the  later  Muhadditheen.  The modernist  Juhhaal  are  making  baboons  and  donkeys  of  themselves  with  their  stupid  attempts  of  shoving  their  ludicrous  snouts  into  this  sacred  Domain.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  does  not  admit  any  dalliance  with  the  stupidities  of  morons  who  attempt  to  project  themselves  as  authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  moron’s  superficial  mention  of  the  Hadith  classes  is  simply  an  exercise  to  flaunt  ‘expertise’  in  the  Science  of  Hadith.  But  the  moron  is  bankrupt  in  this  sphere.

HADITH  CLASSIFICATION?
The  modernist  zindeeq  moron  avers:  “An  examination  of  these  classifications  is  sufficient  indication  that  hadith  criticism  is  not  new.  Indeed  hadith  criticism  has  existed  from  the  time  the  first  ahadith  were  narrated.”

The  Ghabi  has  only  exhibited  his  scandalous  jahaalat  by  this  stupid  averment.  Criticism  of  Hadith  is  tantamount  to     criticism  of  the  Qur’aan.  There  never  existed  a  ‘science’  called  ‘Hadith  Criticism’.  The  Authorities  of  the  Shariah  did  not  indulge  in  the  kufr  act  of  criticizing  Ahaadith.  The  consequence  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  was  execution  in the  early  days.  Hadith  classification  is  not  Hadith  criticism.  Rejection  of  a  Hadith  due  to  its  spurious  chain  of  narration    or  lack  of  a  viable  chain  or  on  the  basis  of  any  other  principle  of  the  Muhadditheen,  is  not  to  be  confused  with  Hadith  criticism.  The  examination  of  the  chains  of  narration  by  the  Muhadditheen  was  for  establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith,  not  for  criticizing  the  Matan  (the  body  or  the  actual narration). The  Task  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  Hadith  Compilation,  not  Hadith interpretation  and  not  formulation  of  masaail  on  the  basis  of  Ahaadith.  That  was  a function  superbly  and  adequately  executed  by  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  centuries prior  to  the  age  of  the  Muhadditheen.

Therefore,  it  is  not  permissible  to  wrought  any  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  on  the  basis  of  any  interpretation  of  the  much  later  Ulama  such  as  Imaam  Suyuti,  Ibn  Qayyim,  Shawkaani,  etc.  if  such  interpretation  conflicts  with  the    Sunnah  and  Shariah  which  have  been  handed  down  to  the  Ummah  from  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon. These  later  Ulama,  comparatively  speaking,  are  non-entities  in  relation  to  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Muijtahideen  and  the  Fuqaha  Mutaqaddimeen.  Furthermore,  these  illustrious  later  Ulama  were  not  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  expounded    and  practised  by the  Mutaqaddimeen  Authorities.  But  the  juhhaal of  these  times  bamboozle  the  ignorant and  the  unwary  by  citing  statements  of  these  Ulama  totally  out  of  context,  as  well  as  on  the basis  of  their  extremely  deficient  understanding  of    what  they  read  in  the  kutub.  The  Domain  of  Hadith  is  for  these  juhhaal foreign  territory.  It  is  dangerous  and  forbidden  for them  to  even  contemplate  traversing  the  Valleys  of  Ahaadith.  The  domain  for  the modernist  moron  is  the  pre-Maktab  class,  for  he  is  still  donning  the  diapers  of  infants.  If  he  has  any  idea  of  the  meaning  of  Imaan,  then  he  should  not  destroy  the  Treasure  with  reckless  disgorgement  of  kufr.

There  did  not  exist  any  Hadith  Criticism  branch  of  Knowledge  in  Islam.  To  say  that  “criticism  of  hadith  is  not  a  new  enterprise’  is  to  advertise  jahljahl  murakkab (compound ignorance)  or  jahaalat  piled  on  top  of  jahaalat – ignorance  consisting  of  multiple  of  layers.  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  is  not  a  permissible  enterprise.  Criticism  of  the  Isnaad  is  not  criticism  of  the  Hadith.

The  moron  attempts  to  extravasate  capital  for  his  kufr  idea  from  the  rejection  of narrations  by  the  Muhadditheen.  In  the  rejection  of  narrations  by  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  other  Muhadditheen  there  is no  support  for  the  corrupt  view  of  the  jaahil.  The  setting  aside  of  narrations  was  determined  by  the  status  of  the  Isnaad  (chain  of  narration),  not  by  the Matan  as  the  moron  abortively  attempt  to  convey.  Matan  was  a  Scrutiny  of  the  principle  invoked  in  exceptional  cases  in  the  absence  of  a  viable  Isnaad.

IMAAM BUKHAARI’S METHODOLOGY
Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  methodology  of  Hadith  Compilation,  the  moron avers:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith.  However, only  3,500  appear  in  his  collection;  he  rejected  the  rest  as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for authenticity.  For  him,  every  hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith    which  did  not  conform  to  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  criteria  is  not a  daleel  for  such  narrations    being  fake  and  fabrications.  Many  other  Muhadditheen  had accepted  and  compiled     numerous  Ahaadith  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  Imaam Bukhaari’s  Compendium.  Furthermore,  he  had  set  aside  the  narrations  in  terms  of  his criteria  applicable  to  the Isnaad.  But,  his  acceptance  and  setting  aside  of  Ahaadith  did  not adversely  affect  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  which  were  in  existence  and  practically implemented  by  even  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh),  not  in  terms  of  his Hadith Compilation,  but  according  to  the  Inherited  Sunnah  and  Shariah.  The  objective  of  Hadith  collection  was  not  to  effect  change  in  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah..  On  the  contrary,  the  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  underlying  their  stupid  ‘hadith  criticism’  exercises is  to  scuttle  the  Sunnah  and  to  undermine  the  Shariah.

The  averment  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  believed  every  Hadith  to  be ‘fake’  is  a  dastardly  slander  hurled  at  this  great  Authority  of  Hadith.  Truly,  we  are  living in  the  age  of Juhhaal.  The  density  of  the  brains  of  these  morons  is  indeed  shocking.  This  moron  believes  that  he  is  on  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari.  He  hallucinates  that  he  is  an  authority  of  Hadith  hence  capable  of  submitting  any  Hadith  to  the  scrutiny  of  his  nafs  and  stercoraceous  skull  to  enable  him  to  disgorge  his  skullduggery.  Thus  he  says: “….it  is  very  instructive  to  examine  (historical)  matn  criticism  before  we  ignorant  people decide  to  do  our  own.”   Here  His  jahaalat  boggles  the  imagination.

Here  we  have  a  modernist  moron  deficient  in  even  the  Sunnah  methodology  of  Istinja, believing  that  a  superficial  reading  and   ‘examination  of  matn  criticism’  qualifies  him  to be  a  Bukhaari  or  a  Muslim  or  a  Nisaai’,  etc.  We  must  concede  that  nothing  by  way  of  naseehat  is  capable  of  penetrating  the  layer  of  density  in  which  the  brains  of  a  modernist Juhhaal  is  ensconced.

NABI  AADAM’S  HEIGHT
In  his  endeavour  to  find  room  for  his  haraam  enterprise  of  hadith  criticism,  the  moron says:

“Bukhari’s  hadith  that  Adam’s  height  was  60  cubits  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Hajar,  arguing that  archeological  measurements  of  homes  of  ancient  people  show  they  were  not  abnormally  tall.”  

But  archeological  measurements  show  that  ancient  animals  were  extremely  massive.  Whilst  morons  are  swift  in  their  acknowledgement  of  the  ‘correctness’  of  the  huge  size  of  extinct  animals  such  as  dinosaurs,  they  react  with  kufr  at  the  size  of  Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis  salaam)  stated  in  the  Saheeh  Hadith.  The  existence  and  massive  size  of  dinosaurs and  other  ‘pre-historic’  animals  of  huge  sizes  established  by  archeological  discoveries, dubious  calculations  and  spurious  theories  of  conjecture  and  guesswork  are  accepted  by the  modernist  juhhaal  as  if  these  are  effects  of  divine  revelation  (Wahi),  but  the  height  of  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  substantiated  by  Wahi  is  not  only  frowned  on,  but  rejected  by  the  modernist  Zanaadiqah.  Whatever  the  western  atheists  excrete  into  their  mouths,  the  modernist  morons  ingest  it  with  relish.  This  confirms  their  kufr.

It  is  quite  logical – a  rationality  which  even  a  child  of  discernment  will  comprehend  that  to  ride  and  rein  in  huge  animals  of  the  massive  size  of  dinosaurs,  the  people  had  to  be  of  proportionate  size.  The  people  who  had  lived  in  that  age  of  huge  animals  must themselves  have  been  huge.  A  miniature  modernist  moron  of  this  age  would  not  have  been  able  to  sit  on  a  dinosaur  or  a  horse  of  that  size.  In  fact,  he  would  drown  in  the  animal’s  urine,  and  the  ton  of  faeces  let  out  with  force  would  annihilate  him  in  the  way  lava  is  shot  out  by  an  erupting  volcano.

The  moron,  in  citing  Ibn  Hajar,  has  either  perpetrated  chicanery  or  has  genuinely  stated  what  he  has  stupidly  understood  from  his  excessively  deficient  ‘research’  of  the  writings  of  moron  professors  of  universities,  or  from  some  crash  course  administered  by  his  ilk.  Ibn  Hajar  has  NOT  faulted  the  authenticity  of  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  beyond  the  slightest  vestige  of  reproach.  The  Hadith  in  question  is  of  the  highest  degree  of  Authenticity.  It  is  narrated  by  Bukhaari,  Muslim  and  all  Authorities  of  Hadith.  None  of  the illustrious  Muhadditheen  or  any  of  the  noble  Fuqaha  of  any  age,  had  ever  criticized  the  Hadith,  whether  Sanad  or  Matan.

The  criticism  of  Zindeeqs,  non-entities,  juhhaal  and  modernist  morons  is  of  no significance  and  no  consequence.  One  such  total  non-entity  is  Ibn  Khaldun  and  another  hardcore  modernist  murtad,  Fareed   Wajdi.  Commenting  on  Ibn  Khaldun’s  stupidity, Allamah  Anwar  Shah  Kashmiri  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “What  has  constrained  this person  to  refute  a  Saheeh  Hadith  (which  is  Saheeh)  to  the  Nation  (i.e.  the  illustrious Conglomerate  of  Muhadditheen)…….What  would  be  appropriate  is  that  these  types  of  (kufr)  arguments  should  be  criticized  with  the  Saheeh  Hadith,  not  the  other  way  around,  i.e.  to  mutilate  the  Hadith  (with  arguments  of  kufr).”

Contrary  to  what  the  miserable  modernist  jaahil  has  peddled,  Ibn  Hajar  did  NOT  fault  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith.  He  did  not  criticize  the  Sanad NOR  the  Matan  of  the  Hadith.  He  had  voiced  his  own  lack  of  understanding  in  the  light  of    the  spurious  archeological  facts.  It  is  indeed  surprising  that  an  authority  of  Ibn  Hajr’s  calibre  being  baffled  by  the  ambiguity  generated  by  archeological  facts  which  in  reality  are  the  effects of  conjecture  which  spawned  ambiguity  in  Ibn  Hajar’s  understanding  of  the  Hadith.

Ibn  Hajar  had  failed  to  understand  the  Hadith  in  the  light  of  archeological  discoveries  of  the  size  of  the  houses  which  were  assumed  to  be  the  homes  of  the  Thamud  nation.  This  is  not  the  occasion  to  present  a  detailed  refutation  of  the  spurious  nature  of  archeology.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  a  Hadith  whose  authenticity  is  corroborated  by  Ijma’  of  the  Muhadditheen  can never  be  criticized  if  the  meaning  of  the  text  cannot  be  understood.  Or  if  its  meaning  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  defective  human  reasoning.  When  a  fact  is  declared  Saheeh  by  the  Qur’aan  or  the  Hadith,  no  other  evidence  in  negation  will  be  acceptable.

Despite  Ibn  Hajar  having  accepted  the  authenticity  of  the  Hadith  in  question,  and  also  the  text  of  the  Hadith,    the  ambiguity  in  his  mind based  on  what  the  archeologists  say  is  corrupt,  spurious  and  mardood.  The  Hadith  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  on  this  issue  stands  while  the  trepidation  of  Ibn  Hajar,  which  is  bereft  of  Shar’i  daleel  must  necessarily  be  dismissed.

The  inability  of  an  Aalim  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  to understand  the  meaning  of  the  Hadith,  is  not  a  basis  for  justifying  criticism  of  the  Hadith  or  of  the  Shariah  by  modernist  morons.  Be  that  as  it  may.  Hadith  of  this  type  does  not  form  part  of  the  practical  Sunnah,  observance  of  which  is  compulsory  according  to  the  Qur’aan.  Whether  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  was  60  cubits  tall  or  10 cubits,  is  not  Sanad  nor  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah  is  to  maintain  silence  on  such  issues  of  ambiguity.  Since  neither  the Matan  of  this  Hadith  has  been  criticized  by  any  Authority  of  the  Shariah,  the  moron  has  only  displayed  his  gross  jahaalat by  having introduced  this  Hadith in  defence  of  his  kufr  concept  of  hadith  criticism.

“IF  TWO  MUSLIM PARTIES FIGHT…”
In  another  abortive  attempt  to  peddle  his  kufr,  the  moron  says: “Another  hadith  in  Bukhari  that  the  Qur’anic  verse  ‘And  if  two  parties  of  believers  fall  into  fighting,  make  peace  between  them’  refers  to  the  conflict  between  the  Companions  and  Abdullah  ibn Ubayy  was  criticized  by  Ibn  Battal  who  said  Ibn  Ubayy  had  not  embraced  Islam  at  the time.”

A  minor  historical  discrepancy  or  error  of  this  nature  does  not  detract  from  the  validity and  enduring  nature  of  the  Sunnah.  The  occasion  of  the  revelation  of  the  specific Qur’aanic  verse  is  irrelevant  in  the  context  of  the  observance  of  the  Sunnah.  The  Sunnah, when  two  groups  of  the  Muslimineen  fight/dispute,    remains  static  and  immutable.  The  historical  error  or  the  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  of  the  revelation  does  not  result  in  any  change  of  the  Sunnah  command  of  resolving  mutual  disputes.  Regardless  of  when  the  aayat  was  revealed  or  who  the  disputing  parties  were  at  the  time  of  the  revelation,  the Sunnah  stated  in  the  aayat  remains  unchanged.  The  ambiguity  of  the  occasion  cannot  be  presented  as  a  basis  for  justifying  hadith  criticism  by  morons  more  than  14  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

IBRAAHEEM, THE SON OF RASULULLAH (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)
Selecting  another  Hadith  for  baseless  criticism,  the  moron  avers: “Al-Nawawi,  Ibn  Abdul Barr  and  Ibn  Al-Athir  severely  criticized  the  hadith  that  if  Ibrahim,  son  of  Muhammad  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  nabi.  Shawkani  listed  it  as  a  forged  hadith.”

Notwithstanding  the  status  of  Imaam  Nawawi  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  their  criticism  is  misplaced  and  utterly  baseless.  In  fact  their  decrepit  view   pertaining  to  this  Hadith  has  been  severely  castigated  by  the  Authorities  of  the  Shariah.  The  errors  of   even  the  greatest Aalim  are  set  aside  and  rejected.  Those  who  establish  the  errors  of  seniors  as  their  basis for  argument  display  their  lack  or  destruction  of  Imaan

Allamah Abdul  Wahhaab Sha’raani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:  “He  who  takes  to  the  obscurities  (and  errors)  of  the Ulama,  has  made  his  exit  from  Islam.” 

The  errors,  especially  the  glaring  errors  such  as  the error  of  Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (rahmatullah  alayh)  relevant  to  this  particular  Hadith,  are  to  be  incumbently  set  aside  and  discarded.  Only  a  moron  bereft  of  Imaan  justifies  an  argument  on  the  basis  of  such  baseless  views  structured  on  pure  error.

Commenting  on  this  glaring  error,  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Mirqaatul  Mafaateeh: 

“Of  the  established  rules  in  Usool  is  that  the  Mauqoof  of  a  Sahaabi,  when  it  cannot  be  attributed  to  opinion,  is  in  the  category  of  Mar’foo’.  Thus  the rejection  of  Nawawi  similar  to  that  of  Ibnul  Barr,  is  either  on  account  of  them  both  being  uninformed  (on  this  issue)  or  due  to  their  inability  to  effect  (a  suitable)  ta’weel  (interpretation).  And  Allah  knows  best.”

Allaamah  As-Sindhi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in Kifaayatul  Haajat  fi Sharhi  Sunan Abu  Maajah:

“Such  a  statement  (which  is  mentioned  in  this  specific  Hadith)  is  not  the effect  of  opinion.  Verily  a  Jamaat  of  Sahaabah  has  maintained  it.  However,  rejection  of  the  Hadith  of Anas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  by  Ibn Abdul Barr…………..(this  view  of  Ibnul Barr)  is  not  a  necessary  corollary  of  the  aforementioned  Hadith.”  (We  have  omitted  the view  of  Ibnul  Barr  at  this  juncture – the  author). “It  appears  that  Nawawi  had  followed  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  (in  his  baseless  view).  This  is indeed  strange  (ludicrous)  in  view  of  it  (this  Hadith)  being  narrated  by  three  Sahaabah. He  (Ibn  Hajr)  said  in  Al-Fath:  ‘It  is  probable  that  he  (Nawawi)  did  not  remember  the narration  from  three  Sahaabah,  hence  he  rejected  it.”

In  simple  terms,  the  above  means:

➡ A  Hadith  whose  Isnaad terminates  at  a  Sahaabi,  is  termed  Mauqoof.  If  the  content matter  of  the  Hadith  is  not  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabi,  then  according  to  the  established  principles  of  Hadith,  the  narration  is  in  the  class  of Marfoo’.

Marfoo’  is  a  Hadith  whose Isnaad  links  up  with  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

➡ The  particular  Hadith  in  question  states  that  if    Ibraaheem  (Rasulullah’s  son  who had  died  in  infancy)  had  lived,  he  would  have  been  a  Nabi.  This  statement  made  by  at  least  three  Sahaabah    cannot  be  attributed  to  the  opinion  of  the  Sahaabah.  It  is  similar  to  Rasulullah’s  statement  reported  in  a  Saheeh  Hadith:  “If  there  had  to  be  a  Nabi  after  me,  it would  be  Umar.”

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  in  all  probability  was  unaware  of  the  Hadith  attributed  to  three Sahaabah  or  he  had  forgotten  this  fact,  hence  he  simply  latched  on  to  the  view  of  Ibn Abdul  Barr  who  had  preceded  him.

➡ Imaam  Nawawi  had  not  presented  a  single  basis  or  evidence  for  arbitrarily  saying that  the  Hadith  is  ‘baatil’.

➡ Ibn  Abdul  Barr’s view  is  likewise  spurious  which  the  Authorities  have  highlighted.

SELECTIVE  CITATION
These  modernist  juhhaal are  quick  to  selectively  cite  views  of  tenth  century  Ulama  –  views  which  appeal  to  their  nafs.  They  swiftly  adopt  views  which  developed  a  thousand  years  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  while  rejecting  the  decrees  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.  They  adopt  an  eerie  silence  regarding  the  orthodox  views  of  even  the  tenth  century  Scholars,  but  project  some  seemingly  ‘liberal’  aspects  of  these  Ulama  in  the  nefarious  attempt  to  eke  out  support  for  their  vile  opinions  of  kufr

The  ‘liberal’  views  which  the  modernist  morons  cite  appear  ‘liberal’  when  presented  deceptively  beyond  the  confines  of  their  respective  contexts.

Ulama  such  as  Ibn  Hajar  and  Imaam  Suyuti  were  extremely  orthodox  and  at  one  with  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Khairul  Quroon. They  were  staunch  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen.  They  were  not  aberrations,  deviates  and  morons  as  are  the  modernist  juhhaal.  If  a  view  here  and  there  of  these  great  Ulama  appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  Sunnah  practice  of  the  Sahaabah  and  Taabieen,  the  solution  is  to  posit  a  suitable  interpretation  for  attaining  reconciliation.  The  isolated  view  of  conflict  of  some  10th  Century  Ulama  is  never  a  basis  for  the  kufr  fabrications  of  modernist  morons.  These  miserable  morons  have  no  licence  to  quote  Imaam  Suyuti,  etc.  They  are  too  stupid  and  dense  in  the  brains  to  understand  what  these  illustrious  Ulama  said.

FORGERIES
That  there  were  and  are  forged  narrations  is  not  denied.  But    such  forgeries  have  already been  sifted  out  and  labelled  by  the  Muhadditheen.  It  is  important  to  understand  that  nothing  of  the  forged  narrations  form  part  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah.  There  is  not  a  single  forged  hadith  which  constitutes  a mustadal  for  the  masaail  of  the  Shariah  formulated  by  the  Fuqha-e-Mutaqaddimeen.  The  job  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  sift  out  the  forgeries.  It  never  was  their  function  to  formulate  the  Shariah  and  to  establish  the  Sunnah. This  obligation  was  executed  par  excellence  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah.  The  Muhadditheen  were  cast  in  a  completely  different  role.

THE  STATIC  SUNNAH
Different  interpretations  of  Ahaadith  on  abstract  issues  do  not  create  latitude  in  the Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  for  intrusion  and  interpolation  by  modernist  morons.  The  Sunnah and  the  Shariah  are  immutably  static.  The  accommodation  of    future  and  new  developments  into  the  fabric  of  the  Sunnah  and  Shariah  is  likewise  a  static  exercise  since  such    incorporation  is  effected  on  the  basis  of  static  Usool  which  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  had  formulated  in  the  light  of  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah.  Thus  the  latitude  and  free  play  which  the  modernist  jaahil  searches  for  are  not  to  be  found  within  the  framework  of  the  Islam  which  Allah  Ta’ala  had  completed  and  perfected  during  the  very  lifetime  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  thereby  leaving  absolutely  no  scope  for  moronist  interference.  With  regard  to  these  modernist juhhaal,  the  Qur’aan  advises  us:

When  they  (the  Mu’mineen)  hear  laghw  (the  rubbish  and  nonsense  of  morons),  they turn  away  from  it,  and  they  say:  ‘For  us  are  our  deeds  and  for  you  are  your  deeds.  Salaam  on  you.  We  do  not  follow  the  jaahileen  (modernist  morons).

The  aim  of  the  aforegoing    brief  discussion  is  merely    to  highlight  the  ignorance  of  the modernist who  has  set  himself  up  as  a  ‘authority’  on  Hadith.  The  purpose  of  this article  is  not  to  present  a  detailed refutation  of  the  moron’s    spurious  arguments    pertaining to  the  several  Ahaadith  which  have  been  assailed  by  another  moron professor-– a  university in  his  writings  from  whence  the  local  moron  has  lapped  up  his  bunkum.

THE AIM OF THE MORON’S ESSAY The  plot  of  the  modernist juhhaal  is  to  scuttle  the  14  century  Shariah  of  Islam  and  to substitute  it  with  a  Yahood-Nasaara  type  concocted    religion  which  could  be  paraded under  the  name  of  ‘Islam’.  The  first  step  in  this  pernicious  plot  is  to  fault  and  denigrate the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). To  achieve  this  goal,  the  morons of  our  age  have  latched  on  to  some  rare  criticism  by  some  recognized  Ulama  who  appeared  on  the  scene  many  centuries  after  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).

Warning  us  to  be  on  guard  against  these juhhaals Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Verily,  I  have  been  given  the  Qur’aan  and  a  likeness  with  it.  Soon  will  there  be  an  obese man  reclining  on  his  couch  saying:  “Adhere  to  this  Kitaab  (the  Qur’aan).  Whatever  you find  halaal  in  it,  regard  it  to  be  halaal.  Whatever  you  find  haraam  in  it,  regard  it  to  be haraam.”  (Then  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  added):  “Verily,  whatever  the Rasool  has  made  haraam  is  just  as  what  Allah has  made  haraam.”

This  Hadith  warns  us  of  the  likes  of  these  modernist  morons  whose  satanic  mission  it  is  to  debunk  the  Ahaadith  which  do  not  find  favour  with  their  western  kuffaar  orientalist masters.

The  morons  aim  to  arrogate  the  right  of  criticizing  Ahaadith  to  themselves,  arguing  that  the  rare  criticism  of  some  Ulama  as  well  as  their  personal  reasoning  are  evidence  for  the validity  of    their  stupid  kufr  theory  of  hadith  criticism.  But  criticizing  Hadith  is  like  criticizing  the  Qur’aan.  The  rare  and  obscure  views  of  a  couple  of  6th,  7th,  8th, and  9th  century  Ulama  have  to  be  dismissed  as  baseless  and  unauthorized.  In  the  face  of  the  rulings  and  views  of  the  Mutaqaddimeen  Muhadditheen  such  as  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam Muslim  and  the  many  others  of  the  Khairul  Quroon era,  the  opinions  of  the  stragglers  who  appeared    hundreds  of  years  later,  have  absolutely  no  footing  and  no  significance.  It  is  gross  stupidity  to  cite  a  view  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  the  deviate  Ibn Qayyim  in  either  negation  of  or  to  fault  the  narrations  of  the  Sihaah  Sittah.  It  is  indeed laughable  to  present  the  criticism  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim  to  attack  the  authenticity  of  the  Ahaadith  of  Bukhaari.

The  views  of  Ulama  of  the  8th  and  9th centuries,  if  in  conflict  with  the  entrenched  views  of  the  Ulama  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era,  have  to  be  incumbently  discounted  and  set  aside  as  errors.  The  rulings  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era  are  authenticated  by  the  Qur’aan.  Qur’aanic  command  is  to  obey  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  He  said:  “The  best  of  eras  is  my  era,  then  the  next  era,  then  the  next  era…..” (i.e.  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah, Taabieen  and  Tab-e-Taabieen).  The  Hadith  continues: “Then  after  them  will  be  people who  will  (make  haste)  to  bear  testimony  whilst  they  are  not  called  on  to  testify;  they  will betray  trust  and  cannot  be  trusted;  they  will  pledge  and  not  fulfil  their  pledges…….Then will  come  people  who  will  love  obesity.” (That  is:  they  will  become  fat,  lazy  and  stupid with  their  indulgence  in  luxuries).

In  another  Hadith,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Honour  my  Sahaabah, for  verily,  they  are  your  noblest;  then  those  after  them;  then  those  after  them.  Thereafter kithb  (falsehood/lies)  will  become  prevalent.”

All  of  these  modernist  juhhaal are  among  the  progeny  of  the  obese  liars  mentioned  by Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Their  first  hurdle  in    the  execution  of  their  nefarious  conspiracy  of  scuttling  the  Divine  Shariah,  is  to  denigrate  and  negate  the  primary  basis  of  the  Shariah,  which  is  the  Ahaadith  on  which  the  Edifice  of  the  Sunnah  is  structured.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  moron  has  disgorged  his  article  of  hadith  criticism.  If  a  window    to  criticize  the  Ahaadith  is  opened  through  which  these  modernist  obese  liars  could  slink,  they  will  wrought  villainy  and  destruction  to  the  Deen.  But  Allah  Ta’ala  has  established  the  Institution  of  the  Ulama-e-Haqq  to  take  care  of  these  obese  liars  and morons  masquerading  as  Muslims  and  wellwishers  of  the  Ummah.  They  are  miserable  sewer  rats  gnawing  at  the  foundations  of  Islam.

Since  the  demarcation  for  the  Divine  Haqq  is  Khairul  Quroon,  we  are  not  interested  in  the tafarrudaat,  errors  and  obscurities  of  Ulama  who    flourished  many  centuries  after  the  termination  of  Khairul  Quroon.  The  Authority  of  the  Shariah  and  the  authentic Shariah  and  Sunnah  are  what  had  existed  in  the  Three  Golden  Ages  of  Islam  specifically  demarcated  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Regardless  of  the  lofty  status  of  any  Aalim  who  existed  a  couple  of  centuries  after  the  Golden  Epoch,  any  view  of  his  which  conflicts  with  the  view  of  the  Sahaabah,  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  Muhadditheen  of  that  epoch  will  be  buried,  albeit  with  decorum.  It  shall  be  interpreted as  a  slip  or  genuine  error  of  the  Aalim.  Every  good  horse  also  slips.  No  man  is  beyond  commission  of  error –  in  fact  numerous  errors.

It  is  indeed  stupid,  in  fact  treacherous,  to  cite  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr,  and Ibn  Qayyim  who  has  no  rank  in relation  to  the  former  two  authorities,  in  negation  of  any Islamic  ruling  or  practice  which  had  existed  during  the  age  of  the  Sahaabah  or  the Taabieen.  We  are  not  the  muqallideen  of  Imaam  Nawawi  or  of  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  of  Shawkaani  or  of  Ibn  Qayyim.  We  are  the  Muqallideen  of  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon  era.  The  moron  may  bamboozle  other  modernist  morons  with  these names  and  chicanery.  He  may  perhaps  succeed  with  his  skullduggery  in  the  ranks  of  his  likes.  But  for  those  of  true  Ilm, to  cite  feather-weights  and  non-weights  as  ‘authorities  with  the  power  of  abrogation’  is  ludicrous  and  laughable.  The  morons  simply  make  a  laughing  stock  of  themselves  when  they  disgorge  absolute  rubbish  which  they  attempt  to  pass  off  as  products  of  academic  study.

When  a  view  on  Hadith,  which  developed  300  years  after  Imaam  Bukhaari,  clashes  with    Bukhaari’s  authentication,  the  Deen  and  Intelligence  will  summarily  refute  that  view  as baatil.  That  belated  view  may  not  be  presented  in  negation    of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s accreditation  of  Ahaadith.  Why  did  this  later  view  not  exist  during  the  age  of  Khairul  Quroon?  Why  was  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  valid  and  accepted  by  all authorities  during  the  300  year  gap  between  him  and  Imaam  Nawawi?  It  is  indeed  ridiculous  to  reject  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  accreditation  and  authentication  on  the  basis  of  a  baseless  view  which  developed  three  centuries  after  him.  Imaam  Nawawi’s  view  of  the  specific  Hadith  being  baatil,  It  is  an  arbitrary  opinion  unsubstantiated  by  any  evidence.  He  presents  no  daleel for  his  view.  Relative  to  Imaam    Bukhaari  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  Khairul  Quroon,  Ulama  who  appeared  many  centuries  thereafter  hold no  rank.  All  of  them  were  the  Muqallideen  of  one  of  the  Four  Mathhabs.  Their  isolated  and  decrepit  views  cannot  denigrate  the  Shariah  as  it  was  known  and  taught  by  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen.

Consider  the  statement  of  Ibn  Qayyim:  he  says  that  even  if  the  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the sun,  the  Hadith  is  not  acceptable.  We  are  constrained  to  say  that  something  had  gone  drastically  wrong  with  his  intellectual  grasp  at  the  time  when  he  was  blabbering  this gutha.  The  bedrock  of  Hadith  Autenticity  is  its  Isnaad, not  its Matan.  Regardless  of  how irrational  the  content  matter  of  the  Hadith  may  appear  to  modernist  morons,  if  the  Isnaad  is  Saheeh,  then  that  Hadith  is  authentic  whether  it  forms  part  of  the  Sunnah  or  not.  And,  rejection  of  a  Hadith  whose  Isnaad  is  as  bright  as  the  sun, is  not  tantamount  to  kufr.  It is in  reality  kufr.  The Asaaneed  of  Ahaadith  Mutawaatarah  and  Mashhoorah  are  in  fact  “as  bright  as  the  sun.”  They  are  in  the  category  of  Qur’aanic  aayaat.  Ibn  Qayyim  had  indeed  uttered  a  heinous  notriety  by  unthinkably    blurting  out  such  ghutha.

The  sinister  aim  for  propagating  the  haraam  theory  of  hadith  criticism,  and  citing  the  rarities  and  obscurities  of  some  10th century  Ulama  in  an  abortive  attempt  to  justify  the haraam  exercise,  is  to  arrogate  for  themselves  (i.e.  for  the  modernist  juhhaal)  the  right  to  submit  to  their  corrupt  opinion  any  Hadith  appearing  in  Sihaah  Sittah,  then  on  the  basis  of  their  understanding  heavily  contaminated  by  the  indoctrination  of  western  education,  they  desire  to  re-classify  the  Ahaadith  which  were  authenticated  by  the  Muhadditheen  and  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  of  the  noble Khairul  Quroon  era.  Thus,  if  a  modernist  moron  reasons  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based,  for  example,  the  Shariah’s  ruling  that  a  grandson  does  not  inherit  his  deceased  father’s  share  in  the  estate  of  his  father  (the grandson’s  grandfather)  since  the  father  (the  grandson’s  father)  had  pre-deceased  his  father,  is  unreasonable,  then  the  Hadith  may  be  excised  and  deposited  in  the  dirt  bin  to  enable  the juhhaal  to  issue  a  new  ruling  allowing  the  grandson  to  inherit  in  this  case.

Or,  if  a  modernist  moron  understands  in  terms  of  his    kufr  westernized  reasoning process  that  the  Hadith  on  which  is  based  the  ruling  that  the  father  has  the  right  to  have  his  minor  daughter  married,  is  irrational,  then  he  is  allowed  to  ‘attack’  the  Hadith  in  the  manner  in  which  Al-Ismaaili  or  Imaam  Nawawi  or  Ibn  Abdul  Barr  or  Shawkaani  had  ‘attacked’  some  Ahaadith.    In  short,  the  modernist  ignoramuses  indoctrinated  by  the  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,  are  striving  to  arrogate    to  themselves  the  right  to  freely  criticize  just  any  Hadith  which  they  believe  is  in  conflict  with  western  rationalism.

In  fact,  the  ultimate  kufr  plot  is  to  subject  even  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  to  the  same  treatment  of  kufr  criticism.  This  process  has  already  been  subtly  and  devilishly  initiated.  Qur’aanic  verses  which  explicitly  declare  the  superiority  of  men  and  the  subservience  of  women,  especially  the  aayat  which  allows  for  the  grossly  disobedient  wife  to  be  beaten, are  being  subjected  to    interpretation  which  is  baseless  and  kufr.  The  initial  stage  is  to interpret  away  such  Qur’aanic  verses  which  do  not  conform  to  the  rationalism  of  the western  kuffaar.  The  next  phase  to  excise  these  aayat  from  the  Qur’aan  in  the  way  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  have    mutilated  the  Tauraah  and  the  Injeel.  But,  as  far  as  the  Qur’aan  and  even  the  Ahaadith  are  concerned,  they  will  miserably  fail.  Allah  Ta’ala  Himself  has  undertaken  the  responsibility  of  guarding  this  Deen – every  aspect  of  it.

The  first  move  in  the  kufr  process  of  transmogrifying  or  destroying  the  Shariah  is  the pernicious  creation  of  a  vast  chasm  between  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahaadith.  Thus,  the modernist  moron  says:  ‘the  Qur’an  has  been  protected  by  Allah;  the  ahadith  have  not.”  

The  moron’s  brains  have  become  vermiculated  with  this  shaitaani  waswasah.  The  Hadith is  what  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  said  and  did,  hence  the  Qur’aan  says: “He (Muhammad)  does  not  speak  of  (his)  desire.  It  (i.e. whatever  he  says)  is  Wahi  which  is  revealed  to  him.”

Again  the  Qur’aan  says:    “Whatever  the  Rasool  gives  you,  accept  it  (resolutely),  and  whatever  he  forbids  you  of,  abstain  from  it.”

This,  in  fact,  is  Hadith  on  which  has  been  raised  the  superstructure  of  the  Sunnah.

What  is  truly  mind  boggling  is  the  naked  and  stupid  audacity  of  these  juhhaal  to  equate themselves  to  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  noble  Muhadditheen.  They  seek  to elevate  themselves  to  the  pedestal  of  Imaam  Bukhaari,  Imaam  Muslim,  etc.  Truly,  brains have  gone  haywire. 

While  the  “hadith  criticism  enterprise”  of  these  modernist  morons  is  pure  kufr  designed to  undermine  and  scuttle  the  Shariah,  the  enterprise  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  safeguard the  Shariah  for  posterity  by  compiling  and  codifying  the  Mustadallaat  of  the  Ahkaam  of the  Shariah.  The  obligation  of  the  early  Muhadditheen  was  merely  to  sift  out  fabrications and  to  compile  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  aim  was  to  safe guard  and  preserve  in  book form  the  authentic  Ahaadith  on  which  the  entire  Edifice  of  the  Shariah  has  been  constructed.

The  objective  of  the  modernist  desire  for  hadith  criticism  is  to  dismantle  the  Shariah.  On the  contrary,  the  purpose  of  the  Muhadditheen  was  to  solidify  and  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Shariah  which  the  authentic  Ahaadith  constitute.  The  two  objectives  are  thus  self  repellant.  The  one  is  the  antithesis  of  the  other.

This  brings  us  to  the  Compilation  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari.

SAHEEH BUKHAARI – THE  MYSTERY OF THE 597,000  AHAADITH
Demonstrating  his  gross  ignorance,  the  moron  says:

“It  is  said  that  he  (Imaam Bukhaari)  had  collected  more  than  600,000  ahadith. However,  only  3,500  appear  in  his collection;  he  rejected  the  rest    as  not  fulfilling  his  criteria  for  authenticity.  For  him  every hadith  was  fake  until  it  was  proven  authentic.”

The  moron  has  lapped  up  this  rubbish  vomit  from  the  writings  of  another  moron  Professor  of  Moronism  of  some  maloon orientalist  university  in  Calcutta,  India.  It  is  indeed  a  vile  slander  to  accuse  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  (rahmatullah  alayh)  had  considered  every  Hadith  ‘fake’  prior  to  his  personal  scrutiny.  It  is  also  downright  stupid  to  claim  that  the  597,000  Ahaadith  which  do  not  form  part  of  Saheeh  Bukhaari  are    forgeries  and  unauthentic,  hence  Imaam  Bukhaari  did  not  include  them  in  his  Kitaab.

Bukhaari  Shareef  is  a  compendium  or  a  comprehensive  summary  of  a  vast  work  which  is  the  600,000  Ahaadith.  The  objective  of  compiling  this  Saheeh  was  not  to  encompass  all  the  authentic  Ahaadith.  The  objective  was  to  safeguard  the  Foundation  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  Shariah  covering  all  branches  of  the  Deen.  Commenting  on  Imaam  Bukhaari’s system  of  compilation,  Al-Ismaaili  (died  371  Hijri)  said: “I  have  heard  from  those  who n arrate  from  him  that  he  had  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  (Ahaadith  which  are)  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  the  majority  of  the  Saheeh  (narrations).”  Thus, whatever  he  (Imaam  Bukhaari)  has  recorded  is  Saheeh.  Its  authenticity  is  categorical.  Whatever  he  has  left  out  is  not  because  he  has  negated  (their authenticity) …………..He  sufficed  with  a  small  quantity  from  a  large  quantity  (of  authentic  Ahaadith).”  (Taghleequt Ta’leeq)

In  Muqaddamah  fi  Usooli’ l deen it  is  mentioned:  “The  Saheeh  Ahaadith  are  not  confined to  the  Saheeh  of  Bukhaari  and  the  Saheeh  of  Muslim  nor  do  these  two  Kitaabs  encompass all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith.  On  the  contrary,  these  two  Kitaabs  are  restricted  to  Saheeh Ahaadith.  Furthermore,  such  narrations  which  are  authentic    to  them  on  the  basis  of  their criteria,  (all  of  them)  have  not  been  included  by  them  in  their  two  Kitaabs,  leave  alone  that  which  (is  Saheeh)  according  to  other  (Muhadditheen).

Bukhaari  said:  “I  have  not  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  except  what  is  Saheeh,  and  I  have  left  out  numerous  of  the  Sihaah  (authentic  narrations).”  Muslim  said:  “What  I  have  recorded  in  this  Kitaab  (Saheeh  Muslim)  from  the  Ahaadith  are  Saheeh.  I  do  not  claim  that  whatever  I  have  left  out  is  Dhaeef  (Weak/unreliable).”

Al-Haakim  Abu  Abdullah  An- Naisaapuri  compiled  a  Kitaab  which  he  named Al-Mustadrak  (The  Emmender), in  which  is  recorded  authentic  narrations  which  Bukhaari  and  Muslim  have  left  out  (from  their  Compendiums).  Some  of  the  narrations  (recorded  in  this  Kitaab,  i.e.  Al-Mustadrak)  are  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  of  Shaikhain  (i.e.  Imaam Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim);  some  are  on  the  criteria  of  one  of  them,  and  some  (of  the recorded  authentic  Ahaadith  herein)  are  not  on  the  basis  of  their  criteria.

The  criticism  of  the  (existence  of)  paucity  of  Saheeh  Ahaadith  has  been  refuted  by  the fact  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  and  Imaam  Muslim  did  not  claim  that  there  are  no  other  Saheeh  Ahaadith  besides  what  they  have  recorded  in  their  two  Kitaabs.”

“Al-Haazmi  said:  ‘It  is    thus  clear  that  the  intention  of  Imaam  Bukhaari  was  to  compile  a brief  summary  in  Hadith.  He  did  not  contemplate  encompassment  (of  all  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith),  neither  regarding  the  narrators  nor  regarding  the  Hadith.  There  remains  a  huge  portion  of    Saheeh  Ahaadith  not  recorded  in  the  two  Saheeh  Kitaabs.”  (Al-Imaam  Ibn Maajah  Wa  Sunnanunu)

Innumerable  Saheeh  Ahaadith    not  to  be  found  in  Bukhaari  Shareef  are  record  in numerous  other  authentic  Hadith  Kutub  such  as  Mustadrakul  Haakim, Saheeh  Ibn Khuzaimah,  Saheeh  Ibn  Hibbaan, Al-Mukhtaaratu  lil  Muqaddisi,  Saheeh  Abi  Uwaanah, Al-Saheeh  Ibnus  Sakan,  Muntaqi  libnul  Jaarood,  Abu  Dawood,  Ad-Daaruqutni, Saheeh  Abi  Bakr  Al-Ismaaili, Al-Saheeh  Burqaani,  Saheeh  Abi  Nu’aim Al-Isbihaani, Musnad  Imaam  Ahmad,  Musnad  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah,  At Taqaaseem  Wal  Anwaa’,  and  many  more  Saheeh  Hadith  kutub.

The  moron’s  claim  that  Imaam  Bukhaari  had  abandoned  597,000  Ahaadith  because  he regarded  them  as  ‘fakes  and  forgeries’,  is  manifestly  and  slanderously  false.

THE  PLOT  OF THE  WESTERN ORIENTALIST
The  local  moron  who  has  written  his  silly  article  on  hadith  criticism,  has  simply regurgitated  what  he  has  lapped  up  from  a  book  written  by  a  moron  professor  on  the subject  of  Hadith  literature.  The  poor  moron  professor,  a  product  of  the  western orientalist  enemies  of  Islam,    clearly  lacks  understanding of  the  Shariah  in  general,  and  of    the  sanctity  and  status  of    Ahaadith  in  particular.  He  has  treated  Hadith  as  if  it  is simply  another  secular  topic  to  be  rendered  subservient  to  personal  whim  and  fancy.  He does  not  have  the  haziest  idea  of  the  prime  importance  and  significance  of  the  Sihaah Sittah.  He  believes  that  any  modernist  jaahil  qualification and  kaafir  orientalist  have  the  necessary  to  dissect  and  reject  any  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) which  does  not  conform  to  the  reasoning  of  brains  colonized  by  westernism.  The  (Chain  of  Narration)  Isnaad  of  the  most  authentic  Hadith  on  par  with  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  is  of  no  significance  to  these  westernized  morons  if  in  their    opinion  the  Hadith  happens  to be  in  conflict  with  their  defective  reasoning,  or  if  in  their  opinion  of  kufr  the  Hadith  promises  massive  thawaab  for  acts  of  ibaadat.  What  do  those  wallowing  in  najaasat  and  janaabat  know  and  understand  of  the  value  of  ibaadat  or  the  value  one  Tasbeeh  of  Subhaanallaah  whose  effulgence  can  fill  the  space  between  the  earth  and  the  heaven?  Their  brains  and  hearts  are  bogged  in  the  quagmire  of  materialism  and nafsaaniyat.  In  the  words  of  the  Qur’aan: They  are  more  astray  than  the  dumb  animals. They  eat  and excrete  like  animals,  yet  they  deem  themselves  qualified  to  elevate  themselves  to  the  lofty  Pedestals  occupied  by  the  Sahaabah,  the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen  and  the Muhadditheen  of  Imaam  Bukhaari’s  calibre. 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  Hadith  criticism  is  haraam.  It  is  kufr.  It  has  been  designed  by  the  western  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam  to  undermine  and  dismantle  the  more  than  14  Century  Shariah  of  Islam  about  which  the  Qur’aan  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah  Ta’ala)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen, and  completed  for  you  My Bounty,  and  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen.”

Salaam  on  those  who  follow  the  Hidaayat  of  Islam!

Imam Bukhari and the Compilation of Hadith

[By Shaykhul Hadith ‘Allamah Shabir Ahmad Uthmani (rahmatullah alayh)]

WHILE the revered muhaddithin have tried to record and preserve the sayings, the acts and the message of the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as well as his demeanour at the same time they have placed before themselves high standards for the determination of their veracity, and ensuring scrutiny, examination and investigation with due care.

This process of sifting, examination and bringing the Ahadith in conformity with the Qur’an and finding if anything remiss was suspected in the source or the putative Hadith itself (ta’dil), had commenced during the time of the Companions themselves.

And, by the grace of God, this was the measure which ensured that the Companions and the preceding generations (al-Salaf) had bequeathed the treasure of the Qur’an and Ahadith to the coming generations (al-Khalaf). The truthfulness, personality and the veracity of the authority leading to the transmissional chain that ends with the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were the measures for testing the genuineness of a Hadith. This was the norm adopted by the Companions. When the Science of the tradition was put on a proper plane during the pious Caliphate, the evaluatory measures also began to be practised on a sound footing. As the time-gap between the age of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and posterity began to grow wider, the evaluation became more strict and exacting.

The approach adopted by the latter-day muhaddithin was based on that laid down by the first two Pious Caliphs. While the muhaddithin of the first three generations after the time of the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) regarded every saying attributed to him with utmost respect, they were unsparing in their examination of the narrations (ruwat-i-hadith). Bukhari was the leader par excellence of this approach. Many felt displeased with him, because he did not accept the authorities without being questioned. But, on the other hand, by the same token, a Hadith that has passed through Bukhari’s hands, enjoys the stamp of genuineness in the eyes of the muhaddithin.

It is an extreme delicate operation to decide upon the reliability of the source of a Hadith or to call that source a dubious one. A group of mystics has adhered to the view that critical assessment is prohibited according to, “Let not some of you slander others and this amounts to calumny.” But the fact is that such an attitude is based upon unrealistic approach. It is true that Islam has forbidden Muslims from suspecting others or prying into their affairs, but at the same time the need of it cannot be denied   in certain cases. This need, too, is felt because of urgent religious considerations. Hence the need of such investigation and inquiry is felt in the case of the Ahadith also. It is said that even among upright persons in early times there was a class of persons who considered the making of the Ahadith a matter of virtue and devotion and to frame them in respect of the excellence of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). As the number of transmissional links began to record a sharp increase in course of time, their critical assessment also began to correspondingly increase in intensity.

It goes to the credit of Bukhari that, despite the rigid principles he has adopted in assessing the transmissional chain, he has not used the words kadhdhab (liar) and wadda’ (fabricator) as the other muhaddithin are won’t to. On the other hand this is very circumspect in this regard. Whenever he considers refutation absolutely essential, he uses the expression munkir al-hadith (negator of the Hadith). With regard to calumny also Bukhari has exercised the utmost circumspection and his abstinence in this regard is proverbial. He used to say that on the Doomsday, he would not be brought before the Bar of Judgement on this count. His remark in this behalf is worth reproducing.

Ever since I learned that calumny is forbidden; I have not resorted to it.

With the same loftiness of spirit he remarks:

Whenever I call anyone the negator of a Hadith I mean that the ascription of the transmissional chain to him is not justified.

Bukhari’s role regarding Asma’ al-Ruwat & ‘Ilal

This is why the knowledge of disqualifying factors in the Science of the Tradition is an important branch of study. In the terminology of the muhaddithin, ‘Illat is a discrepancy  which impairs the soundness of a hadith. It carries special importance with regard to the study of the Ahadith besides other Sciences of the Tradition because it requires a discerning intellect and prodigious memory to trace out the mutual intercourse of the narrators, their dates of birth and death, their familial names and titles, their credibility and reputation, and ensure that the words employed in a particular Hadith through different channels, are fully preserved. Bukhari’s skill in this particular field has a distinct character of its own.

Hafiz Ahmad bin Hamadan has mentioned that he met Bukhari during the funeral prayers of ‘Uthman Abu Sa’id bin Marwan. There Imam Muhammad bin Yahya Dahli put questions in respect of the asma’ al-rijal (Names of the members of the transmissional chains) and the ‘Ilal [1] of the Ahadith. Bukhari replied instantly all the questions as if he was uttering Qul hu Allah [2]. No better acknowledgement of Bukhari’s achievement is forthcoming than Tirmidhi’s admission that a large part of what he has written about the transmissional chain, narrators, history  and all the ‘ilal he has indicated, have been derived from Bukhari’s work.

IMAM BUKHARI’S RANK IN TRADITION SCIENCE

Bukhari was very careful in respect of his works and loaned them only to the people he could trust. Once a person happened to mention a Hadith which gave rise to the suspicion of tadlis upon Bukhari, that is he had concealed one weak link in the transmissional chain. Bukhari replied that in order to obviate such a suspicion, he had relinquished more than ten thousand Ahadith reported by a particular muhaddith. Therefore, such a suspicion about him was neither justified nor warranted. The author of the Fath al-Bari has narrated a remarkable incident reflecting Bukhari’s circumspection. During his studentship Bukhari has to sail in a boat on a river. He had a thousand ashrafis (gold coins) in his possession. He was joined by someone who also boarded the boat and met him very reverentially, and gradually developed cordial relations so that Bukhari happened to mention to him about the money he had with him. One morning [3] the man began to raise hue and cry, saying that his bag containing one thousand ashrafis was missing. The passengers began to be searched, and Bukhari, appraising the situation, threw the bag into the river. The Imam’s belongings were also searched but the money could not be found. Thereupon everyone began to reprimand the accuser who was made to contrite. When the journey was over the man asked Bukhari about the bag of money. Bukhari replied that he had thrown it away into the river. When the man asked him why he thought it necessary to jettison it into the river and sustain such a big loss, Bukhari said, “All my life I have spent collecting and compiling the Ahadith of the Holy Peophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and my intregrity has assumed proverbial proportions. How could I afford to lose the far greater wealth which I have acquired against my life’s blood by acquiring the taint of a theft?.”

Footnotes:

[1] The Hadith in respect of the narrator of which there exists some misgivings are called ma’lul. It is extremely difficult to detect such a Hadith and only a very accomplished connoisseur who possesses a very penetrating intellect, sharp memory and complete mastery over the authorities and text of the Traditions and knows the ranks of the narrators can spot it out. ‘Ali bin Madini, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Ya’qub bin Abi Shaybah, Abu Hatim, Abu Dhar’ah, Darqutni and many other muhaddithin have discussed the matter at length.

[2] Hafiz Ibn Hajr has also described several such incidents. Qul hu Allah are the proverbially cryptic initial words of the Qur’anic Surah al-Ikhlas (112) meaning: “Say: He is Allah, the One.”

[3] This would imply that the journey was lengthwise and not across the river.

Difference between Hadith Narrations & the Gospels

Some Christian apologists when trying to describe the Gospels to the Muslims, claim that the Gospels are much like the Hadiths, and the Hadith-Rejectors too hold the same opinion as the Christians in this matter and deem Ahadith barrations to be unreliable, in that the Gospels were written-collected by men, and are based on the sayings-teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alayhissalaam) just as the Hadiths are with the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Now indeed there are some similarities between the two, but the similarities all come to an end after what we have already posted above, because there are also many differences between the two, and these differences are very important.

The main difference between the Hadiths and the Gospels is that in regards to the Hadiths, we know who actually collected the Hadiths, and we know who passed them on, and we know who actually made the original statement that was passed on. So for example person A said something, then person B heard it and he decided to pass it on and tell other persons C-D-E, and then they passed it on to others and so forth. Basically throughout the chain of transmission of the hadith, we know who is who, we know who is passing the story, and we know from where the original story came from, there is a complete line of transmission.

This is very crucial, because it means the reports are not anonymous, the reports are coming from people we know, names and persons we can identify, we know where they lived, when they were born, when they died and so forth. Again this is very important because if you know the person, you also know if they’re reliable or unreliable, for example someone who is reporting the Hadith, a person in the chain, could have been known as a liar, as someone unreliable, someone who would make things up, and therefore we know if he is passing or narrating a Hadith that we can question the authenticity. Vice versa the person narrating the Hadith can also be known as a truthful person, someone reliable etc, and therefore we know the Hadith he passing is reliant, or it’s highly likely that it is reliant.

In the case of the Gospels, we have none of this, we literally don’t know who was passing the stories, they’re all anonymous. Even the supposed collectors Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! The Gospel accounts are all anonymous accounts written-collected by persons-authors we don’t actually know, and they are narrating stories-incidents from people we don’t know either, the entire chain of transmission in the Gospels is unknown and anonymous.

Basically in the Gospel account we have the source as Jesus, and then we have person A-B-C-D-E passing on the stories-teachings of Jesus, but we have no idea who these sources A-B-C-D-E are, whether they’re reliable people and so forth, we literally know nothing about them. The only person who we can say with some confidence who we know about was Paul, and yet he barely wrote anything about the life-sayings-teachings of Jesus, and oddly enough in his own writings we can see that he was at odds with the actual disciples of Jesus and their beliefs, in fact he abolished the Law and taught exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.

So when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, and we read all these stories and sayings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), we are reading accounts that have been passed by people we don’t know, and they were collected in a book called Mark by an author we don’t know either, though there is much speculation about who the exact author is. On the other hand when it comes to the Hadiths, when we read a story about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we know exactly who passed on the story and who narrated it, we have a complete line of transmission of the people who heard the saying, and who passed the saying, and who it got passed to, and we know whether these people are sound people or not.

All of this is obviously crucial, let us give an example, let’s say you heard a news story, and it’s a very big news story but there is no source, you’re not likely going to believe it are you? Especially in this day and age when there are all kind of sources-websites on the internet that sometimes report some very crazy stories, which you then find out are false, but most times you yourself know to doubt and not believe certain news stories coming from certain organizations-websites because you know they’re not reliable. And you’re also aware of organizations-websites-persons that are reliable, and so you can trust what they’re saying because you know who they are etc. So it’s very important to know your source, if you don’t know your source then as you can see you have some big issues.

Now take the same simple logic and apply it to the Gospels and Hadiths (for some strange reason people often don’t like to use this simple logic, acting like we’re dealing with some other realm), it’s important to know our sources, who we’re dealing with, who’s passing on the story, whether the person passing is it is a reliable person, or an unreliable person.

In conclusion, the Hadiths are a far more reliable and trustworthy collection of sayings-teachings than the Gospels, to put it simple, in news terms, nobody would ever accept the Gospel as a source of information because it has no sources, all of its sources comes from anonymous sources, basically people we don’t know, and that my friends is not a proper source of information you can get anything from, let alone the actual teachings of God.

ADDENDUM

There is no appropriate comparison between the Muslim’s authentic Hadith and the Christian Gospels when it comes to their authenticity. Let no Muslim be fooled by this. The only similarity that one can point out between the two is that they both speak about the lives of a certain individual. I would say that the major difference between the two is the reliability of their preservation. Muslims don’t believe that those who transmitted or collected the Hadith were inspired by God like how Christians believe for their Gospel authors. And hence there can be errors and mistakes in Hadith and we don’t rule out that. And also there are ways to solve this problem and this is in no way a threat to the reliability that we have in authentic Hadith as a whole (isnad and matn). But for the Christian Gospels we should expect to not find any errors since those who transmitted them are supposed to be directly ‘inspired’ by God. But sadly we have numerous errors in Gospels and in Bible as a whole.

Related Reading: Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports

The Stupendous Memory of the Muhadditheen

[Majlisul Ulama]

ONCE, Abdul Malik, the Khalifah, wondered at the in-numerable Ahaadith which Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated. He conjectured that perhaps Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) para-phrased the Ahaadith which he had heard from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and presented it in his own words, not exactly as stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In order to test Abu Hurairah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) memory, the Khalifah, invited him and many other Sahaabah. The Khalifah had concealed two persons behind a screen to record in writing every Hadith which Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) would be narrating. At that session Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated a hundred Ahaadith. The scribes wrote every word exactly as was stated by Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu).

After one year, Abdul Malik, again invited Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu). The two scribes who had recorded the 100 Ahaadith were again present behind the screen with their written notes. The Khalifah, addressing Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu), said: ‘Hadhrat the last time I derived immense pleasure from the 100 Ahaadith you had narrated. I shall appreciate it if you will again narrate the same 100 Ahaadith.”

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) commenced the narration of the Ahaadith. After he had completed, the two writers were amazed at the prodigious memory of Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu). There was not a change of even a single word. Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) had repeated the 100 Ahaadith exactly as he had narrated them a year ago. This was the wonderful bounty of memory which Allah Ta’ala had bestowed to the Muhadditheen.

The Istinaad (analysis) of the Hadeeth: “My Sahaabah are like the stars…”

[Maulana Saeed Palanpuri D.B]

“As-haabee  Kan  Nujoom.  Bi  Ayyihim  Iqtadaytum Ihtadaytum”

[My  Sahaabah  are  like  the  guiding  stars.   Whosoever of them you will follow, you will be guided]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  by  six  different  Sahaabah:  

1.  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
2.  Jaabir  (radhiyallahu anhu)
3.  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
4.  Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu)
5.  Abu  Hurairah  (radhiyallahu anhu)
6. Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

It  is  also  narrated  Dhahhaak  ibn  Muzaahim  Hilaali  in  a  Mursal  form.

1] The Narration of Ibn Umar: > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 89, no 1)

In  this  Sanad,  Hamza  ibn  Abi  Hamza  AlJazri  is  a  weak  narrator. Regarding  him:

– Imaam  Yahya  Ibn  Ma’een  said:  “He  is  not  worth  a  cent”

– Imaam  Bukhaari  said:  “He  is  Munkarul  Hadeeth (rejector)”

– Dar  Qutni  said:  “He  is  Matrook  (discarder)”

– Ibn  Adi  said:  “Most  of  his  narrations  are  Matrook”

– Tirmidhi  has  included  one  of  his  narrations  in  his  Kitaab (Baabul  Istidhaan)  but  then  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is Munkar  –  Hamza  is  Dha’eef  in  Hadeeth.  [Tuhfatul Ahwazee Vol. 3 pg. 391]

Verdict:

This Raawi (narrator) is Dha’eef Jiddan (very weak)

2] The Riwaayah (narration) of Jaabir > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 2)

Regarding  this  Sanad:

– Dar  Qutni  said:  This  Riwaayah  is  not  proven  from  Maalik and  its  Narrators  are  Majhool  (unknown).  [Lisaan] 

– Haafiz  has  said:  Jameel  is  not  Ma’roof  (known)  [Talkhees]

– Abu Haatim Raazi said: Laa A’rifuhu (not known) [Lisaan]

Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  has  narrated  it  in  ‘Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm’ through this Sanad:

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 3)

But  then  he  says:  This  Sanad  is  not  strong  enough  to  be  used  as Hujjat  because  Haarith  Ibn  Ghadheen  is  Majhool.

In  Lisaanul  Meezaan,  Haafiz  has  narrated  this  statement  of Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr.  He  then  wrote:    

– Toosi  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Tadhkirah  Rijaalush Shee’ah’ –  Ibn  Hibbaan  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Kitaabuth Thiqaat’

Verdict:

The  Jarah  (critical  comment)  in  this  Riwaayah  is  not  very severe.  The  Raawi  (narrator)  is  Majhool  (unknown)  but  the  two Sanads  (chains  of  narrations)  lend  strength  to  each  other.  This Tareeq  is  Dha’eef  (weak)  but  not  Dha’eef  Jiddan.

3] The Riwaayah of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 4)

Razeen’s Tareeq has the following addition

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 5) – –

– The  author  of  Mishkaat  has  included  this  Riwaayah  in  his Kitaab.

– Abu  Bakr  Al  Bazzaar  has  also  narrated  it  (Talkheesul  Habeer  pg. 404  and  Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm)  
– Dhahabi has also mentioned it in Meezaanul I’tidaal This Tareeq is also Dha’eef.

Regarding  Abdurraheem

– Bukhaari  has  said:  Tarakoohu  (the  Muhadditheen  have  left  him out)   

– Ibn  Ma’een  said:  Kadhaab  (liar)  and  Laisa  Bi  Shai’  (he  is nothing)

– Jawzjaani  said:  Ghair  Thiqah  (not  reliable)

– Abu  Haatim  said:  Turika  Hadeethuhu  (his  narrations  are  left  out)

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  Waahin  (weak)

– Abu Dawood said: Dha’eef (weak)

Verdict: This  Riwaayat  is  also  Dha’eef  because  of  Abdur-raheem.

4] The Riwaayah of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91/92, no 6)

This  Tareeq  is  also  Dha’eef  Jiddan.  

Regarding  Ja’far  ibn  Abdil  Ahad:  

– Dar  Qutni  said:  He  fabricates  Hadeeth –

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  He  narrates  baseless  Ahaadeeth

– Ibn  Adi  said:  He  ‘steals’  Hadeeth  and  narrates  Munkar Ahaadeeth

5] The Riwaayah of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Bazzaar  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  but  in  Talkhees,  Haafiz  has  said: Its Sanad is no good.

6] The Riwaayah of Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Baihaqi  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  in  ‘Al-Madkhal’  and  Munaawi  has mentioned  it  in  Faidhul  Qadeer  Sharah  Jaami’us  Sagheer  but  he  has not mentioned its Sanad nor has he commented on it. 

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 92, no 7)

7] The Mursal Hadeeth from Dhahhaak

Ibn  Hajar  has  mentioned  it  in  Talkhees.  He  said:  Abu  Dhar  Harawi has narrated it in Kitaabus Sunnah but its Sanad is Dhaeef.

[End of the seven Tareeqs of this Hadeeth]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  through  several  chains.  After  putting all of them together, it reaches the level of Dha’eef at the very least. 

In  ‘At  ta’leequs  Sabeeh’  –  the  Sharah  of  Mishkaat,  the  following  has been  said:  “its  Sanad  is  weak  but  the  various  Sanads  complement each  other  as  has  been  mentioned  in  Zafarul  Amaani,  the  Sharah  of Mukhtasar Jurjaani”

Similar  to  this  is  the  Hadeeth:  “The  minimum  Haidh  is  3  days  and the  maximum  is  10”  which  has  also  been  narrated  from  6  Sahaabah and  all  six  Tareeqs  are  very  Dha’eef.  After  putting  all  the  chains together, the Hadeeth reaches the level of Dha’eef. 

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  a  Dha’eef  Hadeeth  is  given  preference over  the  Rai  (opinion)  of  any  Mujtahid  and  therefore  they accept it.

The  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  also  reaches  the  level  of  Dha’eef  and a Dha’eef Hadeeth concerning Fadhaail is accepted unanimously.

Ibn  Hazam  Zaahiri  has  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is  Makdhoob  Mawdhoo’ Baatil”  but  his  verdict  is  not  worth  considering.  Bazzaar  has  said:  “It is  not  Saheeh”.  This  verdict  is  correct  since  a  Hadeeth  which  is  not Saheeh is Dha’eef and not Baatil and Mawdhoo’. 

There is a worlds difference between the two!

Bazzaar  has  raised  another  objection  to  this  Hadeeth.  He  says:  “This Hadeeth  contradicts  the  Saheeh  Hadeeth  of  Rasulullaah  ρ:  ‘Hold  on to  my  Sunnah  and  that  of  the  rightly  guided  Khulafaa  after  me’  in that  there  were  differences  among  the  Sahaabah  and  these  cannot  be clearly understood.”

But  Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  gave  the  following  answer:

“The  Kalaam  of  Bazzaar  is  not  completely  correct.  Each  Sahaabi  in his  own  right  was  on  Haqq  and  thus  worthy  of  being  followed.  As for  their  internal  dispute,  this  too  was  a  source  of  guidance  for  the Ummat.”

Generally  you  will  find  that  whenever  the  Ahnaaf  have  a  Riwaayat in  support  of  their  Madh-hab  and  the  Ashaabul  Hadeeth  don’t,  then their  common  argument  is  that  the  Riwaayat  is  Dha’eef  or  Ghair Mu’tabar (not reliable). There are many examples of this.

In  the  Mas’alah  of  laughing  aloud  breaking  Salaat  and  Wudhu;  the minimum  and  maximum  periods  of  Haidh;  Qiraa’at  Khalfal  Imaam etc.  this  is  the  argument  of  the  others.  Yet  in  most  of  these  Masaa’il, the  Ahaadeeth  in  question  are  Mu’tabar.  For  details  refer  to  I’laaus Sunan.

The  Ahnaaf  use  the  Hadeeth  “As-haabee  kan  Nujoom”  in  support  of their  Madh-hab  that  the  Aqwaal  and  Fataawa  of  the  Sahaabah  are Hujjat in Deen.
According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  the  saying  of  a  Sahaabi  is  an  accepted Hujjat in Deen even if there is no consensus among them.

The  other  Imaams  only  accept  the  Ittifaaq  of  Sahaabah  as  Hujjat.  In the  case  of  a  single  Athar  (saying)  of  a  Sahaabi,  he  may  accept  it  or reject it with his own Ijtihaad.

Shah  Waliyullaah  has  quoted  the  saying  of  Imaam  Shaafi’ee  in  this regard:  “it  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  individual  Sahaabi  unless there is Ittifaaq among them…” (Hujjatullaah pg 147)

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  if  an  Athar  of  a  Sahaabi  is  presented, the Mujtahid will not make his own Ijtihaad.

So  according  to  their  habit,  the  As-haabul  Hadeeth  declare  this Hadeeth  as  Ghair  Mu’tabar.  Strangest  of  the  lot  is  Haafiz  Ibn  Hajar who  after  gathering  all  the  Turuq  of  this  Hadeeth  besides  that  of  Ibn Abbaas,  then  brings  Ibn  Hazams  Qowl  (saying).  Yet  wherever  it suits  him,  he  would  gather  2  or  3  Turuqs  of  a  Hadeeth  and  then  say: ‘these  few  Turuqs  strengthen  each  other,  the  Hadeeth  is  therefore acceptable’!  Here  he  turns  the  table  completely.  Ibn  Hajar  is notorious for these types of inconsistencies. 

Further:

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  all  linking  up  to  one  Sahaabi,  then this  is  a  Daleel  (proof)  that  the  Riwaayat  (narration)  has  an  Asal (origin/basis)

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  leading  to  several  Sahaabah,  and  if they are Dha’eef, the Riwaayat will be Hasan li Ghairihi.

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains  from  several  Sahaabah,  and  they  are very Dha’eef, then all put together will become Dha’eef.

Keeping  all  these  Usools  in  mind,  the  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  at the very least will be said to be Dha’eef.

In  fact,  Mulla  Ali  Qaari  has  declared  this  Hadeeth  Hasan  li  Ghairihi (see Maudhoo’aat Al-Kubraa)

Allaamah  Abdul  Ali  Bahrul  Uloom  has  also  called  it  Hasan  li Ghairihi.

The  content  of  this  Hadeeth  is  also  supported  by  several  others:   “All my Sahaabah are Adool (righteous and just)” etc.

The  Hadeeth  ‘As-Haabee  kan  Nujoom’  is  thus  acceptable  as  Hujjat. After putting all of this together, the Usool of the Ahnaaf stands that ‘The  Aqwaal  of  Sahaabah  are  Hujjat  in  Deen  and  will  gain preference over the Ijtihaad of any non Sahaabi’  

Wallaahu A’lam
Sa’eed  Ahmad
10  Muharram  1417
Deoband

Authority and Significance of Hadith in Islam [A Point for Hadith-Rejectors to Ponder]

The Example of Allah’s Messenger is part of Islam and will be  protected  till  the  Last  Day.  Allah  says, 

Indeed,  in  the Messenger of Allah  (Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) you have a good example to follow,  for  him  who  hopes  in  (the  Meeting  with)  Allah  and  the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”  [Surah al-Ahzab 33:21]

Islam  is  a  universal  religion,  and  its  teachings  are  for  all mankind  and  for  all  ages;  and  as  long  as  people  need  to  be guided,  the  example  of  the  Prophet  will  be  preserved. 

“We  have not  sent  you  (O  Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  except  as  a  Messenger  to  all mankind,  giving  them  glad  tidings  and  warning  them  against sin.” [Surah Saba 34:28]

Rather,  the  very  purpose of  sending a  human Messenger was for  people  to  take  him  as  an  example  in  their  day  to  day  lives,

“Say,  ‘If  there  were  on  the  earth,  angels  walking  about  in  peace and security,  We should certainly  have  sent down for them from the heaven, an angel as a Messenger.” [Surah al-Isra 17: 95]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam received revelations besides the Qur’an. Allah says, 

“Verily,  it  is  We  who  have  sent  down  the Dhikr (revelation), and surely We will guard it.” [Surah Hijr 15:9]

Anyone who believes in Allah  as the Supreme Rabb, must agree that the guidance which Allah has sent  will be  protected  as  long  as there  is  a need for it which in case of Islam is until the last day. The question remains –  Is Qur’aan the only guidance that has been revealed by Allah  as  the  hadeeth-rejecters  contend  or  has  the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  received revelation  from Allah  that  is not part of the Qur’aan??

The  Qur’aan itself  refers  to  revelation  being  received  from Allah  that  is  not  found  in  the  Qur’aan  and  hereunder  are  few examples:

i)  Allah says in the Qur’aan,

“And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction  towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to  test  those  who  followed  the  Messenger  (Muhammad).” [Surah al-Baqarah 2:143]

This verse shows that Allah had  assigned the previous Qiblah of the Muslims but there is no verse in the Qur’aan designating Jerusalem as the previous Qibla. This means  that  there  has  to  be  an  alternative  form  of  ‘Wahy’ (revelation)  apart  from  the  Qur’aan  through which  Allah  revealed  the  previous command  of  facing  towards Jerusalem.

ii)  “And  (remember)  when  the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  disclosed  a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she  told  it  (to  another  i.e.  Aa’isha),  and  Allah  made  it known  to  him,  he  informed  part  thereof  and  left  a  part. Then  when  he  told  her  (Hafsah)  thereof,  she  said,  ‘Who told  you  this?’  He  said,  ‘The  All-Knower,  the  All-Aware (Allah) has told me.” [Surah at-Tahrim (66): 3]

The  verse  says,  “Allah  made  it  known  to  him,”  and yet,  there  is  no  verse  in  the  Qur’aan  that  makes mentions this.

iii) “It  is  for  Us to collect it (i.e. the Qur’aan) and to give you (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  the  ability  to  recite  it  (the  Qur’aan).”  [Surah al-Qiyamah 75:17]

The Qur’aan as it has been collected is not in the same order  in  which  it  was  revealed,  and  while  it  is  for  Allah  to collect  the  Qur’aan  there are  no  verses  in the Qur’aan that mention the  arrangement  of  the  verses. This  information is found in the Sunnah.

iv)  The Qur’aan mentions the call to the prayer (adhan), “And when you proclaim the call for Salaat, they take it (but) as a mockery  and  fun.” [Surah al-Maidah 5:58] and, 

“O  you  who believe!  When  the  call  is  proclaimed  for  the  Salaat  on  the day of Friday, come to the remembrance of Allah.” [Surah al-Jumu’ah 62:9] 

These  verses  testify  that  Adhan  is  part  of  the  religion of  Islam  but  there  is  no  verse  in  the  Qur’aan  that prescribes  the Adhan for the believers. This order is found in the other revelation – the Sunnah.

These are some proofs that show that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did indeed receive revelation apart from the Qur’aan; and since this  revelation  constitutes  beneficial  guidance,  it  will  be preserved.

The Sunnah is in itself a Revelation from Allah

Allah  repeatedly  makes  mention  of  the  revealed  ‘al-Hikmah‘ in  the  Qur’aan.  He  said,  “Allah  has  sent  down  to  you  the  Book (the  Qur’aan),  and  al-Hikmah,  and  taught  you  that  which  you knew not.” [Surah an-Nisa 4:113]

“He,  it  is  Who,  sent  among  the  unlettered  ones  a  Messenger from  among  themselves,  reciting  to  them  His  Ayaat,  purifying them,  and  teaching  them  the  Book  and  the  Hikmah.” [Surah  al-Jumu’ah 62:2]

“And  remember  (O  you  members  of  the  Prophet’s  family), that  which  is  recited  in  your  houses of  the Ayaat of  Allah  and  the Hikmah.” [Surah al-Ahzab 33:34]

These verses show;

(i)  Al-Hikmah is revealed by Allah

(ii)  It is part of the Messenger’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) duty to teach the Hikmah

(iii)  It  is  something  recited  and  remembered  in  the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) household.

There  is  nothing  in  status  and  position  that  can  be  mentioned alongside  the  Qur’aan  apart  from  the  Sunnah  of  Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  This  honor  cannot  be  given  to  conventional wisdom  inherited  from  the  past  or  even  to  the  books  given  to previous  nations.  At  the  time  of  the  Sahabah, such  ‘wisdom’  was not given any consideration as the following incidents testify…

Imran bin Hussain said, “The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Haya’ does not bring  anything  except  good.”    Thereupon,  Bashir  bin  Ka’b  said, “It is written in the wisdom paper: Haya leads to solemnity; Haya leads to tranquility (peace of mind).”

Imran said to him, “I am narrating to you the saying of Allah’s Messenger  and  you  are  speaking  about  your  paper  (wisdom book)?” [Saheeh al-Bukharee (8/138)]

When Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  came to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), he said, “We hear the narrations  from the Jews, which sound pleasing to  us, so should we not write some of them?” Whereupon he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Do you want to be baffled as the  Jews and the Christians  were baffled? I have brought to you (guidance) bright and pure and if Prophet Moosa (alayhissalaam) was  alive  now  there  would  have  been  no  alternative  left for him  but to follow me.” [at-Tirimidhi]

Therefore,  Imam  Ash-Shafiee  (rahimahullah)  says explaining the verse about Hikmah,

“So Allah  mentioned His Book, i.e.,  the  Qur’aan  and  (He also mentioned)  Hikmah. I have heard  that those who are learned in the  Qur’aan  –  whom I approve – hold that Hikmah is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.

This  is  like  what  [Allah  Himself]  said  but  Allah knows  best! For the Qur’aan is mentioned [first], followed by Wisdom; [then] Allah  mentioned  His  favor  to  mankind  by  teaching  them  the Qur’aan  and  Wisdom.  So  it  is  not  permissible  for  Hikmah  to  be called  here  [anything]  save  the  Sunnah  of  the  Messenger  of Allah.  For  [Hikmah]  is  closely  linked  to  the  Book  of  Allah,  and Allah has  imposed  the  duty  of  obedience  to His Messenger,  and imposed on men the obligation to obey his orders.

So,  it  is  not  permissible to regard  anything  as  a duty save that set  forth  in  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Sunnah  of  His  Messenger. For [Allah],  as  we  have [just] stated, prescribed  that the belief in His Messenger shall be associated with the belief in Him.” [Ar-Risala]

Furthermore, Book and Hikmah are not the same because at no  place  is  the  word  ‘Hikmah’ used  for  the  Book  or  the  word ‘Book’  used  for ‘Hikmah’.  They  are  two  separate  and  distinct entities.

The  Qur’aan  needs  to  be understood as  Allah meant it to be  understood. Allah  says, 

“It  is  for  Us  to  collect  it  and  to  give you  (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the ability to  recite  it  (the  Qur’aan).  And when We have recited it to you, then follow you its recital. Then it is  for  Us (Allah) to make it clear to you.” [Surah al-Qiyamah 75:17-19]

This verse indicates that both the text of the Qur’aan as well as its explanation have been sent from Allah.

Allah  also  says,  “And  We  have  also  sent  down  unto  you  (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam )  the  reminder  and  the  advice,  that  you  may explain  clearly  to  men  what  is  sent  down  to  them  and  that  they may give thought.” [Surah an-Nahl 16:44]

This  verse  mentions  that  the message requires explanation,  and  the  Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  the  one  assigned  to provide  it.  This  explanation  is  not  only  needed  by  people  at  the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but by all subsequent generations until the last  day. Rather, the more the distance in age from the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  more  the  need  to  solve  differences  in understanding by reference to the original state of affairs.

Furthermore,  this  verse  also  gives  instructions  about  the order  in  which  the  Qur’aan  should  be  understood.  First  the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explains  Allah’s  revelation  clearly  to  mankind  and then  they  give  thought.  People  are  not  free  to  let  loose  their thoughts  and speculate  about  the  message of the  Qur’aan whilst ignoring the teachings of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

According  to  Hadeeth-rejecters,  ‘God  Himself  states  in  the Qur’aan  that it  is He  Who explains the Qur’aan. This means that the  Qur’aan  explains  itself.’  But why  then  have  the  Hadeeth-rejectors not sufficed themselves with the text of the Qur’aan and have  written  huge  volumes  discussing  and  explaining  the Qur’aan?

Because there are  verses in  the Qur’aan that explain each  other,  and  there  are  verses  that  require explanation from the Sunnah.

The  Qur’aan  can  only  be  correctly  understood  in  light  of the  Sunnah. One  of  the  most  important  duties  with  which Allah’s  Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was  sent with was  to  convey  the  Qur’aan to mankind and to teach it.  Allah  says, 

“Indeed,  Allah  conferred  a great  favor  on  the  believers  when  He  sent  among  them  a Messenger  (Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  from  among  themselves,  reciting unto  them  His  Verses,  and  purifying  them,  and  teaching  them the Book (Qur’aan) and Hikmah while before that they had been in manifest error.”  [Surah aal-Imran 3:164]

“And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the Reminder  and  the  Advice  that  you  may  explain  clearly  to  men what is sent down to them.”  [Surah an-Nahl (16): 44]

i)  The  Sunnah  explains  the  commands  of  the Qur’aan  in  details.  For  example,  Allah  commands  His believing  slaves  in  Surah  al-Baqarah 2: 43, “…establish As-Salaat and give Zakaat…” 

Details of the command to establish the Salaat are not found in the Qur’aan such as the required number of daily prayers,  the  units  of  prayers  (rak’ah)  and  the  recitation  in each  mode of  prayer  as  well  as  the  manner  of  performing the  prayer  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  etc.  All  these guidelines are to be taken from the Sunnah. Similarly,  Allah  commands  in  Surah al-Jumuah 62: verse 9,  “When  the  call  is  proclaimed  for  the  Salaat on the day of Friday…”

The  words  of  the  call  to  prayer  (Adhaan)  is  known from  the  Hadith.  Likewise,  all  issues  of  Zakaat  e.g.,  the minimum amount on which Zakaat becomes payable, the percentage paid, the kind of wealth, goods and animals on which Zakaat is obligatory, etc. are clearly explained by the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Other important acts  of  worship like fasting and Hajj are  touched  upon  briefly  in  the  Qur’aan  and  for  detailed injunctions Muslims are to refer to the Hadith and the Sunnah of the Messenger and the rightly guided Caliphs.

Another example is the Qur’aanic punishment for the thief.  “Cut  off  the  hand  of  the  thief,  male  or  female,  as  a recompense  for  that  which  they  committed…” [Surah al-Maidah 5:38]

This  verse  prescribes  the  punishment,  but  the  Sunnah designates  what  is  the  minimum  amount  when  it  is applied.  The  Messenger  of  Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam    said,  “The  hand  of  the thief  shall  be  cut  off  if  he  steals  a  quarter  of  a  Dinar  or more.”  [Saheeh al- Bukhari]

Note: The manner in which the hadeeth-rejectors explain this verse  provides  beneficial  insight  into  their  methodology and contradictions.

Rashad Khalifa (the Hadith-rejector) translates this verse as,
The thief,  male or female, you shall mark their hands as a  punishment  for  their  crime,”  and  then  comments,
“The practice of cutting off the thief’s hand as decreed by  the  false  Muslims  is  a  satanic  practice  without Qur’aanic basis.”    [Rashad Khalifa’s Translation]

Therefore,  the Qur’aan itself does not have Qur’aanic basis (!) when  the  hadeeth-rejectors  dislike  something  in  it. Rashad  Khaleefah  used  mathematical  calculations to interpret cutting as marking.

Ghulam Perwez (another Hadith-rejector says about this verse, “As to a thief, man or woman, such restrictions should be imposed  on  them  which  render  them  incapable  of committing such crime.”

He comments, “The literal  meaning  of  the  text  is ‘cutting off the  hands.’ When the Divine Order of Rabubiyyat is established, every  person  will  be  guaranteed  means of livelihood.

If  anyone  commits  a theft  under  such circumstances  he deserves  the  highest punishment.” [Perwez’s Translation]

We  can  see  that  after  all  the prolonged  argument  by  the  Hadeeth-rejecters that  the  Qur’aan  explains  itself  and  is  in  no  need  of the Hadith and Sunnah  to  clarify  it,  we  find  Perwez  adding  non-Qur’aanic  clauses  to  the  Qur’aanic  law  to  limit  the circumstance  under  which  this  punishment  is applied.

ii)  The  Sunnah  establishes  a  meaning,  when  a number  of  meanings  are  possible. The  Qur’aan prescribes, “Cut off the hand of the thief, male or female…” but  does  not  clarify  what  hand  means.  The Hadith and the Sunnah explains the hand to mean ‘from the wrist down’.

The  Qur’aan  explains  the  ruling  and  manner  of Tayammum as, “…But if you are ill  or  on  a journey or any of  you  comes  from  answering  the  call  of  nature,  or  you have  been  in  contact  with  women  and  you  find  no  water, then  perform Tayammum (dry ablution) with clean earth and rub there with your faces and hands.”

The  Sunnah  explains  that  hands  in  this  verse  mean only  the  palms.  The  word  ‘hand’  could  have  multiple meanings  but  the  Sunnah  specifies  the  appropriate meaning for each ruling.

Another  example  is  the  Saying  of  Allah,  “And  those (means hoarding up) gold and silver, and spend it not in the Way of Allah, announce unto them a painful torment.”

Apparently,  this  verse  means  that  any  kind  of  hoarding  or collection  of  money  that  is  not  spent  in  the  Way  of  Allah will  doom  one  to  the  painful  torment  but  the  Sunnah clarifies  that  Kanz  refers  to  the  wealth  on  which  Zakaat has not been paid.

iii)  The  Sunnah  can  specify  exceptions  to  a  general rule. In  Surah  al-Maida 5: 3,  Allah  says,  “Forbidden  to you  (for  food)  are:  al-Maytatah  (the  un-slaughtered  dead animals), blood…” 

The  general  rule  in  this  verse  prohibits  all  Maytatah and all forms  of  blood but the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)   made exceptions to this rule. He    said, “We were allowed two dead animals and two (kinds of) blood. As for the two dead animals, they are fish and locust. As for the two bloods, they are liver and spleen.” [Quoted from Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

iv)  The Sunnah also gives additional injunctions in a number of issues. Allah  says,  “Those  who  follow  the  Messenger,  the Prophet  who  can  neither  read  nor  write  –  he  commands them  for al-Ma’roof  (the  prescribed);  and  forbids  them from al-Munkar (the prohibited); he allows them as lawful at-Taiyibaat (i.e. all good), and prohibits them as unlawful al-Khabaaith  (i.e.  all  evil),  he releases  them  from  their heavy  burdens  (of  Allah’s Covenant),  and  from  the  fetters (bindings)  that  were  upon  them. So  those  who  believe  in  him (Muhammad  sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  honor  him,  help  him, and follow  the  light  which has  been  sent down with him, it is they who will be successful.”  [Surah al-A’raf 7:157]

A  number  of  religious  injunction  thus  emanate  from the Sunnah like the prohibition of the flesh of the donkeys, dogs,  beasts  with  canine  teeth  and  birds  of  prey.  He  made  wearing  gold  and  silk  Halaal  for  the  women  and Haraam for the men, etc.

v)  Inadequacy  of  language  alone  to  understand Qur’aan. There  is  no  scope  for  anyone  with  all  his  Arabic scholarship  to  understand  the  glorious  Qur’aan  without Hadith and Sunnah. The Sahabah were the most knowledgeable in the language  in  which  the  Qur’aan  was  revealed  at  a  time when Arabic was not blemished by the incorrectness of the colloquial  language  or  their  grammatical  mistakes.  Yet, they  erred  in  understanding  the  verses  when  they  relied on language alone, and following are some examples…

a)  Allah  says  in  the  Qur’aan,  “It  is  those  who  believe and confuse not their belief with Dhulm (wrongdoing), for them  (only)  there  is  security  and  they  are  the  guided.” [Surah al-An’am 6:82]

When  this  verse  was  revealed,  the  Sahabah understood  ‘Dhulm‘  in  its  wider  sense  meaning  ‘all wrongdoing’  and  this  caused  much  concern  because  no one  is  free  from  wrongdoing.  The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  explained that ‘Dhulm‘ in this verse refers to Shirk.

b) “…eat and drink  until  the white  thread  of  dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread.” [Surah al-Baqarah 2:187]

This  verse  describes  the  time  when  the  fast  begins.  A companion  understood  this  verse  literally  and  slept  with two  threads  under  his  pillow  to  determine  when  the  fast should  begin.  The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explained that the black and white  thread  actually  refers  to  the  white  streak  of  dawn and the darkness of night.

Detailed book?

The  hadeeth-rejecters  maintain  that  the  Qur’aan  is  a detailed  Book  that  does  not  require  any  other  source  to supplement  it  –  not  even  Sunnah.  Despite  this  we  have seen  how  Ghulam Parwez added additional clauses to the order  of  cutting  the  thief’s  hand.  Furthermore,  the Hadeeth-rejecters  seriously  contradict  themselves  when they  author  detailed  volumes  explaining  and  deliberating upon  the  Qur’aan  and  propose  additional  clauses  and conditions to the Qur’aan’s orders.

Another  example  of  this  is  Rashad  Khaleefah’s comment  on  the  verse,  “Those  who  eat  Riba  (usury)  will not  stand  (on  the  Day  of  Resurrection)  except  like  the standing  of  a  person  beaten by  Shaytan  leading  him  to insanity.”

Rashad Khaleefah says,

“It  is  an  established economic  principle  that  excessive interest  on loans can utterly destroy a whole country. During  the  last  few  years  we  have  witnessed  the devastation  of  the  economies  of  many nations  where excessive  interest  is  charged.  Normal  interest  –  less than  20%  –  where  no  one  is  victimized  and  everyone is satisfied is not usury.”

The 20% condition is not mentioned in the Qur’aan.

To  emphasize  that  the  Qur’an  does  not  need supplementary  explanations,  the  Hadeeth-rejecters quote, “We have neglected nothing  in  the Book,  then unto their Lord they (all) shall be gathered.” [Surah  al-An’am 6:38]

“And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur’aan) as an exposition of everything…” [Surah an-Nahl 16:89]

For  the  correct  understanding,  we  refer  to  the complete  verse,  i.e., “There  is  not  a  moving  (living) creature  on  earth,  nor  a  bird  that  flies  with  its  two  wings, but  are  communities like  you.  We have neglected nothing in  the  Book,  then  unto  their  Lord  they  (all)  shall  be gathered.” [Surah al-An’aam 6:38]
One  interpretation  is  that  ‘the  Book’  in  this  verse refers  to  the  preserved  tablet  in  which  Allah has  recorded everything that occurs, and this is similar to another verse,

“And  no (moving)  living  creature  is  there  on  earth but  its provision  is  due  from  Allah.  And  He  knows  its  dwelling place  and  its  deposit  all  is  in  a  Clear  Book  (al-Lawh  al-Mahfoodh).” [Surah Hud 11:6]

Even  if  one  interprets  ‘the  Book’  to  be  the  Qur’aan then Allah has not neglected to mention in it the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) duty as  the  example, teacher  and explainer  of  the  Qur’aan and obedience to him is ordered in seventy verses. 

While  ‘the  Book’  does  not  contain  details  of  the prayers  and  fasting,  it  did  not  neglect  to  direct  the believers  towards  the  example  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  where  it can be found. And the same explanation holds good for the other  similar  verse,  i.e.,   

“We  have  sent  down  to  you  the Book (the Qur’aan) as an exposition of everything…”

Allah’s  Protection  for  the  Dhikr  includes  all  the  Deen

Allah  says, 

“Verily,  it  is  We  who  have  sent  down  the  Dhikr (revelation), and surely We will guard it.” [Surah Hijr 15:9]

The  word, ‘Dhikr‘  has  been used in the  Book  of  Allah to  refer  to the  Qur’aan,  the Deen  in  general, the remembrance of Allah, the  Friday prayer (62:9) and Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as in the verse, 

“Allah  has  indeed  sent  down  to  you a Dhikr (reminder). A Messenger who recites to you the verses of Allah.” [Surah  at-Talaaq 65:10-11)]

Therefore,  Allah  promised  to  protect  the  Qur’aan,  its understanding, the  example  of  His Messenger, the actions of the Khulafa e Rashidin, the examples of the Imams of the Madhabs, the Ijma’ of the scholars the Prayer and all  aspects of  the Deen which collectively are ‘the Dhikr‘. The text of the Qur’aan will not be protected if its understanding which is contained  in  the  Sunnah  is  not protected.

Furthermore,  if  anyone  wants  to restrict  the  meaning  of  ‘Dhikr‘  to  the Qur’aan  then  they  need  to  present  a proof.  A  segment  of  Munkireen  al-Hadeeth argues  that  Qur’aan  was  the  only  revelation  and hence  Dhikr  exclusively  refers  to  the  Qur’aan.  This argument has  already been  replied to  earlier with  examples  that the Qur’aan itself refers to a revelation apart from it.

Another  group  of  Munkareen  al-Hadeeth  claims  that  the additional  guidance  received  by  the  Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was  for  his period  only.  This  is  a  false  argument  because  the  latter generations  who  do  not  have  a  living  Messenger  amongst  themselves  are  more  in  need  of  the  guidance  and  explanations that was revealed apart from the Qur’aan. This group also claims that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself did not undertake any measures to preserve  the  hadeeth,  the  like  of  which  was  undertaken  to preserve  the  Qur’aan.  We  will  shed  light  on  the  issue  in  the following pages.

To  summarize,  the  insistence  of  Munkareen  al-Hadeeth  that  the Dhikr which Allah had Promised to protect, is only the Qur’aan is not based on any sound proof but upon their assumption and conjecture.

Preservation of Hadith

From what has preceded, we have seen the significance of the Hadeeth and Sunnah as  a  source  of  the  Deen  and  it  is  only  a  natural  consequence  that  the study  of  Hadeeth  has  been  a  constant  pursuit  since  the  beginning  of Islam to the present time.

The Companions of the Prophet    eagerly observed what he said  and  did,  and  memorized  it  faithfully. Some of  them  even recorded Hadeeth by writing in ‘saheefahs’.

The  Ahadeeth  were  passed  down  from  generation  to generation  among  the  most  trustworthy  of  individuals  in  a tremendous  effort  that  not  only  preserved  the  exact  words  of  the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but also the entire chain of narration and the condition of the narrators (memory, period, beliefs, etc.).

This  manner  and  meticulousness  by  which  Ahadeeth  have been  preserved  is  unique  and  unparallel  in  literary  history,  and  one needs  to  study  the  science  of  hadeeth-verification  in  order  to  truly appreciate it.

To  get  a  good  overview  of  how  Islamic  texts  were  preserved we start  by  understanding  the  methodology of the compilation  of  the Qur’aan  so  that  it  can  be  compared to the  methodology of Hadeeth compilation.

Compiliation of the Qur’an

Allah  says,  “He,  it  is  Who,  sent  among  the  unlettered  ones  a Messenger  (Muhammad)  from  among  themselves.” [Surah  al-Munafiqun 63:2]

Being  mostly  unlettered,  the  primary  mode  by  which  the Arabs  preserved  their  knowledge  like  poetry  and  history  was  by memorization. When the Qur’aan was revealed it too, was memorized by the Sahabah and in addition some of the sahabah were assigned by the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi was   to write down the Qur’aan.

At  the  time  of  the  Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) death,  all  of  the  Qur’aan  had been verified  and written  on  various  materials  like  cloth,  stone,  date-palm  leaves,  etc.,  and  remained  scattered  as  loose  fragments  in  the possession of various Sahabah. 

It  had not been compiled in the form of a book because during the  lifetime  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the  Qur’aan  was  continually  being revealed,  and  the  order  of  the  verses  is  not  chronological.  There  was also  no  pressing  need  for  it  because  of  the  large  number  of  accurate memorizers and reciters of the Qur’aan.

During  the  Caliphate  of  Abu  Bakr  as-Siddeeq (radhiyallahu anhu),  many memorizers  of  the  Qur’aan  were  killed  in  battles  and  a  collective decision  was taken to compile the Qur’aan in a single book  in order to preserve  it.  The  enormously  significant  task  was  given  to  Zayd  ibn Thaabit (radhiyallahu anhu)  who began to collect the Qur’aan from what was written on palm  stalks,  thin  white  stones  and  also  from  the  men  who knew it  by heart.

Zayd  ibn  Thaabit (radhiyallahu anhu),  despite  being  a  memorizer  of  the  Qur’aan himself,  was  methodical  in  his  compilation  and  would  not  agree  to write  down any verse until  two of the  Sahabah testified  that  they  had heard  it  from  the  Messenger  of  Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  In  this  manner,  the  entire Qur’aan  was  verified  and  written  on  leather,  and  remained  with  Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) until his  death  and  then  with  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) until  the  end  of  his  life,  and then with Hafsah (radhiyallahu anha) the daughter of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and the wife of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

At  the  time  of  Uthmaan  ibn  Affan (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  Islamic  empire  had spread  far  and  wide  and  people  were  being  taught  to  recite  the Qur’aan in seven different dialects (the Qur’aan was revealed in seven dialects).  This  began  to  cause  confusion  in  far  off  provinces,  and  a decision  was  taken  to  make  an  official  standardized  copy  from  the manuscript of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and limit the people to its recitation.

More  copies  were  made  from  this  copy  known  as  ‘Mushaf Uthmaan,‘  and  sent  to  different  parts  of  the  Islamic  empire. 

This Mushaf was unpointed (i.e., it had no diacritical marks). The addition of diacritical marks to the Mushaf happened in the era of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan to ease recitation.

Compiliation of the Hadith

Like  the  Qur’aan,  the  sayings  and  actions  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  were preserved  primarily  at  the  time  of  the  Sahabah  by  memorization  and they  were  also  noted  down.  This  was  due  to  encouragement  and direction  by  the  Messenger  of  Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)    himself,  who  said, “May  Allah make radiant the man who has heard what I said and has preserved it in  his  memory  until  he  conveys  it  to  another.  Perhaps,  the  one  he conveyed  it  to  has  a  better  understanding  than  him.” [At-Tirmidhi] He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) also said, “Convey from me even a single verse. You may relate from the  Children  of  Israel  without  objection.  Anyone  who  deliberately tells a lie against me will have prepared his seat in Hellfire.” [Bukhari]

The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  also  made  clear  the  necessity  of  accurately preserving  and  transmitting  Hadeeth  when  he  warned,  “Lying  about me is not like lying about anybody else. Whoever lies about me let him take  his  place  in  Hell.” [Agreed upon] So  serious  was  this  matter  that  at the  time  of  the  Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  lying  about  him  was  punishable  by death.

Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “People say that I  have narrated many Ahadeeth. Had  it  not  been  for  two  verses  in  the  Qur’aan  I  would  not  have narrated  a  single  Hadeeth  and  the  verses  are, “Verily,  those  who conceal  the  clear  sign  and  the  guidance  which  We  have sent  down…” [Surah al-Baqarah 2:159-160]

No doubt, our Muhajir (emigrant) brothers used to be busy in the  market  with  their  business  (bargains);  and  our  Ansari  brothers used to be busy with their property (agriculture). But I used to stick to Allah’s Messenger    content with what will fill my stomach and I used to  attend  that  which  they  used  not  to  attend  and  I  used  to  memorize that which they used not to memorize.” [Saheeh al-Bukhari (3/118)]

Famous  Memorizers  of  Hadeeth  amongst  the  Sahaba h included  Abu  Hurayrah,  Abdullah  Ibn  Abbas,  Aa’isha  Siddeeqa, Abdullah  Ibn  Umar,  Jabir  Ibn  Abdullah,  Anas  Ibn  Maalik  and  Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhum). Each of them memorized over a 1000 Ahadeeth.

Famous  Memorizers  of  Hadeeth  amongst  the  Tabieen included  Sa’eed  Ibn  al-Mussayab,  Urwah  Ibn  Zubayr,  Saalim  Ibn Abdullah  Ibn  Umar  (the  son  of  Abdullah  Ibn  Umar)  and  Naaf’i  (the servant  of  Abdullah  Ibn  Umar).

Writing Hadith

References to writing the Hadeeth can be found in various narrations some examples are mentioned below:

1.  Abdullah  ibn  Umar  ibn  al-As  stated  that  they  used  to  record everything  they heard  from  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) until  they  were  warned that  the  Prophet  was a  human  being  who  may be  angry at  times and  pleased  at  times.  Abdullah  stopped  writing  Ahadeeth  until he asked the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) about it, who said, “Write (my hadeeth),  by  the  One,  in  Whose Hand is my soul, nothing leaves it  (the  Prophet’s  mouth)  save  the  truth.” [Saheeh  Sunan Abu  Dawood (2/695)]

2.  Al-Bukhari recorded  in  his  Saheeh  that  Abu  Hurayrah (rashoyallahu anhu)   said, “One  can  find  none  of  the  Companions  of  the Messenger  of  Allah  relating  more  Ahadeeth than  me,  except  Abdullah  ibn  Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) because  he  used  to  record  the  hadeeth while I did not do so.”

3.  Al-Bukhari  recorded  that a man from Yemen came to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  on the day  of  the  conquest  of  Makkah  and asked him if he could get the Prophet’s speech  recorded  and  the  Prophet  approved  and  told  someone,  “Write  it  for the father of so and so.”

Al-Azami  in  his  work  Studies  in  Early  Hadeeth Literature  (p.34-60)  has  listed  and  discussed  some  fifty Companions  of  the  Prophet  who  wrote  Ahadeeth.  He  listed eighty-seven  of  the  scholars  covering  the  late  first  and  early second centuries who recorded hadeeth.

Then  he  listed  from  the  early  second  century  scholars,  251 people  who  collected  and  recorded  hadeeth.  Thus  al-Azami  has produced  a  list  of  437  scholars  who  had  recorded  Ahadeeth  and all  of  them lived and died before the year 250 A.H. Many of them are  from  before  the  time  of  Umar  ibn  Abdul-Azeez (rahimahullah) who  is credited  with  having  been  the  first  person  to  ask  for  the compilation/collection of hadeeth.

Al-Azami said,

“I  have established in my doctoral thesis Studies in  early  Hadeeth Literature that even in the first century of  the  Hijra  many hundreds of booklets of hadeeth were in circulation.  If we  add another hundred years, it would be  difficult  to  enumerate  the  quantity  of  booklets  and books,  which  were  in  circulation.  Even  by  the  most conservative estimate they were many thousands.” [Studies  in  Hadeeth  Methodology  and  Literature  (p.64)]

He also demonstrated in his Ph.D. thesis the reason why none or very few of them are still in existence today “These  books  were  not  destroyed  nor  did  they perish,  but  (they)  were  absorbed  into  the  work  of  later authors.  When  the  encyclopedia-type  books  were produced  scholars  did  not  feel  the  necessity  to  keep  the early books or booklets and so slowly they disappeared.” [Studies  in  Hadeeth  Methodology  and  Literature,  p.64]

Saheefah Hammaam ibn Munabbih

“Of the earliest collections of hadeeth one in particular deserves closer attention.  This  is  the  Saheefah  of  Hammaam  ibn  Munabbih (rahimahullah).  It  is actually  a  written  collection  of  hadeeth  that  the  Companion  Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) dictated to his student Hammaam.

Since  Abu  Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu)  died  around  58  A.H.  (or  some  48  years after the  death of the Prophet) this collection must have been dictated to Hammaam sometime from that date…

Imam  Ahmad  Ibn  Hambal (rahimahullah) incorporated  the  entire  work except two hadeeth into his famous Musnad.

Al-Sulami  (a  muhaddith),  on  the  other  hand,  continued  the passing  on  of  this  collection  as  an  independent  work.  It  was continually  passed  on  until  the  9th  century  which  is  the  date  of  the Berlin manuscript, one of the four manuscripts of this work that is still in existence.

Since  Ahadeeth  in  Ahmad’s  Musnad  are arranged  according  to  the  Companions  who narrated  the  Hadeeth.  It  is  very  easy  to  find all  of  the  hadeeth  from  Hammam  on  the authority  of  Abu  Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) in  that collection.

Other  books where  the Ahadeeth are arranged according to Fiqh topics also incorporated a great deal of this Saheefah.

A  study  of  Saheeh  al-Bukhari  and Saheeh  Muslim will  demonstrate  the following.  Out  of  the  137  Ahadeeth  in  the Saheefah of Hammaam: 29 are recorded by both al-Bukhari and Muslim 22 others are recorded by only al-Bukhari 48 other are recorded only by Muslim. Thus  99  of  the  137  hadeeth  may  be  found  in  either  Saheeh  al-Bukharee or Saheeh Muslim

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  all  of  the  following  works  that contain  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  hadeeth  of  this  saheefah  are  now published:  al-Bukhari’s  al-Jaami  al-Saheeh,  Muslim’s  Saheeh, Ahmad’s  Musnad,  Abdul  Razzaq’s  Musannaf,  Ma’mars  Jami  and even  Hammam’s Saheefah.  All of  these collections  may be  studied  to see that even the wordings of the hadeeth have not been changed from the time of Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) to the time of al-Bukharee.”

SEEKING BLESSING [TABARRUK] THROUGH THE RELICS OF THE PROPHETS AND THE PIOUS

[Translated by Mawlana Zameelur Rahman]

Hamid ibn ‘Umar narrated to us: Abu ‘Awanah narrated to us: from Tariq: from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab: he said:

“My father was one of those who pledged [allegiance] to Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) at the tree[1]. [My father al-Musayyab] said: ‘Then we proceeded [to Makkah] the following year, as pilgrims, and the tree’s location was hidden from us. So if it is clear to you, then you are more knowledgeable than us!’” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “its place was hidden from us”: it is mentioned in the following narration: “then they forgot its location the following year”, and in the narration of al-Bukhari: “its location was unclear to us”. Ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) related the same incident according to al-Bukhari in Kitabal-Jihad (no. 2958). He said “We returned the following year and no two of us agreed about the location of the tree beneath which we pledged [allegiance]. This was a blessing from Allah.”

Al-Hafiz said in al-Fath (6:118) under the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar “The explanation of the wisdom behind this is that no misdeed will ensue as a result of the good that occurred beneath it. Were it to remain, it would not be safe from some ignorant people glorifying it, until it may lead them to the belief that it has the power to benefit or harm, as we see today plainly in that which is lesser than it [in value]. Ibn ‘Umar alluded to this by his statement ‘this was a blessing from Allah’ by which he meant its obscurity to them was a blessing from Allah Most High after that. It is possible that the meaning of his statement ‘a blessing from Allah’ is that the tree was the place of Allah’s mercy and the location of His pleasure, due to the descent of pleasure over the believers near it.”

Al-Hafiz said in al-Maghazi (7:448) “Moreover, I found that according to Ibn Sa’d, with an authentic chain from Nafi’, ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was informed that a group of people approached the tree and prayed near it, so he admonished them, and commanded it be cut down and so it was cut down.”

The Issue of Seeking Blessing (Tabarruk) through the Relics (Athar) of the Prophets and the Pious

Some ‘ulama adduce from this narration of Ibn Sa’d proof that tabarruk through the relics of the pious is prohibited. However, this inference is not strong, because it is possible ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) cut down the tree because he was aware that the tree at which the pledge was taken was not known to anyone; and because the tree that people claimed was the Tree of Ridhwan and prayed near, should not be identified as the tree at which the pledge was taken. This is proven by what al-Bukhari transmitted in al-Maghazi with the complete [wording] of the hadith of this chapter whose phrasing is:

From Tariq ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman: he said: “I went as a pilgrim and I passed by a group of people praying, so I asked:What mosque is this?’ They said: ‘This is the tree at which Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pledged the allegiance of Ridhwan.’ I then went to Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab and related this to him, and Sa’id said: My father narrated to me that he was one of those who pledged [allegiance] to Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beneath the tree. He said: ‘When we went out the following year we forgot its location and were unable to recognise it.’ Then Sa’id said: ‘Verily the Companions of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not know and you know [its location], so you are more knowledgeable than them!’”

It is, therefore, clear that the tree which the people would pray near was not the tree beneath which the pledge of Ridwan occurred, and for this reason Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab (radhiyallahu anhu) did not repudiate them for their tabarruk in praying near it; he only repudiated their tenacity in specifying the location of that tree. So it is possible ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) cut down the tree from this standpoint, not because he did not believe in tabarruk through relics. As regards to what has passed from [the narration of] Jabir (radhiyallagu anhu) in which he said: “If I could see I would show you the place of the tree”, this does not prove anything besides that he (radhiyallahu anhu) was confident in his knowledge of the location of the tree and that he could guide to it to the best of his belief. This does not entail that it corresponds to the same thing.

The permissibility of tabarruk through the relics of the Prophets and the pious has been established from a number of hadiths:

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Libas, Bab ma Yudhkaru fi l-Shayb (no. 5896) from ‘Uthman ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Mawhab (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: “My people sent me with a bowl of water to Umm Salamah (radhoyallahu anha).” Isra’il approximated three fingers [indicating the small size of the container] in which there were some hairs of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). ‘Uthman added: “If any person suffered from an evil eye or some other disease, he would send a vessel (containing water) to Umm Salamah. I looked into the container [that contained the hair of the Prophet] and saw a few red hairs in it.

Al-Hafiz said under it in al-Fath (10:353): “The intended meaning is that one who complained [of an illness] was sent to Umm Salamah with a vessel, in which she placed those hairs and bathed them in it and then returned it. The owner of the vessel would then drink [from it] or bathe with it in seeking a cure from it. Thus, he would acquire its blessing.”

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Isti’dhan (no. 6271) from Anas (Allah be pleased with him): “Umm Sulaym (radhiyallahu anha) used to spread a leather sheet for the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and he used to take a midday nap on that leather sheet at her home.” Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “When the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had slept, she would take some of his sweat and hair and collect it in a bottle and then mix it with suk (a kind of perfume) while he was still sleeping.” Abu Thumamah said: “When the death of Anas bin Malik approached, he advised that some of that suk be mixed with his hanut (perfume for embalming the dead body).” He said: “and it was mixed with his hanut.” Muslim added in his narration: “The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) woke up and said ‘What are you doing?’ She said ‘We hope for its blessing for our children.’ He said: ‘You have done what is right.’” This is unequivocal in [proving] the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) approval of her act.

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-AshribahBab al-Sharb min Qadh al-Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam (no. 5637) in the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu): “Then the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions went towards the shed of Bani Sa’ida and sat there. Then he said, ‘Give us to drink, O Sahl!’ So I took out this bowl and gave them to drink from in it.” The sub-narrator added: “Sahl took out for us that very bowl and we all drank from it.” He added: “Later on ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz requested Sahl to present it to him as a gift, and he presented it to him as a gift.

This hadith is to come from the compiler (Muslim ibn Hajjaj) in Kitab al-Ashribah (Bab Ibahatu al-Nabidh) if Allah wills, and al-Nawawi said under it: “This contains [proof] of tabarruk through the relics of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), that which he touched, wore or took as a means. This is close to something that has been agreed upon. The Predecessors (salaf) and the Successors (khalaf) practiced tabarruk through praying at the prayer-place of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) at the Noble Rawdah, and entering the cave which he entered etc. Related to this is the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) giving Abu Talha (radhiyallahu anhu) his hair to distribute amongst the people and his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) giving his loincloth to shroud his daughter…

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Ashribah (no. 5638) from ‘Asim al-Ahwal that he said: “I saw the bowl of the Prophet with Anas bin Malik, and it had been broken, and he had mended it with silver plates. That bowl was quite wide and made of Nadar wood. Anas said, ‘I gave the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) to drink from that bowl more than so-and-so times.’” Consider how Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) cared for the bowl to the extent that he mended it with silver plates after it had broken. This [act] is nothing besides tabarruk through it.

From them is what Ibn al-Sakan transmitted from Thabit al-Banani that he said: “Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) said to me: ‘This is a hair from the hairs of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Put it beneath my tongue‘” He said “So I placed it beneath his tongue and he was buried while it was beneath his tongue.” Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) mentioned this in al-Isabah (1:84) in the biography of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu).

As for tabarruk through religious places (mashahid) and visiting them, the most balanced view on this is what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) that “he was asked whether a man should go to those religious places (mashahid) in Madinah and outside Madinah? He said: ‘With regards to the hadith of Ibn Umm Maktum (radhiyallahu anhu) that he asked the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to come and pray in his house so he could adopt [that area] as a place of prayer, or regarding what Ibn ‘Umar used to do by tracing the places from the journey of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) until he was seen pouring water at a certain place and was asked about this and said the Prophet would pour water here.’ Ahmad (rahimahullah) said: ‘As regards to this, there is no harm’ and he said: ‘there is a dispensation in this.’ Then he said: ‘However people go too far in excess and go overboard on this purpose’. He then mentioned the grave of al-Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) and what the people do near it. Al-Khallal narrated these in Kitab al-Adab.”

Al-Hafiz ibn Taymiyyah after relating the statement of Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) said: “With regards to religious places which are places at which the relics of the Prophets and pious are present, and are not mosques, like certain places in Madinah, Abu ‘Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) distinguished between a few which people do not take as places of celebration (‘id) and many which they take as places of celebration, as has passed. This distinction combines between the narrations and statements of the Companions, for indeed al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Musa ibn ‘Uqbah that he said: ‘I saw Salim ibn ‘Abdullah searching for places in the road and praying at them, and he narrated that his father (Ibn ‘Umar) would pray at them, and that (Ibn ‘Umar) saw the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pray at those places.’ Musa said: ‘Nafi’ narrated to me that Ibn ‘Umar would pray at those places.’” See Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim by Ibn Taymiyyah (pp. 374-5).

The upshot is that if visiting these religious places is like visiting historical sites, or to envision what happened there of blessed acts, and to increase faith and contentment by remembering them, and to attain blessings from them, there is no harm in that. As for taking them as places of celebration or believing that they benefit or harm or glorifying them in ways that resemble worship (bima yushbih al-‘ibadah), that is not permissible.

By this [principle] is understood what Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated in his Sunan from Ma’rur ibn Suwayd that he said with regard to ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu): “We went out with him in the Hajj he performed … When he returned from Hajj he saw people hastening to a mosque. He said: ‘What is this?’ They said: ‘The mosque at which Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prayed.’ He said: ‘This is how the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book) before you perished. They took the relics of their Prophets as synagogues. One who finds the prayer there should pray and one who does not find the prayer there should leave.’”

And in a narration from him “he saw the people going along paths and said: ‘where are these people going?’ And it was said: ‘O Commander of the Believers! The mosque at which the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prayed.’ He then said: ‘Those before were destroyed for the like of this. They would trace the relics of their Prophets and take them as churches and synagogues, so whoever from you acquires the prayer in these mosques should pray and whoever does not should leave and not [pray] there purposefully.’”

Thus ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) disliked taking the prayer-place of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as a place of celebration, fearing that this will lead to innovations and abominations. Otherwise it has been proven ‘Umar (radhiyallahu qnhu) showed eagerness in protecting the relics [of the Prophet] in what al-Bukhari transmitted from al-Zubayr that Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) requested from al-Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) the spear with which he killed Abu Dhat al-Karish on the day of Badr. In it is mentioned: “When Allah’s Messenger died, al-Zubayr took it back. After that Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it and he gave it to him, and when Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) died, he took it back. ‘Umar then demanded it from him and he gave it to him. When ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) died, al-Zubayr took it back, and then ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it from him and he gave it to him. When ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) was killed, the spear remained with Ali’s (Allah be pleased with him) offspring. Then ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it, and it remained with him till he was martyred.” [See KitabalMaghazi in Sahih al-BukhariBab Shuhud al-Mala’ikati Badran.]

This proves the importance the rightly guided caliphs, particularly al-Faruq (radhiyallahu anhu), attached to preserving a spear although there are many spears in the world. This was not [done for any reason] besides [the fact] that the spear remained with Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for a period of time, so they sought tabarruk through it.

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim vol 3 pp. 301-5)

_____________________________ 

[1] This refers to the tree situated in Hudaybiyyah, a town ten miles north of Makkah, at which 1,400 believers pledged to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) their willingness to fight against the pagans of Makkah who had captured ‘Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) when he was dispatched to them as a peaceful envoy. It is known as the Tree of Ridhwan (pleasure) due to Allah’s pleasure descending on the believers as mentioned in Qur’an 48:18. (Translator) 

Source: Deoband.org